Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
 

Isn't that like the previous system? Where previous year's performance helps you get to this year's championship.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
 

Another problem with that, for the teams in that position, would be the tough decision they have to make. Do you let the students on the current year's team (who did the hard work to win the regional and qualify) get to take the trip to Nationals and compete with their robot, or do you take the easy logistical path and just go the next year? What about the seniors on the team? Is it fair to them to say "we're not going to try and plan a trip now so you can take your winning robot and compete in the Championship, but some new kids next year will, because that's easier to plan"? Perhaps they've already experienced a Championship, but maybe your team hasn't gone in a while, or they joined as a senior?

I think if FIRST is making performance-based criteria, the only way that is fair is to make it for the current year. There's no real corellation between past results and future performance. Every year is different, and FIRST is right to treat qualification that way.

I am going to say this, but you probably are not going to like it...
 

I admit right up front that this will not be a popular idea.

I think that Championships are too big.

I also think that there is not enough emphasis on two (somewhat competing) areas: Chairman's Award quality teams and teams with good robots (this year, not in past years).

As it stands now, FIRST sort of uses the Championships as a reward for a lot of hard work teams put in. I disagree with this use of the Championships.

To my mind, the Championships ought to be populated with teams that are exemplars.

More is not better with regard to the Championships. It should be considered a major accomplishment to get to attend the Championships (while I agree that keeping a team together for 3 or 4 years is a significant feat, it is not sufficiently so that it should get you a ticket to "the Big Dance" as the NCAA B-ball tourney is sometimes known).

So... ...here is my proposal for what I would propose if I were king:

Chairman's Award - type Exemplars:

• All former Chairman's Award Winners (13 teams)
• All founding teams that are still active (7 teams)
• All Regional Chairman's Award Winners (30 teams)
• All Engineering Inspiration Award Winners (30 teams)

Competitive Robot - type Exemplars:

• All Regional Winners (90 teams)
• All Regional #1 Seeds (30 teams)
• All Regional #1 Draft (30 teams)

For the above, assume 30 Regionals with 3 Team Alliances.

This gives a theoretical number of teams at the Champoinships of 230 but as a practical matter, there are many many duplicates on the list. If you look at the former Chairman's Award winners this year for example I think they won 5 or 6 regionals. Also, there were a lot of 2 regional winners. Beyond this, the #1 Seed and the #1 Draft are often the winners of the regional (I have not done the math but I would guess that 1 out of 3 regionals are won by the #1 seed/#1 Draft team -- that would take 20 teams off the list right there). Bottom line, I expect that the above criteria would produce between 170 and 200 teams.

Even 200 teams is larger than I would like, but I think that it is closer to the right number. More importantly, it is rewarding teams for things that I think would make the Championships a more successful event.

As to what to do with these teams and what venue I think would be ideal, I have lots to say, but this message is already too long so I will just outline the concepts.

I think the venue should be a hockey arena. They hold about 20,000 fans which should be about full with 200 rabid teams. I propose that there should be 4 fields arranged side by side 4 wide on the ice. I would run the matches much like I have heard the Toronto Regional was run (only times 2 because there are 4 fields not 2). From what I understand, Toronto ran field A then B then A then B and so on. I propose that at the Championships run fields A&C then B&D then A&C and so on.

In this way, I suppose that you could get the throughput needed to give each of the 200 teams 10 seeding matches each which I think is important. Equally importantly, there would be ACTION ACTION ACTION. From one seat in the stands you could view all 4 fields. There would be little downtime between matches. And, if one of the matches going on at the moment is boring, just turn your head and watch the other match that is going on at the same time.

I would still keep the 4 divisions but the divisions would only be 50 teams in size -- close to the ideal size of a competition imho. Also, the division structure gives us something to break up the Award Ceremony.

As to how do last minute qualifying teams make arrangements. I think that such things can be made to work given the desire to do so. Between choosing a location that "busible" for most teams, blocking out rooms, perhaps even chartering planes to pick up West Coast teams. If we decided that that was how we needed to arrange ourselves, I think we could do it.

