[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Now we rail against semi-CMPs. But in a few years, when we end up with 4 or 5 of them, we'll add a new layer, and we'll be back where we started.

I'd like FIRST to actually outline the long term vision. It's quite obvious that their long term vision differs significantly from the one that was outlined a few years ago.

[jman4747]

Didn't say USFIRST headquarters was right. I said the had the right to make the decision and these three threads aren't going to help anything.

You don't have to shut up and march but if you wan't to positively affect the program. Telling an inspired student that split championships would be so uninspiring for none of the reasons FRC or championships was inspiring isn't inspiring. Everyone gets that almost no one on this forum likes this decision for so many reasons. That is no reason to continue the debates like this. The same basic counter arguments, people taking hypothetical speech and examples as personal attacks. If I showed this to someone new they'd be more confused by the arguments than having north and south leagues!

This is how it is and it's going to be so quit bickering and find some solutions like engineers do!

I glanced at the 2010 championships field for 30 seconds but talking to the people and seeing the robots up close... the 2010 game was a thing of the past the moment I walked from the dome to the pit, but the experience of FRC isn't a yearly thing and It doesn't depend on USFIRSTs finances or planing or weather you crown 4 winners or 8. I was never told or shown or bothered to look up the winning robots form 2010 and yet here I am. One way or another FIRST makes you want to build robots and I still do and will. The way I see it we still have a good excuse to build them.

Here is your challenge for the 2017 session and all the ones after to go along with the games. Try to inspire some people in spite of whatever the championship structure is. You'll find it'll go better than you think. Figure it out engineers.

Also spare me the "that's just why you thought it was inspiring" speech and realize the things you think this weakens don't apply to everyone either.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

For many years I have volunteered to give conference sessions at the Championship with topics ranging from how to build community alliances to engaging parents to recruiting corporate volunteers. A couple of years ago there was a mentor who attended one of these sessions who shared with me that he obtained funding from his school system to attend the Championship BECAUSE of the conferences. Although these sessions have definitely gotten more polished over the years and expanded I continue to feel that "beefing" up the conferences held in conjunction with the Championship to be a destination in themselves has been a missed opportunity.

I've skimmed every post in this thread, and y'all are either saying the same things or just talking in circles. I wanted to make sure the above quoted post didn't get lost in this discussion. It's a great suggestion, and a necessary one.

For students, I'd like to see a heavier emphasis on leadership.

For teachers, I'd like the conferences to be offered as professional development through an accredited university where I can earn postgraduate level units which can be applied to my placement on the salary schedule with my school district. This is common practice at numerous other educational conferences.

[Foster]

I was part of the VEX split. Two things happened, I took my many hundreds of dollars worth of parts and created VEX teams. I then took my many hundreds of hours of personal time and created events. The same as many others did (Blake) and you now have the VEX of today.

If I'm at FIRST HQ looking at the mission statement on the wall to "inspire" and look at the showcase events, I'm going to go "more showcase, more inspire" and decide to have two WC. (Not sure why they stopped there, I'd gone for 5, Europe, East Coast, North Coast, South Coast and West Coast, with the AsiaPac one in my back pocket when there were enough Down-under and China teams for the Hawaiian Teams to compete with. More Worlds! More Inspire!!

Remember FIRST is an INSPIRE company vs a WINNER company.

Someone posted that we were customers of FIRST. Yes the same way I'm a customer of Comcast. I want robotics/internet I send cash and maybe help out at an event. Neither FIRST/Comcast management ever thinks about me or cares what I think or do. I'm replaceable. Look at the 100's of 1 and 2 year teams that are gone. Too Bad So Sad. The only difference between Comcast and FIRST, people at FIRST know who I am. They BOTH still don't care when I call.

Bottom line:
-- This is a done deal
-- This was done as a way to inspire MORE NEW ROBOTEERS
-- You can stay and help, or you can go, but we are inspiring NEW ROBOTEERS
-- And yes, you can go and form "SECOND" with some of our current teams and new teams and we think that is great! There isn't enough robotics out there and having you start your own stuff means more roboteers are INSPIRED, Yay both of us!
-- Sorry about Detroit and Houston. Seen their tourism numbers? They suck. We are a big deal. We will get you cheap rooms and we got a cheap venue, you won and we won and we inspire together!
-- See you at the town hall where you can figure out how to help us out for free! (We'll bring pizza)

Sorry my cynic badge was flashing, but this is how you should read this deal. 1700 post on CD is worth it's weight in electrons, about the same as a small gob of warm spit.

