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

Are you serious? With the level of commitment and funding that these companies provide, I can't believe they weren't consulted or at least it had to have been considered. The total cost for FIRST has to go up considerably for hosting two of these events. They have to have a plan for fundraising for them to cover the cost of hosting. At least, I hope they do.

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

I also love to use analogies to help explain difficult situations. But this is a bit more complex than pizza.
It's ice cream, don't ya know?

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

Well of course it ranked low, because the survey was only of FRC teams! The whole point of having all of the FIRST levels under one roof is to inspire the younger kids to go to the higher levels. I bet if you surveyed FTC, FLL, and jrFLL teams you'd get a completely different answer (just like you'd get a different answer on the importance of having 1 championship if you only surveyed the teams that were at the 1 championship).

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

of those who gave a team number, 52% of teams were represented, that is over half of the teams in FRC.

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

I am somewhat relieved that they are even considering an event after "Champs" to become the new Championships because, as my team was discussing the other day, that is what IRI would otherwise become. I am concerned about this format though due to travel costs. Our team certainly is not one of the richest, but we have decent funding and two regionals plus champs stretched our budget this year. I am more optimistic about the district model and advancing through a series of competitions that way, resulting in lower travel costs but potentially more competitions. Also if FIRST is so focused on getting a set percentage of FRC teams to champs why do they not seem to care about FTC or FLL. I find their interpretation of the data odd. If the average response is 4.45 then that suggests to me that while it is not a strong opposition there is an opposition. I am concerned that FIRST seems to be ignoring the community they are supposed to serve. If they truly wanted the community's opinion they would have done a study asking x number of people, students and mentors from each team to complete the survey instead of whoever in the community felt like it. I am concerned about the direction FRC is going. While the game this year was exiting and competitive it did not have the same viewing appeal that many other games have had. If FIRST wants to keep this competition interesting and keep encouraging new people to get involved they need the high level of competition ON the field with the same Olympic high stakes. Last year we went to an off season event and took a number of new members with us. When we returned we asked them what they thought about the competition and one replied, "I thought is was going to be just a bunch of nerds standing quietly around a field watching their robot, I could not have been more wrong." This is the impression that FIRST needs to make on people however I am concerned that if they continue straight down the path they are on the competition will slowly die off and it will become a bunch of nerds standing around a field quietly watching their robot. Please FIRST hear us out, we want competition, this is supposed to be like the olympics right, not Tee-Ball. (although that could be an interesting robot game)

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

Can we stop suggesting that IRI would become a substitute for a Championship? Many years there are Einstein teams that are unable to make it to Indiana (just look at this summer's team list to see current examples) and often the drive teams are not the same anyways...

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

Something used in business is the Net Promoter Score (NPS) based on the simple question to customers of whether they would recommend a product to others on a scale of 1-10 (actually 0-10, but we'll set the bottom at 1 as FIRST did). For the NPS, responses of 1-6 are "detractors," 7-8 are "passives," and 9-10 are "promoters." The NPS is calculated by the percentage of promoters minus the percentage of detractors.

This model doesn't perfectly apply to this survey question, since it is not a purely recommendation question, but we can view it as basically asking if you would recommend the championship split to FIRST. Despite the imperfect application, this model does remind us that people who vote 6-8 aren't as satisfied as we think.

Anyway, for this question the championship split has an NPS of -55, which is not pretty. An average company gets an NPS between of between 5 and 10. Here is a benchmark for NPS.

Here's more info about NPS. it's not a perfect application, but it's an interesting perspective.

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

I suspect that the companies donating noticeable $ to FIRST will continue to let FIRST inspire students, without being the least bit interested in micromanaging how FIRST does it.

My very limited experience in that realm gives some weight to my opinion on the subject, but I'm not remotely close to an expert, and I never was a spokesman for any company.

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

Joe, you bring up a good point.
As it stands, there is no easy way to find a solution to how the Blog suggests about bringing together both the North/South Champs to compete at a later date.
The cost would be enormous for teams to play another weekend at a neutral site, and the students/season are already maxed out.
No matter how creative the solution, it will not address what you are pointing out.

Ultimately, the season would have to be extended. Where? Before the New Year? It certainly cant afterwards. Once you hit May, we are talking about AP Exams, graduations, and other Academic Events that students are obligated to attend. Its not everyone, but enough that many teams would either miss events or certain students would miss them.
The point that FIRST is growing and yet wants to give the same % of students the Championship experience, will not find a happy medium to address having one set of Champions and everyone playing under the same roof. Too many pros AND cons. Is it really too late or impossible to find a venue 2020 and beyond that can hold 800 teams?

I wanted to add that it still doesnt sit well with me that in 2014, we had to choose between VEX and FRC Worlds because we do both programs. Even the VEX GDC said we had a good robot! We still wonder the what ifs had we played at VEX Worlds in 2014 for all of our teams that qualified. Many of our students had wished they could do both.
Our underclassmen are already a little bummed that they wont get to see teams from Canada and Michigan, assuming we would be in Houston in a couple of years.

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

this make me so angry! why even post the results that show the public disagrees with there choices and then try to manipulate and extrapolate the numbers to try and get it to support there decision.
I would much rather them say :this is how it is going to be, deal with it" instead of beating around the bush.

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

This method isn't exactly fair either. In your first comparison, you are comparing the ratio of 25% of negative responses to 20% of positive. In your second it is 50% to 40%, and so on. In your last comparison, you count 5 (neutral) as negative.

