[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011?

I thought it was interesting to see how much of an effect the additional 200 teams at champs made this year (brought us back to 2009-2010 percentages), so I did it for 2008-2015 using TBA rankings per division times 4 as the number of teams at champs, and Wikipedia for the number of teams each year:

2008: 22.65%, 84, 85, 85 and 86 teams/division = 340 teams at champs, 1501 teams total
2009: 20.99%, 86, 87, 87, and 88 teams/division = 348 teams at champs, 1677 teams total
2010: 18.99%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1811 teams total
2011: 16.96%, 88 teams/division = 351 teams at champs, 2075 teams total
2012: 17.07%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2343 teams total
2013: 15.84%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2524 teams total
2014: 14.70%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2720 teams total
2015: 20.00%, 75 teams/division = 600 teams at champs, 3000 teams total

Graph (percentage of teams at champs by year):


To get back above 25%, I had to go back 8 years:
2007: 26.36%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1305 teams total

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

^^^^
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

I agree, but I think there's an additional layer in there. Once HQ publishes this list of objectives/reasons for championships, there's still going to be reasonable disagreement about whether or not this solution (best) achieves their stated goals. People from all sides (include HQ) can have reasonable anecdotes and beliefs about what achieves those goals (Inspiration and Recognition, as Frank quotes, though hopefully with more detail). But without a concerted effort to asses this beforehand, it's really just a blind shot either way.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

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

Do you cringe when Woodie says "The robot is just the campfire we gather around." (slightly paraphrased, I think, but close enough)?

When Woodie talks about FIRST's purpose and methods, I usually pay attention; and I rarely (never?) cringe.

Blake

Originally Posted by bduddy

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.

Everyone would go to the same championship event(s). They just wouldn't all compete in the same game (think of it like the Olympics - the polo team is at the same big event as the curling team, but the polo team isn't competing in curling). If there is any depreciation in the value of the award (which I doubt there would be), it would only be further evidence that the idea of the championship event(s) being the main source of inspiration is a terrible one.

[Brandon_L]

This is our goal – to have Championships at which, no matter how well a team’s robot does on the field..

If that's what you want, fine. But don't kid us and call it a championship.

[Jean Tenca]

The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships? This is FIRST's logic and I think it's wrong.

There were years where my team decided to go to Worlds regardless of whether or not we qualified. In my opinion, the most valuable thing a team could do is spend their time walking around the pits, meeting teams, inspecting the details of good robots, and watching some of the greatest robots in the world play. If your robot is competing, you don't have time to really go around and absorb anything from other teams. Having more non-competing teams spectating would also add a lot to the energy of the event.

I agree with FIRST that Championships inspire teams and improve them, but I don't think that competing at Championships is more important than attending Championships.

[Kevin Sevcik]

To all the people griping that 25% of teams attending is too high, I'm going to repeat something I posted in the other thread:

2003 Champs had 291 teams out of 787 total. That's 37%. If 25% isn't a "real" World Champs, should we be calling 65, 111, and 469 and revoking their 2003 World Champs banners?

In case anyone is curious:
2004: 31%
2005: 34%
2006: 30%
2007: 26%
2008: 23%
2009: 21%
2010: 19%
2011: 17%
2012: 17%

There's no hard data pre-2003 because that's pre-TIMS, but I can confidently say that Nationals in 1998 had nearly every team in FRC, and nearly every team competing in the most ludicrous double elimination playoff you've ever seen. I'm pretty sure Nats/Champs maintained the >25% participation rate between 1998 and 2003.

Which is all to say that >25% participation in Champs was the case for most of FRC history. So unless teams have gotten much worse on average, there were an awful lot of Champs held with the equivalent of 800 teams, and I don't think they were particularly terrible. Aside from 2003, which was terrible for unrelated reasons.

Other points:
A single 800 team Mega-Champs sounds pretty ridiculous. Especially since we haven't seen how a 600 team Mega-Champs works. How about we wait a few weeks before we decide that's a good idea?

I'm curious what percentage of the 400/600 teams at Champs you people actually interact with. I know when I'm there, the vast majority of teams I interact with are in my Division. How likely is it you'll even notice on a day-to-day basis that you're at a Champs with only half the world there?

