wow - lots of interesting discussion
 

So many points come to mind; I'll just hit on the ones I can remember and limit this to a list of "ten" comments:

Most of the posts in this thread bring up valid thoughts and observations. Some are a little off - but that is mostly due to some gray areas in how the criteria was presented by FIRST, which I'm sure will be clarified this week and put some false assumptions to rest. And some posts are just not based in reality - such as this not being a championship or should be open to all teams. As Ken, Andy, Dave, and some others have pointed out - once most people step back and actually consider the criteria, they have reached calm and well thought out opinions on it (recognizing pros and cons)- but some people instantly react on emotion without considering the difference between idealistic and realistic.

# 1 - the FIRST Championship is a Championship in EVERY sense of the word, just like any major sports Championship. In every sport, every team gets a chance to advance to the Championship by winning their "regional" division or tournament. Like many sports, FIRST also adds some "wildcard" criteria to add to the field so more teams can participate. Some will ALWAYS be convinced it should be done "their" way, but make no mistake, the FIRST Championship is just that - a Championship with more teams participating than any other competition most can think of - so whoever wins that Championship event or wins any award at that event is truly deserving and should be extremely proud. Just like they should if they achieve any of those recognitions at a Regional event.

# 2 - while 95% of the discussion is productive, those few people who just can't let go of the idealistic yet completely unrealistic "everyone should go, they should let in hundreds of more teams" have the best intentions but need to redirect their energy in more productive ways. 300 teams get in - that's AMAZING. To those who say everyone should get to experience FIRST - everyone DOES - the Regional Competitions are tremendous productions rivaling and exceeding State Championships in any sport. Please, people need to let this go - FIRST holds a larger Championship than any other sport there is. Be thrilled with that, and be thrilled that the Regional Competitions are such a great experience. The Championship is such a small part of the impact FIRST makes - it's the 6 weeks, the teamwork, the regional competitions, the off season events and workshops where teams work together.... these things are 90% of the FIRST experience and are why teams come back. Any team which has lost this focus and feels that the "Championship" event is the "experience" or impact or main motivation of participating in FIRST has forgotten why they got involved and thought the program was so great in the first place.

# 3 - regarding some thoughts saying more teams should get more notice to plan to attend - this system DOES that. Last year 8 teams per regional qualified with only a few weeks notice, this season 6 teams. Meaning over HALF the field (about 10 percent more of the total teams, which hasn't changed in #) will know NOW, months in advance, so they can decide if they want to go and fundraise.

# 4 - as a few students and mentors like Allison very astutely pointed out - NO team only finds out with a couple weeks notice that they get to go the Championship. EVERY team knows right now what circumstances may lead to them qualifying - so as some students pointed out, teams can have the discussion now "IF we qualify, do we want to go?" If the answer is yes, then fundraise now and turn in the bureaucratic paper to get permission now. If you don't qualify - then you are ahead of the game for funding next year, and the trip can always be cancelled with school districts much easier than trying to get last minute approval.

# 5 - the "original" 1992 teams getting a free ride issue: Great example of a great topic in which BOTH sides are basically right and neither side is wrong. While I agree with those who wouldn't give them a free ride (mainly because the students on the teams weren't around back then, and work no harder now than the students on many other teams), those who think it's a good idea have some darn good reasons why also - it's only 6 or 7 teams and not worth losing a sleep over, as someone pointed out. That's a great example of a topic which would be good for teams to voice their thoughts on in the Team Forums so maybe FIRST can see if there is a strong preference one way or the other.

# 6 - the view of some (a few I must say) who actually think this system helps "the rich get richer" or "isn't fair to the rookies".... just not the case. FIRST is getting rid of the 5-point system, which rewarded teams who could afford multiple events in one year, and they created an automatic qualifier for rookie teams, which has NEVER existed (plus rookies can still qualify the others ways). This will guarantee that 30-40 rookies (All Stars plus some other qualifiers) will get the chance to go. That's possibly about 20% of the rookie teams and 10-15% of the entire Championship field.

# 7 - there seems to be an illusion that "even" teams lost their "guaranteed" chance to register this year. Many have pointed out the numbers, that when you take out the 5-point teams and the 6 qualifiers per regional there are probably only around 80 spots left to "open" registration. This means that only 80 "even" teams out of four to five hundred could have open registered this year. So if you're an even team, remember - you had a MUCH better chance of NOT getting in than you did of getting in. They just decided to give teams who haven’t got to attend the championship in the longest time the chance to fill these spots - isn't this what most said they want, for all teams to get the chance to experience the Championship eventually, in a somewhat fair way? (That’s posed to those who understand that no Championship event can ever include everyone - or grow to 500+ teams, which would have the EXACT same problem in a couple years when there are 1500+ teams. And it's SO MANY factors - not just volunteers, space, money, resources, schedule/calendar - all reasons, not one single reason)

# 8 - and this is key, the letter from FIRST said this is a transition, and that the "existing" 5 point system is discontinued now - they are basically telling us that they will still work on improving the system after this year, and are looking forward to constructive feedback, input, and ideas from teams in the off season to help.