What if we rescaled to a scale from 0 to 10? We can map the negative responses linearly to get the new responses. We replace 1 with 0, 2 with 1.25, 3 with 2.5, and 4 with 3.75. After performing the average based on this data, we get:

.26*0+.11*1.25+.11*2.5+.07*3.75+.12*5+.04*6+.06*7+ .07*8+.04*9+.12*10 = 4.06

This weights everything symmetrically. It keeps positive values positive, and negative values negative. However, I think it is still likely to be flawed, as someone who is approximately neutral might be more likely to lean towards the favorable side than negative simply because the positive side is larger. Someone who votes roughly neutrally based on the "center" of the scale may be unfairly counted as voting positively.

A better method might be to map the entire scale from 1-10 to 0-10. We replace 1 with 0, 2 with 1.111, 3 with 2.222, 4 with 3.333, 5 with 4.444, 6 with 5.555, 7 with 6.666, 8 with 7.777, and 9 with 8.888 (10 remains 10).

We now get:

.26*0+.11*1.111+.11*2.222+.07*3.333+.12*4.444+.04* 5.555+.06*6.666+.07*7.777+.04*8.888+.12*10 = 3.86

This scale is likely to be slightly biased towards negative, because it treats "neutral" according to the instructions as very slightly negative.

I think the true average, if the scale had been 0-10 instead of 1-10, would lie somewhere between these two numbers. In any case, they are closer to each other than they are to FIRST's number for the average (4.47).

There also are quite possibly some psychological effects that I have not accounted for. Do the numbers on the scale themselves affect how we vote? If given a poll, 1-5, and the average is 4, does this imply that if the same poll was conducted on a scale from 1-9, the average would be 7? This would be expected if people simply scaled their votes linearly (or at least, linearly on average) but that may not be the case.

If we remap the entire scale

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

I have never found a study that confirms this, but I have heard it suggested that the widespread practice of using 75 as the 'center' of a 100 point grading scale in US schools has predisposed the people who attended those schools to center their rating on 75%, rather than on 50%. I feel that the most significant thing FIRST did correctly for this survey question was specifying a center, which I imagine would at least slightly help to fix that bias.

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

There's an awful lot of analysis going on. That makes sense because so many of us are engineers. We love to crunch numbers. A lot of that effort is wasted, though. The survey methods weren't designed to give precise answers, for all of the reasons so many others have already stated. This is a non-scientific poll, which is only good for getting a quick read on the general feelings of a non-uniform sample.

Taking a step back, though, the message is pretty clear. The big bars are on the left. The little bars are on the right. Generally speaking, the people who responded to this survey were pretty negative about the split. You don't need much mathematics to reach that conclusion.

Which brings up a couple of very obvious questions.

Do the survey results reflect opinion in general?
Why is the leadership pretending that somehow the survey results are neutral or only slightly negative?


From the discussion and analysis, though, I see a couple of other things.

One is that I find it interesting that there was a significant split between those who had never attended and those who had attended. That, to me, is meaningful.

The other thing that leaps out to me, mostly from the discussions, is....districts. Everyone ought to be doing them. Everywhere. I'm new here, but I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't.

I have to do a bit of interpretation of the numbers in order to reach this conclusion, but I think that those people who like the split may very well like it simply because it gives them another accessible, and significant, competition. A district championship would serve that purpose, much like it does in Michigan.

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

I have read all the posts on this thread, but I'm hoping that this point got a lot more attention than it did on the first page. The way FIRST collected data and they way they have presented it in this blog post is legitimately very misleading. The number of negative options versus the number of positive options really rubs me the wrong way.

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

I wish they gave actual analysis based off team number. Not even to show that,'this elite team felt this way!' but just to see how votes were split across team age, events attended, teams that have been to champs vs teams that haven't, etc... Then we'd be able to fully understand what the demographic reach that responded to the survey was.

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

I think you've answered your own point here. A lot of the analysis that's happening now isn't because we think the data is so useful, it's to highlight the misleading nature of the results. This statement from the blog: "The average answer to this questions [sic] among all respondents was 4.45, somewhat below the 5 "Neither Oppose nor Favor" rating" is an insult to my intelligence as an engineer, and to your point seems to be the crux of that 'only sightly negative' spin that the leadership is putting on these results.

Absolutely. This is the District Events --> Super Regionals --> Worlds argument that's been made for years (plus or minus the debate over another level of competition). Championsplit is basically that as a top-down attempt, wherein it limits the number of teams (to only 800) that can get an Large-but-less-than-Worlds Tier experience and also the number of teams (to zero) that can experience a Worlds event. They haven't fixed the core progression or scalability problem. However, standing up a District is unfortunately no small task and takes a certain density of teams and grassroots initiative among other things. There are huge discussions on CD and elsewhere about how to make it work in places that haven't yet--the devil's in the details.

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

What safeguards were in place to stop individuals from falsely identifying the wrong team? What about stop them from filling out multiple surveys? Prevent FIRST unaffiliated or unaffected from responding?

Why should we trust these results as anything more than a voluntary online survey?

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

This is simple to do by reducing to number of bins instead of increasing them. Put all responses below the Neutral choice, the 55%, in one bin and call it say bin 4 (to keep our median at 5), then put the 12% which are Neutral into bin 5, and those above neutral, the 33%, into bin 6. Finding the average this way, (55*4+12*5+33*6)/100 = 4.78. Interesting... this shows that giving more options for a positive response gave their average, 4.45 (which should have been 4.47) a skew in the negative response direction. Now the same calculation cannot done for a '1 vote per team' because that data is unavailable.

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

Why do you suspect that these results do not match the views of FRC teams?

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

Because individuals without a strong opinion do not invest their time in voluntary surveys.

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

Yes, but I responded, and I know my opinions are not necessarily representative of others on my team.