I'm personally a supporter of the idea of getting more teams the Champs experience. I hear a lot of people in the thread declaring how getting to Champs once motivated them to do it again. But as the program grows and a single Champs dwindles to the top 10% of all teams, how many teams are ever going to have that experience and develop that drive to get to Champs?

To the objections that we should be focusing instead on DCMPs and Super Regionals: Would it make you feel better if we just called Detroit and Houston Super Regionals instead? If FIRST is serious about keeping "Champs" attendance in the 20-25% range, then they'll have to roll out more and more of these, and eventually they'll just morph into defacto Super Regionals/Regional Champs. And at that point there will probably be enough teams to funnel into a reincarnated World Champs. My read on the whole thing is this is a transitional period while we don't have enough teams to justify/support the Super-Regional -> WCMP model.

Finally, I really hope the senior FIRST leadership brings their FRC(lothing) gear to that town hall. And for the love of all that's good, I hope everyone can keep things civil.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

To the objections that we should be focusing instead on DCMPs and Super Regionals: Would it make you feel better if we just called Detroit and Houston Super Regionals instead? If FIRST is serious about keeping "Champs" attendance in the 20-25% range, then they'll have to roll out more and more of these, and eventually they'll just morph into defacto Super Regionals/Regional Champs. And at that point there will probably be enough teams to funnel into a reincarnated World Champs. My read on the whole thing is this is a transitional period while we don't have enough teams to justify/support the Super-Regional -> WCMP model.

Why not just start the super regional model in 2017, under 1 championship. They're putting the cart before the horse.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by ScourgeDragon

The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships? This is FIRST's logic and I think it's wrong.

(Only views on myself, not my team or it's members)

This. You don't need to make world championships blah for a non-existent problem of %age of teams qualifying. (As seen with FLL who has almost tripled in size since 2007, and has seen a 0% increase in championship spots in the last 9 years.) FLL is doing fine. That being said, their qualification needs to be fixed.

For me it's not about non-elite teams making it to worlds, and it never will be. Sure we have all been there with those perhaps, less sophisticated robots on the field. Quite honestly qualifying for worlds gives them a huge inspiration boost that can lead to greater success in the future. Why are they inspired to up their game? Because they just had a taste of the best teams in the world. Splitting champs makes this untrue, it's just "some of the teams" which I believe strongly that if you asked most of those teams in that linked post that were so incredibly inspired and changed, the wins, the actual getting to the event is cheapened. These teams were excited and inspired because they got to play with the best of the best. Not the sorta-kinda best of the best.

Not having the entire world compete at one event make me sad. It's not about the two winners playing it off. It's about championships atmosphere which can't be replicated anywhere else. That feel will be forever lost. Not to say that qualifying for one of the champs events won't be inspiring... It's just not even close to as inspiring as it would have been.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm curious what percentage of the 400/600 teams at Champs you people actually interact with. I know when I'm there, the vast majority of teams I interact with are in my Division. How likely is it you'll even notice on a day-to-day basis that you're at a Champs with only half the world there?

For me it's once again, the atmosphere. Talk to a random team, figure out they are from the other side of the continent. It's a place where the entire community comes together.

You know what! Lets just make the Olympics two events! Nobody will notice that half the world is missing! We can make more athletes dreams a reality! Everyone will be happy! Plenty of cities want to host! North America, you never get to play Asia, have fun!

No. It completely destroys what makes it special.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

Why not just start the super regional model in 2017, under 1 championship. They're putting the cart before the horse.

You'd have to bring that up at the Town Hall, but I'm assuming the reasoning is something along the lines of Super Regionals needing to be 100-200 team events given the current program size. Given the rhetoric about the inspiration of Champs, I suspect they don't think these smaller events are going to fit in the same inspirational role as a larger Champs event.

If people are concerned about dual Champs not being inspiring because they won't see teams from everywhere, I would think Super Regionals would be even less inspiring and less like a monolithic Champs.

[Sean Raia]

I thought the idea mentioned in a previous thread, of turning one venue into the FIRST Festival (essentially more teams can qualify, rookies go here, other FIRST leagues compete, etc.) and the other into the FRC World Championship (less teams, higher standard) would be a fine way to do it.

Sure they already booked two venues, but they don't both need to be identical.

