Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137251)

Siri 15-05-2015 11:50

[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...d-path-forward


Quote:

As many of you know, after we announced that FIRST would be moving to having two Championships starting in 2017, we released a survey to FIRST Robotics Competition teams on this change.

7,355 individuals responded. This represents about 10% or so of the total number of mentors and students we have in FRC. About 75% of the 7,355 provided a team number, and those respondents were from 1,501 teams, about 52% of the total number of FRC teams we had in 2015.

One question we asked was just a simple ‘How do you feel about having two FIRST Championships starting in 2017?’ with an answer of 1 representing ‘Strongly Oppose’, an answer of 5 identified as “Neither Oppose nor Favor” and an answer of 10 identified as “Strongly Favor”. The average answer to this questions among all respondents was 4.45, somewhat below the 5 "Neither Oppose nor Favor" rating. Here is a graph of the full results:


We conducted additional analysis to better understand the rating score. FRC Teams that had never attended Championship had an average rating on this question of 5.85, while teams that had attended Championship had an average rating of 4.05. Mentors and Students had ratings relatively close to each other, at 4.54 and 4.30, respectively. When we determined average ratings from individual teams, then averaged those ratings (essentially giving every team one ‘vote’, and assuming the average rating of all team respondents was the one ‘vote’ for the team), the average rating was 5.2.*

We also asked teams what elements of the ‘Championship Experience’ were most important to them. There were 22 elements to choose from. Teams identified these as their top 10, in order from most to least important:
  • Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
  • The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team.
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game
  • Seeing teams you have built relationships/partnerships with over the years
  • Keeping attendance costs reasonable
  • Participating in a very large scale event with tens of thousands of others
  • Seeing and meeting international teams
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the teams most deserving of awards, such as the Chairman's award
  • Seeing and meeting top teams, like prior Chairman's Award winners (Hall of Fame teams)
  • Having your matches in an impressive, large scale space
Taken as a whole, I think there is nothing within these survey results that is surprising. They do reinforce the idea that some within our community are strongly opposed to the two Championships concept, and that we should be using the elements identified by teams as most important to them as a guide to refining the concept to help ensure the best experience for all teams as we work through this significant change.

Our intent is to form committees, including representatives from the community outside FIRST HQ, to make recommendations to FIRST leadership in addressing the two key challenges listed below.
  • Identifying what geographic regions will be assigned to which FIRST Championship as their ‘home’ Championship, including the way in which teams outside the United States would be handled
  • Identifying a potential way in which teams may volunteer and be selected to attend their non-home Championship
You will hear more about these committees over the next few months. 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.

Additionally, FIRST HQ will be exploring the possibility of some culminating event to take place after the two Championships, at which we would bring together the top teams from each Championship in some final competition of the season. This idea is still in the early exploratory phase, and we will share additional details, including potential areas for community input, as appropriate.

Frank

*The analysis of average ratings from individual teams was completed by our Director of Research and Evaluation. She was the only one to see individual average team ratings, and after completing the analysis, deleted the team numbers from the data set.

Steven Donow 15-05-2015 11:57

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
That's actually a surprisingly large amount of people filling out the survey (I've always wondered how many people fill out the surveys; I generally fill out most of the offseason ones and occasionally two or three of the weekly ones).

But srsly FIRST has made it clear since the town hall meeting that they have absolutely zero interest in listening to the community and doing anything other than two geographically split championship events, as opposed to two championship events divided in some other way*


*as much as I love these proposals, I just have so much hesitance over them because of teams possibly having to 'shuffle' between championships (ie. finalist at a week 1 event, then winning a week 6)

Madison 15-05-2015 12:04

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?

BrendanB 15-05-2015 12:08

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

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1482280)
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?

Because it makes their case look better.

PayneTrain 15-05-2015 12:08

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

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1482280)
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?

The survey providers' need for validation.

Taylor 15-05-2015 12:10

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
Engineers love data.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1482280)
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1482281)
Because it makes their case look better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1482282)
The survey providers' need for validation.

Raar. Too much data. By being exploratory, they're manipulating it!

[/s]

Gregor 15-05-2015 12:11

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
The survey results were very surprisingly close to neutral, with the average response just under 5.

I was expecting a stronger bias.

KeeganP 15-05-2015 12:14

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

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1482280)
What is the perceived value in the idea of one team, one vote?

Team A1 has 60 members, and all of them voted for option 1 (strongly opposed).
Teams A2-61 then each have 10 or so members, but only 1 from each team votes. All 60 of those votes would have to be for option 10 (strongly support) in order to balance the overall score.

My assumption is that they are comparing the overall responses to the 1 vote-per-team responses just like we (in the US) have the House of Representatives (reps proportional to the state's (team's) population) and the Senate (2 reps per state (team)). I see a potential value in the separating it out, but not much.

Holtzman 15-05-2015 12:20

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

Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1482284)
The survey results were very surprisingly close to neutral, with the average response just under 5.

I was expecting a stronger bias.

What is a little misleading about the results is the survey scale. On a scale from 1-10 with 5 being neutral, we have 4 options that are negative, one that's neutral, and 5 options that are positive. This skews the data on the positive side. The average answer of 4.45 is misleading since the left and right sides of the data set have different weights.

Another way of looking at these results is that 55% oppose two championships, 12% are neutral, and only 33% favor two championships. To me, that’s is a much more powerful statement about how the community really feels.

marshall 15-05-2015 12:20

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

Originally Posted by Holtzman (Post 1482290)
What is a little misleading about the results is the survey scale. On a scale from 1-10 with 5 being neutral, we have 4 options that are negative, one that's neutral, and 5 options that are positive. This skews the data on the positive side. The average answer of 4.45 is misleading since the left and right sides of the data set have different weights.

Another way of looking at these results is that 55% oppose two championships, 12% are neutral, and only 33% favor two championships. To me, that’s is a much more powerful statement about how the community really feels.

I was literally just saying this. The scale is really not right.

wilsonmw04 15-05-2015 12:23

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

Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1482284)
The survey results were very surprisingly close to neutral, with the average response just under 5.

I was expecting a stronger bias.

So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.

Madison 15-05-2015 12:24

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

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482292)
So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.

You cannot possibly come to this conclusion without knowing who the respondents were.

jaustinpage 15-05-2015 12:41

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
It is interesting that a lot of the analysis is team analysis; which is based off of an optional (identifying) field, e.g. team number. People in extreme camps are less likely to provide identifying information. This is likely going to skew all analysis done on data that excludes responses without the identifying information towards the perceived less dissenting answer, whatever that might be.

EricH 15-05-2015 12:43

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

Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1482293)
You cannot possibly come to this conclusion without knowing who the respondents were.

No, I think he can, if you look at that statement in context. Gregor commented that he was expecting more bias (towards negative, I'm assuming). Wilson then concluded that there was a vocal minority.

I think that's reasonable: The vocal minority outweighs the silent majority in a lot of matters. This time, though, it's not exactly a minority--but it's close. I'd be thinking really carefully about my PR strategy if I was HQ--a good PR strategy can take a moderate opposition and take it to moderate advocacy given time, but a bad PR strategy can go the other way in a big hurry.


I think my spin detector went off, too, at one point. What I take away from this is: 1, this is going forwards regardless of community feeling, and 2, the overall community isn't exactly happy, but isn't actively opposed.


