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

Champs and "Poverty Champs"?

Sorry for going all ricky-bobby, but there's two champs (fact, it's happening, boo hiss whine complain). The only way to have a single "all the best teams" championship is one of them be the REAL championship. The other be "the other champs where we huck all the teams that don't really belong at a real championship".

This is not possible for a variety of reasons, the least of which is probably that I just said the phrase poverty champs.

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

The whole point here, I think, is that the community assumes that teams at either of the championship events will be inspired aOnd everything from that aspect will be fine. But the community is hung up on the "one winner" concept, and needs to find a way to either accept winners from two events or find a way to get it back to "one winner".

Frankly, two champs poses two main problems from most of the communities point of view - having "one winner" and playing with/seeing the best teams. I think most have written off the latter as impractical with two events, and instead are trying to solve the former.

Personally, I'm more worried about the quality impact of holding two separate events, with two mostly separate volunteer crews - can we get enough volunteers, and if so can we keep quality consistent between the two events, or will differences creep up as the group's get separated? We already hear about different ways things are handled at different regionals or between different districts, but as it stands we have, currently, a single championship to help unite how we do things. With two events, how might things diverge?

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

In addition how to possibly get all the Division Winners across the country in a week, there's currently no mechanism by which to alternate dates. Houston is first until at least 2021. (I would not want to be the person trying to pull off that booking arrangement even after that, but just so it's understand as functionally impossible for the Class of 2020.)

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

While I agree the logistics of any post-season championship is difficult, weren't all 12 teams able to successfully travel to New Hampshire in 2012 for the Einstein report? For the teams that attended, how many members of the drive crews were able to come? Was it a significant issue to arrange the date and travel?

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

If I remember correctly, one student and one mentor were flown in from each team. I believe FIRST covered all associate travel costs?

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

IIRC in 2012 it was two members from each team and people who were in that group would have to share if travel costs were covered.

Getting a whole team or a skeleton crew to make another trip isn't easy especially if its another round of airfare.

If FIRST can come up with a way to help with travel arrangements its doable as well as impacting minimal school days for already strained teams. Summer is also tough and really pushes your season out.

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

Yes, this is correct. Flights, hotels, and airport transportation were covered for two team members. Most teams chose to send one student and one mentor.

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

If I can condense you idea down even further. Your idea had 4 tiers; I think it can be done better in 3.
The reason most of the ideas proposed in this thread are bad is because they require additional travel/cost/time out of school for only the winning alliance(s), which will never fly if the main motivation is "inspiration". Thus, I suggest:

Tier 1: Districts and Regionals
Tier 2: District Championships and Super Regionals
Tier 3: World Championship

Regionals would feed into 100-400 team Super-Regionals (such as Houston or Detroit) [not directly into the WC]. The # of teams moving on from the Sup Reg to the WC would be proportional to the # of teams competing at the event, similar to how the # from a DCMP is proportional to the District size. District teams would be completely unaffected in this plan. Non US/Canada areas like Israel, China, and Australia could either convert to Districts immediately or just get a free pass to the WC if the desire to prevent them from flying to two America-located Championships exists.

This plan gives every team competing at a District OR Regional Event a persistent 25% chance to compete in a championship environment (for inspirational purposes), while maintaining the quality of the World Championship. Every event gets to see its champions crowned and all World Championship teams get to see the World Champion crowned.

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

What about this: FIRST runs 2 champs with a postseason tournament to decide the true winner. Then, some time down the road, they add two more championships and just send all 32 division winners to the postseason event. Kind of like super-regionals, just a backwards way of getting there.

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

I would love to hear why a two-tier Championship model wouldn't work.

I disagree with the label "Poverty Champs." I'd rather call it "stepping stone," or "redemption" Champs.

Let's face it, the current system is not great at recognizing the truly "great" teams. Every year, there are teams with great robots that don't qualify for Champs, because of a variety of factors (bad luck, bad partners, they're the third-best-team at a deep event, ect). Are you saying that these teams, that would normally have no post-season play at a Championship event of any caliber, would feel slighted or cheated by attending a second-tier championship, and being given the chance to prove their ability?

There are also plenty of teams who attend Champs for "the experience" but otherwise gain nothing, because they are blown out of the water every single match. This is demotivating and disheartening on a regional level, and I'm sure it's similar on the World Stage. Having a second-tier championship event would give these teams an arena they could be competitive in. And if the people in this thread who say that the District Championships are inspiring are to be believed, why can't these second-tier Championships be just as inspiring as the World Championships?