Sorry CD, time is over for the denial, move to the next stage of acceptance.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by matthewdenny

Everybody in this thread is "not being able to see all the teams when I go to champs isn't as inspiring"

And I'm over here thinking I'd be happy if autonomous worked right for once.

_______________________________
815 posts read in the last 12+ hours non-stop in 2 threads (and not a peep out of me yet. Just ask anyone here, as that is highly unusual, more like very unlikely, and almost nearly impossible!)

But, I have to respond to matthewdenny's post (finally 1 that actually made me smile and laugh out loud to just myself)....I have said it before, and I'll say it again young man (Matthew Denney....You just keep thinking like that, and you will go VERY FAR in this world, and in life in general. Just keep your eye on that ball, find your true passion, and no matter what anyone says or does...You follow that passion to the very ends of the earth. (I too am praying for your autonomous to work right just once for you...and,...When it really counts!)
__________________
Earlier today I wasn't so much worried about the 2017 Dual Championships as I was the health of the 2015 Championships 1.5 weeks away that I am volunteering and my team is competing at, and the effect of these recent decisions, the timing of the announcement, and the severe backlash of the community at large. (And I thought the real major issues of the season were ALL NOW behind us all).

I hope cooler heads prevail in a week and a half in St Louis, and any town hall meeting is very civil, professional, and constructive, and a reasonable solution is also found, to a real World Champion being crowned in the future years, while still allowing more teams to earn their way as growth of FIRST continues to expand even further, and further, and more teams receive that Awe Inspiring experience also.

I don't actually buy the FLL and the FTC angles, as most~ if not all of those younger participants (if we all continue to do our jobs right, and continue to INSPIRE THEM), will also have that 4 year window of opportunity when in High School to experience attendance of at least 1 FIRST Championship event or more, if the recently unveiled plan works.

I was very lucky my very first year as a mentor (My Wife's first year as an Education mentor), and my youngest son's Freshman year (2011), that we as a family were able to attend together, with our earned invitation competing team...It was beyond inspiring, it was ABSOLUTELY AWE INSPIRING, and to sit in that Dome on the very last evening as the battle(s) commenced that would determine the 2011 FRC Champions, and realize that all that brainpower in one place, and at one time, was a (Major), but also a minor 20% of all the inspiring and inspired STEM related High School Students and Mentors in Just FRC alone, not even the entire FIRST Community...It hooked us as a family for life.

And it made me realize, that our planet's future is much brighter than I ever could have even possibly imagined! These students will be our broad spectrum world leaders soon enough. And also just how much FIRST's Mission statement, and their mission was such a huge success. (I was absolutely clueless in January 2011!)

If you build it they will come. And come they (we) are, as we all spread FIRST far & wide with outreach (we reward that outreach, inspiration, and growth with the very highest awards FIRST has to offer), and along the way, that growth will have extreme costs (and HUGE Planetary HUMAN REWARDS),....So change is inevitable, we grow it, we must change with it.

FIRST will never be able to please ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, they know it, and we know it....Now, lets work together to solve the problems caused by our metoric growth and expansion...Which we should be celebrating, instead of cringing from its results.

FIRST is listening, and we as a group (a community), are some of the largest problem solvers I have ever witnessed in my 58 year lifetime. If you can design a system to snatch 2~4 of those RC's off the shelf in .02 seconds, this problem should be a snap to come up w/ a reasonable solution to determine a world champion in 2017 and beyond.

This year 600 Robots in 8 divisions in one place 20% of all teams represented, next year the same (hopefully, but may drop again to 17% w/ more growth), and the following year (2017), 800 Robots in 8 divisions in 2 different places, 25% of all teams represented again.

(FIRST may need to actually back off that "Geographical Assignment or Placement," add in a single lottery the first year to determine whether each team is N/S, w/ 400 going to each location, and after that add an odd/even last digit Team # switch of location every 3rd. year (odd the 3rd year switch/even the 6th year switch, or even 1/2 teams switch each year by lottery at season beginning), to mix up what teams play where each year so that all teams qualified & attending will have exposure to all other attending teams throughout a 4 year run).

Add 1 final place in 2017 and beyond, mid-June (maybe FIRST HQ), where those 8 teams are rewarded w/ an all expenses paid face off to determine a World Campionship in a Nationally televised best of 7, or best of 9 match event to see who the real World Champions are. (I would go 1 further...allow after the 2 N/S events, an unbag period of 3 weeks before the mid-June event, allow both Alliances to effect repairs, practice new drivers if graduating seniors cannot move on, strategize, & cheesecake all they wanted).