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

I fill out every FRC (and MAR) survey that I get. Lots of those are pretty mundane, but I do them anyway since they take all of 5 minutes, and (presumably) give useful feedback to the respective groups looking at the data.

If that was actually the case - there should be a lot more 1's and 10's in the results.

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

38% of the response was 1's and 10's.... that's very bi-polar.

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

And that seems odd to you? Were you not here for the original thread and saw how bi-polar the CD community was?

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

A public forum suffers from the same response bias that an online voluntary survey suffers.

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

Why cater to an opinion that doesn't care to reveal itself in a measurable way?

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

I'm not sure I understand: your representative bin values are entirely arbitrary, as is the average they produce. I could repeat this same calculation calling "negative" 3 and "positive" 7: I get 4.56. 2 and 8 yields 4.34; 1 and 9 is 4.12; 0 and 10 is 3.9. The problem is that the logical value to assign to each bin is the average of the values in it--1 through 4 as 2.5 and 6 to 10 as 8--but these averages are not centered about the neutral. Shrinking the bin count does not remove this problem.

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

Whose opinion matters more, the 10% that took the survey or the 90% that didn't take the survey?

If the survey accurately reflected the opinion of everyone in FIRST, one might expect that 26% of the FIRST population would quit in the near term. And one might be shocked to find that only 4% quit instead, and that the 90% of the community that didn't respond to the survey fell between "mildly dislike to mildly like, mostly don't care."

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

So should we never accept a new president because everyone didnt vote? Just be cause some dont vote, doesnt mean we should neglect those who did.

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

The world is run by those that show up...

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

That's a false equivalency. Responding to the survey had no guarantee of future action.

What I'm arguing is that the results of the survey mean much less than what some in this discussion are giving weight to it, and that putting the numbers in a positive or negative light doesn't matter when the numbers don't mean much.

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

You are giving an outcome yourself for something you dont know. If FIRST had gotten 100% 1's, I bet you'd see action and the same could be said for 100% 10's.

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

How is that a guarantee?

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

I agree on the idea that not voting doesn't mean you matter less to the community, but please don't set up the expectation that everyone who clicked "strongly opposed" to the championsplit wants to quit FIRST. That's a very weird metric by which to assess the meaning of these data.

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

I used "quit" as an example of the strongest negative response an individual could have with regard to the situation, as a hypothetical to illustrate response bias.

There are means to get a statistically accurate picture of the opinion of a community, but voluntary online survey is not one of them.

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

We agree. To close the loop on your earlier comments, then:
Of course the respondents' opinions matter more, at least in the context of providing FIRST some insight into the community's collective view of the topic at hand. The non-respondents had the opportunity to matter just as much, but chose not to use that opportunity. It's great fun to imbue those non-respondents with opinions and motivations for not sharing those opinions, but it's all fiction until measured.
Because there's no measurement to refute this, I am free to claim that the survey is biased in the opposite direction: perhaps some of those 90% were just so upset at the decision that they refused to fill out the survey. Certainly some number of those people exist-- who's to say how many?

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

Numbers never matter till you give them weight.

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

I don't know, but voluntary online survey wouldn't be a way to find out :p

I'm trying to caution everyone about the limitations of the data presented here, as well as show why it doesn't matter if the response was more negative than it was portrayed by Frank. I think our collective efforts would be better to find a solution to the areas the 2 championship format is lacking.

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

Interesting idea, and definitely something that is very easily observed in day-to-day life. However, I think we are reading into these numbers a little too far. Any kind of mapping or analysis we make is based on a limited amount of information, just the numbers in the chart and the numbers pointed out in the blog post. Our own interpretations of the data will have our own biases, and each will have an inherent flaw of some kind. I wouldn't read into those numbers a whole lot; although they are obviously skewed, it proves one important point without any special interpretation: The number of people who strongly oppose the switch account for the number of "neutral" and "strongly favor" voters combined. That says something, regardless of how this poll may or may not have been intentionally weighted in favor of the poller's preference.

Among the members of the FIRST board of directors and executive advisory board are executives from Boeing, JCPenny, Rockwell Collins, Qualcomm, BAE Systems, Rockwell Automation, and Lego, all major contributors to FIRST and FIRST teams. Even if the biggest contributors aren't "micromanaging," they definitely have a hand in the workings of FIRST.

Regardless of whether or not the poll was weighted, I believe FIRST will take into account at least some of the complaints we have made. These sort of heated protests happen every year, with every game release. Admittedly, the restructuring of champs has a much longer-term impact on the culture of FIRST, but change had to come at some point- it was inevitable. Sure, it would have been nice to know there were talks about major changes to the championship structure coming soon, but it's not like they didn't tell us something was going to change back in 2012. Again, it would have been nice to get some more specific info before the announcement, but it's not like they never said anything. At the end of they day, no matter how much we analyze, map, or dissect this poll, FIRST is going to change, and it has to change in order to become a universally-recognized program.

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

Solutions to having a single champion while still having 2 events have been posted here. It's just that FIRST HQ isn't interested in entertaining any real feasible alternatives. I'll speculate about the reason for that in a separate post.

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

I approached this issue as a presidential election. You can't vote for "neither of the above" or "both of the above." You have to choose. The "5s" refused to choose. In an election, those folks don't vote--it's a very common assumption by pollsters making projections for election results.

Similarly, we don't apply an intensity of like or dislike to presidential candidates. It's either "A" or "B". There's some indication in 2012 that Romney supporters were more intense in their positions, but there were fewer of them. Ultimately, I believe we should really care about which side people fall on.

One other polling note: while this is a voluntary poll so it could be biased, pollsters find that usually the opinions of respondents generally reflect the views of non respondents.

I used a set of common polling assumptions to provide a clearer view of how community preferences fall out. I see others have provided other metrics that arrive at the same conclusion--that opposition is running 2 to 1 against.

