[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

As one of these teams, in fact 31st out of 31 PNW slots (before waitlist candidates), I can say I agree. While we had a good enough robot and enough practice to win a district, we weren't as competitive as the top tier at the DCMP.

Our goal as a team, was to make it to world's in this transition year. It feels amazing and the kids are proud, because they know we worked hard to earn it. We want to be competitive at Saint Louis, we want to do our best to contribute in Qualification Matches, but most importantly we want to build a team.

I want my students to strive to be better, to learn more and want more. Being able to show them robots and teams that continue to inspire me allows me to do that. Without the risk of failure or more importantly a lofty goal to reach, how can I expect them to be Inspired to grow.

Teams don't want a banner or a championship slot handed to them, they want to earn it. Winning a match in the finals is not just a victory in the moment, it's being rewarded for all the hard work we put in during the season and up until then at the event.

You want to inspire? Give people all the examples they can get, teach them, and reward them the right amount for the time and effort they put in. That's inspiring.

This right here. Now, there may be teams (or maybe just people in teams) that just want to go, they don't care about competing, they just want to be there. And that is fine. But, it would feel so much better earning the spot based on work, like Navid said.

Our team missed the cutoff by about 5 spots, and personally, i dont mind, we cant afford it anyway. But i feel that DCMPs were super inspiring, and that is something everyone should have.

An idea to try and fix this, instead of DCMPs, why not have the Super Regionals as a "Psudeo-DCMP?" It would reduce the burnout, and you would not need to bump the CMP much, if any, depending on the schedules of the regionals. (i know this has been said before, but i want to bring it up again.)


Also, someone talked about the FLL, only .0034%(?) of teams get to go to CMPs, why do we have 25%? why not more 10%? Once most of FRC goes to districts, everyone will have a CMP like feel, but in a smaller area. We dont need 800+ championship, thats just too many teams. And with less teams, we dont need two arenas.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

With all due respect, only the best should attend Champs.

I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.

I would think it would be hard to get funding or school support to attend an event the team was not competing at.

[Tottanka]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.

I stand corrected, that's what i meant.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Matt_Boehm_329

I would think it would be hard to get funding or school support to attend an event the team was not competing at.

What if FIRST provided a reduction in registration fees the following year for every student who volunteers at the championship? It could be expensive, but more students get the experience the championship and that helps with the lack of volunteers.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

What if FIRST provided a reduction in registration fees the following year for every student who volunteers at the championship? It could be expensive, but more students get the experience the championship and that helps with the lack of volunteers.

Money won't help if students won't be able to get (more) time off from school or school-affiliated teams won't be able to get permission to travel to an event they're not competing at.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

Money won't help if students won't be able to get (more) time off from school or school-affiliated teams won't be able to get permission to travel to an event they're not competing at.

Totally agree.
I suspect that most schools would not allow students or programs to pay people to attend the championships if their team didnt qualify for the event, especially if they live in Hawaii and the event is in st. louis/houston/detroit.

[Squillo]

Maybe I'm remembering wrong (it happens...), but it wasn't that long ago that ANY veteran team could simply sign up to go to Champs. I don't remember a lot of complaints about that. There have always been lots of robots at Champs that do not embody "world class" engineering, do not score in the top 10% at their local events, etc. Champs IS about "more than robots" and IMVHO, it should stay that way.

(When we went to Champs in 2010, we certainly didn't have a "world class" robot - we got there by winning the EI award at regionals. We competed, we contributed to our alliances - our robot was not bad, but not "Einstein material" by a long shot. Attending that Championship event was the most inspiring thing that happened to our team for a long time. It was what got me and several other mentors involved, and prompted us to start a non-profit organization to support all robotics on our island. It got many, many students involved in our team for the first time. Seeing what Miss Daisy had done showed us that the CA was not just something we had to do because of the NASA grant, but so much more!)

Back then, and before, there were fewer teams in FRC, and I don't know what percentage of them went to Champs, but it definitely wasn't only the "cream of the crop" in terms of robot performance or engineering. Even our little "Home Depot" robot finished in the solid middle of our division. And no one was complaining about the field being full of "boxes on wheels" then!

I just don't get the outrage over (a whopping) 25% of teams getting to go to Champs. 75% still won't get to go - and I doubt the 25% will include that many more "bad" robots than currently go to Champs. There are just a whole lot MORE "decent" (but admittedly not "world crushing") robots out there now that there are so many more teams, and I see nothing wrong with letting a few more of them get inspired.

Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Based on what I've seen at our regional over the past few years, if twice as many teams attended Champs this year as in 2010, the "worst" robot/team* attending in 2015 would still be "better" than the worst in 2010. Even the rookie winners now are competitive, and back then, I'm not sure that was always, or even often, so.

