[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

Originally Posted by jman4747

Those are two different tasks. How is the competition structure related to community enrichment other than the fact of their being a competition is why you may have started doing that work? Are you saying that splitting championships thus prevents that sort of work?

It comes across like anything not directly related to the competition being valuable to you is solely dependent on winning and how important the victory is. I wouldn't think that would be the case.

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery that they have seen before in other threads where I've posted: Based on my 30 years of professional education and work experience, people do NOT do what they OUGHT to do just because we expect them to do so. They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so. People do not voluntarily reduce their air pollution by driving less voluntarily; they only do so through a combination of higher gasoline prices and enforced automotive technologies. Charities know that their contributions will decrease dramatically if the charitable deduction is removed from the tax code. If you can provide real, not speculative, counterexamples, then I might accept your premise that elite teams will continue to compete and contribute at their current levels simply because they the community believes that they ought to.

Originally Posted by jman4747

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

Originally Posted by BrennanB

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

BrennanB is on point. Again, Kamen's brilliant insight was "why fight what our cultural worships? Why not use that cultural pathway already blazed by someone else to promote STEM?

Some of our best marketing geniuses work in the sporting world. Did you know that Nike's "Just Do It" was started 27 years ago? Nike uses the success of the very best athletes to market to masses. They are HUGE dominant sponsors in most sports, and they are the dominant sporting goods company. Why would we think that FIRST has a better thought on how to reach the masses?

Remember the mission of FIRST is NOT to reach just the current team members or those who would go into STEM in any case. They are trying to bring a broader group into STEM. While you might say we are different sports, I don't see the rationale for why we should use a different marketing approach than sports. Why not use the most successful model and build on that?

An additional point that I've made before: We already have other organizations that promote STEM through less or non competitive activities. Why should FIRST move away from its unique and seemingly successful niche? Is there some type of encroachment that threatens the existence of FIRST that I'm not aware of? And even so, isn't our overall goal promotion of STEM and shouldn't we stand aside if someone else has a better widget?

I'm not seeing the compelling argument that says that FIRST should diverge from its current product; only that teams that use competition as motivation should accept a less motivational format that is somehow more inspirational in an unstated way. The counter argument seems to be that many would prefer to be at an event with (the same every year) half of the now less motivated elite teams rather than being at either an event with highly motivated elite teams plus an event with equally motivated not quite as elite teams. I'm not seeing why the former is more inspirational than the latter.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

The general public wants competition and excitement. There is no reason an increase in competition has to lead to a decrease in sportsmanship (aka GP). By hinting that GP can only be maintained with competition being sub-servant sends the message to students that they can't be competitive AND have GP.

Adam is reiterating what I've already posted earlier here. The INSPIRATION that other teams get derives substantially from the COMPETITIVENESS that drives the elite teams. Do you remember the excitement last fall around Chezy Champs? My take was that there were many following it on CD who were not attending? Who put that on? The World Champion Cheesy Poofs. Do you think that they would have made the effort to gather those teams if they hadn't been inspired by their own success? Do you think that even the lowest placing team was inspired by that competition? I think someone needs to provide an example of how reducing 254's incentive for excellence improves the inspiration that other teams derive from 254's efforts.

Originally Posted by NoahTappen

In Michigan we have a similar format to two championships for FLL. Both teams address themselves as state Champs. And the only problem is the fact that only one team goes to the FIRST Championship. It doesn't make the competition any less competitive.

Also Imagine years down the road when there is a North North American Championship, a South South American Championship, a European Championship, a South American Championship, an East Asian Championship, a Pacific Championship, And a North African Championship. Then we will have a need for a "World Championship" but having more competitions doesn't take away from a competitive nature it only allows more people to be exposed to FIRST and encourage growth in STEM fields.

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

And championsplit is not about creating continental championships (which would be inevitable.) FIRST HQ has not shown any indications that heading that direction is behind their decision, so I heavily discount that motive.

Originally Posted by Taylor

To steal the conclusion from the Mentor-Driven vs Student-Driven Team debate:
It depends on what works best for your team. YMMV.
It is my opinion that HQ is trying to find a solution that works the best for the most teams.
Some may feel alienated; some may disagree with aspects of the proposed solution; some may have 'better' ideas. But HQ is trying to work toward (what it believes is) the greater good, and I can respect that.

This is not about what is best for an individual team or what individual teams decide. We are working as a cooperative community across all teams, and the the larger point is that FIRST is trying to inspire the entire culture. (The Mentor v Student Led debate is only germane to individual teams that have already been formed.) And as a community, many of us are questioning if FIRST HQ understands what is best for the greater good. As members, we should not just stand back and leave what we think is a harmful decision be made by HQ--we're speaking out.


See my preface above. Your are asking teams to what they OUGHT to do, not what the community has given them the INCENTIVE to do. When those run at cross purposes, incentives will trump.

Originally Posted by IKE

Which is more inspiring, owning any lamborghini, or:

Ike's story made me ask a question which I think demonstrates my point. Why does Dodge build the Viper, when it has already invented one of the most successful and wide selling passenger vehicle types, the mini-van? Simple answer: Dodge needs a hot singular, identifiable car to inspire through this imagery a desire to buy its mini-vans. The chain of inspiration may not be immediately obvious, but the auto marketing gurus, who are the other hugely successful marketers along with sports, have made that connection. Dodge probably makes almost no money on the Viper. (I'll bet it actually loses money.) But having a noticeable car attracts attention to the rest of its car line. Having a "World Champion" is FRC's Viper that helps it sell all of its new FRC rookie team mini vans.

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

I'm afraid this could really happen if we lose the motivation for the elite teams. I've seen what those teams do in action. (If anyone thinks of including us in that group, understand that we're really late comers to this.) There is a chain of causation. It may not be obvious to you, but its there. Dean's great insight was seeing it in front of him. Let's not lose it.