There is more to work out and I am sure that this will not be a popular idea, but I think that in terms of the long term best interest of FIRST, I think this format and criteria would be a good thing.

Let the Beat-Up-Dr-Joe fest begin...


Joe J.

I like it...
 

Joe,
On the contrary. I agree.
As FIRST grows The Championship needs to change roles.

It can become "the best of the best" while everyone else can enjoy the (still overwhelmingly positive) regional experience.

There are multiple benefits to having The Championship be what it's name implies, I'd be eager to see this occur, even if my team NEVER makes it, it would still be great. It would be good for FIRST, it would be fun to watch, and it sure as heck would be something to strive for. Something to inspire people to achieve more.

But, I don't think we're big enough that we can justify this. Maybe in a few more years. Until then, I'm happy with what I've been given.

Thank you for sharing your vision.

$.02
John

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

As per normal I don't agree. Is that because I am a newbie? Maybe. I only have 3 years experience but they are well packed. I also still believe that FIRST is the best thing going and have not lost any enthusiasm yet. Here are Joe's first list of teams that can attend:
* All former Chairman's Award Winners (13 teams)
* All founding teams that are still active (7 teams)
* All Regional Chairman's Award Winners (30 teams)
* All Engineering Inspiration Award Winners (30 teams)

What have former Chairmans Award winners done to deserve a lifetime pass? I am willing to give, say a 4 year exemption but by then the whole team has changed and they should not live on the laurals of members 10 years ago.

Why should all founding teams be given the same treatment. They are no different now than a 5 or 6 year team. They also should have to earn their way.

Regional Chairmans Award winners I am OK with.

Engineering Inspiration Award Winners I am not so sure about. I have seen teams win this with questionable devices. Some of then didn't even work. I am not totally against this group but I believe that the judging must take into account that this would give a free pass to the team winning.

The other issue that I have is when it is said that the Championships should be smaller. I was awestruck at my first Championship and my second. I saw teams that I would not have seen if I hadn't gone. I was inspired by different teams and different robots. I was inspired by the students and mentors as well as the competition. I do not believe that the Championships is just about winning. I believe that it is a celebration of a year of hard work. I believe that it is a showcase of the whole of FIRST. There are great robots there are good robots and there are some not so good robots. But do you know that I have not yet seen any team at Championship that wasn't a great team. The teams with the poorer robots got to meet and work along side some of the better robots and were encouraged and learn from this experience. I believe that this works also at regionals but not to the same extent. We become ingrown at the regional level. Each year the same teams go to the same regionals with the same ideas and people. There are some teams that attend different regionals but not many.

Let's not take the fun and excitement out of Championships. Let's remember our first time attending. There are all new members on every team every 4 years. The spirit is renewed and the excitement begins again. Let's face the truth. Mentors that have been around for a while become a little, let's say, jaded in their views. One way that we keep fresh is the excitement of the rookies as they work on their first robot. When the programmer finally finds the programming glitch and the robot runs in autonomous mode flawlessly. The look on the teams face at the end of build season when they realize what they have accomplished. This is what we are celebrating at Championships. Some teams will never build a robot good enough to win a regional but they can still be inspired at Championships when surrounded by the other teams.

Boy, I love FIRST and I know Joe does too even if we differ in opinions. That is another reason FIRST is so great!

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

I'm inclined to agree with the theory of "the best of the best". I think we should really exhaust all possible merit based achievements before ever thinking of going to a lottery system.

One thing I'm sad about seeing go away is the point system by other awards. Teams that show exemplary performance in Spirit, Controls, Sportsmanship, and others don't get to go to championship? Championship's main purpose should be finding the best of the best. If a team comes up with the most innovative, incredible control system ever seen, but doesnt get to go to championship, some team that has an OK system but qualified or was lottery'd into the championship gets the CHAMPIONSHIP AWARD for a control system far inferior to one created by another team that wasnt able to represent it at competition. (did any of that make sense?)