While I can see that folks might get annoyed about there no longer being "one world champion" alliance (which FIRST seems to be considering remedying), the actual location of the events (which may be the result of factors beyond their control and in any event, probably can't be changed now, and couldn't please everyone anyway), and the inability to 'hob nob' with ALL of the teams from around the world, I just don't see the outrage about allowing 800 teams, or 25%, to attend a Championship event. OTOH, I have no problem with calling it a super-regional if you like, and then having another event for only the "super elite" to attend (which should be free, in terms of entry fee and robot shipping, with subsidized housing, lots of free food, and maybe transportation - talk about EARNING something! THAT would inspire my team to really work hard!!).

*I'm talking about engineering and scoring performance of the robot and drivers, but I think the same would hold true for just about ANY measure of a team's "ability" - the quality of their CA efforts and presentation, their "team imagery," scouting - except maybe GP, which seems to have been fairly consistent (and high).

[Tottanka]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Maybe I'm remembering wrong (it happens...), but it wasn't that long ago that ANY veteran team could simply sign up to go to Champs. I don't remember a lot of complaints about that. There have always been lots of robots at Champs that do not embody "world class" engineering, do not score in the top 10% at their local events, etc. Champs IS about "more than robots" and IMVHO, it should stay that way.

(When we went to Champs in 2010, we certainly didn't have a "world class" robot - we got there by winning the EI award at regionals. We competed, we contributed to our alliances - our robot was not bad, but not "Einstein material" by a long shot. Attending that Championship event was the most inspiring thing that happened to our team for a long time. It was what got me and several other mentors involved, and prompted us to start a non-profit organization to support all robotics on our island. It got many, many students involved in our team for the first time. Seeing what Miss Daisy had done showed us that the CA was not just something we had to do because of the NASA grant, but so much more!)

Back then, and before, there were fewer teams in FRC, and I don't know what percentage of them went to Champs, but it definitely wasn't only the "cream of the crop" in terms of robot performance or engineering. Even our little "Home Depot" robot finished in the solid middle of our division. And no one was complaining about the field being full of "boxes on wheels" then!

I just don't get the outrage over (a whopping) 25% of teams getting to go to Champs. 75% still won't get to go - and I doubt the 25% will include that many more "bad" robots than currently go to Champs. There are just a whole lot MORE "decent" (but admittedly not "world crushing") robots out there now that there are so many more teams, and I see nothing wrong with letting a few more of them get inspired.

Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Based on what I've seen at our regional over the past few years, if twice as many teams attended Champs this year as in 2010, the "worst" robot/team* attending in 2015 would still be "better" than the worst in 2010. Even the rookie winners now are competitive, and back then, I'm not sure that was always, or even often, so.

While I can see that folks might get annoyed about there no longer being "one world champion" alliance (which FIRST seems to be considering remedying), the actual location of the events (which may be the result of factors beyond their control and in any event, probably can't be changed now, and couldn't please everyone anyway), and the inability to 'hob nob' with ALL of the teams from around the world, I just don't see the outrage about allowing 800 teams, or 25%, to attend a Championship event. OTOH, I have no problem with calling it a super-regional if you like, and then having another event for only the "super elite" to attend (which should be free, in terms of entry fee and robot shipping, with subsidized housing, lots of free food, and maybe transportation - talk about EARNING something! THAT would inspire my team to really work hard!!).

*I'm talking about engineering and scoring performance of the robot and drivers, but I think the same would hold true for just about ANY measure of a team's "ability" - the quality of their CA efforts and presentation, their "team imagery," scouting - except maybe GP, which seems to have been fairly consistent (and high).

If you won EI, you were a world class team, thats good enough for inspiration at this event.
Also, the percentage is around 20% for years now. Those (me included) who advocate to lower the percentage don't to it because we want less teams in champs. We claim it because FIRST makes 2 championships only in order to keep that percentage of championships attendance. In my opinion, there's no need to keep that.
The main problem with 2 events is not the fact that you have an undecided world champion, nobody cares about that. The problem is that such event will be far less inspiring. I for one am really really waiting to see this year's robots of 148,254 and 1114 (just to name a few) going head to head. That inspires me, and is what keeps me pushing my team forward. Not having this level of competition will hurt how FIRST inspires people.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

Dear Frank,

Thank you for listening at this point. However, I think many people would appreciate it if you didn't just listen now, you explained. Why was this solution chosen? How was the problem(s) it solved defined? What other options were considered? What was done to assess the best interests of teams? Who was consulted, what feedback was taken? Why was this process kept secret until after venues and dates were set? Is anything in the press release alterable? How can this model scale long-term? What are the future plans/alternatives?

...