Y'all saw those committees, right? Boy do I pity those groups--I've got a feeling that more than anybody else (sorry, Frank and HQ), they're going to be the determiner of whether or not that survey result changes more towards strong approval.

jman4747 15-05-2015 12:53

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
"Keeping attendance costs reasonable" being only 4th (Edit: sorry 5th)...

I think a lot of really good teams are likely larger than average and if more of them do oppose than I can see more people from each bothering to respond to voice a negative opinion rather than somewhat positive or neutral.
People tend to talk about things when they are very good or bad rather than in the middle. I you notice most or at least a lot of counter arguments supporting the move are merely pointing out that the switch seems more neutral than good or bad. People usually don't spend much time on something that they don't think will matter much.

Also dislike of the need to switch vs dislike of the decision. That is dislike of getting surgery vs dislike of someone taking something from you will pull the results negative though everyone in negative isn't mad at HQ.

Michael Blake 15-05-2015 12:57

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

Originally Posted by Holtzman (Post 1482290)
Another way of looking at these results is that 55% oppose two championships, 12% are neutral, and only 33% favor two championships. To me, that’s is a much more powerful statement about how the community really feels.

BAZINGA.

And... it would be interesting to know of the 33% who favor two championships what percentage only competes at ONE competition?

Green Potato 15-05-2015 12:59

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.

Andrew Schreiber 15-05-2015 13:00

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.

scottandme 15-05-2015 13:01

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

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482292)
So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.

26% of respondents really, really, really hate the idea, and it's also the most popular answer. I wouldn't look at that as being a "small number" or insignificant.

Looking at the "important elements" - #1,#3, and #4 are all impossible or highly diluted by implementing 2 championships.

PayneTrain 15-05-2015 13:06

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

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1482283)
Engineers love data.





Raar. Too much data. By being exploratory, they're manipulating it!

[/s]

The survey itself was pretty manipulative. The options for the response would bias toward a positive trend, and options on why championships are important to teams were presented in a way that would present responses that would invalidate proposals like the festival/champs split.

But since you earned it:


Siri 15-05-2015 13:12

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

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482292)
So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.

More than a quarter of the respondents are as against this proposal as it is possible to register on this scale. That's closed to 2,000 people in itself (numerically 1912.3 people). 55% of respondents are against the proposal; that's more than 4045 people. CD is vocal, but even assuming the relationship between CD and the survey sample (which is a weird assumption when n=7355), opposition by definition is not the minority opinion. And despite the scale shift, the "strongly opposed" outnumbers all those who voted 10, 9, and 8 combined. More people voted for 1 or 2 than voted for anything above 5.



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?

wilsonmw04 15-05-2015 13:15

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

Originally Posted by scottandme (Post 1482308)
26% of respondents really, really, really hate the idea, and it's also the most popular answer.

That's the thing: 26% of RESPONDENTS don't like it. When they gave each team "1 vote," it was average out as favorable. Therefore, my statement stands. Certain groups don't like this new idea and were very vocal about it.

Brandon Holley 15-05-2015 13:18

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:

  • Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
  • The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team.
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game
  • Seeing teams you have built relationships/partnerships with over the years

-Brando

NotInControl 15-05-2015 13:22

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.

Michael Corsetto 15-05-2015 13:22

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

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley (Post 1482320)
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.




-Brando

You know what answer to this question didn't even make the top ten?

Having the "full progression of programs" at one event. (I can't remember the exact wording)

Yet...

Quote:

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.
#priorities

Kevin Leonard 15-05-2015 13:26

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

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482316)
That's the thing: 26% of RESPONDENTS don't like it. When they gave each team "1 vote," it was average out as favorable. Therefore, my statement stands. Certain groups don't like this new idea and were very vocal about it.

Except technically, On a scale of 1-10, 5.1 is negative. For the scale to be accurate, it would have to have 0-10 or 5.5 as the average "I don't care" response.

I'd love to see the raw data and make my own biased set of statistics too.

Taylor 15-05-2015 13:27

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.

Andrew Schreiber 15-05-2015 13:28

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

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1482325)
You know what answer to this question didn't even make the top ten?

Having the "full progression of programs" at one event. (I can't remember the exact wording)

Yet...



#priorities

I'll be honest, AS IT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, I don't care about having the full progression of programs under the same roof. I didn't miss FTC at all at CMP this year. I noticed their lack of presence about as much as I've ever noticed their presence. (I'm biased as a former world festival FLL judge I've noticed their presence quite a bit)

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)

DCA Fan 15-05-2015 13:33

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.

BrennanB 15-05-2015 13:35

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

Nate Laverdure 15-05-2015 13:36

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
1 Attachment(s)
Taylor, here's how you upload an image. :)

Alan Anderson 15-05-2015 13:36

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

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482316)
That's the thing: 26% of RESPONDENTS don't like it.

Count again. I get 55%.

Quote:

When they gave each team "1 vote," it was average out as favorable.
If only two people vote, one for "Strongly Oppose" and one for "Strongly Favor", a naive average comes out at 5.5, which is a larger value than the 5.2 that you're calling favorable. The numbering of options, with neutral placed below the center point, breaks any simple attempt to do averaging.

The strongest takeaway I get from this chart is that over half the respondents (55%) are opposed, and less than a third (33%) are in favor.

wilsonmw04 15-05-2015 13:42

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

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1482336)
Count again. I get 55%.



If only two people vote, one for "Strongly Oppose" and one for "Strongly Favor", a naive average comes out at 5.5, which is a larger value than the 5.2 that you're calling favorable. The numbering of options, with neutral placed below the center point, breaks any simple attempt to do averaging.

The strongest takeaway I get from this chart is that over half the respondents (56%) are opposed, and less than a third (32%) are in favor.

Not arguing any of that. The fact that this is voluntary would tend to favor the extremes. Since this is a change, those who favor the change are probably less motivated to complete this survey. I wonder why they even bothered to send the survey out.

Karthik 15-05-2015 13:43

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
FIRST's analysis of the survey numbers and this thread are great examples of the old theory of "people are just going to see what they want to see in the numbers."

When I looked at the numbers, I immediately grouped the data into buckets.

Strongly oppose (ratings 1-3): 48%
Neutral (ratings 4-7): 29%
Strongly favour (ratings 8-10): 23%

Of course, my parsing of the data is probably skewed by my own biases. Your mileage may vary.

drwisley 15-05-2015 13:44

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
This continues to get more ridiculous, I'm actually insulted by this blog.

DCA Fan 15-05-2015 13:48

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

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1482331)
Now, I'd like to have A championship that celebrates all the FIRST programs, the values of FIRST, and celebrates STEM.

To be honest, in my opinion, if FLL were allowed to have its own championship - not just a world festival, but a true, world championship, it would be a true powerhouse STEM event. Right now, since FLL only gets a certain number of slots - they make due with this festival and then rely on event partners to have Open Championships (I believe there are 5 now around the world).

Sadly, the willpower is not there to make this happen.

IronicDeadBird 15-05-2015 13:53

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
I sincerely hope that FIRST has a solid plan for those community input channels.

jman4747 15-05-2015 14:00

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
I worry about "social desirability bias" within and between teams.

And I hinted at it before but as I think about it how is "Keeping attendance costs reasonable" so low? It bothers me. To me it says that a higher proportion of teams don't need to worry about paying the same or more money for registration and travel. That is not indicative of a lot of teams.

Going deeper:

We do know more people care about (or people care more about):
  • Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
  • The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team.
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game
  • Seeing teams you have built relationships/partnerships with over the years

Who would care most about these things but also not need to worry about costs?

