Future First Championship News

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Cory

One interpretation of that second quote is that "the details" amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We know that FIRST through Frank has been very receptive to feedback, so I'm betting they will figure out how to incorporate this thread and positive ideas on how to make it better.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

We know that FIRST through Frank has been very receptive to feedback, so I'm betting they will figure out how to incorporate this thread and positive ideas on how to make it better.

There isnt any middle room between both sides here. Everyone on here has been vastly against 2 separate championships. FIRST has already gotten venues and dates, which means these events are in stone and going to happen. There is no incorporation.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by efoote868

We know that FIRST through Frank has been very receptive to feedback, so I'm betting they will figure out how to incorporate this thread and positive ideas on how to make it better.

Well obviously they haven't.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by dodar

There isnt any middle room between both sides here. Everyone on here has been vastly against 2 separate championships. FIRST has already gotten venues and dates, which means these events are in stone and going to happen. There is no incorporation.

When you refuse to look for solutions, all you will find are problems.

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by efoote868

We know that FIRST through Frank has been very receptive to feedback, so I'm betting they will figure out how to incorporate this thread and positive ideas on how to make it better.

The contracts have already been signed. If FIRST wanted to hear feedback, it would have been more helpful to have asked before the final decision was made.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

There isnt any middle room between both sides here. Everyone on here has been vastly against 2 separate championships. FIRST gas already gotten venues and dates, which means these events are in stone and going to happen. There is no incorporation.

The distribution of teams across events hasn't been announced. What I've read on this thread is that we're afraid of the Championship competition becoming less competitive through splitting of powerhouse teams.

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 2nd/3rd pick on each winning alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

When you refuse to look for solutions, all you will find are problems.

Well when FIRST gives up before trying...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The distribution of teams across events hasn't been announced. What I've read on this thread is that we're afraid of the Championship competition becoming less competitive through splitting of powerhouse teams.

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 3rd pick on each alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

Originally Posted by JVN

"One of the important things about FIRST and maybe what separates us from other sports is that we're an inclusive organization we're about not about picking a winner at the expense of others but celebrating everybody's accomplishments and success."

I suppose you can dream that it will end up that way, but the quote from Don Bossi suggests otherwise...

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The distribution of teams across events hasn't been announced. What I've read on this thread is that we're afraid of the Championship competition becoming less competitive through splitting of powerhouse teams.

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 2nd/3rd pick on each winning alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

Yeah, all the starters from the AFC/NFC champion teams go to SuperBowl A; whereas, all the benchwarmers from both teams goes to SuperBowl B. But the outcomes of both will decide who's the best.

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by efoote868

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 3rd pick on each alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

FIRST has already made it clear that teams will be assigned based on geography:

Based on geographic location, teams from all four programs will be assigned to attend one of the events.

Each Championship will serve a still-to-be-defined geographic region in an effort to minimize travel distance and travel cost, while balancing team attendance at both events.

This is probably preferable over sending the 3rd picks from Michigan to the Houston Champtionship.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

Yeah, all the starters from the AFC/NFC champion teams go to SuperBowl A; whereas, all the benchwarmers from both teams goes to SuperBowl B. But the outcomes of both will decide who's the best.

Think NCAA vs. NIT

[audietron]

This year's game was the start of something different and in many peoples opinion, "aweful". I think the system of average qualification points is simply taking away from the excitement and competition. This is another level of everyone is a winner. Essentially this is saturating the competition with large amounts of qualifying teams and making it less inspiring and motivating to go to worlds. Several people have pointed out that teams that have been to worlds through winning an award or winning a regional makes them work that much harder next year to do better. After seeing the Poofs at worlds in 2013, it became a passion to go to worlds again and be able to make it farther yet. With more ability to make it to Einstein or simply get picked at worlds, just reduces the inspiration. Not being able to see half of the qualified teams that you may never see in person are now not around to be inspiring.
For some teams this is OK but for what seems to be the majority this is unacceptable.

[ASmith1675]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The distribution of teams across events hasn't been announced. What I've read on this thread is that we're afraid of the Championship competition becoming less competitive through splitting of powerhouse teams.

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 2nd/3rd pick on each winning alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

I would fear this as much or more than the alternative. This ends up separating teams that are most likely to be inspired, from those most likely be inspiring.

Not having a true champion is a problem, but not the biggest. I don't think teams would be nearly as excited about attending the "2nd level" competition. They would also not have nearly the opportunity to learn from the powerhouses (both outreach and engineering) of the world.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Think NCAA vs. NIT

Yeah, but the NCAA doesnt claim the NIT winner to be the best.

And also look at how many teams decline non-NCAA invites.

[KeeganP]

Originally Posted by efoote868

The distribution of teams across events hasn't been announced. What I've read on this thread is that we're afraid of the Championship competition becoming less competitive through splitting of powerhouse teams.

What if it doesn't have to be that way?

What if the 2nd/3rd pick on each winning alliance, the wait-listed qualifiers and other teams are invited to one championship, and the alliance captains and 1st picks are invited to the other championship?

That seems to maintain the competitiveness while simultaneously including more teams.

That only solves ½ the issue most people on here are discussing. What you propose effectively creates the NCAA tournament and the NIT tournament. Those going to the NCAA-FRC tournament will be greatly inspired and excited about what they see. Those going to the NIT-FRC tournament will almost certainly be less-excited, and they won't get the full "championship experience" because they won't get to see the best of the best teams compete.

The problems most of us seem to be having with this announcement are:

a) FIRST didn't ask teams what they feel may be the best course of action and instead effectively divided the community into North/South

b) Championships is no longer championships, which invokes the questions like "who really wins?" "Do we have enough volunteers?" "Is Championships really Championships anymore?" and dozens more

c) The general direction FIRST seems to now be heading is not what most of us envisioned FIRST should be heading in. FIRST is not always incredibly open with what their goals are and what their methods of achieving their goals are, and that has become a frustration for many over the past years.

(These are my opinions and may not directly reflect the thoughts of all others on this thread, but I tried my best to summarize.)