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

Given the low turnout for elections in the US, that argument would lead to us to the conclusion that we haven't actually elected anyone. The fact is that elections and decisions are determined by those who care enough to respond. If we want a democratic process, allowing indifference to have weight becomes an overwhelming defeating burden.

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

There is such a thing as a 3rd party candidate. Ross Perot captured almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and over 8% in 1996. in 1928 Robert La Follette even won a state. (of course, you could hold the Kang and Kodos perspective of politics)

But more importantly, in this survey you DID NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE. You WERE GIVEN A NEUTRAL OPTION. 12% chose that option. FIRST could have structured the survey as a simple for or against, but they didn't. As others in this thread have already stated, the people who chose neutral did so for a reason. Their response counts too.

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

I realize that you didn't disagree with me, so please notice in return that I'm not disagreeing with you.

Members of the FIRST Board of Directors, when they are carrying out their duties as Board Members, are not supposed to let their duties as members of any other organization bias them (their life experiences should give them wisdom that helps "inform" their decisions; but when they are carrying out board business, they are carrying out FIRST business, not the business of any other entity).

And, when they take their FIRST BoD hats off, those folks have bigger fish to fry, in their primary jobs.

Advising, setting goals, and contributing to high-level policy/strategy is what a good Board does, micromanaging is what a good board doesn't do.

Before we go off on a tangent - I'll claim that debating in CD whether the Championsplit is high-level policy, or a lower-level detail, won't be useful. If there is any confusion about that among the BoD members, or among the people who report to the BoD, they will straighten it out, on their own.

Blake

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

No, they told you and anyone else who looked at their votes, that they were neutral.

Neutral could and does mean many things.

It is simply incorrect to distill it down to a "refused to choose" sound bite.

Blake

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

This is absolutely nothing like a presidential election. That is a choice between two people, whereas this is a statement of approval/disapproval of a policy. A good example of what that should look like is here. Note how the approval and disapproval numbers don't add up to 100%. That's because some people are neutral. Here's another potentially enlightening link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

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

Regardless of how neutral responses should be counted, the reality is they are probably going to be counted as being in favor of FIRST's proposal.

The reason for this is simple: anybody who is neutral will be just as supportive whether or not FIRST reverses its decision, and FIRST is quite sure that it wants what it said it wants.

Thus, from FIRST's perspective, the results of the poll are 55-45 against the proposal. Given the small sample size, this is probably close enough to 50-50 for an entity with even a slight confirmation bias to say that the community is largely undecided.

So, in reality, the survey gave you 4 options to say that you were against the proposal, and 6 options to say you were for it.

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

I voted 5.

It was not because I didn't care one way or the other. It was because, "I haven't decided yet" wasn't an option.

The survey went out a week before Champs, and a day or two after it was announced that there was going to be a Town Hall meeting in St. Louis. I wanted to wait until after the Town Hall and after more data/information was made available before voicing an opinion. And that's exactly what I said in the comment box beneath my response.

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

Not specifically aimed at you, but you happened to be handy.

For all those who voted 5, would you care to share "undecided (at this time)", "withholding judgement", or "don't care" status at the time of the survey, and have you changed your response at this point?


Full disclosure: I didn't fill out the survey. If I had to respond, I would be leaning in about the 4-5 range: I don't like it, but I think there's enough room to improve (in a variety of ways) that I could be persuaded to go the other way. I could also end up working my way down towards the 1s and 2s, if that improvement doesn't go the way of improvement.



One thing that's finally gotten through to me: Any way you slice the data, if the average is less than 5.5 on this scale, you ain't winnin' no election. Just the way the scale works. The fact that they're trying to SPIN it... Sorry, Frank, but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet! This isn't a popular decision, and not even by going by team number with the data are you going to be able to change that! "There are lies, d****d lies, and statistics."--attributed to Mark Twain.

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

I voted 5. As of right now, I have a very strong opinion on the subject, but I am not sure what it is.
I can tell you it's certainly not "don't care" - probably more along the lines of "withholding judgement".
I could be swayed either way; however, I do have a voice and I'd like it to count.
To me, a 5 is telling HQ "If you play this right, I could jump on board. If not, well, add me to the disgruntled California teams."

If you lump 4s, 5s, and 6s together, that's a quarter of respondents who may think likewise.
I'm comfortable speaking on behalf of them in saying we didn't 'throw away our votes'

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

I don't actually remember where I put my mark, but I was somewhere between the 4-6 range.
The 2 event championship was definitely not my preference, but I think it is/was probably the lesser of several evils.
I am generally in the same boat from the alternative 2 event proposals. Not terribly for or against any of them.
I was happy in this blog that they will be discussing with teams possible events mixing strategies. This was actually my biggest concern with the rollout was that there were not be an allowance for mixing. I think Hall of Fame teams should probably get to rotate events. Same with "founders". though I would like if they could keep them at a reasonable balance (no more than a 1/3 to 2/3 ratio).

I have hope that they will do a summer event, and work with teams to find a way to make that work well. I have thoughts on how they could do that, and will see if some of those can be implemented.

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

I think it's great that FIRST has tried to survey teams, and I thank them for that. But I would like to point out that two championships will completely ruin the prestige of going to champs. This happens in two ways, one, the obvious way, when you get an award at half champs, it's not really winning the award, it's sharing the award. If FIRST really trying to be a sport for the mind, it can't say it has a superbowl because there are two trophies. How are winners going to explain what happened? "oh our robot's the half best in the world"? How can we make it loud when we aren't sure what we are. Are there any winners in two champs? Or just two finalists?
The second way prestige would be affected is qualifying. I have gone to champs twice, and no matter how we did it was really inspirational for me. I have to commend FIRST, that organization that we still all know and love, for adhering to its mission statement and inspiring twice the amount of people. It's great that FIRST is growing and that it is accomodating for its growth. But with more teams qualifying for worlds through regional points, what is the drive going to be to build the best robot, or make it loud to the world? Why go for prestigious positions such as regional robot winner our chairman's winner? Why not just actually care about the safety award a few times and make it to half champs? In the end, we're actually uninspiring teams and people.

