Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I'm not sure that 2007 qualifies as "a year or two" (-quote by Dean). Anecdote: Using 1640 for the past two years would be cheating, but I know most of my students from say classes '11 to '14 could've told you how 469 didn't win in 2010 and (for '12 onward) that 1114 didn't in 2012, even if they don't remember who did. (This is an example of something below*)

--

Dean's next sentence in that quote is: "They leave here with a whole new perspective on the world." He seems to be making the argument that the N people who don't remember who won also don't care who won. I'm not sure this is accurate. Think about what you remember most vividly in FIRST or even in life. *I think people remember inspiration, they remember upsets, they remember crazy amazing things. Using the inability to remember a string of numbers as a proxy for not caring about the elite competition doesn't make sense to me. If we want people to be inspiring by STEM, then the vehicle we're using should be as good at its intended purpose as possible. Dean's quote is in a CNN article entitled "Superbowl of Robotics". Worlds is what people are supposed to watch when they want our Superbowl.

I understand the argument that not enough people see that vehicle right now, and I can accept that HQ sees the Split as a solution to that. I just want it to be understood as a legitimate trade-off rather than an 'any level of play is good enough' or a 'not enough people watch Einstein now, so it doesn't matter how good it is'. (These aren't intended as direct quotes of anyone, least of all Sean.) I guess what I'm saying is, Dear FIRST: near time fix your webcasts, up your production values, improve the Einstein broadcast, help DCMPs and Regionals do the same, up your broad PR initiatives, accredit your conferences so teams can come for teacher PD and student leadership. Then try to tell us as a community that we would will still benefit from getting more teams to an experience that's half of Worlds. You could've helped a lot more people with a lot less mess.

EDIT: Or, you know, what Madison said.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

FTFY.

And now I add that there's one set of teams that gets an extra week, there is no single world champion alliance (at this time), and that you have to watch (or attend) for TWO weeks to see "all" the top teams. Oh... and now we get to listen to TWO of Dean's speeches within two weeks of each other! (NOTE: This last could be a positive. YMMV, you'll have to form your own opinion on that.)

Just as a reminder that there will be a cap of 400 teams/championship event, neither event will have the best of all teams, matches will still be limited*, the awards will still drag on, time will still be an issue between Week 7 and either champs, and there will still be not much incentive for some areas to go to districts.



*I could see 8 50-team divisions, OR 4 100-team divisions. I suspect the latter, and hope for the former. If it is in fact the latter, matches won't improve. OTOH, if it's the former, there will be more matches.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

The team cap is now an arbitrary number, not capped by one venue. We don't know if all the best teams will be at one event (I suspect probably not), though expanding the field can get more of the best teams to events. 400 teams is more easily managed than 600 teams in terms of number of matches, especially if FIRST keeps 8 fields per championship (dual fields per division would be nice!) Awards format is still up in the air, and due to proportional representation at championships districts earn more slots than regional competitions in areas.

Even with a webcast, I have a hard time trying to focus on more than 1 field at a time. As a remote spectator, I will be able to gain exposure to more teams.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Having attended worlds for the first time this year as a senior, I just wanted to chime in about what made the experience so special for me.

The first thing was that it was a goal that I had finally achieved. For four years I have worked countless hours to try and help my team reach the world championships. And it nearly didn't happen. But that fact that I can say that I did it (not to undermine the teamwork aspect of FRC, I obviously could not do it alone) made the experience worth so much more to me. If my team had simply gotten off the waitlist, or had won a regional by being nothing more than a cheesecake platter, than I'm not even sure if I would have wanted to attend. And everytime I hear the phrase "top 25% of teams," I lose a little excitement, because that makes it sound like making it to worlds is not an achievement at all, but rather just something that I was gifted (even though I know this wasn't the case).

