[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits?

Numbers taken from your earlier post where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.

But let's not look super far into the future - let's picture a world where FRC has grown to the point where we need, let's say, five Championsplits.

I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives, then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring.

I'm guessing you didn't read the Wikipedia page on the paper I posted. I'll relink you: Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Now, its relevancy is up to debate, but the thesis is pretty simple: the more of something there is, the less of an impact there will be. This is why particular sports events are so important (and also why World Jamborees are such special events; sidenote, I have 13 years of Boy Scout experience, from Beavers to Ventures, and while I didn't get my Chief Scout, I like to think I know that program as well). Olympic Gold is so crucial to many athletes because they only get to compete for it every four years. The exclusivity is what makes the event special! Also, if you read on, I'll go into depth as to why these events won't be as huge as we're used to.

I'm basically arguing that the Championship experience will change, period. The general argument is that the Championsplit will either increase inspiration because more teams will experience the event, or will decrease inspiration, because part of the Championship experience is being with all the top and international teams, half of which would be missing at a Championsplit event. It's obvious which sides of the fence each of us are on, but it'd be nice if we try to take the other side into account. Neither of us has enough FIRST experience or have talked to enough FIRSTers to get an accurate idea of what the majority of teams value, so let's not put words into each others' mouths. Instead, let's look at other, more arguable and concrete reasons why the Championsplit model is good or bad.

There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows.

A Post-Championsplit event where the event winners face off was not in FIRST's original plan, and so it doesn't suit the sustainability of the Championsplit model. As more and more Championsplit events are added, the number of alliances that will want to play at that Winners' Event will increase. Soon, there will be the need for round-robin play before eliminations, if there aren't 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 teams attending. Otherwise, how do you decide who gets bye's? Better yet, how do you decide who faces who? Scheduling becomes longer, and suddenly this event, which FIRST has said that they are looking to pay for in its entirety, becomes more and more expensive.

For example, League of Legends just had their Mid-Season Invitational, where they took the Spring Champions of their six leagues from around the world and played them off of each other. Their six-team tournament lasted four days. There are some obvious differences here (LoL games last longer than FRC matches by quite a bit, and they waited a day between the semis and final matches), but it just goes to show that the time that these events need to be run properly balloons.

What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

I honestly don't understand this point, because I never once (nor did anyone in this thread) say that FRC should stop growing. And, for the record, my idea for a Post-2016 Post-Season Model does account for team growth (and so do many others in that thread which advocate for a single-Championship model).

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

This is a fair point.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you.

Which is exactly why the Championsplit model as presented by FIRST is unsustainable once we get above four Championsplit events. There are currently only four cities FIRST thinks has the facilities and location to fit a 400 team event: Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit (with the last one including lots of travelling between buildings). We were told at the Town Hall that venues further west "didn't work out." Where does the fifth Championsplit go? If FIRST wants to keep with their 25% number, we will need a fifth Championsplit event when we hit 8000 teams.

Again, my proposed model calls for local, Super-Regional (or "Challenger Championships", as they've been popularly called) events capped at 200 teams, which makes finding local facilities much easier.

And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Two words: team turnover. The very very top teams are sure to stick around, but they've been sticking around for years. Teams go through noticeable dynasties, rising and falling with a core group of students. Top teams use mentorship and superior training to stay on top, but the majority of teams lose a lot of talent when their top members graduate. For example, the final six teams on Einstein in 2011 were 254, 111, 973, 177, 2016, and 781. Of those six teams, only 254 is still a perennial powerhouse. The other five teams have dropped off, although they are still mid to upper-middle of the pack teams (speaking in regards to on-field success). Go back even farther, and you get a whole other crop of dominating teams.

And there will always be the teams that have breakthrough years and build robots that do much better than the team's history would suggest. 1325, two-time regional finalist and Carson Alliance Captains / Champions, for example.

When you are talking about the true "powerhouse teams" of FIRST, the teams that can be expected to make a huge splash and contend for the Championship Title year after year after year, you get a list of 25 - 50 teams. And that's stretching it. That's a far, far cry from filling a 400 team event. There will always be "wriggle room" for new teams to make it in.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

I would argue that this is a false comparison, as the nature of the Chief Scout is one of personal growth, whereas a Championship should be about competition. The nature of the achievement is completely different. Unless you see the Championship event as a badge to earn, as opposed to being modeled off of sports, which was the whole point of FIRST to begin with (see Dr. Joe's fantastic post about how competition has been the backbone of FRC since day one).

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

Would FIRST run these events? If FIRST doesn't organize these Jamborees, then teams won't go. And if there isn't a competitive incentive, then the top teams won't go, and there goes a huge chunk of your inspiration.

Especially if you consider the cost of attending these events. How many teams are going to dish out $10,000 on registration and travel to attend an event where teams basically get to talk to each other. The cost/benefit issue will keep the majority of FRC teams (who can't even afford a second regional, by the way) out of the Jamboree entirely.

And then there's the size of the Jamboree to consider. Again, having a large event is limited by the facilities available. So we're basically capped at a 600 team event, which means a lower percentage of teams get to experience an international event as FIRST grows. Which is the problem we're having right now.