I really like FIRST and I love everything it has done for me, my FLL kids, everyone involved, but I don't want to see this awesome organization ruined because it can't scale up properly. I want to be able to come back and be proud that I had the opportunity to graduate from an amazing program. Two champs will definitely uninspire more people than it will inspire. No one wants to say that they are half winners. And again, I have to applaud FIRST for their efforts to get feedback from teams.

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

My feedback for Frank and FIRST:

1. Students are the main stakeholders. If trade-offs are needed, articulate the pros and cons factually and consult them. (just like the patient/doctor relationship.)

2. Surveys are imperfect. But I can generally count on those who care to cast their ballots. There is nothing wrong with building a strategy based on the opinions of those who care.

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

I'm sorry, I have trouble following this logic. There are only two annual trophies, of which there is only one winner: Championship Chairmans and Woodie Flowers. Everything else has multiple winners. There are four World Champions. There are four Engineering Inspiration winners. Heck, there are thirty-two Division Champions.
So of the two actual single trophies, there has been a TON of conversation about expanding these anyway. There are hundreds of really awesome teams and really awesome people who deserve to be recognized at the worldwide level, but only one of each per year is not enough.
Why do traditional sports have a regular season? The games don't really matter. We haven't seen a sports champion go undefeated through the regular season in decades (yes I know this statement is not true for FIRST).

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

Transitions are always difficult. The USA never quite converted to the metric system. . . .

Ultimately, if we saturate the season with districts (even that is contentious), then district champs would be the primary players at world champs. The remaining participants would be up for discussion: HOF, Rookie, Chairmans, etc. . . .

Would we than go back to a smaller single championship event?

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

At this point, I don't know if we can tell. Part of FIRST HQ's understanding is the Championship "experience" is what they want as many students to be able to experience as possible. Converting that experience to the district championship level will hopefully be more feasible in the coming future. But what defines the championship "experience"? What does FIRST want to provide to as many students as possible, and how can we make it reach as many students as possible?

While I don't know what the answers to those questions are, the reasoning and logic behind the championsplit, to me, indicates that FIRST is trying to bring the experience by having more championship-scale events. It's entirely possible we go from here to 4 super regionals, and not have a culminating championship event. At least that's what I see is in the realm of possibilities, following the logic of this decision.

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

Sorry, I was addressing the champion title to the winning alliance, not individual winning teams, but the logic is still the same, you can't exactly say that you are a world champion when there's four other teams claiming the same thing. Truthfully this is gong to happen, and when it does, invitationals like IRI and Cheesy Champs are going to be the real world champs. And that's going to be terrible for morale if you're not invited. If FIRST really wants to inspire the world, they should keep worlds an official event.

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

I agree that the poll shows that, of those responding, there's more negative than positive feedback.

That said, it's possible that there's no solution that makes most teams happy. Here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the concept.

Frank discussed 22 "product attributes" ("elements of the championship experience"). Let's imagine a universe where FRC teams have decisive product attributes distributed in this way*:

33% - (1) Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
33% - (2) The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team
33% - (3) Keeping attendance costs reasonable

Now suppose you created three ideas for Champs experiences, each of which optimized for one of these attributes. Say along these lines**:

(1) Single WW Champs
(2) Super Regional Champs
(3) State Champs

If you polled any one of these using a "do you support this" question, you'd see the same or worse results than the poll that was conducted.

So put yourselves in FIRST's shoes. You need to select the choice that is best aligned with FIRST's goals, and is realistic about the resources that you have available. You are solving a unique problem -- you run one of the largest HS activity championships in the US***. Any of your choices will make a decent sized set of teams unhappy.

*I selected these items because they seemed to be mostly non-overlapping attributes and seem somewhat representative of the points of view I've read. Please don't take this as my reading of what teams actually think or that the percentages are anything but a hypothetical. What will you do?
**These actually map to the three models used in other HS activities in the US, based on the research I did last week.

***I think it's actually the largest, but haven't been looking at data for long enough to say for certain.

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

For me this is the essential point. My team has been to Championship exactly once - when we QUALIFIED to be one of the 400 teams there. A significant portion of the "Championship Experience" in our case was the pride of being part of that elite group. The two components of this portion are the singularity of the group, and the degree of selectivity...neither of which are present in 800 teams divided into two events. WHEN my team qualifies again, I don't want to go to "a" championship...I want to go to "the" championship. And I would prefer to wait until we deserve it again (even if it never happens) rather than lower the entrance bar. I suspect there are many survey respondents, and posters to this thread (like Rman1923 above) who find their definition of the "Championship Experience" and FIRST HQ's definition incompatible.

And this is my great fear. Even with a monumental effort to create universal districts, and roll out a suitable championship "feeding" structure...how does FIRST go from two events and 800 teams back to one event and 400 or 600 teams without it appearing and feeling like a shrinkage. Further, HQ was originally saying that the two championships were guaranteed from 17 - 20...in this blog post that language has changed to "beginning in 2017..." removing any possible end date.

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

I would actually say that IRI and Cheesy Champs will never be the real world championships. In the grand scheme of things, nobody watches it, and nobody cares. I would be shocked if more than 10-15% of FIRST 's members have even heard of either of these events.