The second thing was watching matches on Saturday. The shock of seeing 254 being taken out in the quarter-finals. The entertainment of seeing how various alliances synergized, and what ended up working the best. The anticipation of seeing 900 on the sidelines of Einstein, being put into transport configuration before every match only as if they were going onto the field, only to be taken back out a few seconds later. And finally accepting that 1678 really has become one of the best teams in the world, and not just some team that got lucky a couple of times. So Dean can say that who wins doesn't matter as much as he wants, but in the end I have found that the competition is the most inspiring aspect of FIRST.

YMMV, but for most of the students that I have called teammates, I am fairly confindent that a lot of what I have said holds true.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

So you're not going to try and win just because there are two championships? Having to share the championship title with 7 other teams instead of 3 other teams will change your motivations as a team? You'll no longer have any drive towards success if you can only win in Houston and not Detroit?

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Would it surprise you if people really did behave that way? They do.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I'm sorry, I'm not explaining myself completely. Let me try. Yes, it does change our motivations. It doesn't change them for any single event in that we will strive to do our best. That's not what I'm saying. What it might do is split our team. We have been growing continuously for the last 3~4 years to the point where we have finally started talking about forming an FTC or VEX team as a sort of "JV" team. Instead, what we might do because of this is make FRC our "JV" team and then attempt to enter into some of the college-level robotics competitions that exist. We are in a unique position in that our primary school is technically part of the UNC university system so we could be afforded to do this without a lot of headache.

For the first time I can ever recall in the team's history (since 2002), and I've been around for a lot of it (since 2003), we are seriously considering taking the energies/focus/resources off of FRC and putting them into something else. There are a lot of reasons for this but believe me when I tell you that this notion of a split championship has been a catalyst for having these conversations. Striving to be the best in the world at something is a huge driver for us. Removing that goal (or adding more if you prefer looking at it that way) is demotivating.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

^This

Our team probably has some different reasons - but the outcome is the same...it is demotivating. We've also been growing over the last four years - ever since our successful 2012 season which earned us our first and only trip to Saint Louis. We've budgeted each year to return, but have not qualified so we did not...we could have waitlisted but we want to return again on merit. Lowering the bar removes some of this motivation...but more important, making the event that we would attend one of two...and having only half of the teams we want to see and interact with at each removes much more.

Our team is not currently entertaining Vex participation, or any other outlet - but I also see it possible now. From an economics perspective, "bang for the buck" if you will...the split reduces the bang. And while it is still a year away, I've already sensed a reduction in the desire to raise funds by our team.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Hello All,

With the objective of establishing as many FIRST programs at the high school level as possible, we need to look at HIGH SCHOOL level events as well as the limited time and resources for these young people.

The district model has been working well in Michigan. My son was a student and I was a mentor when we transitioned from regionals to districts. It was an adjustment in 2009. But by 2010 it was fine. The process of the state championship is scaleable and is evident by the success of the 2015 Michigan State Championship.

Will the district model work everywhere? Hopefully in one form another. We rely on the wisdom and dedication of the students and volunteers throughout FRC to make that happen. Will there be regionals? Perhaps, if it fills the need. Any crossing between districts and districts to regionals? That still needs to be addressed and may change as we move along. The same could be said concerning qualifications to go the world championship. That too may evolve.

We are in a challenging transition, albiet on a larger scale, for the entire FRC community compared to the Michigan experience. FIRST is seeking a balance between incuding as many teams as possible and making the championship experience gratifying and unique. Do District Championships fulfill part of the goal of inclusion as well as a "championship" experience? Depends on who you ask.

I have judged at Michigan districts, Michigan champs and World Champs. Each has it's own benefit and I believe district championships fills the void for inclusion, and a good portion of the championship experience.

FIRST will have to gauge the community's reactions. I believe they will steer a viable course for the future. Remember, this is all for the students.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Hello All,

With the objective of establishing as many FIRST programs at the high school level as possible, we need to look at HIGH SCHOOL level events as well as the limited time and resources for these young people. An extra level of competitions after a championsplit seems a bit much.