Lets look as attendance costs as registration fee first. Reasonable is most likely not less that $5,000 as clearly that's whats been needed. It also says "keep reasonable" implying the $5,000 we've had is reasonable. So if the majority of teams/people answering don't need registration to stay = or < $5,000...

Lets even assume that the vast majority of teams actually have a sponsor who will upon the team qualifying pay the fee in full; money they would not have had otherwise. In that case travel costs are the only major money concern. Those costs go over $3,000 for hotels alone very easily.

Who would care that much more about the above 4 than costs staying at least where they are?

AdamHeard 15-05-2015 14:04

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

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1482347)
I worry about "social desirability bias" within and between teams.

And I hinted at it before but as I think about it how is "Keeping attendance costs reasonable" so low? It bothers me. To me it says that a higher proportion of teams don't need to worry about paying the same or more money for registration and travel. That is not indicative of a lot of teams.

Going deeper:

We do know more people care about (or people care more about):
  • Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
  • The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team.
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game
  • Seeing teams you have built relationships/partnerships with over the years

Who would care most about these things but also not need to worry about costs?

Lets look as attendance costs as registration fee first. Reasonable is most likely not less that $5,000 as clearly that's whats been needed. It also says "keep reasonable" implying the $5,000 we've had is reasonable. So if the majority of teams/people answering don't need registration to stay = or < $5,000...

Lets even assume that the vast majority of teams actually have a sponsor who will upon the team qualifying pay the fee in full; money they would not have had otherwise. In that case travel costs are the only major money concern. Those costs go over $3,000 for hotels alone very easily.

Who would care that much more about the above 4 than costs staying at least where they are?

Maybe there is a flaw with ranking things as singularly more important than others in cascading order... World might be more complicated than that.

evanperryg 15-05-2015 14:19

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

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1482281)
Because it makes their case look better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1482282)
The survey providers' need for validation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04 (Post 1482292)
So what this data tells me is that a small number of teams really hate this idea and are very vocal about it. This seems to jive with what typically happens here on CD.

Case in point. Angry people tend to be louder than happy people. However, Holtzman makes a very good point that we, and FIRST, should consider. The numbers show a larger negative trend than it might seem.
My problem isn't completely with the 2 championship idea. I think with the right refinements, it will work just fine. I have a problem with how FIRST is dividing the event, because, at least in my not-so-humble opinion, they are moving the wrong way. Here's a quote from Don Bossi, copied from the transcript of the 2 Champs informational session:
"At this event last year we announced that we found a way here within St. Louis
to increase that and try to get that back into the 20 percent [of all FRC teams qualifying for champs] range by going to 600 teams...
The story for FIRST® LEGO® League, FIRST® Tech Challenge, Junior FIRST® LEGO® League is
much worse. FIRST Tech Challenge has the capacity for about 3 percent of their teams at
Championship. FIRST LEGO League, it kills me when I talk to a FIRST LEGO League partner
for a country and I say, oh we can’t even send a team this year, we don’t have a slot this year."
He then discusses some thrown-out options for changing FRC. The fact that he doesn't go into detail about how changing the timing of FRC would improve qualification rates leads me to believe that the ideas he discusses wouldn't have fixed anything. As far as I'm concerned, his presentation of these ideas is little more than a way to strengthen his point through shocking the audience.
Rhetoric aside, the most viable solution to the problems experienced by FLL and FTC are most easily resolved by the one solution that was discussed for the least amount of time. Why not put FTC at one event, and FRC at another? I recognize that FIRST wants to keep their programs intertwined, going along with the "progression of programs," but by giving FTC their own world championship venue, the size and scale of the FRC venue, they will be able to boost qualification rates astronomically. An FTC/FLL championship would also permit FTC to gain its own public identity. When asked about student robotics competitions, I have never come across a non-FIRSTer who knew anything about FTC. Most of them will answer a question about student robotics with something related to "I saw one that plays basketball!" or "oh, the little lego robots, right?" Perhaps it's time FIRST allowed FTC to gain their own identity, and make their championship event into their championship event. Perhaps it would be more logical to expand FLL into a double championship format, as head-to-head competition is a small, even nonexistent part of their program. By splitting FLL, you avoid the problems with not deciding a single winner of a highly competitive program, and you offer more space for more FLL teams to qualify. By putting FRC at one event and FTC at another, you keep the 2 most competitive events together, while significantly increasing the qualification rates for FTC.

GreyingJay 15-05-2015 14:19

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

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1482347)
We do know more people care about (or people care more about):
  • Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
  • The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team.
  • Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game
  • Seeing teams you have built relationships/partnerships with over the years

Who would care most about these things but also not need to worry about costs?

We worry about cost. Of course we do. But cost variability is not huge. I drive or fly to St. Louis or to Houston, or Detroit, or, heck, pick any other major city in the USA. The cost will vary plus or minus a little bit, but not that much in the long run. Not enough to rank cost above those first four items.

Now, if FIRST had announced that the championships would now be held in Paris, I might complain a little louder and say, Hey, as much as I want to see my friends, and all the best teams, I simply can't afford that. Now I have to make harder decisions about whether I want to see all the best teams or whether I settle for something smaller and closer and cheaper.

jman4747 15-05-2015 14:28

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

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1482349)
Maybe there is a flaw with ranking things as singularly more important than others in cascading order... World might be more complicated than that.

Well it was and people answered.

Ranking things as singularly more important than others in cascading order is a very necessary tactic of survival in the very real very harsh world. People do it a lot when resources are tight. People around the world are always having to chose between things that should never be opposing each other.

This survey asked what was more important and Ranking things as singularly more important than others is a good way to draw out true motivations and see what actually can be sacrificed for what if you absolutely must chose one. Sometimes you'll find that one thing is actually not as important than another after you are forced to think about it.

A related example was when I got my second desktop I obviously thought I would need to transfer files from the old one. And there were a lot. After using the new computer for longer and longer I never did. It turned out none of that stuff was so irreplaceable or necessary. I never would have thought that while I had it and yet within a year I dissembled the hard drive to see how the insides worked. To think that everything on the hard drive was less important than my basic understanding of the engineering behind it.

That is the sort of thing "ranking things as singularly more important than others in cascading order" can sometimes have and for good benefit. Don't discount the method.

Hot_Copper_Frog 15-05-2015 14:29

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

Taken as a whole, I think there is nothing within these survey results that is surprising. They do reinforce the idea that some within our community are strongly opposed to the two Championships concept, and that we should be using the elements identified by teams as most important to them as a guide to refining the concept to help ensure the best experience for all teams as we work through this significant change.
When I think "some", I don't think 26% and I CERTAINLY don't think 55%. This opinion is very representative of the organization as a whole. I find it interesting that it's only stated that results indicate FIRST HQ should use these elements to guide refinement of the concept, not that FIRST HQ is taking them into consideration.

Quote:

Our intent is to form committees, including representatives from the community outside FIRST HQ, to make recommendations to FIRST leadership in addressing the two key challenges listed below.
  • Identifying what geographic regions will be assigned to which FIRST Championship as their ‘home’ Championship, including the way in which teams outside the United States would be handled
  • Identifying a potential way in which teams may volunteer and be selected to attend their non-home Championship

You will hear more about these committees over the next few months. 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.
So...the committees are only dedicated to identifying possible solutions to issues related to geographical assignment. And these committees will make recommendations, which may or may not be implemented. Nothing else will be addressed, as nothing else is up for discussion.