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

It's not only about people watching it, but more about finding out who the winners of the world are. I feel like just out of curiosity, invitational events would pit the winners of both champs against each other, to see who wins. That would be cool and fun to watch. When I say they will be the real champs, I mean that we'll find out the best alliance in the world at these events.

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

This is what concerns me too. I love that they are working on ways to get more teams involved, but that can be done through other means. For example, FRC is extremely expensive, can there be more focus on reducing costs instead of diluting the championship? I bet more people and teams would love to be involved if they could afford it. I would think more focus on growing the number of teams could be more inspirational than growing the number of teams at championships.

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

FIRST has a system that works as a lower-cost FRC: FTC.

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

While more information and opinions have been made available over the past month, the unresolved possibility of bringing the two championship alliances together means that I would probably still answer that question the same way at this point in time. But, as I stated upthread, I would hope that that exact same question isn't asked again, because of its ambiguity. Do you favor one championship if it means that there eventually won't be room for the CA, EI, and RAS teams? Do you favor two championships if nothing is done to bring the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion?

I would "strongly agree" that the current one championship model is unsustainable over the long term. But that doesn't mean that I "strongly favor" two championships. I'd jump off the fence for a single championship if the "championship experience" could be replicated one qualifying step below (i.e. at district championships or super-regional type events). But I would be just as supportive of two championships if there was a viable way of bringing the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion. (BTW I don't think the costs of such an event are insurmountable...aside from possible financial sponsorships, raising the entry fee for the 800 teams at the two championships by just 2% would raise $80k that could cover/defray additional travel and event expenses).

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

I've seen this or similar opinions raised in a few places, including multiple times recently in this thread. For those in Michigan, New England, PNW, and Indiana, how close are your DCMPs to the championship experience? MAR honestly isn't even close, in spite of the fact the on-the-field competition is incredibly high. Don't take this the wrong way, I love MAR Champs, but it's not remotely comparable to Championship. The production value is much more akin to a district event than even a regional competition. There aren't any of the conferences or presentations available to teams (I know FiM has some of these). The scholarship and sponsor availability is minimal. There aren't any of the outside/after hours festivities/community building that's part of Championship. You don't necessarily need all of these things for "the Championship experience" (however we end up defining it), but MAR Champs feels like a bigger district event more than it even feels like a regional competition. It completely lacks the grandeur and ceremony of a Championship.

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

I would agree with most of this.
With the caveats that the Indiana State Championship was an inaugural event, so we were looking for survival rather than a spectacle. We also host conferences in October, so there's not a real need to duplicate that at this level.
But, yes, the spectacle was roughly equivalent to a regional event. However, if we work closely with HQ and their resources, it could certainly rise to the occasion.

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

These are the kinds of questions that should have be asked:

Yes (for me at least). But there are more options that are possible. I would like to see chairman teams continue to go, but if six teams from every regional is what caused the need for two championships then find ways to reduce the six to five or possibly four...or less if that's what is necessary.

No regardless (again, for me). Bringing the two alliance together is irrelevant to my championship experience unless I'm one of those winning alliance teams. Otherwise, I have still attended a championship with only half of the teams that inspire me.

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

So are you disagreeing that DCMP's can be similar enough to a "championship experience" or just stating that the respective DCMP's have some work to do to get to the level where they might be able to replicate a "championship experience"?

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

I certainly can't speak for Sean, but IMO, the DCMPs can & should serve as the "championship experience" in their regions, and it would be to FIRST's benefit to do what they need to make sure all of the districts they work with end up looking at least as consistent across the country as regional events do.

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

A closer representation of the best alliance in the world? Sure. Best alliance in the world? No. Many top tier teams don't attend IRI or cheesy champs.

I would hope that a "two winning alliances" event is televised and hyped for that.

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

In New England, but especially when it was in Boston, our two DCMPs have felt like mini championships. High production value, a ton of side events (conferences, alumni events, exhibitions from other programs, etc.), and the overall grand feeling. They also served as a great event that brought New England FIRST together, just as Championship really brings FIRST together. It's a model for DCMP I like, and hope stays in NE as well as becoming the standard for DCMPs.

Obviously the consistency isn't there however, and it needs to happen. As Libby said, DCMPs should be held to at least Regional consistency that they were supposed to be as originally envisioned, if not at a higher value.

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

This is just my opinion on this, take it as you please. Champs was a let down from MSC for these reasons:
- There were so many fields I had little to no insight to how all the other teams were doing. At MSC with two fields, I knew how most people were doing and how the rankings were shaping up.
- Competition was fierce through the top 75% of teams at MSC, when it was only fierce around the top 25% at champs. Granted champs had more elite teams, MSC was deeper.
-Televised commentary from Dave and Dan was fantastic and awesome shots from the boom cameras at MSC, footage at champs missed the mark.

Champs did have a little better production/viewing experience for people in the stands. But you could only see your fields action.

I might be a little biased based on where I'm from, so maybe an outsider can chime in that attended MSC. I absolutely think district champs would be the perfect thing to replace the championship feel, and it's scaleable.

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

I've thought of the competition at FiM champs to be very close to worlds. If you take 2011 for example, the #1 alliance was defeaded by the #8 at MSC. The meta changed durring eliminations and teams had to adapt to stay competitive. Everyone was at their best, and you had no idea who would win. Worlds that year, teams died and got stuck on the field. As soon as that happened, you knew who would win.