What I propose are Super-Regionals, but not as a stepping-stone to the World Championships, but as an end goal. In my ideal world, all of FIRST would be converted to a district-points system, where FIRST takes each team's top event scores and uses that to determine who goes where. The top 400 teams go to the World Championships as they are now: four divisions, winners face off on Einstein. The 401st - top40% teams attend a Super-Regional.

I invite FIRST to set up more Championship events for the 2017 season. Super Regionals of 200 local teams. Not only is it much easier to find facilities for 200-team events, but they're also big enough to warrant the inclusion of sponsorship displays, scholarship rows, and seminar series.

Furthermore, this idea is scalable. Whenever one Super Regional fills up, simply add another to keep with FIRST's 25% (minimum) stat. This allows FIRST to keep their "quota" of FRC teams, while still running an exclusive, competition-oriented Championship.

And because this system adds another destination, and not another stepping stone, the FRC season does not go any longer than it is today. There will be some last-minute hotel bookings as teams find out where they compete, but that's the case right now as well (and it's the same case as any model FIRST can come up with).

In the short term, FIRST can take Houston (which I believe is scheduled for the week before St Louis / Detroit) and make it a Super-Duper Regional of 400 teams that services the area of two Regular Super-Regionals, and then "downgrade" to a regular Super-Regional in 2021.

(If all this sounds familiar, it's because I've already written about it here.)

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

This is very doable when the costs are covered by FIRST.
I wonder how many would have gone, if all of the associated costs were to be covered by teams.

The cost alone would make it very difficult for teams that win one of the Champs, to attend yet another event.

On a side note,
I do however like the idea of having all Einstein participants (division winners) compete at a later date to determine who is the overall champion. But of course, subsidized by FIRST as a reward for winning the division.
If it was in New Hampshire at headquarters, I'm sure they could take care of the registration fees, robot transportation, and other costs associated with putting on an event. Pay for hotels too while were at it. Or make it part of the suppliers summit event and offer tours of Dean's house and FIRST headquarters much like the Dean's list agenda.:)

I sometimes get the feeling this might be the plan HQ is actually shooting for all along. In some ways it make sense as it allows for growth of the Super Regional tier as the program grows, instead of just a flip the switch change.

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

1) Prestige - One event would mean more, it'd be where the sponsors put out their A game because, let's be honest, the top tier teams more than likely spend more and push equipment harder. Recruiters and media would be more likely to be in attendance. And sponsors would want their names associated with the A champs instead of redemption.

2) Qualifying - Teams would be offended they were "relegated" to B Champ. And how would you determine it? Would it be 3rd picks? EI/RaS winners? Point System? None of those are completely fair. And where do CA winners end up?

3) Locations - Part of the incentive for 2Champz is cost savings for teams (I think this is horse crap). This defeats it completely.

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

I believe my ideal solution (posted above) addresses a lot of these points by emphasizing multiple, local "second tier" "Super-Regional" Championships.

Local sponsors and local universities can advertise at their local Super Regional. For example, I've walked up and down Scholarship Row at St Louis, and I have never seen a single Canadian University there, despite many offering FIRST-specific scholarships (York, Waterloo, Western, Windsor for sure - I'm not really looking for scholarships anymore so I don't know what's out there). There would be space for these schools at a hypothetical Canada / Michigan / New York Super-Regional.

Similar case for local sponsors. There's not really an incentive for a corporation located almost entirely in Michigan to pay for an event in Missouri, but put a big event next door and they might be interested.

Since these local schools and sponsors no longer need to compete with the "big dogs" for advertising and/or speech time at Champs, they get to be headliners at these smaller, more local events. I would hazard a guess that, if FIRST ran with multiple Super Regionals, they would see an influx of sponsors (especially if their sponsorship scale shifted accordingly).

Alternatively, FIRST could allocate money spent for Champs towards the Super-Regionals. Sort of a "if you want to sponsor our Big Show, you have to also help our Slightly Smaller Show" deal. This definitely isn't an ideal situation, but it is a model that is used.

There would be basically three types of teams at these Super Regionals:

1) Teams in the ~30 Percentile who wouldn't make it to Champs, regardless of whether we're using the current model or the Championsplit (FIRST wants 25% of FRC teams each year, but as shown elsewhere in this thread, having a Champs with 25% of all FRC means having a ton of repeats, so very few teams make it every four years anyways). These teams should jump at the opportunity to have post-season play and a Champs experience.