So there's my 2 cents. More merit based. More Best of the Best. More finding the TRUE champions. If you're not doing that, then at the very least change the event name to stop misleading.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

I can see how your both right. Both of your logic is unflawed (or flawed about equally), explained well, and makes perfec sense.

Odyssey of the Mind's world finals has about 1 team attending for every 30-40 teams competted. But it's still huge. like 1000's of teams huge. It takes 5 days and an entire university campus to run.

It has the best of both worlds. Competting is entirely merit bassed (must get 1st or 2nd at association finals). But it is large enough that it is a showcase. and it has an added advantage: It showcases the best.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

I think that the 1992 veteran teams have earned their way, and respect, to be eligible to attend the Championships each year. Veteran teams have shown that they can maintain a partnership with their community and sponser. What veteran team does not deserve to go?? None imho. Team 190 has been a great team all of these years, they have even set up their own off-season comp that is a huge sucess. This year they built a bot that could uncap their opponents goal (and cap theirs with it) WHILE hanging on the bar. Anyone that have seen their matches can back me(i hope :o ) up in saying that they DEFINATELY gave a great show in the Curie division this year. Team 250 has continued their involvement even through very tough financial dificulties, but their motivation to continue led to a parent who picked up the team and kept them going. Team 45, from what i have heard, have been an outstanding team over the years. Team 191 has won the Chairmans award, not once, but TWICE. Their team can't win the chairmans award anymore, which shows how much they show the true meaning of what FIRST is. Team 126, the 1992 champions (and we still are trying to get another :) ), have held together a great partnership with our sponser. we also house the "great" Andy Grady, which is truthfuly the best strategist out there. He has created some outstanding strategies that are not only the kind where you must say to yourself "Why didn't I think of that!", but also the kind that are exciting to see on the field. Team 19 was also one of the original teams, but i guess due to financial dificulties, could not continue this season. but it was good to see their spirit by attending Beantown Blitz.

overall...these outstanding veteran teams have overcame difficulties to continue their involvement, and some also amaze us each year, which adds to the "awe" factor at competitions. Hearing at a competition that a team has been involved with FIRST for over 12 years may make them think that "FISRT must be something that is important to these students if its worth staying with for that long."

my $0.02 (no offense to steve, i like ur announcing in the Curie Division. And the hair of course! :yikes: )

(And i know i only mentioned 4 (5 if u count team 19) of the teams, so dont think i didn't notice :p . I did that because they are the only ones that i have heard of that are veterans from '92. plz add in the ones i didnt mention if u know them)

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

I'd call this more a judgement than anything else. As such, I'm not sure who would have the authority to judge whether a team maintains it's Chairman's stature. I'd say so long as at least one member or mentor is still on the team who was on the team at the time of recieving the Chairmans award, that team has the inspiration necessary to maintain the title. Outside of that, the argument of hypothetically "passing the torch" comes in to play, meaning whether the spirit of gracious professionalism and FIRST has been passed on from the senior members to the newer members. But again, I don't know who would have the authority to make that judgement call, and since the Chairmans is the most prestigious award in FIRST, I'll say they should still be allowed in, if not for the actions of the present, but for the actions of the past that still ring true.

This is true too, but I'm sure you're aware of how much effort and work it takes to maintain a FIRST team. Considering the founding teams have been around for more than twice as long as the majority of FIRST teams, I'd call that an accomplishment worthy of qualifying in itself. But more than that, they have seen the birth, the infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, and now maturing adult stages of FIRST, and understand what FIRST is more than any other team can. With age comes experience, and experience is a valuable asset in any competition.


Dean Kamen has said many times, FIRST is not about the competition- the acronym itself means "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology." The Engineering Inspiration award is second only to the Chairmans, and still a critical part of what FIRST is. Heck, it's in the acronym. Of course they should be allowed to nationals, regardless of whether their bot works, they exemplify what FIRST stands for and strives to be.