Quote:

Additionally, FIRST HQ will be exploring the possibility of some culminating event to take place after the two Championships, at which we would bring together the top teams from each Championship in some final competition of the season. This idea is still in the early exploratory phase, and we will share additional details, including potential areas for community input, as appropriate.
So, in order to appease a community that is upset that their thoughts were not taken into account for such a massive change, we are going to ask the two champion alliances to participate in an afterthought showdown event. Ask mentors who have already drained most of their vacation days to take MORE time off to travel, ask students who have already missed many days of school to miss some more, and ask teams who have already spent thousands of dollars on travel to spend a few more.

I want to be excited about this. I really do. I AM excited to bring championships home to Detroit. I'm just...uncomfortable with how all of this is being handled.

jman4747 15-05-2015 14:34

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

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1482357)
We worry about cost. Of course we do. But cost variability is not huge. I drive or fly to St. Louis or to Houston, or Detroit, or, heck, pick any other major city in the USA. The cost will vary plus or minus a little bit, but not that much in the long run. Not enough to rank cost above those first four items.

Now, if FIRST had announced that the championships would now be held in Paris, I might complain a little louder and say, Hey, as much as I want to see my friends, and all the best teams, I simply can't afford that. Now I have to make harder decisions about whether I want to see all the best teams or whether I settle for something smaller and closer and cheaper.

What that data tells me is many think current costs could change (rise) to make the top 4 options happen. This means that those individuals are very confidant that they can pay even more to get what they really value which are the top 4 options. 5k plus travel (3-4K) is a lot to some of us still...

Drakxii 15-05-2015 14:35

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

Taken as a whole, I think there is nothing within these survey results that is surprising. They do reinforce the idea that some within our community are strongly opposed to the two Championships concept, and that we should be using the elements identified by teams as most important to them as a guide to refining the concept to help ensure the best experience for all teams as we work through this significant change.

Our intent is to form committees, including representatives from the community outside FIRST HQ, to make recommendations to FIRST leadership in addressing the two key challenges listed below.
This section continues to make me believe that frank and FRC staffers had no input in to the championsplit. Which make me sad, since this decision was based on FRC...

Also can we stop assuming what teams that didn't vote want? The sample size of this survey was 7355 people and 52% of teams. That is huge, there is no reason to assume that this not an accurate view of teams/people as whole.

Finally only 4.3 avg from students? That is disheartening, FIRST needs to remember this about the students and encouraging them, not about making everyone believe in the HQ's plan.

Jared Russell 15-05-2015 14:35

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

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1482347)
And I hinted at it before but as I think about it how is "Keeping attendance costs reasonable" so low? It bothers me.

Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

Anupam Goli 15-05-2015 14:47

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

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1482363)
Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

Going to Detroit, going to Houston, going to St Louis, it's all about the same distance for us, and a lot of other teams. Had I not known what the venues were, or were they to tell me to disregard the venue choice, I may have answered differently, but as it is cost isn't a big factor when the only difference will be whether we'll be 10 hours away in intense humidity, or 10 hours away in a just-thawed city.

This also brings up an interesting point: Had this survey been given out before the announcements, I guarantee we'd see a different set of responses, and some different priorities (cost reduction would've been higher priority, and one true champion would've been less important).

I hope the committee will come up with a solution for region locking so that I don't have to go on vacation to California and Washington to see some inspirational teams and my skunk buddies...

Siri 15-05-2015 14:53

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

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1482363)
Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

True. Ranking cost #4 could mean, at least and in no particular order:
- Cost doesn't matter to me.
- This split doesn't affect my costs as significantly as it affects other things I want to check off.
- If the CMP doesn't give me 1, 2, and/or 3, cost doesn't matter because because I'm not going to fundraise (even some minimum reasonable cost) to go--e.g. I'll go to another regional, or save it for IRI, or build a better robot, or put it in the bank, or...
- And probably at least several other reasons. No need to jump to conclusions about respondents.

GreyingJay 15-05-2015 15:05

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

Originally Posted by jman4747 (Post 1482361)
What that data tells me is many think current costs could change (rise) to make the top 4 options happen. This means that those individuals are very confidant that they can pay even more to get what they really value which are the top 4 options. 5k plus travel (3-4K) is a lot to some of us still...

Yes, I guess you can also interpret that as "As long as I still get to see my friends / top teams / etc, I don't mind if the cost goes up a little bit." That is how I ranked the factors, but I did so knowing that there is some reasonable limit to how much costs will change, having some knowledge of what FIRST is planning or typically does. In this case, I know they are looking for some large American city. I am OK with the cost variability of travelling to large American cities. I answered the question keeping that in mind.

My answer might have been different if FIRST had said, say "To give you what you want, in one giant world championship, we will need to move the event to some other country".

maths222 15-05-2015 15:11

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
To throw a bit of FTC perspective into this thread: I understand that most FRC participants don't care about seeing FTC and FLL, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't either if I participated in FRC. However, it is the other direction which is much more significant (at least from my perspective). One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

northstardon 15-05-2015 15:14

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
My beef with the "Favor/Oppose 2 Championships" question is that it was asked without context (or, more charitably, that it was asked assuming that the respondents all knew that context). It's like asking people if they favor/oppose eating their vegetables.

Better questions might have been:

"Do you favor/oppose two championships, if FIRST brought the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion?"

or,

"Do you favor/oppose two championships that are tiered, with all of the highest-ranked, most competitive robots attending one of the two events to determine the one true champion?"

or,

"The highest number of teams that could be accommodated by a single championship event is 650. The total number of FRC teams is increasing each year. Do you favor/oppose two championships, knowing that the number of teams attending a single championship each year will (on a percentage basis) continue to decrease?"

jman4747 15-05-2015 15:24

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

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1482363)
Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

I'm working of the assumption that they are using the survey to see what they can change in both the near and far future to get people what they want. Money being 5th sounds like costs can go up for other things which for many they can't.

Lil' Lavery 15-05-2015 15:27

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

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1482325)
You know what answer to this question didn't even make the top ten?

Having the "full progression of programs" at one event. (I can't remember the exact wording)

Yet...



#priorities

Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

GreyingJay 15-05-2015 16:11

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

Originally Posted by maths222 (Post 1482376)
One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

I enjoyed the brief tour of the FTC pits I got, but I was only able to go over to Union Station (taking one of the shuttles) because our FRC team was working on the FedEx Innovation Challenge which required us to go over there to complete a task. Otherwise I would never have bothered to visit. That's not being mean-spirited, it's just that I didn't even really know that FTC was going on over there until I got off the bus and walked in, and even if I had, it's far removed enough from the FRC "campus" that it was quite a bit of effort to get there, and between our matches and the conference sessions and Scholarship Row and the Innovation Faire and that darned merchandise line-up, I probably would not have been able to squeeze it all in.

Was the reverse true for FTC? Did a lot of the students make the shuttle trip over to check out what was going on in FRC?

And, this being my first year seeing it -- were FRC and FTC always this physically separated?

Drakxii 15-05-2015 16:13

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

Originally Posted by maths222 (Post 1482376)
To throw a bit of FTC perspective into this thread: I understand that most FRC participants don't care about seeing FTC and FLL, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't either if I participated in FRC. However, it is the other direction which is much more significant (at least from my perspective). One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

Very true but I think a model like what Alamo does where the FTC super-regional held at the same time as an FRC event would be a better model then have both the FTC and FRC champs at the same location. This would allow FTC team to interact with FRC teams (and more of them) without the FTC game being totally overshadowed by the FRC game.