Or, if that isn't agreeable, just ship all 8 of the robots to NH immediately from the N/S events bagged in the crates. 1 Truck/ 2 weekends (Houston to Detroit, then...Off to NH w/ all 8 bots & 8 Sets of Team Tool Crates)...Teams will see them in NH in 3 weeks or so. (Hey, I know where FIRST could find a whole lot of Grey/Yellow Totes to pack those tools in after this years Champs! They now own them). Now that...is Recycling!
______________________
There are other ways beyond the existing signed contracts (I had discussed something like this w/ my wife last Fall)...1 Event site 4 Days 400 Robots/Teams. Then out w/ the 1st bunch...In w/ the 2nd. Bunch next 400 Robots/Teams...You store the robots and pit gear for the winners only of days 1~4, they fly back in for the finals on the last Friday PM/Saturday AM. Just the drive team and essential personell paid for say 12 of each (Each of the 4 teams can/may send the rest of the team on their own dime if they wish). The venue goes dark 1~2 days (Sunday~Monday), for cleaning & admin. to breathe. Back at it again Wednesday.

That way, the same venue/hotels/fields, etc. can be used, and it is still a true Championships. You move that around between 4~5 geographical locations N/S/C/E/W. (You are only inconveniencing 4 teams...4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!) How many would actually turn that down? How many of us wouldn't help them if they really couldn't afford it? Not many! (FIRST could set aside $50.00~$100.00 of all 800 teams entry fee to Champs to create a fund for the returning 4 teams=$40~&80K).

12 Team Members Ea. X 4 Teams X $600.00 Flight Avg.=$28,800.00/1 night hotel 48 X$100.=$4,800.00=$33,600.00 Total =Very Doable! (Of course as FIRST, I'd be hitting up a Major set of Airlines or Other Major Corporations wanting top billing exposure, to Sponsor the returning teams playing for the Championships myself for both the home & back round trip flights! And building the returning teams 1 room night into the actual event contract.) </;-)~

(There would be no strategy that would help any team, as nobody would know who plays the week 1 winners, until they were even back in town and ready to play again on Einstein). Just attempt to strategize when you have no clue of who you will actually play.

OK, there would have to be a televised production of the Championships, so the rest of those playing week 1 and back home would have viewing access as usual to the following Saturday Championship Matches. Invited Teams are rotated based on when they last played as far as week 1 or 2 at Champs (or by simple luck of the lottery draw each year).

_______________
Just throwing out some other ideas here.


We are growing, growing, GROWING! BIG Change is HERE! (So, get used to it!) Be the problem...Or.....Be the solution. Rant over.

There's my $0.32 cents after reading 815 postings in 1 single sitting.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by EricH

It's not in this thread, but there's some discussion in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=136519&page=4 (start at post #48) on just what it would take to get that happening. Some square-footage requirements, some loose sizes, and throw in other stuff that needs to be handled. Good luck...

Two words...Las Vegas! (Plenty of Venues, plenty of rooms! To handle 800~1200 Teams). Planning would have to be years into the future though to secure all that would be necessary. They can handle the World series of poker & CES and much more, they can handle just about anything. You might have to break up the 8 divisions into 4 venues, then bring everyone together at say UNLV for the Championships...So what? (Schedule a 2 hr. pit move & dinner break between Divisional Awards and the BIG SHOW!) You know how much room there is between the MGM Grand and UNLV alone (just a couple of blocks from 1 another).
_________________________

As I read these 2 threads and see the doc's come out that have been circulating now for actually a few years, & the committee that was put together to explore options for the future and to deal w/ the exponential growth of FIRST & FRC & The Championships, the Finances of US First, and all that has gone into bringing back up to at least a mere 25% access to Champs attendance & future INSPIRATION OF STUDENTS, and the recent pushing for the district format, and the overall slow to change directions the community really seems to have been to adopt that format in some places still today...I wonder how much of a real shock this should have really been to that many in the actual FRC community.

Could it be "the community" has had its heads buried in the sand and or just didn't read the tea leaves (of the road map), that "management" has been leaving them? Or just doesn't really want to change...Remember HofF Teams are highly responsible for a lot of actual growth within the organization also!

And that is a GOOD THING!
______________________

What I hear is a lot of hurt feelings from some that Management left them out of the decision loop, OK that hurts a bit from well invested customers, and Really Well Invested Volunteer Mentors...Especially THE REALLY LONG INVESTED ones! (I have to talk to George Williams our 19+ year low digit Team Founding Mentor who has not taken a year off since the very start (almost 2 decades now), and see how he really feels about the issue this week...I don't even know yet, but I know whether or not the team attends/competes at Champs (We certainly are this year).....George & Crystal are there VOLUNTEERING for FIRST, with or without the team, year in, year out...EVERY YEAR! So, I'll assume until I hear differently from him, that he isn't going anywhere).

