Future Championship Poll

[Amo10]

I made this poll as a way to visualize the response to the 2017+ Championship system without having to sift through pages of conversation.

[BBray_T1296]

I suggest we post in this thread specific, concise reasons we voted the way we did. No conversation, just list generation.

This might help FIRST's addressing of the outcry if they can quantifiably see the areas of most concern.

[Ichlieberoboter]

I think it would be better if they did a system like FTC has with the four superregionals so that even more teams would get the "championship experience" but the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP would still actually be the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

[SenorZ]

Championship means a tournament to determine who is best. Having a "championship" one weekend, with half the best teams (???) followed by another "championship" a week later, betrays the name "championship".

[Sperkowsky]

this is similar to how they do womans gymnastics. in level 9 they have easterns and westerns yet they are both called nationals. its a little weird but its how they have always done it.

[Whippet]

I'm going to hold off on having an opinion on this until 2015 Champs is over, hence the "I don't know yet."

[The other Gabe]

I don't know yet because not enough information/details have been released. There may be an obvious need for this that has not been made clear by the organizers of FIRST.
Leaning towards not liking it though because of their talk of making it more accessible, while moving it further away from my team at both venues

[pmangels17]

No. They presented something ambiguous and seemingly problematic without addressing obvious concerns. It is unsettling that "more is to come" because I believe there should've been more foresight and addressing all these problems BEFORE they committed to this format. Now they have no option but to push ahead. If this is an indication of similarly poor planning by FIRST in the future, and extreme lack of concern for teams (evidenced by them not asking anyone about this before making the change), then I fear that FIRST will soon fail to be the premier format for competition robotics. I know it's not all about the robot, but I signed up for a competition, not a convention, and so did many other people.

[Alan Anderson]

I don't like the dual championships.
I don't like the choice of locations.
I don't like the way this was announced.

But I don't think my personal feelings about it are important right now. I'll wait and see how it goes.

[ForgotSemicolon]

I'd like to meet high level teams around the world, not half of said teams

[Pretzel]

I voted no for the following reasons:

- A large part of the inspiration from the events like championships and IRI comes from the interaction with high level teams. Splitting the championships means you're splitting the teams and some teams will never have a chance to talk with others and expand their horizons accordingly.

- Though this is a minor detail and would likely not affect my current team, it seems a bit odd to pick a city notorious for violent crime to host one of the championship events

- From Merriam-Webster
Championship
noun
: an important competition that decides which player or team is the best in a particular sport, game, etc.

I fail to see how you can decide who the best is when not all the teams are competing against each other.

Regardless of what the events are called, they would not be "championships" to me.

[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.