Cory 15-05-2015 16:13

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482383)
Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

But we are the most visible and highest paying stakeholders here (by a wide margin). FIRST can pretend that doesn't matter... But it does.

Drakxii 15-05-2015 16:18

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482383)
Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

True but they are the only stakeholders FIRST seems to be interested in. FIRST has barely talked about the effect this will have FLL and FTC other then their stance that they will be at both champs. I haven't see any details on where they will play, how many teams will be invited to each champs, or how they will decide which teams will go to which champs.

Lil' Lavery 15-05-2015 16:25

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

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1482388)
But we are the most visible and highest paying stakeholders here (by a wide margin). FIRST can pretend that doesn't matter... But it does.

My point was primarily to point out that the results for that question could be misleading, when the other stakeholders were not invited to participate in the survey.

Also, I'd say the program/event sponsors are the highest paying stakeholder here (by a wide margin).

AdamHeard 15-05-2015 16:27

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482395)
My point was primarily to point out that the results for that question could be misleading, when the other stakeholders were not invited to participate in the survey.

Also, I'd say the program/event sponsors are the highest paying stakeholder here (by a wide margin).

Is that true? Do sponsors really contribute more funds than the combined team fees?

I honestly don't know. Would be curious to hear the numbers.

Christopher149 15-05-2015 16:34

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

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1482386)
And, this being my first year seeing it -- were FRC and FTC always this physically separated?

In 2014, FTC had its pits about where Archimedes pits were in 2015, and had playing fields on the dome floor. So, this significant separation is new.

drwisley 15-05-2015 16:48

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482395)
My point was primarily to point out that the results for that question could be misleading, when the other stakeholders were not invited to participate in the survey.

Also, I'd say the program/event sponsors are the highest paying stakeholder here (by a wide margin).

I bet the engineering hours of our mentors being donated far exceed any of the green dollars spent by teams or sponsors. We're talking about the 'engineer's engineers' as well. Competing is fun, laughing at teenagers is also, but we could all be inventing or running side businesses with these hours.

Lil' Lavery 15-05-2015 16:54

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

Originally Posted by drwisley (Post 1482402)
I bet the engineering hours of our mentors being donated far exceed any of the green dollars spent by teams or sponsors. We're talking about the 'engineer's engineers' as well. Competing is fun, laughing at teenagers is also, but we could all be inventing or running side businesses with these hours.

If you're going to consider aggregate man hours donated, then FLL wins in a landslide. Even if you appraise an engineer's man hour higher than a teacher's or parent's, the quantity of FLL teams is an order of magnitude higher than FRC teams.

jman4747 15-05-2015 16:55

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

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1482396)
Is that true? Do sponsors really contribute more funds than the combined team fees?

I honestly don't know. Would be curious to hear the numbers.

Both FIRST's sponsors and team's sponsors contribute. Though several major sponsors of both are on the board/were part of the decision in the first place.

drwisley 15-05-2015 17:00

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482404)
If you're going to consider aggregate man hours donated, then FLL wins in a landslide. Even if you appraise an engineer's man hour higher than a teacher's or parent's, the quantity of FLL teams is an order of magnitude higher than FRC teams.

That could be, but having coached both, most of my mentors could do meaningful work with the 3-7 hundred hours per year donated to FRC. Average FLL hours per mentor don't compare.

IKE 15-05-2015 17:07

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

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1482396)
Is that true? Do sponsors really contribute more funds than the combined team fees?

I honestly don't know. Would be curious to hear the numbers.

Looking through the 2014 data, I get pretty close to 50/50 for FRC. If you allocate FRCs portion of the FIRST G&A, then money outside of registration fees pays a bigger portion of what it takes for FIRST to do FRC.
Now if you consider that big chunks of those registration fees are also being paid by some of the same sponsors giving directly to FIRST, then you would likely see something more along 19-25% team generated funding vs. 75-90% Corporate donations. I am not saying teams do not work hard for those donations, but I am trying to remind everyone that FRC is a very heavily subsidized game we all play being subsidized by sponsors who are betting on us to help change the culture of the World, and provide the workforce they need to change the world.

PSA: Now that the season is over, Don't forget to thank your sponsors! It is one of the best ways to ensure they don't forget about you when they start handing out the money.

drwisley 15-05-2015 17:17

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482404)
If you're going to consider aggregate man hours donated, then FLL wins in a landslide. Even if you appraise an engineer's man hour higher than a teacher's or parent's, the quantity of FLL teams is an order of magnitude higher than FRC teams.

Additionally, this is my very point, not FRC > FLL mentors, but that mentor engagement and motivation is the critical aspect of all STEM. Schools, sponsors and students have something tangible to be gained. The engineers can just as easily turn their hours into individual profit.

Citrus Dad 15-05-2015 18:09

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

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1482396)
Is that true? Do sponsors really contribute more funds than the combined team fees?

I honestly don't know. Would be curious to hear the numbers.

Entry fees to Champs are about $3M. A quick estimate is that Regional Fees are about another $15M. I haven't added in District fees.

Citrus Dad 15-05-2015 18:24

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

Originally Posted by evanperryg (Post 1482356)
Case in point. Angry people tend to be louder than happy people. However, Holtzman makes a very good point that we, and FIRST, should consider. The numbers show a larger negative trend than it might seem.
My problem isn't completely with the 2 championship idea. I think with the right refinements, it will work just fine. I have a problem with how FIRST is dividing the event, because, at least in my not-so-humble opinion, they are moving the wrong way. Here's a quote from Don Bossi, copied from the transcript of the 2 Champs informational session:
"At this event last year we announced that we found a way here within St. Louis
to increase that and try to get that back into the 20 percent [of all FRC teams qualifying for champs] range by going to 600 teams...
The story for FIRST® LEGO® League, FIRST® Tech Challenge, Junior FIRST® LEGO® League is
much worse. FIRST Tech Challenge has the capacity for about 3 percent of their teams at
Championship. FIRST LEGO League, it kills me when I talk to a FIRST LEGO League partner
for a country and I say, oh we can’t even send a team this year, we don’t have a slot this year."
He then discusses some thrown-out options for changing FRC. The fact that he doesn't go into detail about how changing the timing of FRC would improve qualification rates leads me to believe that the ideas he discusses wouldn't have fixed anything. As far as I'm concerned, his presentation of these ideas is little more than a way to strengthen his point through shocking the audience.
Rhetoric aside, the most viable solution to the problems experienced by FLL and FTC are most easily resolved by the one solution that was discussed for the least amount of time. Why not put FTC at one event, and FRC at another? I recognize that FIRST wants to keep their programs intertwined, going along with the "progression of programs," but by giving FTC their own world championship venue, the size and scale of the FRC venue, they will be able to boost qualification rates astronomically. An FTC/FLL championship would also permit FTC to gain its own public identity. When asked about student robotics competitions, I have never come across a non-FIRSTer who knew anything about FTC. Most of them will answer a question about student robotics with something related to "I saw one that plays basketball!" or "oh, the little lego robots, right?" Perhaps it's time FIRST allowed FTC to gain their own identity, and make their championship event into their championship event. Perhaps it would be more logical to expand FLL into a double championship format, as head-to-head competition is a small, even nonexistent part of their program. By splitting FLL, you avoid the problems with not deciding a single winner of a highly competitive program, and you offer more space for more FLL teams to qualify. By putting FRC at one event and FTC at another, you keep the 2 most competitive events together, while significantly increasing the qualification rates for FTC.