The district model has been working well in Michigan. My son was a student and I was a mentor when we transitioned from regionals to districts. It was an adjustment in 2009. But by 2010 it was fine. The process of the state championship is scaleable and is evident by the success of the 2015 Michigan State Championship.

Will the district model work everywhere? Hopefully in one form another. We rely on the wisdom and dedication of the students and volunteers throughout FRC to make that happen. Will there be regionals? Perhaps, if it fills the need. Any crossing between districts and districts to regionals? That still needs to be addressed and may change as we move along. The same could be said concerning qualifications to go the world championship. That too may evolve.

We are in a challenging transition, albiet on a larger scale, for the entire FRC community compared to the Michigan experience. FIRST is seeking a balance between incuding as many teams as possible and making the championship experience gratifying and unique. Do District Championships fulfill part of the goal of inclusion as well as a "championship" experience? Depends on who you ask.

I have judged at Michigan districts, Michigan champs and World Champs. Each has it's own benefit and I believe district championships fills the void for inclusion, and a good portion of the championship experience.

FIRST will have to gauge the community's reactions. I believe they will steer a viable course for the future. Remember, this is all for the students.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Anyone under the illusion that FRC is meant to be the best bang for the buck STEM education initiative needs to have their eyes opened. For raw STEM, maybe 20 kids get continued valuable experience throughout the school year. Another 20-40 get exposure from the shop and robot, another 20-40 from the business side of managing a technical team, then who knows how many other 'passers-by' via outreach. From the flip side, your 'bang' is reduced but perhaps another team's 'bang' skyrockets. Personally, the only anecdotes I've heard are from teams who want a second competition period, who cares if it's Champs.

Using the same budget as our FRC team, we could start 12 5-person FTC/VEX teams and know that those kids, even though they probably won't make it as far in competition or their robots aren't as good, could possibly holistically get more out of the process of the smaller robot competitions. According to the incoming VRC kids in 7-8th grade, we would get more student inspiration value from the VRC competitions (but maybe that's just Virginia...).

Yet my program has done that for 4 years now. 4 years of 8-11 FTC teams with 6-10 kids each has taught us that there is no equivalent to FRC from a raw STEM perspective (or even a student-led business perspective...). Even in FTC, where the students have creative freedom in custom materials, this is true. The FTC students are far less prepared to make their own puzzle pieces in life than the FRC students. The difference is mentorship (ok ... and kinetic energy...). It is far easier to get 8-11 mentors to guide 80-ish students to ONE goal than it is for them to guide them to 8+ different goals. FTC robots are also less likely to explode. (Kerbal reference...)

At the moment FRC (and more specifically, FIRST's progression of programs JrFLL->FLL->FRC or FTC) has no equivalent. Perhaps that's a problem, or perhaps FIRST needs to vet out the details of the 'crazier' ideas (the best ideas have a little crazy...) before moving on them.

Or, IMO, perhaps they're not reading the tea leaves correctly because their questions are biased to give them the answers they want, rather than the answers that exist. For example, I suspect there is very LITTLE progression from FTC to FRC and yet as the TIMS contact for 8 FTC and 1 FRC team I have never seen a survey question on it.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

FTC will only become important to FIRST once we see a viable competitor to FRC. My tea leaves predict all this 2 championship and 25% of teams must attend nonsense will die because the market will open and money talks.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Yeah, again this is the best way to do it, but it looks like FIRST has to pay for two champs as well as the winners' travel so it may just be lightly subsidized rather than the whole thing. They would probably only pay just for drive team, 3 pit crew, adviser and robot travel costs.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

We do. I can't imagine we're alone.

Not saying we'd be excited about it -- it'd be exhausting and, mostly, a giant waste of time and money -- but it wouldn't be impossible.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

For those who think their team could handle the extra expense and the logistic challenges (even with some FIRST assistance) of a special additional event to identify 'one champion' on a one week notice...have you considered how many school districts require requests for travel be placed weeks/months prior to travel?