2) The Teams that should be at Champs but don't quite make it. These are the "redemption" teams. As the system currently stands, these are the teams that make it to the finals and lose, while missing out on Wildcard spots. The current reactions can either be unmotivating disappointment (we tried so hard but didn't make it, what's the point?) or motivation (we came so close, and we'll make it next year). In either case, the existence of a lower-tier Championship does nothing to change this current dichotomy, so I would argue it's a moot point: some teams will be disappointed, other teams will come out guns a-blazing trying to prove they're a force to be reckoned with.

Sidenote, generally speaking, the teams that make the biggest splashes at IRI are the ones who feel "shafted" at Champs. For example, 2056 winning in 2014 after being knocked out in the QF (their worst showing). Or 469, who put on a clinic on winning in 2010 after losing on Einstein with arguably the best robot ever built for an FRC game. This would apparently support my idea that most teams would jump at the opportunity for redemption.

3) The "Non-competitive" teams. The third picks, the "carried" robots, the RAS, the Engineering Inspiration winners that don't have a "competitive" robot. This is the only group that would feel "offended" that they're at this event, I think. However, winning an event could still net a butt-load of points that, paired with a decent qualification record, would be worth a ticket to Worlds.

In terms of qualification, one of the things I like most about the District system is the points system, so I would love to adapt a points system to the Regional Model. In terms of Chairman's, I would love to say "all Chairman's Teams should end up at the Tier One Event." I think that winning Chairman's would net a bunch of points, but unless you have a semi-decent robot (say, Semi-Finals at a regional, OR decent seeding, depending on how the points work out), then you wouldn't qualify for the Championship Event. A similar structure should be implemented for RAS and EI, although they'd need better on-field performance to qualify. Basically, winning any of these big awards should make it easier for you to get into the top-tier event. I firmly believe in the worth and value that Chairman's, RAS, and EI teams bring to the Championship event.

In terms of accidentally stopping a Chairman's team who would win the CCA from attending Worlds... this is again another issue. BUT I don't think it's a huge issue, given that, traditionally, the Hall of Fame teams are competitive on the field as well and generally would have an easy time qualifying even without their automatic HoF status.

Additionally, teams that qualify "twice" should probably get an automatic invite to the top event. This includes multiple event winners, but also teams that win Chairman's at their first regional, and then EI at their second, or a rookie that wins multiple RAS. Or a team that wins an event and also wins Chairman's. These teams would probably have qualified anyways, but it's good to solidify their place.

One issue with a points system is that in Districts, you get points between two events. Until FIRST goes completely to districts, I think the point system should count for each team's most-successful event. Yes, this is unfair in favour of the teams that can afford to attend multiple events, but so is the current system. I think the best thing, in terms of fairness, would be for all of FIRST to convert to the District System, but until that happens, we have to work with imperfect systems.

The Districts would still use their current qualification model.

Right now the cost savings "excuse" is horse crap, I agree. But if FIRST were to expand the second-tier Championship model and include multiple second-tier champs, then the events would actually be local, and therefore would actually save teams money.

The locations for a 200 team event would be much easier to find. For example, such an event could be held at the Hershey Centre in Mississauga, Ontario (previous home of the Greater Toronto Regional). It would be very cozy, but the teams would probably fit. I would assume that there are plenty of other venues that would be good for a competition of this size scattered throughout Canada and the US.

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

4) Inspiration - The "A" Championship would probably contain most all of the "elite" or "inspirational" teams that other teams want to see/compete against/be inspired by. If that's the most important aspect of a "championship experience" for a team, then how enthusiastic are they going to be about settling for second best (but paying just as much)? I'm going to guess that the "elites" and a lot of the "almost-elite" teams that just miss qualifying for an "A" championship will decline the invitation to "B," and save their money in the hope of qualifying for the top tier next year. Which would mean that there would be an even bigger competitive gap between the two events, and even less "inspiration" at the B event.

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

A quote from Dean at 4:07 in this video.

That pretty much settles it.

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

Isn't there some conflict between a tiered model that relegates CA winners to the lower tier event and the fact that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award that a FRC team can win? If regional/district CA winners with "semi-decent" robots qualify for Tier 1, and the other CA winners are in Tier 2, then how would you go about determining a CCA? Would there still be HOF teams?