This is an interesting passage because it reveals an important motivation for FIRST HQ. I think they see FLL, not FRC, as their future. I suspect that LEGO has a huge voice behind FIRST--FLL must be an important market of LEGO. So raising the visibility of FLL becomes most important.

Unfortunately, this is like trying to use AYSO to promote interest in soccer. While AYSO participation has exploded, it has had little impact on the interest in soccer in the U.S. In fact such interest has only increased as the women's team became dominant at the World Cup and the men's team really became competitive in 1994.

Citrus Dad 15-05-2015 18:31

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

One question we asked was just a simple ‘How do you feel about having two FIRST Championships starting in 2017?’ with an answer of 1 representing ‘Strongly Oppose’, an answer of 5 identified as “Neither Oppose nor Favor” and an answer of 10 identified as “Strongly Favor”. The average answer to this questions among all respondents was 4.45, somewhat below the 5 "Neither Oppose nor Favor" rating.
This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

Siri 15-05-2015 19:05

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

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482423)
This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

That's actually a very interesting comparison. Wikipedia tells me no; the highest popular vote take home was LBJ in '64 with 61.05%. This means that no US president since 1824* has had this level of a popular vote mandate. Granted, even the US has better voter turn out than this. *First available data.

grstex 15-05-2015 19:49

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

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482423)
This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

26+11+11+7=55%. I don't know where you're getting 62.5%. Even if you split the 12% of Neutral responses, that brings you to 61%. But splitting neutral responses really wouldn't be fair analysis. That's like counting undecided voters as going to one candidate or another, when they've clearly stated they're undecided.

mklinker 15-05-2015 19:55

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

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482423)
This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

This statement is misleading! There is no valid interpretation of the data that shows 62% of respondents opposing the championship split.

Knufire 15-05-2015 19:56

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
55/88 = 62.5, neutral voters were removed from the total as well. So 62.5% of respondents who did not answer neutral were in the opposing range, which is exactly what his statement said.

Basel A 15-05-2015 20:01

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

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1482340)
FIRST's analysis of the survey numbers and this thread are great examples of the old theory of "people are just going to see what they want to see in the numbers."

When I looked at the numbers, I immediately grouped the data into buckets.

Strongly oppose (ratings 1-3): 48%
Neutral (ratings 4-7): 29%
Strongly favour (ratings 8-10): 23%

Of course, my parsing of the data is probably skewed by my own biases. Your mileage may vary.

Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

grstex 15-05-2015 20:01

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

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1482436)
55/88 = 62.5, neutral voters were removed from the total as well.

I see. But that doesn't actually represent the response to the survey. That's only a poll of those who are biased one way or the other. It's not like the neutral opinions don't count.

ay2b 15-05-2015 20:06

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482383)
Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1482388)
But we are the most visible and highest paying stakeholders here (by a wide margin). FIRST can pretend that doesn't matter... But it does.

I have to disagree with you, Cory. 600 teams at $5,000 each is only $3,000,000. I count 19 "strategic partners"; I believe I remember hearing that was a minimum of $1,000,000 contribution to be listed as such. There's an additional 10 "founding partners", which I suspect is an even larger contribution. That's roughly 10x the money that teams pay, and is only counting the two two tiers of sponsorship.

I'd have to say that the highest paying (by a wide margin) stakeholders are the sponsors.

Siri 15-05-2015 20:14

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

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1482439)
I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

It's not 62% of respondents, but you can absolutely look at the data and say that: 55% of respondents are opposed to two Championships. That's most.

We can speculate all we want about the opinions of the people who didn't vote, but there's nothing to delineate the reasonableness of those speculations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grstex (Post 1482440)
I see. But that doesn't actually represent the response to the survey. That's only a poll of those who are biased one way or the other. It's not like the neutral opinions don't count.

It's a measure of mandate that's intended to elucidate the misleading nature of the "average" purported in the blog. As yet we don't know of any way to properly center the data (the actual average of 1 to 10 is 5.5, whereas neutral is a "5"). Directly calculating the relationship between those who fall on one side or the other of neutral provides another sort of insight into the flaw in the scale.

Cory 15-05-2015 20:17

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

Originally Posted by ay2b (Post 1482443)
I have to disagree with you, Cory. 600 teams at $5,000 each is only $3,000,000. I count 19 "strategic partners"; I believe I remember hearing that was a minimum of $1,000,000 contribution to be listed as such. There's an additional 10 "founding partners", which I suspect is an even larger contribution. That's roughly 10x the money that teams pay, and is only counting the two two tiers of sponsorship.

I'd have to say that the highest paying (by a wide margin) stakeholders are the sponsors.

I actually completely missed Sean's line about sponsors when I posted. I agree. FRC teams are not as big of a financial contributor to FIRST as the sponsors are.

However, I think if you polled all the sponsors they're probably not stoked that they get two chances to give their company air time...they're probably wondering how the hell they're going to make their steadily shrinking budgets for FIRST cover two events instead of one.

Taylor 15-05-2015 20:17

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
I very consciously voted a 5 in this.
As an American citizen who has consumed the Democracy Kool-Aid, I'd be sorely disappointed if my carefully considered vote was discarded.

Drakxii 15-05-2015 20:23

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

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1482439)
Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

Please don't assume what non-voters feel. You don't know what they would have voted or why they didn't.

grstex 15-05-2015 20:29

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

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1482444)
It's not 62% of respondents, but you can absolutely look at the data and say that: 55% of respondents are opposed to two Championships. That's most.

We can speculate all we want about the opinions of the people who didn't vote, but there's nothing to delineate the reasonableness of those speculations.

It's a measure of mandate that's intended to elucidate the misleading nature of the "average" purported in the blog. As yet we don't know of any way to properly center the data (the actual average of 1 to 10 is 5.5, whereas neutral is a "5"). Directly calculating the relationship between those who fall on one side or the other of neutral provides another sort of insight into the flaw in the scale.

But you can't say "62.5% of respondents oppose the split." That's just not true. the "mandate" is that 55% oppose the split. you CAN'T just discard 12% of the responses. That's more misleading than average from the blog.

Dave McLaughlin 15-05-2015 20:31

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

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1482446)
I very consciously voted a 5 in this.
As an American citizen who has consumed the Democracy Kool-Aid, I'd be sorely disappointed if my carefully considered vote was discarded.

Why, if you are neutral in regard to the change? Wouldn't that be like answering with "I don't care" if you were asked what kind of pizza you wanted for dinner, only to get upset when your input is not used?

The other Gabe 15-05-2015 20:35

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

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin (Post 1482449)
Why, if you are neutral in regard to the change? Wouldn't that be like answering with "I don't care" if you were asked what kind of pizza you wanted for dinner, only to get upset when your input is not used?

no. it means I'm not sure yet, and want to see how stuff pans out still.

Racer26 15-05-2015 20:42

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

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1482439)
Seems to me this is the most reasonable analysis (could argue 7 is favour, but could go either way). Removing neutral voters makes no sense. They have an opinion. Neutral is a totally valid opinion.

I don't think you can look at this data and reasonably say "most of FRC is opposed to two Championships," especially when the nonvoters likely don't care/are neutral.

