Future First Championship News

[popnbrown]

It sounds like a big grievance is the fact that the competitive nature of FRC is removed.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I was never initially attracted to FRC because of its competitive nature, nor do I try to attract students to my FIRST team because of its competitive nature.

My team has arguably a terrible robot this year, by competition standards. This however has no bearing on whether my team was a success or not, and while it does have some bearing in certain students' minds, I choose to actively not let it.

The reason I am attracted to FIRST is because of the ideal that inspiration can be attained without winning. The reason I am attracted to FIRST is not that they want to become a sport, but that they want to add an addendum to the meaning of sport.

I realize not everyone feels this way, and yes it potentially will isolate some people. But I implore everyone to truly consider what the core underlying value of this program is.

I ultimately side with some of the folks here that feel that we all need to finish venting and re-group in a few weeks. If you choose to leave FIRST or not, remember that we are ultimately here trying to inspire students from all different backgrounds that not only STEM is a great opportunity, but that a little inspiration (in whatever form) can go a long way.


I want to say some of us on our team are absolute "Chezy" fanboys and forever will want to strive to be at their level whether we play with them, see them, or not

[T^2]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

My team has arguably a terrible robot this year, by competition standards. This however has no bearing on whether my team was a success or not, and while it does have some bearing in certain students' minds, I choose to actively not let it.[/size]

Your students care about achieving victory, but since you don't care, you conclude that it doesn't matter for your team? Is the program for you, or for your students?



Most people who say "winning doesn't matter" have not won enough to have a balanced opinion on the issue.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by T^2

Your students care about achieving victory, but since you don't care, you conclude that it doesn't matter for your team? Is the program for you, or for your students?

Most people who say "winning doesn't matter" have not won enough to have a balanced opinion on the issue.

http://www3.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

Where does it say "win"?

In my humble opinion, we all win if our students are inspired to be science and technology leaders by mentoring these students in programs that celebrate the learning of these skills.

You don't have to win to gain inspiration.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by ehochstein

You don't have to win to gain inspiration.

Corollary: Victory produces more inspiration.

Of course students can be inspired if they don't win anything. If they do win, they'll become more motivated, more willing to learn, and more confident. My personal experience, at least.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by T^2

Corollary: Victory produces more inspiration.

Of course students can be inspired if they don't win anything. If they do win, they'll become more motivated, more willing to learn, and more confident. My personal experience, at least.

As a student who went to Championships in 2009, I was inspired by winning the 10,000 Lakes Regional but I was more inspired by attending FIRST Championships. We only won 1 match while at FIRST Championships but it is an experience I'll never forget and it is the reason I am still here today.

FIRST Championships is inspiring and the more students, mentors, parents and volunteers I can get there to experience it, the better.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

How do you know his students care about victory?

He said it in his post.

Originally Posted by ehochstein

As a student who went to Championships in 2009, I was inspired by winning the 10,000 Lakes Regional but I was more inspired by attending FIRST Championships. We only won 1 match while at FIRST Championships but it is an experience I'll never forget and it is the reason I am still here today.

FIRST Championships is inspiring and the more students, mentors, parents and volunteers I can get there to experience it, the better.

As a student who went to Championships in 2012, I was inspired by attending.

As a student who went to Championships in 2013 and in 2014, I was inspired by attending but I was more inspired by winning my team's division and walking onto Einstein. I was inspired by knowing that my and my team's efforts culminated in robots that were among the best in the world, and that I could compete against the best in the world. Now FIRST wants to throw away half those teams, and make victory half-hollow.

My team's loss in the finals of 2014 was bitter to me. But it would have been bitterer still if we had won, only to know that an alliance superior to ours was elsewhere, separated from doing battle with us by a bureaucracy grown fat, greedy, and myopic from decades of holding a monopoly on high-level robotics competition.

[Joe G.]

Winning, the experience of winning, isn't crucial. If it was, the only teams who would have any ground to be disappointed in the changes would be the actual winners of the north and south championship events

Winning, the objective, the thing you can point to and say "See that? We want to do that. What can we do to make our program better, to improve our chances at that?" is what has grown FIRST from 28 teams in a high school gym to where it is today. As a result, every team which uses it to drive them forward has a right to be upset. It's a proven motivator, and we should do our best to preserve it as a part of our program.

[Connor Mulkey]

The top-tier teams got to that level because they cared about winning the competition, and they strived to make themselves better in order to achieve that goal. If you look at the top teams in FRC and think, "Man, I want our team to be like that some day," then you better start caring about winning.

That competitive spirit is the single best kickstarter in making your team better, and it's why I believe so strongly in the integrity of this program's competition. The decision to split the championship in two compromises that integrity. It's detrimental to the success of the program, and that's why you've seen this magnitude of backlash here in this thread.

[Kevin Sevcik]

If winning creates more inspiration, isn't that an argument for the 2 WCMP model? Twice the winners is twice the inspiration.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

If winning creates more inspiration, isn't that an argument for the 2 WCMP model? Twice the winners is twice the inspiration.

