Future First Championship News

[JohnSchneider]

Solution: regional winners and their wildcards go to Detroit. Everyone else to Houston, with double qualifiers going to Detroit. Treat Detroit as the world championship and Houston as an exhibition championship.

More people to championships. Actually increases the competition level at the main event. Think NCAA vs NIT.

[Larry Lewis]

I don't know all the details of the venue selection process that FIRST goes through but it would have been good if they asked the FIRST teams where they would like to have the two Championships.
They could have provided a list of potential host cities for both Championships and allowed teams to provide their input on where the event should be held.
I understand that FIRST may not be able to accommodate the first choice for all the teams due to cost or event logistics, but at least then they could get a feel for what the teams would want and the teams would be able to provide some say in where to have the events.

I wish that FIRST would allow for teams to be able to select what Championship event they can attend if the team qualifies. For some teams the events are both going to necessitate air travel. If you are already getting on a plane it may not matter as much what city you land in.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by dodar

More costs, more student time used, more mentor time used.

If they're having two large events, they could probably afford to compensate the team for shipping and transit costs.

As I read the announcement and saw they were 2 weeks apart, I was sure the "true world champion" logistics were going to be at the bottom as it made perfect sense.

Here's how I think they could fix this:
1) Crown winner of CMP1, give winning alliance enough money ($10-$15k) to pay for flights/shipment/time to get to CMP2. Bag all winning robots _immediately_ so that they play in the same mechanical state as they were in after their last match. FIRST could probably handle shipping of the winning robots themselves to the 2nd CMP venue.
2) Play CMP2 normally, crown their winner.
3) Immediately following the CMP2 einstein matches, a final showdown between CMP1 and CMP2 winners to crown world champ.

It wouldn't solve the "not getting to see the other best robots in the world in the flesh" problem, but it solves the "no true world champ" problem fairly.

Benefits of my proposed arrangement:
1) Crown a true world champ
2) Minimal cost increase: The CMP1 alliance (coaches/mentors/drivers) would only _need_ to be flown in for the Saturday of CMP2 so that they could compete in the final Einstein matches. They might not even need hotels.
3) Fair playoff between the two winning alliances. Since the CMP1 alliance would've been bagged in whatever state they won in, both alliances would be a similar level of bedragglement.
4) Since the CMP1 winners would be known, FIRST could talk up the upcoming showdown, and CMP2 competitors would know what they're up against. Similarly, the CMP1 team would have the time to strategize and optimize their game plan.

[Rachel Lim]

I am really, really sad by this announcement. I don't even know how to start explaining the feeling that in my senior year, we won't be competing at champs but "half champs." For me, a huge part of FRC is seeing powerhouse teams on the field and saying "someday, we want to be them." How can we see how much we can improve and how far we have to go if we never see these top teams? This is my second year with FRC; we'll be in this new system during my last year on the team. I'm so glad I've known FIRST before this change, and I feel so bad for all the rookies that year who will never experience that level of competition, that level of excitement, and that level of inspiration.

I know what the arguments for this are, besides the geographic and cost benefits (if they exist...). Bringing more teams to champs is inspiring for them, and pushes them to do better. FIRST is not just about the robot. It's more than just about winning. I don't get how this helps those points at all.

Seeing the best of the best is inspiring and pushes us all do do better. It pushes us to build a better robot, to want to win, and in that process we learn more than we ever would if we accepted "good enough" as our goal.

Giving out more medals doesn't make everyone a winner, it just takes away from the teams that truly are. I understand that more teams in elims, more teams on Einstein, and more teams that win is a great experience. But I really hope that if my team ever gets this chance, we get it though our hard work and success on the field, not because more teams need to be picked and we just "good enough." Lowering the level of competition makes average acceptable, and makes aiming for more harder to push for.


Please, FIRST, don't do this. Give us back champs. Give us back the experience of seeing all the amazing teams in the world, the feeling of watching those top teams play and saying "someday we want to do that." Give us back the best method of inspiration we have.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Bongle

If they're having two large events, they could probably afford to compensate the team for shipping and transit costs.

As I read the announcement and saw they were 2 weeks apart, I was sure the "true world champion" logistics were going to be at the bottom as it made perfect sense.

Here's how I think they could fix this:
1) Crown winner of CMP1, give winning alliance enough money ($10-$15k) to pay for flights/shipment/time to get to CMP2. Bag all winning robots _immediately_ so that they play in the same mechanical state as they were in after their last match. FIRST could probably handle shipping of the winning robots themselves to the 2nd CMP venue.
2) Play CMP2 normally, crown their winner.
3) Immediately following the CMP2 einstein matches, a final showdown between CMP1 and CMP2 winners to crown world champ.

It wouldn't solve the "not getting to see the other best robots in the world in the flesh" problem, but it solves the "no true world champ" problem fairly.

Money wouldnt be the biggest problem. Its time. Time off for students and time off for mentors. Which, for mentors, also means lost income.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

Solution: regional winners and their wildcards go to Detroit. Everyone else to Houston, with double qualifiers going to Detroit. Treat Detroit as the world championship and Houston as an exhibition championship.

More people to championships. Actually increases the competition level at the main event. Think NCAA vs NIT.

I'm not a huge fan of this idea. My team has qualified via Chairman's for the past three years, and while we're not usually competitive in St. Louis with the robot, that doesn't mean that we don't want to play with the best robots in the world. If the idea is to keep Chairman's as the most prestigious award in FRC, separating the Chairman's winners out seems like the wrong approach.

