|
Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
(as i did with 2004 heres my 2005 post, please post all thoughts in this thread, to centralize everything for review by everyone...)
Ok since FIRST has released the Criteria for eligability to the 2005 Championship event, what do you all think about it?? Eligability Teir Lists Eligability 2005 Championship Eligibility The 2005 Championship Eligibility Process is shown below to better serve the teams participating in the program and allow more time to plan for the event.
Prequalifying Teams -
Merit Based Qualifying Teams from the current season -
Open Registration in the Fall: A selected number of Championship slots will be available for open registration. The slots will be based on the number of years since a team last attended the Championship. All teams will be classified in a Tier, i.e. Tier 6 equals six years since attending a Championship; Tier 2 equals two years since attending. Teams never attending will have their tier based on their rookie year: 2004 rookies are tier 2, 2003 rookies are tier 3, etc. If the number of teams in a tier is greater than the number of available openings, FIRST will use a lottery system to determine team eligibility for remaining open slots. The final determination will be first come/first serve until all available openings are filled. A wait list will be maintained for any openings that become available during the season. Click here to view the list of teams in each tier. FIRST has designed this system to give every team the option to attend the Championships at least once during the academic career of each high school student. We encourage teams to take advantage of this opportunity as often as possible, and we hope you get as much excitement and inspiration from the Championship event as we do. Bob Hammond Director, Robotics Competition |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I'll start by saying the ideal would be to allow all capable teams to attend, but I also know what a logistical and practical nightmare that would be, 700+ teams gathered in one place. With that in mind, I like the eligability layed out for 2005. It focuses more on the merrits of the current season than that of seasons past. The Chairmans award winners, the original teams, the Engineering Inspiration winners, and the 2004 champions all have earned the honor of attending, so by all means the first invitations go to them. The next level of qualification seems fair, as it places the eligability on performance in that current season, rather than the point system from last year. This makes sure the best alliances from each regional move on to the championship. And of course, with so many remaining slots open, we turn to the tier system. While not perfect, given the task of filtering out 600+ teams, it's only logical to base the tiers on time. The longer you've not attended nationals, the better chance you have of entering. Should the tiers be ranked by regional performance as well, rather than a random lottery?
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I understand why these criteria were established. But the logistics of getting permissions for a team from 5 high schools, and raising the funds, in order to go on a trip at the last minute will be a nightmare (we're a Tier 1 team).
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Wait...
If we won Rookie-All star in 2004, and didn't go, are we qualified to go in 2005? I don't think so... :confused: |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Within tiers, should teams that have never gone be given preference over those who have gone?
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
If I am reading this correctly, 23 teams are already qualified to attend. Six teams will qualify at each Regional (1 Chairman's, 1 Rookie, 1 Engineering Inspiration and 3 Champions) times about 30 regionals = +-180 teams (but there may be some duplicate winners). So there will be around 100 slots left for the remaining teams to fill. It sounds like Tier 8 teams will be given first choice at registering, followed by Tier 7 teams, etc. If they get to a tier that has more teams in it than there are slots left available, then the lottery system falls into place. Since the tiers are based on the last year you attended, teams who have not been in a long time have been given priority. If you have never attended, the tiers were assigned based on your first year in FIRST.
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I personally think that all of the division winners from the 2004 nationals should be allowed to return to defend their title, though I must admit I'm a little biased. Anyone else agree?
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
does tier 8 or does tier 1 have first bid into championships???
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Well, we're one of the lucky ones that have qualified for the championship already. However this tier system is going to hurt some teams. Previously there was the point system, I understand why FIRST wants to focus more on a team's achievement that year, but there are A LOT of great teams in tier 1. What will hurt teams is that a lot of them improve through regionals and such, some teams do great at Nationals and not regionals. Overall the new system is ok, but I like the 2004 system better.
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
-Bharat |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I believe that you will see more teams attending regionals and not applying for Championship if they are in tier 1. Our team is planning on going to California next year as we don't think we will be at Championships. I believe that this will be our 1st year missing championships and even if we qualify I don't know if we wil have the money after going to California.
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
I imagine we will probably hold a team vote to decide on what long-distance regional we will attend in place of going to Atlanta. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
A couple of thoughts on this...