# 9 - great discussion. It shows how passionate so many people are about FIRST, how much of an impact and how much so many have gotten through participating (and again, I would propose little of that is a result of the "Championship"), and shows that the future of FIRST is very bright with all the great students and mentors coming out of the program, staying involved, and contributing their ideas and energy. FIRST continues to improve every year, and I have no doubt this year will be even better than last, and next year will be even better than this.

# 10 - While painful (long), I figured I'd stick to my rule of sparing everyone multiple posts and just reply to all the topics that caught my attention in one swoop. To those who made it here, to the end - WAKE UP! Maybe reading this entire post should be an award which qualifies one for the Championship? ;) Thanks for listening to my $.02, multiplied a few times.

#10a - I totally understand if Brandon bans me from posting on CD again, sorry about the length. :)

Can't wait for the new season - kudos to all for all the energy and hard work you continue to put into your teams...the students are the real winners...and all clichés aside...they are winners because they participate and make it to a regional event with a robot.

Re: wow - lots of interesting discussion
 

I agree the 1992 teams should definitely be able to go to nationals every year. as was pointed out earlier, a number of these teams have earned the Chairman's Award, so they would be at Nationals anyhow.

I agree this system is fair to the greatest number.

What I don't agree with is the even teams that were rookies last year...well, actually...I'll broaden my argument.

If a team has NEVER been to nationals. Ever. They could be a rookie from last year or a 4-year team or an 8 year team...I don't understand why these teams are placed in the last tier? That's really strange.

If the teams that are older than one year are placed in the first tier and rookie teams from last year (who didn't go to nat's thus would have never gone before) are placed in the last tier...I think that's a bit of a quirk that FIRST needs to address.

If anyone has a clarification on that or comments, please by all means share because that grey area confuses me greatly.

I agree Jeremy
 

it's obvious just from the reactions, that some aspects of the system are a little confusing and could use clarification - which I'm hopeful will be coming.

Regarding your tier placement question - would this wording help understand it more:

A team is placed in a tier based on "the last year they attended the Championship OR (if they have NEVER attended the Championship) how many years they have participated in FIRST without attending the Championship."?

Your concern is valid, but don't worry - it's not the case. Teams who have not gone in 3 years will be two tiers above those who have not gone in 1 year - regardless of if they have ever gone or not.

Don't know if that wording (which is my interpretation, NOT an official wording from FIRST) helps clarify or not.

JM

I feel just a bit shafted ...
 

I am an engineer on one of last year's rookie teams. Having an even team number, and not winning any qualifying competitions/awards meant we were not able to attend nationals last year. That was easy to swallow, as I feel most rookie teams have a ton to learn and are not really prepared to compete at nationals anyway. However we did expect to at least have the opportunity to try to register for nationals this year, then with the announcement of this new qualification system it seems that opportunity has been taken away (unless we can earn it thru one of the other “current year” qualifiers).

If I understand these new criteria (please correct me if I am wrong), excluding the award/competition based criteria, the 6 tier system helps to assure that teams will have ”a chance to register for nationals” at least once every 6 years, depending on demand and "lottery" luck. If I am reading this correctly our team would be in tier 2 this year (did not attend last year, and did not exist prior to that), which is the fifth level away from being eligible to register. I would say that assures we will NOT have an un-earned opportunity this year. While I don't think that is necessarily unfair, it sure is disappointing.

I would suggest one small adjustment. I think the 6 tiers should be reduced to four. With most high school careers lasting 4 years that would give 4-year team members at least one potential chance during their tenure to attend nationals. I was fortunate enough to attend with another team that I worked with in 2002, and I think it is something that everyone should be able to experience. For a student to come into the program at the "wrong time" and have the timing exclude that possibility (again assuming that the team did not otherwise earn a spot) just doesn't seem fair.

I suppose it would take a lot of conjecture and a bunch of number crunching to figure out, but maybe there won’t be enough tier 5 and 6 teams to fill all available spots.

What many people will think that will happen is that they have to wait 6 years till they get the *chance* to *maybe* get to nationals. This isn't true.

Tier 6-4 are probably not going to have many teams, if any, on there, and most of them on there, probably wont' go. This then allows for 3 to try out. And with how it looks, MANY teams will already register, so don't think that you will only go every 6 years. It won't work like that. I think that every year we will get down to about tier 2 (2 years since last Nats) and most will get to go.

Re: I agree Jeremy
 

Partially I mentioned it to defend rookies... from what I heard, first-year rookie teams start out in tier 0. With the suggestion I made, first-year rookie teams would start out in tier 1 (since this is their first year competing), with everyone else who went the prior year. That way last year's rookies would get a fair chance at the lottery on tier 2, instead of being hopelessly lost on tier 1. While this suggestion doesn't put rookies over any team, it gives them a fair chance for the next year (most likely pre-registration will cover tier 6-3 teams and then a lottery will be held for tier 2).

