Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Banderoonies

One idea is to have an entire division of rookies (first and second year teams) in one division. you can crown a rookie champion this way. All teams winning rookie award are placed there. rookies that have won a regional can have a choice. just a thought.

Have you ever been on a team that has won Rookie All-Star? I have the (granted, we won the regional too, but by chance. Beside the point). We worked very very hard to make it to champs, and the biggest thing that kept us going was being on the same field as the powerhouses. Even though we got our butts kicked, the most inspiring thing about the whole year was being on the same field with the "big kids." And from there, the next year, we were inspired to build a machine that could beat those teams.

Putting all Rookie All-Star winners on their own field is kind of like saying "aw, that's cute, but you're not really worthy of playing with us real FRC teams." There was already enough of the "aw, you're a rookie team, you must need tons of help, and let's overcrowd you with advice and help that you don't need" our rookie year, but being put on our own field would have just been a slap in the face to us. It would have felt like FIRST didn't really want us there, but they had to. There's a reason that Rookie All-Star, Chairman's, and EI winners are invited to champs in the first place, and there's a reason they were never segregated.

Just my $0.02 coming from when I was a founding member of a rookie team.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

I think going all districts is the way to go. Having some districts some not only provides cost and competitive benefits to those within districts. Those of us out of districts are still paying the same amount for less than half of the playing time (not to mention the higher travel cost due to distance and number of nights). Plus they are given more playing time and thus more opportunities for advancement.

A permanent "some district some not" only benefits those teams in more populated areas and alienates those in more rural areas. We need an all district system eventually or we will see rural teams diminish.

As trivial as this is to everyone who has done FIRST, especially teams like us in "rural" areas, I dont see any immediate changes happening anytime soon. I'm hoping that with Frank at the helm, he'll allow ANY team to participate in an existing district model after all teams from their own respective areas sign up first?
I found that over the years, I have changed and grown accustomed to playing more and more tournaments/matches every season. The thrill of a season with doing just 1 Regional and Championship is no longer enough. In the past, doing more than 1 event was a luxury. Now its the standard and I've grown accustomed to raising X amount of funds and playing X amount of matches.
Most district teams are used to paying only X amount of $$ to participate, and we want to be able to have the same pricing structure as well.
I'd give up the auto-qualifying HOF status and qualify via the State Championship route, if given the choice to participate in a District system with its associated costs.
Whether its in a HS gym or in a large stadium, I'm fine as long as there is Pizza at the concession stand.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by waialua359

As trivial as this is to everyone who has done FIRST, especially teams like us in "rural" areas, I dont see any immediate changes happening anytime soon. I'm hoping that with Frank at the helm, he'll allow ANY team to participate in an existing district model after all teams from their own respective areas sign up first?
I found that over the years, I have changed and grown accustomed to playing more and more tournaments/matches every season. I've grown accustomed to raising X amount of funds and playing X amount of matches.
Most district teams are used to paying only X amount of $$ to participate, and we want to be able to have the same pricing structure as well.
I'd give up the auto-qualifying HOF status and qualify via the State Championship route, if given the choice to participate in a District system with its associated costs.
Whether its in a HS gym or in a large stadium, I'm fine as long as there is Pizza at the concession stand.

Here's the real question: No money from entry fees goes directly to the events you attend. WHY does a second play cost what it does?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Here's the real question: No money from entry fees goes directly to the events you attend. WHY does a second play cost what it does?

Or a third as in our case.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

I think going all districts is the way to go. Having some districts some not only provides cost and competitive benefits to those within districts. Those of us out of districts are still paying the same amount for less than half of the playing time (not to mention the higher travel cost due to distance and number of nights). Plus they are given more playing time and thus more opportunities for advancement.

A permanent "some district some not" only benefits those teams in more populated areas and alienates those in more rural areas. We need an all district system eventually or we will see rural teams diminish.