The "restrictions" (odd/even, points, and tiers)on teams attending nationals have only existed for about 4 years. So in the very low tiers (5-8) why has it been that long since they attended (or never attended)? Lack of funds? Lack of Interest? In terms on basing it on the current years performance, that is a fund raising nightmare. It's hard enough to get all the money when you know you're going. When you have 2 business days to decide and only 2 or 3 weeks to get all arrangements made... Makes it very hard logistically. In terms of things like airline tickets, they will be much much more expensive because you are traveling so soon. (if you can even get the number you need for your team that close to the flight date). I think the financials and the travel planning need to be revised before this system will really work well. Some ideas brought up yesterday at the FIRST Forum in NJ were: - Qualify for this year OR next year (your choice) - Have a loan program. (w/ next years elegibility to compete dependent on paying off the loan) |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Sigh.
The only solution I see to qualifying and attending in that same year is to plan like you are going to get an available spot or qualify anyway. This puts teams in a tough position in a tough economy. Convincing school boards, corporations, small businesses, and families that there is a need for their money "just in case" is like pushing mud uphill. The solution for many will be the same solution 188 has - attend a far away regional, guarantee that the money will be used (it's $1000 less to attend another regional as opposed to attending the CMP anyway), and get the experience of traveling with the team every year. I realize the need to give more teams a fair chance and I applaud the notion, but with no chance to qualify in a previous year logistics go beyond nightmare proportions for many. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Does the fact that Atlanta is within theoretical bus distance from 1/2 to 3/4 of the FIRST teams change things at all?
This year, to save money, the Chief Delphi team rode the bus to Atlanta. I have to say that it was fine as far as I was concerned and while some of the kids complained, I would say that if it came down to going or not, all would agree to take the bus. Does the possibility of taking a bus rather than having to get last minute (expensive) plane tickets make a difference to any teams? I am probably in the minority on this, but I would even recommend leaving for home right after the team party on Saturday night rather than staying in the hotel another night. My daughters school did this type of thing on a class trip. Everyone comes home tired, but it is a big cost savings. Thoughts? Joe J. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
This is one of the exact reasons why we started the "FIRST Championship Conference" last year. Schools send their FFA, VICA, and other organizations to national conferences, so this would be the same for a non-competing FIRST team. Attending these workshop sessions may justify school administrators to allow you to attend the Championships. Andy B. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000.....we've been talking about this since I was 16.
Qualifying for the Championship is an age-old question of FIRST. There will always be someone asking it......and there will always be someone there to give their opinions on it (just as there will always be someone that will mention that their team is or is not qualified... ;) ). Such is one of the results of being in a dynamic organization such as FIRST: some things are going to change to try to make it easier to deal with all the growth. It might not always be the right decision, but the decision has been made and if it doesn't work we'll have new criteria next year. *** I think, however, it's important to look at the bottleneck here in dealing with the Championship: the competition. The reason why there is championship qualifiers is because we don't have enough pit space, field space, or time to deal with 700+ teams. What I'm suggesting is that we need to internally view the Championship differently....the competition should no longer be the focus. Though it's a huge chunk of the event, with the inclusion of the FLL Invitational and the FCC (side note: we need a better acronym), the Atlanta event is more a "conference" than a "championship". Externally, we can pump it up all we want as a competition, since that's what seems to drive news...but we know better. The Championship is not always about bringing the robot...it's about learning, experiencing, and celebrating FIRST. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I see a lot of people saying "but its going to hurt a LOT of teams"
I think what they might mean is, "My team won't get to go" Teams that are used to going to the Championships every year need to understand that going to Epcot or Houston or Atlanta does not mean you've had a succesful season. If you're worried that kids on your team won't want to join because there's no big trip at the end, why don't you sign up for a Regional on the other side of the country. Fund-raise for that and begin oto get away from the somewhat selfish (although justifiably so to an extent) idea that "my team deserves to go to Championships because we are so good" |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
Obviously, FIRST does not consider you "lucky". You've earned your spot. Andy B. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
I think this is a good system.
