![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
And... it would be interesting to know of the 33% who favor two championships what percentage only competes at ONE competition? |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
From a statistics point of view, there is no way to control for the 2 big reasons why the results are NOT statistically on-par.
1. It's a voluntary internet poll. The results will always be skewed toward the extreme. 2. There was survey bias in the number of possible responses. All in all, I feel that because of this, the results may be flawed, but there's one thing I can be certain of: the community responded negaitvely as a whole. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
So, the big takeaway is that 50% of teams don't really care.
Well, at least that's not a surprise. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Looking at the "important elements" - #1,#3, and #4 are all impossible or highly diluted by implementing 2 championships. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
But since you earned it: ![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Does anyone know if there's a standard method of "centering" a scale like this? (The true center is at 5.5, the average of 1 and 10). I don't have a statistical method of turning 4 buckets into 5, but I think the worst-case scenario would be that everyone who voted 1 would've voted 0, and everyone in 2 took 1 (no one votes 4). This creates a new weighted average of 3.92, which represents the low end of possibility: thus the average is somewhere between 3.92 and 4.47 when centered about 5. Did I handle that correctly? |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Stepping away from the scale metrics for favorability-
The #1, #3 and #4 choices for what people want most out of Championship are all negatively effected by a split Championship. I have to say that particular aspect is very unfortunate. Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
FIRST this is a total failure in my opinion.
I stated this to some of the FIRST HQ representatives while at champs this year who were telling me to go fill out the survey. What is the point of even having a survey, if contracts were signed for the venues before the survey or even this idea was announced? The survey would just capture how the community felt about the decision, not influence the decision at all. Furthermore, when going to two championships, I've heard speculation of possibly holding an official event where both championships alliances compete to have 1 world championship, to possibly rectify a majority of concerns. In my opinion, this doesn't rectify anything, and in fact unless FRC picks up the travel bill for the teams, it punishes the winning alliances because their season is now extended, and they will most likely need to re-travel to wherever this new event takes place. 2016, were going to be doing everything possible to earn our way to championships, its going to be the end of an era. P.S. I did fill out the survey even though I knew it had no real effect on the decision. And this data looks manipulated to the point of uselessness. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Having the "full progression of programs" at one event. (I can't remember the exact wording) Yet... Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I'd love to see the raw data and make my own biased set of statistics too. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
This version of the data is much more illustrative to me than the bar graph.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-W...ew?usp=sharing edit: apparently I don't know how to put a picture on this. Be assured this isn't a rickroll. postedit: yes, I realize that's what a rickroller would type. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
The other programs have always been relegated to sideshow status and I don't care if that continues. In fact, I'd like to see it stopped. If they can't be granted real "participant" status then I'd rather they not be there. Now, I'd like to have A championship that celebrates all the FIRST programs, the values of FIRST, and celebrates STEM. Just a thought on why that ranked so low (at least in my mind) |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
There's an old saying that goes something like "you can make statistics say anything...." That's what I feel like is happening here. The very long justification of favor/oppose is really just trying to find a way to beat the data into saying what you'd like it to say - and really they came very close.
Bear in mind, in surveys such as these, the people most likely to fill out the survey are people with an opinion on the issue, so it's not necessarily surprising that the largest number are in the "strongly oppose" camp, but I think that to have such a high number of respondents with the same viewpoint should be worth something. Should, but apparently, not so much - given that HQ remains committed to the two champs model. What frustrates me is their continuation of being committed to the geographic lock - their intent to form committees isn't one of "how to allow teams to attend either championship" but exactly what they planned to do before the town hall - nothing's changed. I don't see a particular value in getting people outside HQ to show up and tell them what regions should go to what championship- unless somehow we're allowed to lobby for it and everyone lobbies to go to one or the other. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
So the actual average (taking into account that people who care about the outcome of champs) aka not team per team basis is 4.47
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:47. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi