[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

You should also address the availability of volunteers, as it's often a bigger constraint that facilities. For larger events, normal volunteers, not key volunteers, are the constraint.

First, I wanted to say thanks for all your comments. I definitely know that there are gaps in my logic, and your questions/comments were very helpful.

I agree that finding volunteers is an issue FIRST has, but I'm slightly confused as to how having two "split" events requires more volunteers than two "mixed" events. If anything, this will allow volunteers who only can/want to help with one event focus on purely that (e.g. if you want to volunteer with FLL, now you don't have to pick one)

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

You should provide some evidence that the Houston or Detroit locations could support FRC events with >400 teams.

I'll admit that I'm making a huge assumption now, but aren't the Houston / Detroit locations currently going to support ~300 FRC teams (half of the 600 this year) plus FTC and FLL? Are there really only 100 FTC teams that qualify for champs each year (and same for FLL)? (Or 200 teams assuming that FRC teams are much larger than other ones)

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

You should address teams that run FLL, FTC, and FRC programs.

There are a few ways I could see this being approached:
- How are these teams currently doing it? Do they have a lot of overlap between the programs or have separate groups of kids/mentors?
- District champs / super regionals could have multiple or all programs together
- For teams that don't qualify / can't afford to go to one, there can be a demo section for FRC in the FLL/FTC and vice versa

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

I would phrase this more that "fewer teams have the opportunity to participate." FIRST's goal is not about FIRST's growth, it is about growing the opportunity for teams to participate.

I agree. I just used 25% because that seems to be the number that FIRST wants (or was it just created on CD?)

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

I have a thought exercise for you. Your team has attended champs based on merit in 9 of the last 10 years (congrats on Chairman's this year, BTW!), has a larger than normal membership, is from one of the wealthiest areas in the US with average family incomes well above the national average, and has a dream list of sponsors, so you're going to have an unusual perspective, compared the more common team profile. It can be hard, but please try to think about this from the perspective of a team without your resources and track record of success. Look at the record of this team (randomly picked as about halfway between 0 and the highest team number on TBA), and think about what your statement means to them. Imagine making a presentation to them, justifying your statement. That is what the leaders of FIRST will be thinking and doing.

Yes, this is why I've said multiple times in various threads that as long as this is seen as a "top team" problem or "CD members" problem, FIRST won't be listening. They're marketing this at the average team. But will the average team care as much about whether it's "world champs" (assuming the split champs keep that name) or "district champs" or any other name? Will having events closer to team make it easier for them to travel to it, or will not being able to say "we're going to world championships" make it harder to convince schools?

The one aspect of this split champs that probably won't directly affect my team is who wins worlds. We've played in elims once, 5 years ago. I'm writing this as a student on a team that won't feel like we won "half a championship," because the chances we'll win is basically zero. But if I dislike that, what is the chance that an average team will dislike some part of this?

But in general, yes, remember this is aimed at the average team--the teams who are not represented here. Having posters here argue against it is like having mentors on top teams say mentor-run teams are inspiring to students, or strategists on top teams say cheesecaking is beneficial to everyone. It may be true, but it's not that convincing.

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

This statement is unsupported by facts. Posters that are proposing 600 or 800 team single location FRC events should consider these important facts:
[snip]

Isn't St Louis going to have 600 FRC teams, plus more FTC and FLL teams? I don't know how to find the numbers for FTC/FLL or get estimates for how many people those teams have on average, but there currently is a way to host more than 600 teams in a city. Or at least they think there is; I guess we'd find out soon. Beyond that, I'll need to find out more about how FTC/FLL work in with FRC at champs (I've never seen it, and I can't find information on it easily) to say anything else. However, I did want to reply to this point:

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

2) the people "in the know" felt so strongly that the event needed to be split that they proposed something they knew would be very controversial. Specific facts that support this statement:
[snip]

I think that's part of the issue. FIRST hasn't explained their goals. Even Frank's follow up blog post, as good at it was, didn't explain why they think a split champs is necessary. Maybe they have a reason that it is necessary and there aren't any other alternatives, but maybe there aren't. Unless they tell us, we won't know why they decided to go forward with this.