However, as mentioned above by others, my ONLY concern is that teams who qualify during the season in 2005 will have trouble attending The Championship unless they do something crafty beforehand (i.e. prebooking and praying, or sending the team regardless, etc) However it seems to me that these options really aren't practical for most teams. Because of this, I think we'll see a great number of teams who decide "even if we qualify, we're not going to go" and plan their season accordingly. Then... when that team ends up in the right tier (maybe in a few years), they can plan their season to include a trip south to the Georgia Dome. A team can still have a VERY positive season without going to "the big show". There are plenty of awesome regionals to choose from, if you can't go to The Championship, why not hit up a regional from outside your region? I've always wanted to see how those West Coast teams play, I know first hand, those Canadians have a good time, and... I've heard rumors that there may be some tough teams in the Midwest. Plus, there are TONS of offseason competitions (and plenty of new ones popping up each year). Plenty of opportunities to inspire the kids and have a good time. Midwest teams can't hit up Atlanta? Come to RiverRage. Northeast teams can't hit up Atlanta? Go to IRI, or even Cal Games. There are tons of top notch events, that give "real" FIRST competitions a run for their money. Sure, if a highly competitive team doesn't get to go The Championship (69, I'm looking at you) they'll wonder "what if"... but does this diminish the season at all? Heck no! So... I guess my concern isn't really a problem at all. *shrug* ;) I'm glad to see most people are accepting these qualification criterion, because as I see it: this is one of the best options FIRST has right now. They need to handle the growth somehow, while still being as fair as possible. There are plenty of ways for teams to make the best of it. I don't know what it is, but lately something has been giving me more energy, I feel like a rookie again. Maybe it is the positive "vibes" coming from the community this season but, I'm excited just at the thought of getting back to working with my kids. I guess I'm just excited for the future of FIRST. Things are changing. But, I think they're changing for the better. John |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
BUSING IT
We bused it this year. It was great. We packed all our tools and spares etc. under the bus and it saved us a ton of bucks. We left at midnight Tuesday and arrived early afternoon on Wednesday, just it time for check in. Also, we had the bus for use to get back and forth to the dome and for going out to dinner in evenings. We did stay over Saturday night, but at four to a room, it wasn't that expensive. I know that part of the experience is a plane trip etc. but when the budget doesn't allow or a last minute trip plans, busing it, even from a long way, is a great way to go. Mr. Bill |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
That's it! FIRST is doing this partly so that they don't have a huge nationals, just slightly bigger regionals. To save cash.
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligability Critera!
Quote:
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:
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...
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
*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.
|
Let me say this about that...
Quote:
From the 2004 Manual: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
FIRST says the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award but they do not really act that way in practice. Allowing Chairman's Award winners to attend the Championships is one of the few things that FIRST does that shows that they are walking the walk not just talking the talk. As the Engineering Inspiration Award, read the description. There is nothing in there about a good robot. Beyond this, I did not argue for their inclusion based on robot excelence but on Chairman's Award excelences. Finally, by FIRST's own text it is the "second highest FIRST award a team can garner." If they don't get a ticket to the big dance who does? Joe J. |
Re: Let me say this about that...
This discussion facinates me. Just thought I'd say so. :)
Anyway, as I said earlier, the main logistical bottleneck in allowing teams to the Championship is the game play itself. So, to build on the thought shift I proposed here, I propose the following: 1.) Use Dr Joe's schematic for allowing teams to compete for the National Champion award. 2.) Invite a small group from each team that won an award at a regional (3 students, 1 mentor...enough to fill up one hotel room) for a shot at winning the national award. 3.) Invite any other team that does not fall into the above two points to send a small group (3 students, 1 mentor) to experience the Championship in a various number of ways: volunteering, attending the workshops, etc. This allows a number of things to occur: -Every team has a personal attachment with the Championship every year. Either they're competing, or they know someone who is down there. This has huge effects, including team retention, increased webcast viewership, increasing security at events, as well as other things (that aren't coming to mind at the moment :) ). -This would certainly solve our volunteer shortage. Plus, the workshops are still being utilized. -Increased hotel usage. If we moved towards this, the hotel industry in Atlanta (or any city) would love us forever. On that note, why not work out a deal with one hotel in the area and have the workshops there? With FIRST taking such a heavy hand in the hotel's attendance that weekend, discounts would abound. -The other awards still have importance. These 4 person team representatives would present to a group of judges as to why they deserve the national award for whatever award they won at the regional, just like Chairman's. This adds into the importance of students communicating what they've learned in FIRST. (Side note: Whether they would be allowed to bring the robot is still up in the air for me, because though it would be great for the teams competing for technical awards to actually have the robot there, not having it there would ease up on shipping/drayage issues as well as add to the communication challenge.) -Allowing a small group to go to every Championship passes along the excitement of going to the Championship every single year ("Man, we had such a great time, we've got to get the entire team there next year!"). It's also much easier to send 4 people short notice than 40, thus decreasing the "We'd love to, but we can't fundraise enough in time" response, as well as most problems with school systems. Thoughts? $.02 -Jessica B |
Re: Let me say this about that...