Interesting how travel costs are both being used as an argument for and against districts. Perhaps it's time we realize that travel costs are not really a controllable expense for the FRC population as a whole, and that some teams will pay more than others regardless of the system used. Some teams will be hurt by having to travel 2-3 times in a season, instead of just once. Others will be hurt by having to travel a further distance because there are not regionals in their immediate area (though I would imagine that any near-future distrcit system won't put multiple events in day-trip range of those teams).

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Interesting how travel costs are both being used as an argument for and against districts. Perhaps it's time we realize that travel costs are not really a controllable expense for the FRC population as a whole, and that some teams will pay more than others regardless of the system used. Some teams will be hurt by having to travel 2-3 times in a season, instead of just once. Others will be hurt by having to travel a further distance because there are not regionals in their immediate area (though I would imagine that any near-future distrcit system won't put multiple events in day-trip range of those teams).

Plus add on to this that teams in districts sometimes need to plan for four trips (including Champs) or more compared to some teams in regionals where it comes down to 2-3. Its hard to compare whats easier sometimes as its not universal that districts are always going to be better for all teams when it comes to cost and/or advancement.

I know of a few teams in our area who prefer to travel to their events compared to daily commuting other may not. Others are sadly stuck traveling because team density in their area isn't large enough to support two or even one event.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Interesting how travel costs are both being used as an argument for and against districts. Perhaps it's time we realize that travel costs are not really a controllable expense for the FRC population as a whole, and that some teams will pay more than others regardless of the system used. Some teams will be hurt by having to travel 2-3 times in a season, instead of just once. Others will be hurt by having to travel a further distance because there are not regionals in their immediate area (though I would imagine that any near-future distrcit system won't put multiple events in day-trip range of those teams).

I would suggest it is not the added travel costs but the exclusionary policy of restricting district entry to teams within that geographic district that is the problem. When the PNW formed, Boise-based teams lost 2 out of 3 regional events within 400 miles and 4 out of 5 within 500 miles. Should Vegas fall from the schedule and when/if California goes districts, our 2nd event options will require driving 800+ miles each way.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The inverse of this discussion is important as well. It's entirely possible to be proportionally overrepresented in the regional system. Ontario held several smaller regional events, and as a consequence ended up being the most overrepresented population in FRC at the world championship event.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

They don't have to do anything, but hypothetically if only 20 out of 110 teams from an area got a bid into championships, while another region got 30 out of 115 bids, someone is going to call BS on misrepresentation based purely on geography, event structure, venue size, etc.



Provided that there are a series of normalizations for the points system, it's probably the best order AFTER you get through the idea of ensuring 6 teams from every regional go, instead of 5 or 4 or 3.

For those of you playing along at home, I was comparing MAR to Ontario.

Originally Posted by Banderoonies

One idea is to have an entire division of rookies (first and second year teams) in one division. you can crown a rookie champion this way. All teams winning rookie award are placed there. rookies that have won a regional can have a choice. just a thought.

Am I the only person that remembers we cut the fields down from 100 to 32? You're needlessly cutting out teams like 2013's New London Robotics because I can only assume you'd rather have rookie teams bumming around in their like-tenured squalor so you aren't weighed down by their varying abilities at champs, as other people on this board have thinly veiled this opinion before.

Since the culture changing awards moved to the regional level, there have been some wide fluctuations in robot acumen across those awards, and as the number of regionals grow, the more variation we can get. The district system is allowing this to be solved by curtailing the number of RCA/RAS/REI awards at the R/SCMP level.

[Aren Siekmeier]

I think this has been touched on a little bit, but I'd like to make it more concrete.

Many talk about a hybrid system (such as we have now) as if it's really bad. But we should think about how it compares to what we have now. Right now, most teams pay $5000 for a regional somewhere in their vicinity, maybe an additional $4000 for another event, and then go straight to CMP. Some teams in areas that have worked very hard to establish a district system benefit from this with more, cheaper playing time, smaller events, etc.