I find this year to be similar. Yes, the #1 alliance at MSC had the highest scores in Octo/Quarter/Semi, but any alliance there could have beat them if they made a mistake. If the blue alliance had grabbed that one RC 1711 spent the entire match trying to get, they would have won. The can wars wasn't as intense as it was on Einstein, but I feel like that made it more exciting to watch. The winners weren't determined in the first second of the match. Einstein, however, was determined by the can wars. Every alliance there could score 250+ points (some even 300+), but you knew who would win 5 seconds into the match.

TL;DR
DCMP's can be just as competitive and exciting to watch as Einstein.

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

Some good points in here.

The 2014 and 2015 NEDCMPs were the best events I attended over the past two years. Why? Because there was a level of production value but as you hinted to above the field at a DCMP is more competitive than a division. You really feel like you take a step back when you are on your division after experiencing your DCMP a few weeks prior. Yes there are powerhouses and even teams from your district on the field but it doesn't start topping some of the districts until further in the elimination rounds and Einstein.

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

I would entirely agree with you for FiM. This doesn't necessarily translate to every DCMP event, however.

I'd love to see MAR CMP reach the production quality of MSC, but as of now, it feels more like a large district event than a championship, or even a regional.

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

Plus one thing that I like that DCMP's do that Worlds doesn't is have a single pool of teams to pick from. I know that system would be impossible at worlds, but a guy can hope.

I personally love the way MSC handled things this year. They had 102 teams compete, so to keep everything on time they went to the FTC-style system of having two fields. This and the Octo-finals made this event better than champs to watch IMO. There was only one team at MSC that didn't have an average above 100.

Alliances at MSC were the best alliances at MSC, while alliances at worlds were the best alliances according to who was randomly paired together. Could you imagine if worlds had one single pool to pick from for eliminations?

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

I'd rather not. Sounds like a logistical and scouting nightmare! :rolleyes:

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

True, but if the size of worlds was the same size of MSC, it would be a bit easier. I was aiming for a pool of the best 100, not a mix of all 600. That would be hell for everyone attempting to scout.

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

I'll back up MAR for this. Our production values (and location) leave a lot to be worked on, and we're certainly not FIM, but in terms of competitiveness I prefer MAR to Divisions. People might like some of the numbers I ran on this issue: attached is a percentile plot of qual match scores for this year at CMP Divisions and DCMPs. Probably no surprise to those of us in Districts, but the Regional folks may find it interesting.

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

Don't have permission to view that page.

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

Sorry, fixed. Apparently you can't link directly to attachments from other posts. It's in the linked post.

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

Yeah, that would be really cool, I think many would watch and it'd be really easy to market that to non-firsters as well

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

8 teams, potentially from very different parts of the world, are going to travel all the way to New Hampshire/Detroit/wherever, to potentially play two (at most three) 2.5 minute matches?

2 of the teams may never play either.

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

I was doing exactly what I stated in my post, asking other district participants how they felt about their DCMP as it relates to the championship experience, and stating my feeling that the MAR DCMP does not replicate that experience. Please assume no larger agenda in my posts.

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

If the event was at next years kickoff, and it was at no financial cost to attend (championship win = all expense trip paid to New Hampshire), then I think that would be reasonable.

In my humble opinion, there does not need to be a singular championship alliance. Winning a 400 team event is prestigious in and of itself.

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

It would be better to have the division winners from both events attend. Then they could hold it as a 1-day event like the MN State Tournament - quals in the morning until about 1, then alliance selections, a break for lunch, and elims. You would have 32 teams there, and the eventual winning alliance may have teams from both events on it, which I think would be rather cool. It could also easily fit into a single weekend, not requiring much, if any, time off work or School for people. Of course, the problem with this is still travel costs... Having a team from China, Brazil, or Israel (for example) have to return to the US for yet another event could be prohibitive. Even closer team's may find the cost to be too much, traveling from Michigan, Texas, California, etc to Manchester or whatever the event would be held.

For something like this to work, I think FIRST would have to pick up a significant portion of the tab. No registration fee, secure hotel and flight accommodations for a certain number from each team (10? 4 drive team members, plus 4 pit students and 2 mentor/chaperones). Without doing something like that, I can easily see teams deciding to skip the event and call it a year.

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

Yes, but do you think MARCMP could get to that level?
I've only ever attended one DCMP, and that was the 2014 NEDCMP as a spectator.
It was a fantastic and huge event. It definitely felt bigger and better than a regional event to me, and I felt like with some work and publicity, it could definitely replicate a championship experience.

But I've never participated on a team, because New York is taking forever to get to districts.

So do you (and others who have participated in DCMP's) believe that your DCMP can replicate a championship experience, or could with work?

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

Yes, there are logistical issues associated with bringing the two alliances together for a summer final final. While I think that some of those issues could be resolved, I'd also like to bump an alternative idea...fly the alliance that wins the Houston championship event into St. Louis/Detroit the following weekend, and have the battle of champions take place during that second event's closing ceremonies.

Some potentially favorable aspects of this idea (to chew on or chew over)...

- Automatically cuts the travel costs for the winning alliances in half (since one alliance is already on site).

- It also limits the additional costs of staging that battle of champions (field/volunteers/FIRST staff/other infrastructure already on site).

- FIRST covers all of the travel expenses for five members on each of the four teams that win in Houston (drive team plus one). Other team members/mentors/coaches travel on team's dime. They'd have a few days to fundraise/talk with their sponsors to help defray those out-of-pocket costs.

- If an international team is on the winning Houston alliance, they stay for the week in between, with expenses covered by FIRST (including cost of changing flights home). The international teams traveling to Houston would need to be prepared for this potentiality.

- Otherwise, winning alliance flies in on Friday afternoon, limiting the number of lost school days. Bagged robots shipped from Houston directly to St. Louis/Detroit.