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

I think he's saying that a Chairman's award AND a semi-decent robot should be necessary, but a Chairman's Award alone shouldn't be enough. However, I'd guess the Chairman-winning teams with a bottom tier robot are few and far in between; the type of program that earns a Chairman's Award correlates strongly to the type of program that will put out a quality machine.

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

I do believe there is. HOWEVER, I think that that is primarily because certain people absolutely insist on having "tiered" events rather than geographically-apportioned events. Remember, folks, always choose the LESSER of two evils (if you have a choice, which I'm pretty sure we DON'T).

Probably about the same way you'd do it under the "even-tier" system. Each event contributes one. And of course they'd be HoF teams. Think about it this way: Is [insert sport here]'s Hall of Fame cheapened by the addition of X players/year instead of just 1, when there are about 5X players that are probably deserving? Course not. And, just to drive the point home: There are about 60 RCA/DCMPCA winners per year right now. 1/60 is a shade under 2% of all current regional/district champs winners. For reference, that's about how many Boy Scouts make Eagle in any given year. Pick 2 instead of 1, that's 3% or so. It just means that it's a slightly bigger crowd in there.

And if you're giving double the CCAs, that should mean more inspiration from (and for) those teams, and definitely means more recognition (within FIRST) for one or both of their efforts. Now that, I think, is a win-win--might even be something that should be done anyways. Bring back the CCA Honorable Mentions!

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

Well, I'm still under the impression that a two-tiered system (where there are multiple tier-two events) IS the lesser of two evils ;)

I like this. The Chairman's Award judging process is always so nebulous and opaque. Giving teams a "runner's up" nod would go a long way to transforming many of these already-great programs into Hall of Fame worthy, astronomically inspiring programs.

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

Here's the pinch: the Championsplit will make sure that there isn't an event with every elite team. The two-tiered system makes sure that there is an event that does have every elite team. Furthermore, it makes reaching said event a meaningful accomplishment that's worth celebrating.

Also, under my two-tier proposal, the tier-one Championship is still 400 teams. There will be plenty of "in flux" spots present every year.

Even today's Championship model doesn't guarantee that Champs will have all of the very best teams. I've addressed this point when I blocked out the three types of teams that would be at these tier-two events, and how such an event would be inspiring to them. In every case, all the teams at the tier-two events would be engaging in meaningful, higher-quality competition that is better suited to their level (ie no "Blowouts" from the powerhouses). Every team would have a legitimate chance at winning the event.

These tier-two events give the "almost elite" teams the opportunity to be a bonafide elite team, for the duration of an event. And those "elite" teams that have all the bad luck in the world and end up at the Super Regionals? From my first-hand experience, they're going to be disappointed, sure, but also fired up to prove that they deserved to be at the tier-one event by winning their tier-two event.

Yes, it's a bit of a conflict. I acknowledged this in the part you quoted. One possible solution is what they do in Michigan (and in other districts? I'm not sure) where the winners of each Super-Regional's Chairman's Award is invited to present at the Championship event. That is, their robot does not compete, but the team still competes for the Championship Chairman's Award. This way you would get the best Chairman's team recognized at the tier-one Championship, and you would also maintain the high competitive playing field.

This exactly. Again, I want to point out that, going back 10 years to 2005, the only Hall of Fame team that would not regularly qualify for the Tier One event under the model I put forward would have been 597, this year's winner. And they would have automatically qualified this year because of EI + Chairman's, and probably made it last year with an EI and a Semi-Final appearance in New York.

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

That whole "multiple" part is where I can agree, somewhat--if you look at my other posts, I actually advocate scrapping DCMPs AND any "extra" championships for super regionals once enough areas go district. Just that some folks seem to be thinking that there are two CMPs, therefore there must be tiers between the two.


To be clear, where I see FIRST given enough time: "local" event (district) x2 -> Super Regional (x some number TBD) -> Championship. Possibly sneak a "state" championship in there somewhere. Super Regionals get a lot of the attention CMP currently gets--conferences, etc.--and CMP is the best of the best, for both competition and CCA/EI. WITH their robots!

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

He really said that? I'm afraid he's lost touch with the program. :confused:

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

Others have answered the other 2 points, and there's a whole thread on two-tier championship proposals here.

On this point, if teams know at the beginning of the season the qualifying process, they are not going to be offended. The current qualifying system isn't completely fair--no system is. That's a strawman.

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

That isn't true of the chairman's award in Michigan, only EI/RAS. Chairman's winners compete in full at MSC.

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

I remember every robot that won Einstein since I started participating in FRC. Then again, I may be not your average robotics dude.