[JABot67]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Okay, on Monday, April 24th, 2017 I'll tell my future boss after I win the 2017 Houston Champs that I need to take an additional 2-3 days off and spend $1000+ on a last second trip to STL/DET

Yes it seems quite unfeasible. People have talked about it in this thread and dismissed it as well (I suck at reading through threads before posting. ) It would be very hard to get it to work, even if it was just a Saturday trip and paid for by FRC. Logistics just for the teams would be crazy.

There's always IRI!!

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I'm not a huge fan of this idea. My team has qualified via Chairman's for the past three years, and while we're not usually competitive in St. Louis with the robot, that doesn't mean that we don't want to play with the best robots in the world. If the idea is to keep Chairman's as the most prestigious award in FRC, separating the Chairman's winners out seems like the wrong approach.

Didn't Include chairman's because otherwise the second chairman's award lost a lot of its integrity. Send chairman's to Detroit though. Doesn't matter. The split needs to be made by some Performance metric. Not by geography if you want to save the integrity of the awards

[Drakxii]

Wonder if any of the great teams would just skip a half champs to play at IRI.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by dodar

Money wouldnt be the biggest problem. Its time. Time off for students and time off for mentors. Which, for mentors, also means lost income.

CMP1 team could be flown out of their hometowns on Friday evening, and returned by Sunday. No school or work time missed. They only _need_ to be present for the 3 matches on Saturday afternoon. In a really tight situation, you could probably make it a one-day trip (in by early afternoon on Saturday, gone the moment the matches end).

[dodar]

I would honestly love a full disclosure by FIRST to see the list of "positives" they found that told them to go ahead with this.

[Brandon_L]

Before we all jump the gun, a good guy frank blog is probably in order. If the end goal is this, is it worth a few awkward transition years?

[StAxis]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

For 15 years I have been motivating myself and the teams I have been a part of with the goal of becoming the World Champion.

For 15 years I have been motivating myself and the teams I have been a part of with the thought that at the World Championship, we can look at the world's best robots up close, ask those teams any questions we want, and make friends from all across the world.

For 15 years I have been motivating myself and the teams I have been a part of with the idea that on Saturday of the World Championship, we will see the "final act" of that year's game. The immovable object vs. the unstoppable force (60 vs. 71 in 2002). The most dominating robot ever built (1114 in 2008) against the field of challengers. The gamebreaker (469 in 2010) against the brilliant minds who were trying to figure out how to beat it. The ultimate 3-ball autonomous vs. the ultimate goalie robot.

For 15 years I have been motivating myself and the teams I have been a part of with the goal of changing the culture by making FRC into an actual sport...the kind that non-participants will want to watch and follow (though for the first few years I admittedly didn't quite see it the same way I do now). Every year I cringe a little bit at that year's "twist" - FIRST has gotten Co-Opertition wrong more often than it has gotten it right - but there have always been moments where I think "wow, if every match was like that, this would be on ESPN".

I understand that growing FRC creates challenges that will necessitate change, but there are certainly other ways to do this than to shoot ourselves in the foot and eliminate one of the most universal elements of competition: A champion decided by a final title match(es).

It is clear with this decision that FIRST as an organization doesn't have quite the same set of goals that I do.

The ideals that are held by myself and by many of the longtime FRC mentors and volunteers whom I consider friends and colleagues are bigger than FIRST, and we will find (or make) another vehicle for them if we are forced to.

Jared, you said everything I've wanted to say and better than I could ever say it. I thought that our goals were in line with those of FIRST, clearly they are not. I will be there to help find or make the vehicle we need to get there if need be.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by JABot67

Two points:

First of all, I think that a major gripe a lot of people have about having two championships is that there would be two world championship winning alliances. I think this could be resolved by having the winning alliance from Houston hurry on up to STL or DET the next week to battle it out in an actual final series. This could address a lot of people's concerns about having more than one winning alliance. Most of the Houston crowd, however, would have to watch the finals from home.

The difficulty with this would be ensuring that every winner from the first event can make it to the second. Currently, it's not a big deal if this happens from regional --> champs, because alliances are broken up and every team starts with a clean slate. If you're just going to take the winning alliance, you'd have to ensure that all members are able to attend, or else it wouldn't really be a true championship matchup. And the alternative, putting the winners in the mix with all the other teams, would obviously make the first event completely second class.

Perhaps a better model would be what VEX does with their "US Open" championship event. This event takes place a few weeks before the official championship, and invitations are given to teams who almost, but didn't quite, qualify for the world championship. The event is near championship scale in its own right, and gives teams that experience, but it doesn't suggest itself to be of equal standing to the World Championship. I believe that in the past, but not anymore, teams which performed well at the US Open could accept reserved slots at the World Championship a few weeks later, if the financial/travel burden was worth it for them.

It's important for us to propose reasonable alternatives to FIRST alongside our concerns, if we hope to inspire change. Clearly, FIRST perceives the access level of the championship experience to be a problem, and the current model to be unsustainable. I think that they've made a huge mistake in their solution, and we should work to figure out an alternative in the two years before the changes go into effect.

[MrTechCenter]

You think that if they talk about this plan at St. Louis this year during opening/closing ceremonies that they would get a resounding "Boo!" from the audience? I know it's not GP, but I think FIRST needs to start listening to teams.