What makes adding an individual district worse? (vs going all districts, which is really not feasible for a while, if ever.) It definitely benefits the teams in the new district, and they deserve it because of the hard work needed to get there. Does it harm other teams? They do not see their playing time get more expensive, as some have suggested. It's still $5000 plus maybe $4000 and then straight to CMP. Maybe all nearby events are no longer available, but I think in these cases FIRST needs to consider opt-ins to the district system for nearby teams. Saying that district teams are coming and stealing your regional spots is kind of a sad argument (don't you think they would have traveled even if they weren't in a district?).

I'm saying that adding a district is good for those in the district, and really not a big deal for those well outside of it (those right on the cusp should have an option to join if regional availability suddenly vanishes). The people in district areas work their butts off to get the benefits, and the rest of us keep what we had. So let's not demand all or nothing on districts because of perceived inequality in a hybrid system. This inequality is directly related to the strength of the FRC community in your area, and as I've said before, a lot of FIRST happens because of the volunteers, mentors, and people at home, not the people at HQ.

[Jon Stratis]

Quick question for those in a district... Who is it that works so hard to create and run the district? The teams? The volunteers? The planning committee?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Quick question for those in a district... Who is it that works so hard to create and run the district? The teams? The volunteers? The planning committee?

Yes.

[E Dawg]

159 was finally able to go to a second regional last season and might not be able to afford to do it again for a while. On the other hand, I see teams talking about how they are going to 3 or 4 regionals each season. This is why I support a transition to districts for everyone. Under the regional system, a team that is able to attend more competitions has a higher probability of going to CMP than a team that can only go to one. If it's districts, districts everywhere, then teams can only attend one competition and there is less of a power imbalance due to money in the regional system.

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Have you ever been on a team that has won Rookie All-Star? I have the (granted, we won the regional too, but by chance. Beside the point). We worked very very hard to make it to champs, and the biggest thing that kept us going was being on the same field as the powerhouses. Even though we got our butts kicked, the most inspiring thing about the whole year was being on the same field with the "big kids." And from there, the next year, we were inspired to build a machine that could beat those teams.

Putting all Rookie All-Star winners on their own field is kind of like saying "aw, that's cute, but you're not really worthy of playing with us real FRC teams." There was already enough of the "aw, you're a rookie team, you must need tons of help, and let's overcrowd you with advice and help that you don't need" our rookie year, but being put on our own field would have just been a slap in the face to us. It would have felt like FIRST didn't really want us there, but they had to. There's a reason that Rookie All-Star, Chairman's, and EI winners are invited to champs in the first place, and there's a reason they were never segregated.

Just my $0.02 coming from when I was a founding member of a rookie team.

I totally agree with this! Putting Rookie All-Star winners off by themselves is basically saying "Well you're invited to be at the Championship event, but you really didn't actually make the Championship". Keeping RAS, RCA, REI, etc. evenly mixed in with field competitive teams is important.

So many people out there want championship to be about the best robots on the field. I understand where they are coming from, but at the end of the day that will not further the ultimate goals of FIRST, which is to create culture shift. Having a championship event where we have the best teams on every front, will help impact the general public, and having Rookie teams at the event with the "big boys" will allow them to be inspired to one day reach those same heights.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Quick question for those in a district... Who is it that works so hard to create and run the district? The teams? The volunteers? The planning committee?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Yes.

I know Sean knows this, but just to clarify for a more general audience: teams, volunteers, and planning committee members are very often the same people. Very engaged, passionate, overworked, under-recognized people. They are the ones who inspire me.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

I know Sean knows this, but just to clarify for a more general audience: teams, volunteers, and planning committee members are very often the same people. Very engaged, passionate, overworked, under-recognized people. They are the ones who inspire me.

That might be what Sean means, but even if there isn't any overlap between those roles, all of those groups have to work insanely hard to keep their region running with strong and competitive teams. It's not just 'show up at my regional and play' anymore.