Quote:
Joe, I do not disagree with a form of recognition for Chairmans Award winners. I do believe though that a team cannot live on it's laurels. I believe that there was a winner that left FIRST the very next year. If they should come back do they deserve a free pass to the Championships. The Chairmans Award should be seen as a continueing award. A team should not win and then have a free pass. That is like a hockey team (sorry I'm Canadian) winning the Stanley Cup and therefore getting an automatic by into the playoffs. Or a President (for the Americans) getting an automatic seat in the State he resides in for life. As I said before, a 4 year pass seems reasonable to me (I realize that I am 1 person only). As for the Engineering award I was not against it. My concern is that the part of the robot that wins the award, is a functioning part of the robot. The rest of the robot can be a dishwasher as long as the highlighted area works as stated. These are my $0.02 CDN or $0.015 AM :) |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
The "Tier" thing is confusing. i dont get how they pick from that or whatever.
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
I have watched the various discussions on this topic for the last few weeks, and feel compelled to throw in my two cents. There are a LOT of teams that have put forth tremendous efforts over many years, supporting and participating in the FIRST program. Somehow, they heard about a unique program that was exciting, inspirational, educational, and demanding, and they decided to give it a try. They investigated FIRST and formed a team - maybe they were inspired by a FIRST alumni from another team, or saw one of the video pieces, or went to a competition, or called Manchester got promotional material in the mail, or read about it in the newspaper. Then in return for their dedication, sweat, perseverance, and efforts they have received a set of experiences virtually impossible to duplicate elsewhere. They have produced students - and engineers - that have a better understanding of engineering, science and technology, and an appreciation of what it means to be a "professional" and a role in helping to change our society. For all that, they all deserve our congratulations and thanks. But in 1992 there was no FIRST. The teams that became involved that year were not responding to a call to join in an existing program. They had no way of knowing if the FIRST program was real, or a pipe dream. All they had was Dean Kamen coming to them with infectious enthusiasm and an amazing vision of what society COULD be like if they decided to help him change the value system of an entire country. Think about that for a while. You are sitting in your school or company and one day an unknown engineer shows up and tells you that your entire value system is upside-down, and he is going to fix it. And fix it not just for you, or for your school, or your company, or your state, but for the entire country. At that point, almost everyone must have thought him a loonie, and thrown him out. But a small number of folks could see the beauty of the vision, and where it could lead. They had no data about the program, didn't know if it would succeed or fail, had no wonderful anecdotes or success stories to build upon, no structured organization to support them, no FIRST PLACE, or network of teams to mentor them through the process. Unlike every single team since then, they had nothing to rely on except faith in the vision described by Dean Kamen of what FIRST could become, and the impact on society that it might have one day. With only that to go on, they were able to pull together a few companies and a few schools, and form the founding FIRST teams. They were willing to commit themselves to try something they had never seen, and actually get companies to kick in money to support a program that didn't really yet exist. In short, they were willing to step into empty space, and take a risk that NONE of us have ever had to take since then. And for every year since 1992, they have kept the vision alive despite changes in team members, changes in sponsors, changes in structure, and changes in FIRST. If they had not accepted that risk, there would never have been a second year of FIRST. Or a third year. Or a tenth year. For that, they deserve our thanks, our gratitude, our respect, and our appreciation. And I think that they deserve a lifetime pass to the Championship Competitions. It is the very least we can do. -dave |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
OK! So I know that there is a large amount of self interest attached to this reply, but I do want to get everyone's opinion on my feelings.