So I goto Cedar Point this summer, they got this new roller coaster, highest in the world

but we get there late in the morning, and the line is already long

so we go on a few other rides, then get in line for the new roller coaster around noon.

We are in line until 5PM, getting close to the front

and a bunch of people start coming into the park on the evening pass (cheaper after 5)

and they think they should automatically goto the head of the line

And Im looking at them thinking, are you nuts?! We've been standing in line for FIVE HOURS!

and the guy says, yeahbut we JUST GOT HERE - so we couldnt get in line at noon - so its only fair that we get to goto the head of the line

and you guys stay behind us - youve already been waiting 5 hours, you can wait 5 more - right? after all, its not OUR fault you have been standing in line for 5 hours already because WE just got here!

?!

why would anyone possibly think that a new team should be put infront of teams that have been wanting to goto the chamionship for 5 or 6 years (but havent been able to, for whatever reason)

?!

...and then the new ride breaks (again) and nobody gets to ride at all ;).

but would you disagree in saying that every team should get to experience nationals at least once before the veteran teams who don't qualify based on competition get a "free entry" ?

i think that teams should at least get to go every 4 years so that at least once during your high school time on a team(granted your on it 4 years) you get to go to nats. every one should get to go at least once!

So, with that mentality the Championships will include 1/4 of the total number of FIRST teams. Let's look at the numbers.

Throughout the years, FIRST has grown at about a 30-40% rate. If we conservatively assume that this growth rate will decrease to 20%, then the Championships will be this big in the coming years:

2007: 518 teams at Championships (2073 total teams)
2011: 1,075 teams at Championships (4300 total teams)
2015: 2,229 teams at Championships (8916 total teams)

(warning, sarcasm mode: on)

Wow... won't that be fun! In eight years, the Championships will be almost 10 times as big as they were last year in Houston. Golly, someone is going to have to build a REALLY big facility to host this event... 'cause we all deserve to go!

(sarcasm mode: off)

Seriously, you guys... look at the numbers. You simply cannot make the arguement "all teams should go". Hosting an event with 50 or 60 teams is not especially easy to do. I cannot even fathom hosting a competition with 500 teams, let alone 1,000 or 2,000. You guys are smart enough to build robots, you need to be smart enough to figure this capacity thing out.

I don't like being harsh, but maybe this will clear things up.

Andy B.

Withholding my opinions on discount admission at theme parks, I think that having rookies be able to go to Nats in front of Vets is a good one. First, nothing boosts a new team more in funding and recognition than saying "We went to Champs." Second, MANY rookies teams cannot afford to go, so we are loosing how many spots to rookie teams? 10? 20? Anyway, your analogy isn't totally correct. The Champs arn't a que line for a ride where it's first come first serve. A tiered system is set up on years since attendance. What would be more accurate would be having people who havn't ridden the ride or those who havn't ridden in a while get ahead of those who have ridden it more times.

As FIRST continues to grow it seems we will need to have the Regional "qualifiers" advance to a Divisional competition, then on to the National Championship.

While I agree that as FIRST grows there won't be enough room for even 1/4 of the teams to compete at Nationals, I don't think your numbers can be taken at face value. Some of the teams that qualify might not be able to go due to lack of money or other reasons. For example, our school district won't let any clubs go to Nationals/Championship unless they win(in our case a regional). With our luck I can't see us doing that anytime soon so we would never use our spot. Also, many teams from outside the US would never be able to go as most school districts are very cautious about letting their students travel outside the country. Keeping that in mind, I'd think that at most 3/4 of the teams would be able to actually go.

Championship
 

Here's how I see things:

I'm glad that the current system gives preference to teams that haven't been in the longest time.

I don't like the "qualifying points" system at all.

FIRST has a problem - two "winning" structures. We know that it is very possible to build a winning machine without doing a whole lot of inspiring, and it is possible to inspire without building a winning machine.

What is happening is that FIRST is trying to reward the winners of both structures while allowing as many teams to participate at the "national event" as possible. Of course, those who believe one structure is more important than the other are disappointed in the current system.

Until FIRST says something like "We are rewarding the teams that INSPIRE and we don't care about how well your robot performs on the field." or "This is a COMPETITION and we will reward only those teams who's robots win on the field." We will have this problem.

Personally (OK, DISCLAIMER: statistically, my opinion is shared by a finite number of people both on my team and off - I just don't know who they are - and I probably haven't met them) I fall on the side where competition is fun, but not the be-all and end-all of the event. I don't really care who wins or not. FIRST is not very much about how your robot performs on the field. It is the effect your team has on everyone around them.

Howzat?

-Mr. Van
Robo-Dox, 599