Karthik has reconciled the unevenly weighted scale by simply clumping the most opposed, and most favoured 3 choices together and leaving the rest as neutral. Counting 7 as favour would make his Favour and Oppose buckets different sizes again.

And his result? I don't know how you can see a 48/29/23 split and suggest anything other than that "most" people are opposed.

The whole thing just really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Some around here know I did not participate in FRC this year due to some issues last year ultimately resulting in my leaving the team I was with. The details surrounding that are unimportant.

I've always been a pretty vocal person when I think things aren't how they ought to be, and many of the responses I've seen from FIRST management come off as being more about saving face and keeping up appearances than they are about correcting mistakes and being the best organization we can be. That's never sat right with me, and ultimately, I decided to sit back and take a year off, and see how I feel about returning to mentoring a team in 2016.

Everything about the championsplit, and this survey, and Frank's blog about it is screaming to me that FIRST is an organization that has lost touch with its goals. I'd *love* to see the distribution of the students-only 4.3 average. The whole point of this is to inspire them. If they are similarly distributed to what we can glean from the overall numbers, only slightly more heavily biased to the low-end? That's terrifying and should be a serious wake-up call to HQ.

This shouldn't be about spin-doctoring statistics to try and appease the masses with "See? We're not *really* doing something you all hate". If an announcement has decades-long mentors suggesting that they are willing to leave the program in favour of building their own within hours of said announcement? THERE'S SOMETHING REALLY WRONG.

Lil' Lavery 15-05-2015 20:49

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

Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin (Post 1482449)
Why, if you are neutral in regard to the change? Wouldn't that be like answering with "I don't care" if you were asked what kind of pizza you wanted for dinner, only to get upset when your input is not used?

Having a neutral opinion of something is not equivalent to "I don't care."

Dave McLaughlin 15-05-2015 20:53

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

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1482452)
Having a neutral opinion of something is not equivalent to "I don't care."

I apologize for my terse language, would it have been more appropriate to say "Neither Oppose nor Favor" a proposed pizza selection?

Siri 15-05-2015 20:54

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

Originally Posted by grstex (Post 1482448)
But you can't say "62.5% of respondents oppose the split." That's just not true. the "mandate" is that 55% oppose the split. you CAN'T just discard 12% of the responses. That's more misleading than average from the blog.

I agree that the statement "62.5% of respondents oppose the split" is not true. I suspect everyone does; it's math. As a side note, the statement "the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s")" is completely true.

However, unless you have a mathematical or industry standard to support the conclusion that 62.5% is more misleading than 4.45, I disagree. At the very least, Richard actually told us directly what his calculation was in the midst of a discussion that already took issue with the neutrality of the 5 average. Frank left his misleading calculation to be discovered, which is a huge problem in itself. I don't think that this was intentional by Frank. A very big part of this problem is that this is an intuitive scale on its face, but he should've done his homework before making a highly misleading and unqualified statement that included both the term 'average' and the term 'neither oppose nor favor'.

The correct 'intuitive' truth that we're looking for--i.e. what the average looks like when centered about neutral--is somewhere between Richard's calculation and Frank's average. There's no way to access it. Do you have a better method of getting closer? This is an iterative issue; Karthik took one approach, I tried another averaging technique.

Rangel(kf7fdb) 15-05-2015 21:18

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
I'd be curious to know how many active users their are on CD. Many have been using the hive mind argument to show how the negative opinion of champs is only the most vocal people but I think this survey pretty much counteracts that. It doesn't really surprise me though after I had talked to many AZ FRC alumni who had pretty similar thoughts about champs. Wasn't sure about everywhere else though. I agree with others though about what was the point of the data if the results weren't surprising. I disagree that the point of the poll was about how to improve the 2 champs when a lot of the discussion just focused on what people thought about it. And why does what people think matter if it isn't going to change a single thing.

Mike Schreiber 15-05-2015 21:31

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
As someone who has participated in the planning and execution of customer surveys and clinics before, I'm just going to leave this here for future reference.

Likert Scale

jeremylee 15-05-2015 21:54

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

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1482445)
I actually completely missed Sean's line about sponsors when I posted. I agree. FRC teams are not as big of a financial contributor to FIRST as the sponsors are.

However, I think if you polled all the sponsors they're probably not stoked that they get two chances to give their company air time...they're probably wondering how the hell they're going to make their steadily shrinking budgets for FIRST cover two events instead of one.

This worries me even more. I don't see 2 "championships" bringing in much for additional sponsorship dollars, but I do see significant cost associated with putting on a 2nd "championship".

ay2b 16-05-2015 00:12

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

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1482445)
I think if you polled all the sponsors they're probably not stoked that they get two chances to give their company air time...they're probably wondering how the hell they're going to make their steadily shrinking budgets for FIRST cover two events instead of one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremylee (Post 1482457)
This worries me even more. I don't see 2 "championships" bringing in much for additional sponsorship dollars, but I do see significant cost associated with putting on a 2nd "championship".

Previously FIRST was selling the sponsors the ability to reach 600 teams at 1 event. Now FIRST is selling the ability to reach twice as many teams. I'm sure that if a company wants to buy advertising at ("sponsor") only one event, they can, but of course FIRST would encourage them to do both.

gblake 16-05-2015 00:18

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
While we are on the subject of statistics, I discovered something very interesting that was cleverly hidden in the blog post by someone forced to communicate their true message to us secretly! :eek:

The survey result percentages were 26, 11, 11, 7, 12, 4, 6, 7, 4, and 12.

If you combine those together to sum the full psychic power of all respondents, you get this sequence of numbers: 26, 37, 48, 55, 67, 71, 77, 84, 88, 100.

If you remove spaces from the first sentences of the blog post (because that is how these things are done), and then extract the 26th, 37th, 48th, ... 100th letters from the post you get: N F E T H I P I N A.

Once you have those letters it's immediately obvious that FIRST is trying to convey this to us: "THIN FE PAIN".

And what could that be, other than an unmistakable reference to the pain of being cut by a thin iron/steel blade???

So, unless you are one of the lemmings bumbling through life as one of the New World Order's Illuminatis' brainwashed proles :rolleyes:, surely you understand that FIRST's real message to us (that they had to hide from their robotic overlords (whom I look forward to serving)) is this:
Cutting the Championship in half to form two new Championships is painful for them and for us; but it is a compromise they believe will be both valuable and necessary, given their mission, and the constraints they face.
;)
Blake

Ichlieberoboter 16-05-2015 00:25

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

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1482463)
While we are on the subject of statistics, I discovered something very interesting that was cleverly hidden in the blog post by someone forced to communicate their true message to us secretly! :eek:

The survey result percentages were 26, 11, 11, 7, 12, 4, 6, 7, 4, and 12.

If you combine those together to sum the full psychic power of all respondents, you get this sequence of numbers: 26, 37, 48, 55, 67, 71, 77, 84, 88, 100.

If you remove spaces from the first sentences of the blog post (because that is how these things are done), and then extract the 26th, 37th, 48th, ... 100th letters from the post you get: N F E T H I P I N A.

Once you have those letters it's immediately obvious that FIRST is trying to convey this to us: "THIN FE PAIN".

And what could that be, other than an unmistakable reference to the pain of being cut by a thin iron/steel blade???