*Disclaimer* I am not on an founding team, or a Chairmans Award winning team, or an Engineering Inspiration Award winning team. However, I do understand how much work and dedication it takes to win such prestigious awards, and maintain a FIRST team for so long, which is why I feel there should always be slots at the Championship avaliable to these teams.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

For everyone who is saying that the event should be competitive because it is called "The Championships" correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that was done simply because FIRST has become international, and they could no longer call it "The Nationals" because of obvious reasons.

I fully agree with John, although I do think that there should be opportunities for teams (maybe a small number) to not qualify by performance, and get in to get the experience. I know, people will say regionals are getting bigger, and bigger, but that doesn't matter.

I've been to 6 regionals in my FIRST carreer, and I enjoyed every single one of them, but I can tell you this:

Nothing, *Absolutely nothing* can compare to the two nationals I've gone to, in 2002, and 2004. They were simply unbelievable. I didn't know anyone really, in 2002, so I was there purely from a competitor's standpoint, and it was awesome. In 2004, I was there for only one reason: the people. The competition was nice, but the people really did it for me.

I can tell you, those two nationals were the greatest, most unbelievably fun experiences of my life, and I am grateful beyond belief for having the opportunity to go. When people say that you *have* to go to at least one Nationals, they really aren't kidding. If you don't go, you really are missing out on a whole lot.

$0.02 Cory

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

The Championship is the best event I've been to, even though I've experienced only two other regionals. I personally dont like the Eligibility Criteria. I mean it sounds correct from one angle, but I see just too many problems in another. The Championships just blew my mind away, nothing would compare to it. I feel teams should be given a better chance to earn their way to the championship. This might sound bizzaire, but I know if FIRST wants, they can accomodate a lot more teams(And seriously, I'm not saying this because 25 is not qualifying for the CHP or anything, its just my personal view, after being involved with many other teams and NJFIRST). But thats just what I feel, so yeah.

The thing that really scares me is many teams are going to realize they qualified last moment and they wont be able to go, just because its too fast for them to act, maybe they should be given a chance to go to the next championship automatically or something(P.Kloberg suggested this at the Team FORUM here, I think).

I like the fact that FIRST has released the CHP eligibility criteria a bit soon, I hope it works the same for other updates. I do agree its hard work managing such a huge organization is hard, but as it grows, I want it to keep growing better and efficient.

-Bharat

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

Bus: 103 did the bus and will do so again next year. Having the local transportation was excellent and no extra shipping costs for tools, etc was a nice savings.

Joe's Structure: I like these thoughts. 200 teams is a much closer size to appropriate. 70-plus in a division is really too big for my liking as well. If there were 50 in a division, we'd have something much closer to the feel of the regionals.

That being said, I also like the ifea of as many teams being represented as possible. To me, that's where the conference/workshops come in.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

I agree with letting those special merit based award go. All those award winners deserve to be there, chairman’s, inspiration, the champs, and don’t forget the rookies. I hope these spots will be reserved for future years as well. Hurray for first and all their efforts to keep things even with all the teams!


On a side note, I plan to be in Atlanta for the championship event, if my team goes or not. I did it this year without competing; I wouldn't miss it for the world next year.

Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
 

just a quick IMO... i feel that if a team is good enough... and does make the top 4 allainces at a regional, should be eligable to go... if a team can go on with or with out good alliance parings, they should get a chance to compete with the best of the best... also im not sure if this is true, but i think anyone who wins a judge's award should be eligable by defualt... or something to that extent =D

The original 7
 

Can I just ask why the exemptions for the 7 1992 teams keep people up at night? If the folks on these teams had not supported FIRST back in 1992 - who knows where it would be today. I realize that there has probably been enough turnover on these teams that there are not a lot of originals left, but I like the fact that FIRST has chosen to give them this honor. Besides, it's only seven teams - at a 300 team championship that's only just over 2% of the entrants.