[Squillo]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Splitting champs makes this untrue, it's just "some of the teams" which I believe strongly that if you asked [Bany[/b] of those teams in that linked post that were so incredibly inspired and changed, the wins, the actual getting to the event is cheapened. These teams were excited and inspired because they got to play with the best of the best. Not the sorta-kinda best of the best.

Frankly, many the teams that inspired our team the most were not "the best of the best" - they were just other teams that had maybe done more with resources similar to ours, that had really, really nice members, that had come up with a unique solution to a particular problem, etc.

I will tell you that we will gladly take a spot at a "semi-championship" with the "best" from only half the world, over not getting to go at all to a "championship" where there would be a handful more of the "best of the best". Also, for the teams that will really miss building relationships with specific teams from the "other side," or feel they benefit that much more from the experience of meeting teams from a broader region (which I can totally understand - it was really cool having MORT and 610 at our regional this year, and I can see how many teams from 'back east' would really enjoy getting to meet the teams from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., which probably wouldn't happen with the "semi-champs" arrangement as currently proposed), I like the "swap" idea. Is there any downside to allowing teams to swap like that?

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

This!

If Frank doesn't think that other events anrt inspirational enough fix that!

Also if Frank really wants to show the greatness of champs to the students of FRC make the webcasts better! Show the great pits, broadcast the workshops, show off FTC and FLL, etc... Make it a show that FRC kids/parents/sponsors want to see and will be awed by not just another regional webcast.

My thoughts exactly.

It's shocking (and a touch embarrassing) that MSC had ESPN broadcast their elimination matches (and do a really, really good job of it) for a couple years, but that FIRST, with all its power and ability to produce documentaries and make strong partnerships with celebrities and huge companies, can't do the same.

Hey Frank et al, even if you accomplish your goal of 25% of FRC teams at the Championships, there are still the 75% of teams that miss out every year. Why are those 75% of teams forced to watch low-quality webfeeds, and use two or three services to figure out who is playing when?

If your point is that you need to be at Champs to be inspired by Champs, and that the magic happens when you walk across the Dome floor, here's a newsflash: very few members of the teams that are AT Champs get that experience.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Sean Raia

I thought the idea mentioned in a previous thread, of turning one venue into the FIRST Festival (essentially more teams can qualify, rookies go here, other FIRST leagues compete, etc.) and the other into the FRC World Championship (less teams, higher standard) would be a fine way to do it.

Sure they already booked two venues, but they don't both need to be identical.

If the number one concern is that there won't be a true champion, invite the winners of both events to compete against one another.

If the number one concern is that there won't be a true champion without an additional event, have one championship event be like the NCAA tournament and the other be like the NIT.

If the number one concern doesn't have to do with crowning a true champion, or decreasing the competitiveness of the event, but that the concern is that teams from different parts of North America will never interact, allow teams to indicate their preference when signing up for the event.

FIRST's biggest concern right now is that they cannot find a way to make sure every team is able to go to a FRC championship event within a student's high school career, and I think they're addressing it head on. Best thing we can do as a community is to brainstorm different ways to make it a success.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Frankly, many the teams that inspired our team the most were not "the best of the best" - they were just other teams that had maybe done more with resources similar to ours, that had really, really nice members, that had come up with a unique solution to a particular problem, etc.

I will tell you that we will gladly take a spot at a "semi-championship" with the "best" from only half the world, over not getting to go at all to a "championship" where there would be a handful more of the "best of the best". Also, for the teams that will really miss building relationships with specific teams from the "other side," or feel they benefit that much more from the experience of meeting teams from a broader region (which I can totally understand - it was really cool having MORT and 610 at our regional this year, and I can see how many teams from 'back east' would really enjoy getting to meet the teams from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., which probably wouldn't happen with the "semi-champs" arrangement as currently proposed), I like the "swap" idea. Is there any downside to allowing teams to swap like that?

The main problem I see with the swap idea is if Everyone decides, say, Houston is the premier Champs event and wants to come here. If there's only Detroit teams wanting to head to Houston, it's not likely to fix things. You could probably remedy that by randomizing the swapping, so there's less incentive for everyone to try to swap to one regional, since you don't know if you'll actually wind up with all the star teams.