So, clearly, unless you are one of the lemmings bumbling through life with the rest of the masses who have been completely brainwashed by the Illuminati of the New World Order :rolleyes:, surely you understand that FIRST's real message to us (that they had to hide from their robotic overlords) is this:
Cutting the Championship in half to form two new Championships is painful for them and for us; but it is a compromise they believe will be both valuable and necessary, given their mission, and the constraints they face.
;)
Blake

That, my friend, is deep.

216Robochick288 16-05-2015 00:40

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

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1482463)
While we are on the subject of statistics, I discovered something very interesting that was cleverly hidden in the blog post by someone forced to communicate their true message to us secretly! :eek:

The survey result percentages were 26, 11, 11, 7, 12, 4, 6, 7, 4, and 12.

If you combine those together to sum the full psychic power of all respondents, you get this sequence of numbers: 26, 37, 48, 55, 67, 71, 77, 84, 88, 100.

If you remove spaces from the first sentences of the blog post (because that is how these things are done), and then extract the 26th, 37th, 48th, ... 100th letters from the post you get: N F E T H I P I N A.

Once you have those letters it's immediately obvious that FIRST is trying to convey this to us: "THIN FE PAIN".

And what could that be, other than an unmistakable reference to the pain of being cut by a thin iron/steel blade???

So, clearly, unless you are one of the lemmings bumbling through life with the rest of the masses who have been completely brainwashed by the Illuminati of the New World Order :rolleyes:, surely you understand that FIRST's real message to us (that they had to hide from their robotic overlords) is this:
Cutting the Championship in half to form two new Championships is painful for them and for us; but it is a compromise they believe will be both valuable and necessary, given their mission, and the constraints they face.
;)
Blake



....Half Life 3 confirmed?

Deke 16-05-2015 00:53

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

Originally Posted by Holtzman (Post 1482290)
Another way of looking at these results is that 55% oppose two championships, 12% are neutral, and only 33% favor two championships. To me, that’s is a much more powerful statement about how the community really feels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1482340)
When I looked at the numbers, I immediately grouped the data into buckets.

Strongly oppose (ratings 1-3): 48%
Neutral (ratings 4-7): 29%
Strongly favour (ratings 8-10): 23%

I find both of these interesting, so I would like to expand on them:

1 vs 10 = 26 to 12 = 2.16:1 ratio
1-2 vs 9-10 = 37 to 16 = 2.31 ratio
1-3 vs 8-10 = 48 to 23 = 2.09 ratio
1-4 vs 7-10 = 55 to 29 = 1.90 ratio
1-5 vs 6-10 = 67 to 33 = 2.03 ratio

No matter how you slice the deck, for every one person approving the championsplit, there are two people opposing it.

Lil' Lavery 16-05-2015 01:12

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

Originally Posted by jeremylee (Post 1482457)
This worries me even more. I don't see 2 "championships" bringing in much for additional sponsorship dollars, but I do see significant cost associated with putting on a 2nd "championship".

Every previous Championship location has results in corporations based in the area contributing as sponsors. Coca-Cola was a giant presence in Atlanta, Monsanto in St. Louis, Disney in Orlando, etc. I suspect we'll see similar in Houston and Detroit.

Cory 16-05-2015 02:02

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

Originally Posted by ay2b (Post 1482461)
Previously FIRST was selling the sponsors the ability to reach 600 teams at 1 event. Now FIRST is selling the ability to reach twice as many teams. I'm sure that if a company wants to buy advertising at ("sponsor") only one event, they can, but of course FIRST would encourage them to do both.

1.5x as many teams, right? 2x400 vs 1x600.

I have heard that key Championship Event sponsors were not made aware of this plan before we were, or consulted at all as to their thoughts on/ability to support two events. That seems like a huge problem.

Steven Smith 16-05-2015 03:52

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 
From a personal standpoint and as a mentor, I have one opinion on the championship split, and I've expressed that in other posts.

However, I also have some visibility into the sponsor side, so I'll speak to my knowledge there. I'm not an official spokesman of company policy, but since I got involved with FIRST, I've been more involved with the circles where decisions are made regarding educational donations and have lobbied for more support for FIRST.

I see sponsorship dollars (at least at the Fortune 500 corporation level) as being a bit more flexible, with the ability to flex up to account for program growth.

Over $500 billion is spent annually on pre-K to 12th grade education in the US by government. At my company alone, we averaged ~$30M/year (2009-2014) in education related donations. Of course, I advocate for FIRST to get a bigger piece of the pie, but there are a lot of great organizations out there all trying to solve the workforce development problem in unique ways. I quote these numbers simply to say that FIRST is still quite small relatively speaking, and the available funding for education is quite large. If FIRST could truly solve all the educational problems by just throwing more money at it, I suspect it would have happened already. For the FIRST model to work though, you need volunteer/mentor growth in conjunction with funding. If ~200,000 FIRST volunteers averaged 50 hours a year, and it would take $25/hr incentive pay to pull in new volunteers by just throwing money at it, you need ~$250M/yr to double the size of FIRST (assuming doubled need of volunteers). On top of that, the existing volunteers might be a little miffed the new ones are getting paid and they aren't. Sponsor money is important, but volunteerism is the key to growth IMHO.

I think that if FIRST can continue to scale, continue to meet the objectives companies want in terms of increasing the quality and quantity of qualified students entering the workforce, increase its reach/availability to historically underrepresented groups in engineering, etc... funding for the program will continue to grow. We're also very much interested in growing our volunteer base, as employees that are passionate about mentoring, their communities, etc., often bring that passion to work, as well as provide positive representation of the company.

We don't really spend a lot of time talking in terms of "marketing/advertising" opportunities at championship(s). The discussion is typically more of "how can we be most efficient with our donated dollars". Do we fund program A or program B? Who has shown they can do more with less and spend our grant money wisely. There is also the consideration of supporting our employees. If they choose to volunteer with an organization, it increases our confidence in said organization, so we want to back their efforts with additional funds.

As this all relates to championships and the championship split (sorry for rambling)... if it results in an increased student experience and supports growth, it will probably be seen as a positive change. The logistics of being present at two events are workable, and the overall cost to send representation is not prohibitive with respect to typical donation levels. That being said, it is pretty tough to measure "inspiration", and to understand if adding an additional championship is both the best way to support raw growth, as well as a cost effective way to increase inspiration. Perhaps the right answer is to continue to leverage volunteers to increase the quality of "lesser" events, to push the district models harder, etc. I won't claim to know the right answer, but I will say that whatever makes FIRST grow and scale better, will probably be seen as favorable from a corporate sponsor standpoint.

efoote868 16-05-2015 05:42

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

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482423)
This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

Voluntary survey. Not a census. Not a study. Statistically speaking, the survey means very little to me.

Now if they had picked individuals in FRC at random, with a very high response rate, I might be more inclined to give weight to the results. Otherwise the survey is suffering from a tremendous response bias (how many people that don't have a strong opinion on a subject are going to volunteer their time to do a survey?)

s_forbes 16-05-2015 08:15

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

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1482486)
Voluntary survey. Not a census. Not a study. Statistically speaking, the survey means very little to me.

Now if they had picked individuals in FRC at random, with a very high response rate, I might be more inclined to give weight to the results. Otherwise the survey is suffering from a tremendous response bias (how many people that don't have a strong opinion on a subject are going to volunteer their time to do a survey?)

This is my opinion towards this as well, and I think it's interesting that so many people are drawing the conclusions they want from the survey results.

The response rate to the survey was only 10%. I'm one of those neutrals in the remaining 90% that didn't respond.


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