In that case, let's take it to the logical extreme, and declare everyone a winner on Kickoff day. That would work, right?

No. Two championships cheapens the experience. As has been said many, many times already in this thread.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by T^2

In that case, let's take it to the logical extreme, and declare everyone a winner on Kickoff day. That would work, right?

No. Two championships cheapens the experience.

This is basically forced mediocrity.

My team was upset after we were selected in the second round and getting bounced in QF's after being in SF's the week prior (as third wheel) against a deeper talent pool.... knowing we were highly sought after by nearly all of the strongest alliances in the third round as certain picks. I had to explain to them why we did not want to be a third wheel as our ticket to the worlds we take where we are picked second round and its on us to win if we are able..they all understood, not sure how I explain the two championship model as not everyone can be a winner...hard work and innovation should count....entry should be earned and should be difficult. Rather sit as a second versus in as a third when your stats say you are a truly a second otherwise. I as a mentor knew going in we needed to win one of the regionals we registered for, we didn't and that's 100% on us to do better next year or gain entry with one of the two remaining non-competitive methods or as a long shot wildcard...it should be hard. With failure comes significant improvement.

This is making 1000's of kids third wheels...by design and its too easy. Its good enough championship x2...in 2017. The world does not operate that way. Where's the life lesson for the kids? Its tough out there and FIRST should reflect that challenge every chance they get rather than seeking "profit" and "mediocrity" that teaches nothing good, in an organization promoting non-profit and STEM.

[pagoglia]

I am surprised at how many of the responses are opposed to change. FIRST is an evolving changing beast and there are bound to be changes. Question is was this where change was needed at this time. As a four year lead mentor I can say my team thouroughly enjoyed our Rookie All-Star trip to Championships. We'd love to go again some day but winning there is not as high on our list of things to do as it appears to be with many on this thread. More important is spreading STEM through robotics and having a good time.
A shorter, more relaxed, less competitive version of what exists now might enable some mentors to stay around longer annd some teams to feel more satisfaction. For example; a 'league' where each team can attend if they compete with the robot tbey built as of bag day. No multiple events and therefore no multiple 30 pounds of goodies that permit some to arrive at Championship with a robot that is no longer what came out of the build season. The emphysis is put on getting it right the first time.
The idea being to keep some sanity in the number of months people have to put in. There are a lot of people working as mentors whose involvement grows exponentially with each passing year; turning the mentor positions into what look like full time jobs. This translates into well mentored teams but questionable home life. Money needs to be raised for each added event along with the time commitment. For team members attending multiple events it means more missed school days. I'll stop there but I think that FIRST in general and all teams individually need to question the amount of time and energy they devote to their seasons; attempting to keep some balance of reason so we don't get burnout while trying to effect positive change in our youth.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by T^2

In that case, let's take it to the logical extreme, and declare everyone a winner on Kickoff day. That would work, right?

No. Two championships cheapens the experience. As has been said many, many times already in this thread.

I understand that two championships cheapens the experience for you. I would like to note that this is not a universal truth, as has also been said many times in this thread.

[staplemonx]

• We mentor to inspire.
• We build to learn.
• We dedicate hours to achieve.
• We play to win.

That last two parts just became a whole bunch goofier.

• We dedicate hours to achieve.*
• We play to win.*

Why would any sport...and I believe FIRST is a sport, add an * to their winners?

I heartily disagree with change and recommend they look at the commercial successes of other sports, other competitions, other places where people dedicate themselves to achieve greatness and play with all of their soul to to be the best. Because that is where the love, the passion, the emotion, the character and the memories are born. Those are the moments that people strive to achieve and cherish for a lifetime. Those are the accomplishments that make people think they can be better and motivate them to do more.

Please don't add an * to FIRST.

[Lil' Lavery]

Not going to sift through 33 pages of responses on this issue, so apologies if this has been brought up before.

Do I agree with this change? No, I don't like it currently. My perception could change, and there have been plenty of other changes FIRST has implemented over the years that were met with varying degrees of negative reactions (alliances, districts, serpentine draft, etc) that are now staples of the FRC experience.

High school sports generally don't have widely recognized national champions. Even NCAA football has had split national champions, and only this year finally implemented a playoff system. While FRC obviously doesn't have the widespread appeal of those sports as cultural institutions at this point, I'm not convinced crowning a singular champion is essential to that. And it's not like the current system even does a particularly great job at having the "best" team win every year. The elite teams are aware of the amount of luck involved in the tournament. Match schedule, division placement, alliance selection, tournament match-ups and a slew of other factors have led to many of the consensus "best" individual teams being eliminated in Championship events over the years. The simple fact that it's an alliance-based tournament adds massive amount of uncertainty to the process of crowning the best teams.

I don't agree with this currently, but I'm not going to line up to throw tomatoes at FIRST just yet.