^^^^
This

Additionally (Frank), for the benefit of everyone concerned about the announced Championship plans, wouldn't it be nice if someone with the authority to do so (and that's not all the folks waving their personal opinions around like six-shooters), both (re)stated and unambiguously ranked by importance, the true purposes/goals of the event the FIRST web site home page graphics call the FIRST Championship?

On the other side of the coin:

Many people writing here on Chief Delphi seem to want to argue with FIRST about the Championship's purpose.

Until everyone gets that bickering out of their systems, and decides to focus on helping accomplish the official, prioritized list of reasons for holding the FIRST Championship (see above), there will be a lot of wasted posts here and elsewhere.

If you disagree with FIRST's objectives/reasons for holding a Championship, or if you want FIRST to shuffle the importance they attach to those objectives, that's fine; but that is also a different question/task than the one Frank put in front of you in his blog post.

Blake

[Squillo]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

If you won EI, you were a world class team, thats good enough for inspiration at this event.

Then "World Class" was a LOT different from what it is now. (And I do think it was. That was part of my point. Some are worried about standards being lowered, but we have to remember, they have been going up steadily over time. This is just like a "market correction" - some may say needed or desirable, some may disagree.)

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.

I've always entertained the idea of separating the teams who qualify. If FIRST chooses to inspire more students by inviting more teams to the championship and not make higher quality district championships, why not have all teams who qualified via success in the robot game (ie. winning/wildcards) compete in the robot game, have all those who qualified via chairmans/engineering inspiration compete in the outreach game, and find a way to have a separate group for the waitlist teams (or figure out how to determine which ones compete where via some kind of points system). It would allow more students to be inspired at championships without lessening the value of any individual area.

Is this ideal? Far from it. I wouldn't even want it. A single, smaller championship event with more celebrated district championships would solve all these problems in a much more effective manner. But if FIRST is insistent on using the championship event(s) to be their main method of inspiration, then this unfortunate idea of segregation becomes a more viable reality.

[Dmentor]

While there are no perfect solutions, here are my thoughts…

Call the first of the two “championships” the “FIRST Festival” and qualify as many teams as possible (bigger is better). While still a competition, this event would be structured as a great big party with focus on celebration of achievement, changing culture and inspiration. Hall of Fame teams would have automatic invite, championship chairman’s award would be awarded here, plenty of great teams from across the world will make it loud. Bring a film crew and capture the energy, team stories, action, etc. Provide a suitable award for the winners of the competition like the next year’s fees paid, etc.

Call the second of the two “championships” the “FIRST World Championships” and only qualify the best 240 teams from around the world (there are plenty of statisticians on here that can provide the ranking criteria from year to year). Instead of casting it as a big party, fill it will pomp and circumstance. Have 4 divisions of 60 teams; keep it smaller to provide as many qualification matches as possible. Given the smaller size and selection criteria this should be an extremely high performance event so broadcast the World Championships on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNUNameIt… Use the massaged footage from the “FIRST Festival” to fill in the natural pauses in competition. And we can anoint the “Champions of the World”.

If FIRST Festival is around 600 teams and FIRST Word Championships is around 240, you still end up with 840 with plenty of inspiration and meaningful competition.

[Fielding S.]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I agree. I'm sorry but I just cringe every time when I hear; "It's not about the robots"

Championship should be a place for the best teams and robots. If other events aren't inspiring enough then work on that.

The Varsity "Sport" of the Mind needs to have a Championship that follows the model of other sports. The teams in the Championship earn their way there. The teams not there work hard and try to get better so they can be there one day. Teams that aren't good enough, they don't get to go. I'm sorry but that's real life. That's the mindset that needs to be propagated in my opinion.

Yup.

Also, imagine this:
Detroit = waitlist teams
Houston = Regional/District qualifiers, Chairman's winners, EI, etc.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

I've always entertained the idea of separating the teams who qualify. If FIRST chooses to inspire more students by inviting more teams to the championship and not make higher quality district championships, why not have all teams who qualified via success in the robot game (ie. winning/wildcards) compete in the robot game, have all those who qualified via chairmans/engineering inspiration compete in the outreach game, and find a way to have a separate group for the waitlist teams (or figure out how to determine which ones compete where via some kind of points system). It would allow more students to be inspired at championships without lessening the value of any individual area.

Is this ideal? Far from it. I wouldn't even want it. A single, smaller championship event with more celebrated district championships would solve all these problems in a much more effective manner. But if FIRST is insistent on using the championship event(s) to be their main method of inspiration, then this unfortunate idea of segregation becomes a more viable reality.

That will permanently place the Chairman's/EI winners on a far lower level than the robot game winners. If you don't get to go to the "real championships", then the message FIRST is sending is that the Chairman's award is worth very slightly more than, say, the Team Spirit Award.