- Fly-in championship teams wouldn't have to move/set-up their pits...there could be well-equipped "Visiting Champions" pits waiting for them at the second championship. Pit equipment might be provided by sponsors/equipment suppliers, or loaned by other teams at the second event. Second event teams that didn't qualify for their Einsteins (or even for their subdivision playoffs) might even volunteer to "host" one of the four fly-in teams, and lend extra hands/equipment/team spirit.

- If FIRST wanted to crown a single CCA winner, they could also fly in the presenters from the team that won the Houston CA. Award the second event's CA at the start of their Einstein's, then have the two Championship CA winners make one final presentation between then and Closing Ceremonies. And maybe those final presentations could be made in front of a very distinguished panel of judges?

I'm sure that there are logistical issues that I've missed, or that I've poorly characterized at least a few of the issues that I've raised. My intent is merely to see if there's interest in discussing how this type of rapid-fire final event might work.

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

The more I read about solutions to crown an ultimate champion, the more I realize how absolutely impractical it is.

Most solutions fall apart if even one team cannot attend.

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

Exactly. It's just unfeasible. Furthermore, for the amount of playing time that will likely happen, with no kind of crowd to be watching and cheering, it's a lesser experience for those competing, and for everyone else that did make it to championships, we still won't get to see them live; we'll all be watching from home.

I think we'll just have to live with two winning alliances (which personally is not a large problem for me, albeit I would prefer a single winning alliance), as this kind of "final final event" solution has a lot of holes still.

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

Exactly. Currently the only potential way around this I see is to stop considering it a Houston Winners vs Detroit Winners event and just says "all division winners (and finalists?) qualify for the World Championship" -- and just rerun quals and elims with the teams who attend that weekend event. Or potentially cut out quals and use a District-esque points system to generate rankings. But I'm not sure how many if any other problems with the situation this addresses besides not locking into the two alliances.

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

I like living in a bubble where split champs aren't that bad. xD

Yes, all div winners qualify. One day event, few quals, repick alliances and do elims. Should have extra teams so if a few don't show its not a big deal. Not sure about finalists, adding a double the number of teams for a one day event.

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

An alternative I've proposed: Stop the first event at the division winners, and take them to the second event the next week. Run full Einstein field with all of the division winners at the second event as part of the closing ceremony (which appears to be in different location than the competition site.)

Those at the second event get to see ALL of the top teams, and by alternating dates, each location gets to see ALL of the top teams every other year, and they get to see at least the 50% of the top teams every year.

There will advantages and disadvantages to each group of alliances but that already happens to a certain extent through random (vs seeded) assignment to divisions and random (vs seeded) qualifying scheduling.

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

I'm with Gregor on this-- every solution I've seen has been either inpractical or contrary to many of the goals FIRST or the posters in this thread have been advocating, or both. We're talking about FIRST footing what is likely a six-seven figure bill, causing students to miss school, and/or depriving one of our championships from seeing a champion crowned.

I really, really wish there was a better solution out there, but at the end of the day, it might be that the best we can do is try to make sure as many of us as possible are in Districts by the time these venue contracts are up.

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

I really like this idea.

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

I still think the idea of super-regionals is the best for FIRST. The district system is also the best imo. My FTC students had just as much fun at super-regionals as I did when I went to worlds. If FIRST wants to give that experiance to as many teams as possible, this system is the way to go.

Districts --> State (or region) Champs --> Super Regionals --> Worlds.

Districts allow teams to grow between events, rather than stop at one event. DCMP's have shown to be as exciting as even worlds, and super regionals would add another challenging event.

Super regionals would narrow the teams down to the best 100 or so in the world. Worlds could then be used to show and inspire teams everywhere if the production value of the broadcast is excellent. Having one pool of teams to pick from at the best event would produce the most competitive finals; rather than splitting these teams up across divisions and two venues.

I think this method works perfectly for FTC right now, and could work well for FRC in future years

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

FTC season starts in August/September (can't recall) and ends in April. FRC season starts in January and ends in April. Expanding the season is HARD.

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

You'd have to add an extra event yes, but that would only be for the top 100 or so teams. It would be 5 events for some teams, but some teams this year have attended 5 events. Expanding the season would be challenging, but I think it could be pulled off.

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

Have you ever tried to book travel for 40 students 1000+ miles, on 2 day notice? I haven't. But from what I've heard from the people that have, it's REALLY hard.

It's not about the number of events (we've done 6 the last 2 years) it's about the logistics of last minute travel and the lack of time frame to expand the season either way.

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

Except that, as I pointed out previously, FIRST is no longer talking about this being a four year phenomenon:

Recent Blog Post:
"As we noted in the Championship informational session, the facts that there will be two Championships starting in 2017, and that all FIRST programs will be represented at each Championship, will not be changing, and so won’t be part of the discussions undertaken by these groups."

(Emphasis mine)

As opposed to the original, April 9 announcement:
"Therefore, in 2017, FIRST will host two Championship events on subsequent weekends, still celebrating our full Progression of Programs at each – one event in Houston at the George R. Brown Convention Center, the Toyota Center (home of the Houston Rockets) and Minute Maid Park (home of the Houston Astros) April 19-22, 2017, followed by a second event the following weekend (April 26-29, 2017) in St. Louis.

Beginning in 2018, our dual Championship will be celebrated in Houston, as described above, April 18-21, 2018 and on the second weekend in Detroit at the Cobo Center and Ford Field (home of the Detroit Lions), April 25-28, 2018. This alignment will continue for 2019 and 2020."

(Again, emphasis mine)

Can we please stop talking about bringing the two winning alliances together, as if that will solve the problem? We need a solution that lets FIRST achieve it's "inspire as many teams as possible" event goal, while still presenting a single, all-the-best-teams-present championship that is an honor to attend.