I'm an avid sports fan as well, but don't remember who won the super bowl last year, or the college football national championship 3 years ago. I'm not sure if we can apply a greater context to that quote.

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

Heavy Sigh. I wish there were a better option than abstaining from the survey. This is the exact crap my company just pulled to skew data in order to convey to 17,000 employees that a "majority" want a 9/80 schedule. It's the same conclusion too, ironically: only 33% of the total favor it.

My Decision Theory Professor would put heavy red marks all across this blog post and give it a 'D' as a paper. She might not have even accepted the original survey for turn-in. '5' cannot be 'neutral' if there are 4 options below it representing 'against' and 5 options above it representing 'for'. There is also no analysis given for whether or not the survey represents statistical significance, but I applaud the effort to analyze on a per-team basis (just keep in mind that 5.2 isn't "in favor"...).

These are the game politicians play. Luckily, we're engineers.

Fundamentals, people.

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

I really like this idea as well, but I know teams will have issues paying for travel for two events, even if you alternate which champs go first every year.

As for DCMPs being replacements for champs, I can't honestly say MAR CMP is or ever will feel like champs. There, for me at least, is always a feeling of familiarity at MAR championships where I know what team is going to do well or not. I also know many people on other teams. Part of the appeal of champs, again, for me, is the feeling that you never know what you'll see, you meet and make new friends from all around the world and there is tons of anticipation and buildup to it.

Just my 0.02 dollars

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

The venue dates are already set, so wouldn't that mean Houston division winners would be forced to travel for 3 years straight while our friends in the midwest and northeast enjoy substantial cost savings (even if FIRST kicked in to defray costs for travel teams? Unfortunately, the only fair way (IMO) to have interaction between split champs is to have division winners from both 'championships' travel at another time which would be a huge cost in $$ and time for FIRST and the division winners. Would it really be worth it? Alternatively, would it really be worth it to just send the 'split champs' champion alliances to compete on another date to decide an overall 'world' champion alliance? I would love to be able to have a single champion alliance but it just doesn't seem reasonable as things stand now. And maybe having two 'champions' won't be as bad as many have postulated...or will it?:D

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

It's demotivating... that's for certain.

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

Likely the high school-ers 6 years from now won't even know the difference of pre-championsplit to post. Those mentors that do with have their rose-tinted glasses because lets face it, despite everything we perceive to be wrong with 2 championships, we still know the current format now is far from perfect.

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

Doesn't logic like this rule out any and all improvement? People will just get used to whatever the new thing is, and all will be well.

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

Anupam, I can say for certain that you're not an average robotics dude (nor are you a student ;) ). Don't take CD's investment in the on-the-field success as total community's investment in the on-the-field's success. What Dean said is 100% true. The majority of student won't remember who won on the field in a couple years. Chief Delphi will remember, but Chief Delphi is only a small portion of our community.

Is it? For the vast majority of FRC it won't change any motivations. The vast majority of teams don't have that on their radar when deciding their motivations, and plenty more will still be motivated to win the highest level awards they possibly can. I don't buy that's "for certain" at all.

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

Do you have empirical evidence for this statement for students who attended Champs (which is only a small proportion of all student in FRC)? Dean was talking about Champ attendees, and they are more invested than the average FRC participant (and I agree from most of them they won't even KNOW who won much less remember.) I assert with at least as much evidence as you have that those who attended will remember who won for a fair amount of time, or at least will need little prompting to remember.

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

I think FIRST would have to pay for it. No team has enough $ reserves to pay for a second trip on one week's notice. I expect it would cost about $150,000 for 4 alliances. That's less than 1 Regional (in California at least).

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

I don't have anything of statistical significance, no. I did text a few members of my senior class on 116 if they remember who won in 2007, and none of them did (with the exception of me, if that counts). One of them had even returned to mentor 116 afterwards.

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

Fair enough. Maybe it isn't for you or your team. I can tell you that it is for me and mine. It's been a conversation we've had this season since it was announced and it's definitely going to be a drive towards success for this next season... beyond that, I'm uncertain.

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

Even if there are two championships, no matter how diluted they are, teams will STILL try their hardest, and THAT is what motivates the kids.

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

Not really, especially when the two championships can be a vehicle for improvement. Problems with the single championship includes a cap on the number of teams that can attend, the fact that it has never been the best of all teams, the limited number of matches teams have at championships, the format of the awards, the limited amount of time between week 7 and champs, and the lack of incentive for areas to go to districts to name a few.

