Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I'm going to disagree with your last statement. Really simply, no matter how much we as leaders explain the system, they're still going to be upset. You should have heard my team trying to figure out getting into CMP after L.A., when we hadn't qualified. Let's just say that was not an easy discussion set on anybody--and we had the whole "this is what stuff has said since back before build" to refer to, among other things. I've been on the receiving end of a couple of those "you're not advancing because..." discussions--it doesn't often sit well with the kids for a few days at the least.
And it's still not on team leadership for not having it well known. It's on HQ for using a lousy system that traps them into this. After what they heard at the townhall, I think they'd be very reluctant to try something like this without asking some folks, and I'm pretty sure that there's enough folks willing to speak up and tell 'em it's a lousy idea that it'd be a non-starter. Not sure if we're dealing with a vocal minority or a silent majority on that, though.
This is basic human emotion, 101 level: The "Life isn't Fair"/"Why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" discussion. It's quite possible to understand something rationally--and emotionally, it just makes absolutely no sense. So, for the first three or four years, AT LEAST, someone (read: whoever was responsible for the "split by levels", ideally) has to tell the kids that they can't go to the top-level championship even though they won everything because they are only rated at the second-tier level based on last year's results--which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with this year's results.
The reason I linked Gary's earlier post was this: this works well in the sports leagues because it's the entire season, including championships, and you never play teams in another tier. If you try to do it where you're playing against--and maybe even beating--teams in the other tier, you get some skewed results and lousy reactions/emotions running high. So you either split the whole durn competition, which we've already pointed out got shot down years ago when it would have been a lot easier, or you don't try any sort of relegation.
Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind doing a split along competitive lines, mind you. I just think that current year's data ought to be used, because the exact relationship between any two years in FRC is approximately zero. They just happen to use the same general vehicle and a certain "core" set of rules just happens to stay largely the same year to year--but that's not always the case. (Imagine deciding who went to the 2015 CMP based on the 2014 season...) So if I ruled FRC, I'd see how I could leverage the district point system to my advantage, maybe add a secondary set of "Inspiration" points (tacked to some awards, or awarded by judges for certain actions/impacts, or as a bonus for how long since you've been to CMP) to sort of help separate everybody by whatever, and bias one championship slightly towards "inspiration" and one slightly towards "competition". Of course, I don't rule FRC, so this is all hypothetical.
|
To the first thing: qualifying to a single championship is wholely different than qualifying under a 2 league championship setup. Under a single championship, its almost win to get in. Under a 2 championship system, you are locked into a championship that you have to win into. If you are gaining Challenger points, you can only get into Challenger Championship. If that isnt put forth to the team at the beginning of the year, that is on leadership.
To the second thing: I agree. This is FIRST's fault to begin with; but if we are getting stuck with 2 championships for a while, I think this is the best option.
To the third thing: Like I said before, kids that are already on the team, should know how the system would go. New kids would come into the system knowing they either have to win their way to the Premier Division or do the absolute best to stay in Premier. I dont think it would be that hard to understand nor that hard to motivate the kids to strive to be better.
To the fourth thing: If you are in Challenger and win events where Premier teams do bad or worse than you, feel great about that. Because that gives you a better chance of moving up to Premier.
To the fifth thing: Wrong. Every year connects to each other. Do you want a bunch of one-and-done teams or do you want to build programs? How would FIRST be if 254, 1114, 233, 2056,... were all one-and-done teams? FIRST wouldnt be 1% as Inspiring as it is now; it is, because these teams are programs that sustain over multiple years. If you build a system that promotes success over periods of time rather than each individual year, you will build programs and thus FIRST as a program.