I strongly feel that the 3 National Chairman's Award Honorable Mention teams (341, 342, & 1002) should be made eligible for the 2005 Championship. This is FIRST's highest honor and these 3 teams performed at a level that was so near to the top. Recognizing National Honorable Mention teams each year would send a motivating message to all competing Chairman's teams and acknowledge that these finalists acheived at a level that was, at least slightly, above the regional level. Also one year of eligibilty would clearly differentiate this prize from National Chairman's yet be just that little bit higher than Regional Chairman's. I know that being mentioned was truly an honor in itself. However, I feel that sending the 3 finalists for any given year sends just the right message. It is an appropriate gesture that doesn't really cause FIRST any additional headaches or expense. Please let me know your opinion of this? Best of Luck to everyone in the off-season!!! Al Ostrow Coach, Team 341 |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Nationals should definitely be smaller!! 150 - 200 teams, tops! Get rid of the tier system (too confusing anyways). Have the teams selected as Joe said. Maybe add in the honorable mentions if you wish. Last year, we went to nationals (odd, even thing) and was agast at the pits in the astrodome. For the real guru engineering students on the team and the operators, they barely had enough down time to see all the teams in the pit, let alone competing. I'm still bummed that I never got to meet / talk to some inspiring teams, unless they're in our division (or in our pit row). Let Nationals be the best of the best - we'll find a way to get there. Set aside a National Traveling Expenses Fund - or just plan on going to watch if not to compete. Might this help bring down the cost of Nationals, too!
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Doug G has stated let the Championship be the best of the best. This has been debated a lot in the past. Who really are the best. If you were at a regional and the 3rd pick of the 8th place team and you happen to win the regional. Is your team the best of the best? Maybe Championships should be the top 8 teams from all regionals. Are they always the best? Maybe rankings can only come from your 1st regional to be fair to everyone. Or for the sake of those that are saying it costs too much to compete, make the 2nd regional you attend $7,000.00 and maybe $10,000.00 for the 3rd regional. This way teams that want to buy their way to Championship can help support those that can barely attend one.
If I sound a bit upset it is because FIRST is suppose to be different. As was stated earlier Nationals was changed to Championship because of international teams. I don't believe that the reason changed. It was there to celebrate the year! |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
FYI. There were 926 teams that attended regionals last year (according to the data on regional results posted on FIRST's website).
To be honest, I think I would prefer that FIRST INCREASED the fees at the Championships by a lot more but then included more in the bargain. For example, suppose that FIRST charged $20K for the Championships but then included 15 rooms (Wed - Sat) at the official hotel and agreed to feed 50 people for that same time period. I would even go farther, perhaps FIRST should increase the fees to the point that travel is covered (most of the teams would be provided a bus, those over a 20 hour bus ride would be chartered from major cities). By the way, does anyone else think that the Las Vegas Regional is the camel's nose under the tent for Sin City hosting the Championships? Seriously, there are close to a dozen hotels in Las Vegas could host the Championships without breaking a sweat. Think about it. Everyone in ONE hotel, including the competition, pits, celebration events, and so on. Flights to LV are cheap and plentiful (and almost every city has a direct flight there as well). In many ways LV is perfect. In my opinion, the only reason against using them is that I thought FIRST was a little afraid of being associated with a city where gambling & prostitution are legal. But... ...if LV is good enough to host a regional, isn't it good enough to host the Championships? But I digress... Back to the topic at hand. It may be in the best interest of FIRST to increase the fees for the 2nd & 3rd regional and perhaps even the Championships (provided more stuff is included in the package -- especially things that would allow for last minute qualifiering teams to attend, like hotel rooms, food, and transportation). Joe J. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
All the previous discussions about Las Vegas as a possible venue for a FIRST event have drawn upon the "Sin City/Family Town" reputation. But no one has had any real DATA to show how well a FIRST event might fit in if held in Las Vegas - just speculation. What better way to find out if it would work or not than to just try it and see what happens. As Grandma used to say, "empirical data is better than no data at all." (OK, she didn't really say that, but it sounded good... :) ) -dave |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
Perhaps I should not have put the "camel's nose" comment in my post because it was more or less asking for it. But I am like a broken record on this lately with regard to almost everything that comes up on these fori: Question #1 Does it compromise the mission of FIRST? Question #2 Does it help us change the culture faster? if (Ans1==YES) {let's don't do it}; if (Ans1==NO && Ans2==YES) {let's do it}; if (Ans1==NO && Ans2==NO) {let's do it if another benefit justifies doing it}; From my point of view, the answers to #1 is "not if we manage things correctly" and #2 is "probably yes" Dave's point is that we can try it and see. I can go with that. Joe J. |
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
|
Re: Your Thoughts on the 2005 Championship Eligibility Criteria!
Quote:
Cory |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:51. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi