Future Championship Poll

[George Nishimura]

I am unhappy about the announcement. But I voted "I don't know" because it would be presumptuous for me to say it won't be better. A lot of good changes start off looking bad, especially if they are willing to iterate over the idea by engaging the community.

How and why they made the change is my major disagreement.

[Samwaldo]

Of course this could change or be clarified in the future, but the way im seeing this now is: (say the champs are in detroit and houston) If my rookie team from Michigan is just lucky enough to advance to detroit, I wont get the experience to learn from texas teams like 118, etc. in person.

[Qbot2640]

NO

Watering down the honor of being at "Championship"

[Brad Hanel]

I voted "I don't know yet," for the reason that FIRST hasn't clarified something yet.

One of the main arguments against this is that you can't have a championship when not all the best teams are competing against each other. But we already have that sort of thing with divisions.

If FIRST has the teams that win at each of the two places play against each other, or even has teams qualify for Einstein and then Einstein is played somewhere where teams from both play to decide a winner, then I'd be all for it. But then again we already have 3 champions a year, why not six?

But then again, not being able to see all of the best teams is a negative.

[mrnoble]

I strongly disagree with the way this major decision was made.

[Jay Burnett]

I disagree with splitting into two "world championships" based on geographic location because it seems to defeat the whole goal of FIRST. They want to be a sport, but then they don't want anyone to loose. Just because we are robotics kids, some of us nerds, geeks who might not enjoy much outside of our computer screens and tools, does not mean we can't handle losing a bit. Losing is good for you in some cases, it makes you want to be better, it gives that drive, that chip on your shoulder to learn from those world-class teams and give them a run for their money next season. Now, most kids won't even get to see the best teams. teams from the west coast like 254 and teams from GA (which sorely could benefit from studying up on the poofs) won't even meet at worlds! they will be in different locations. Now FIRST will be lying to us. Winners of the new championships won't really be world champions or the best in the world at all. They will be the best in half-the-world. Splitting the event in two makes it less of a competition in my eyes, more of an expo, and less of a sport. Bring districts to the entire world. More matches, same amount of money, a worldwide ranking system based out of district points (maybe), a championship experience at the super-regional or DCMP for the lower teams, and the actual WCMP for the top tier. This all-inclusive nature that FIRST is trying to create is a problem they have created for themselves. Worlds now requires two venues because they have invited so many teams to be a part that might not deserve it (not knocking their achievements at all). Instead make a more dynamic and better district system, decked out with tiers for increasing levels of play, and end with a selective best-of-the-best WCMP. Even if my team never makes it there, we will still have had a CMP experience in our district, and if TV were a part of the WCMP deal, the insight we would gain from interviews with the actual best in the game would make up for not being there in person.

[Kevin Leonard]

I like having one set of world champions. I aspire to be one.
I hate the "everyone's a winner" mentality.
I don't like splitting teams along geographical boundaries.
I don't like splitting teams between two world championships.
I don't like the community not being consulted about this decision.

I'm relatively neutral on the locations, as it does make travel slightly easier for NY teams.

I would advocate for a Districts->DCMP->Super Regionals-> Worlds setup as well, with the goal being to up the ante on how impressive and inspiring DCMP and Super Regionals can be.
I also think DCMP should be free if you qualify.

As for the current state of being stuck with two events due to signed contracts starting in 2017- maybe we can make one of those events FLL/FTC, and the other just FRC? I don't know what other solutions there could be, but I think we , as a community, can try to find one.

[AGPapa]

I voted no because it would split up the community. What makes Champs great is having everybody together.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I would advocate for a Districts->DCMP->Super Regionals-> Worlds setup

I'm always confused by this mindset. Three tiers is enough, why add a fourth when most areas still only have two?

Instead make it
Districts->DCMP->World
and
Regionals->Super Regionals->World

Three tiers is all you need; the proportion of teams qualifying from a DCMP can be easily adjusted, no need for yet another tier.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

I voted no because it would split up the community. What makes Champs great is having everybody together.




I'm always confused by this mindset. Three tiers is enough, why add a fourth when most areas still only have two?

Instead make it
Districts->DCMP->World
and
Regionals->Super Regionals->World

Three tiers is all you need; the proportion of teams qualifying from a DCMP can be easily adjusted, no need for yet another tier.

For now, yeah, but in the very long term, I think you'll need four tiers.
But for now I just want everywhere to go to districts.

[coalhot]

I don't know yet, and only because I want to see what the end goal for FIRST here is. As Dave Lavery said in the other thread, there's some information missing/unannounced yet.

If what was announced yesterday is all, it's a disappointing but inevitable shift in the way the FIRST championship will be held.