Also since FIRST is paying attention to our solutions, as a community we have the ability to propose and debate the merits of new ideas. Apart from the two locations, FIRST has made it fairly clear that details still need to be worked out. While there may be pains right now, I believe ultimately it will work out for the best.

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

I don't really recall (nor care to recall, honestly) who won the Championship a month ago. That doesn't mean winning it isn't important to me.

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?

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

Another thing to think about is your volunteers...... Your not going to have the same man power for 3 weeks back to back.....

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

Super, you are the guy we are looking for. Put together a poll with similar questions, but the correct range of possible answers. Then post it on survey monkey and put the link here. Take results for 10 days and report back your findings!!

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

If a team like 900 is this far down the road to operationalize a response to championsplit, then a lot of other teams may not be far behind. FIRST HQ claimed a primary purpose was to give more teams exposure to elite teams. What if those elite teams no longer want to bother to attend?

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

What the person from Team 900 posted is glowing evidence of FIRST's success.

According what we read here, they are considering graduating from having their FRC blinders on, and are now thinking about all STEM programs, and specifically about which one(s) is best for the students and the community they serve.

What, pray tell, could be better for them than doing that????

Blake

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

FIRST HQ appears to be pretty much ignoring any proposals from the FRC community up to this point other than "we might bring together the championsplit winners at a later date..."

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

So the aim of FIRST is to make FRC obsolete? That's an odd goal.

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

No, the aim of FIRST is adequately (IMO) summarized as inspiring students to pursue STEM careers.

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

This question has been asked answered on a number of threads over the last month. And the answer is always the same: the difference in incentives results in differences in outcomes, even if that difference isn't obvious to you.

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

I can safely say that the majority of the members on our team remember who won champs a number of years back. When I started mentoring in 2012, our team had only been to champs once, but I was impressed at how many students knew who the alliance captains and top teams had been back for a number of years. And our alumni members appear to retain much of that knowledge.

Of course now my sample is biased, but I've developed substantial contacts with both students and mentors across Northern California. The knowledge of the students I talk with about the competitive history is impressive.

And I'll give the counterexample from my own sports experience. I used to follow track & field closely (and still compete after 40+ years.) I may not have been able to immediately recall who won a particular championship 2 years before, but I could with just a little prompting. And regardless, I cared a great deal about the competition as it happened. Kamen's reasoning is faulty if he's using recall ability as a standard for caring about the competition. It's a false metric.

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

Heck, I don't even think my area HAS any FTC teams. Progression around here is generally FLL -> VEX -> FRC.

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

In a word, yes. My hunch is that FIRST would like to become obsolete the same way the Susan G. Komen Foundation would like to become obsolete.

Honestly, if Marshall and his team feels their students are ready for a bigger challenge that FRC, they should be commended. Especially if it leaves them more interested in STEM fields and more prepared for college and a career.

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

While I disagree somewhat with how Blake phrases it, I'm all for teams serving their communities the best they possibly can, whether that's via FIRST or not. In my community, I know that splitting Championships has little to no effect on our considerations for how well we're serving our community. In other areas that might not be the case, and certainly any team that feels that there is a better program out there for their communities unique set of needs (inspiration, building technical skills, building life skills, etc) shouldn't be blinded by some illusion that they need to do FRC to be a "serious" robotics team. It's all about where your priorities are.

It's less a matter of making FRC obsolete, and more a matter of creating mature STEM-based learning initiatives that can make informed decisions based on their community's needs.

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

I don't think that's true. SGK is trying to eliminate breast cancer. Younger students who wouldn't consider a STEM career will always need to be inspired. And working solely in your community is not the same as changing the culture.

And it's an odd way to push teams out of FRC--take away the competitive incentive by splitting the championship. That seem very passive aggressive. I would expect a more thoughtful way of encouraging "up and out."

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

I would be very surprised if they were to respond directly to any idea on Chief Delphi, let alone every single post. Best thing they can do now is keep discussions internal, then release a complete and polished presentation of what is happening in the future. Simple reason is that rampant speculation would make the situation worse than it already is.

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

Is not rampant speculation what we already have?

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

I think that's a fair statement. To a point, at any rate. I think we also have a lot of discussion on alternatives (assuming, mind you, that certain features of the split identified by FIRST will be changed) and a fair amount of discussion of potential impact.



That being said, I think the latter two parts can also fall into rampant speculation. Partly because we don't know for sure about the impact...