Now, just to play devils advocate here, I hear throughout the community often, FIRST (but, especially FRC), compared to a company, and the problems and solutions real companies & teams of workers within companies/industry face every day, from personell and company size, to supply chain issues & far beyond.

How many here have been with a company years (maybe decades), and 1 day find that the ownership changed overnight without a word or even a whisper, one day new management just arrives, w/ a new management team usually. Or, The Board &/or Management decides one day that something just isn't working, and MANAGEMENT DECIDES w/ little input from the workers (the labor force), that we are trying something new folks? And YOU will make it work. The customers are usually informed right after Labor and about the time the new name/logo's are released.

Management rarely if ever, asks Labor or The Customers exactly what they think before the changes are actually decided on, only afterwards how we are going to actually accomplish the tasks together, and how the new company will serve their customers even better than the old image/company.

While USFIRST is a HUGE Community Driven and Industry Sponsored... Industry, Education, and Personally Fueled Volunteer Mentor Organization....USFIRST Founded the Non-Profit Organization, organized it, and Manages it...They are MANAGEMENT (We are both the customers, and the Large Labor Base). but, THEY ARE STILL MANAGEMENT.

They did not go into this blindly...There has been a widespread COMMITTEE drawn from all angles of FIRST working on the project, and today wasn't the first time I have seen that blog post about that large committee or the Charts listing the 2 different methods of conducting Districts to Super Regionals to Championships either.....And I have only been around FIRST the last 4+ years.

They warned us months ago, THAT BIG CHANGES ARE COMING, and BIG CHANGES ARE HERE. (And they were not just talking about game design I fully realize now). We all should realize that by now.
________________________

*Nothing I am posting has anything to do with any team, anyone else, or any discussion with anyone else....Just personal ideas and observations as I read and see a wider view of both sides of the multi-pronged issues. I dislike change just as much as the next guy or gal.. Just trying to look at all sides of the issues & all views in a realistic manner, and laying emotions and ego's aside. Discussion is now the key as decisions have already been made.

Lets make things better, not worse. Deep breaths can help.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

They did not go into this blindly...There has been a widespread COMMITTEE drawn from all angles of FIRST working on the project, and today wasn't the first time I have seen that blog post about that large committee or the Charts listing the 2 different methods of conducting Districts to Super Regionals to Championships either.....And I have only been around FIRST the last 4+ years.

(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by EricH

You also are putting words in my mouth, and you are making a seriously flawed assumption to boot. I'm not expressing disbelief, I'm saying that they apparently didn't consider that particular effect of their decision. And when you look just at the team I'm affiliated with, you ignore the team(S) in my signature. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of at least one, you got another think comin'.

FIRST could easily have considered that effect of the decision without consulting you or the mentors you know.

The team I mentor went to Champs once, four years ago, early in my involvement in the program. My known universe of teams is those that are at regionals I attend -- teams like 525, who selected us in 2012, and 2826, who are routinely in the top ranks. I'm sorry if it's insulting to you, but I have no knowledge of any of the teams listed in your signature. I see they're quite successful. But, if I hopped in the time travel machine, moved backwards a couple weeks to the last regional I was at, and asked random mentors in the pits about those three teams, it would be interesting to see who would be aware of them.

Based on the history of those teams you've been affiliated with, it's likely that you're well connected in the "mentor of successful team" community. Note that I've never disputed your points about mentor response to the change.

I hope you can accept that your experience in FRC is both meaningful and unrepresentative of teams as a whole. One goal I have in in participating in this thread and its siblings is not to impose my point of view on others -- in fact, if you look through my posts, you'll find little to identify what my actual opinion is about this change. That is intentional.

Another goal I have is to get posters to think about their assumptions, to separate fact from opinion, to get them to think about the problem from the point of view of someone in a different situation. Only then will they have a sense of the tradeoffs that FIRST HQ is trying to make.

There's also a learning opportunity here for team members (and mentors) about how to deal with change, and how to advocate for change with decisionmakers in an organizational context like FIRST. No matter whether you participate in a FIRST program, go to one of the competing programs, or decide to create your own, any moderately successful program will soon have a set of decisionmakers, independent of teams, who are charged with balancing tradeoffs to make the program a success. The decisionmakers need to balance the needs of participants, volunteers, sponsors, and others. You might think that they are unconstrained in their decisionmaking choices, but I think you'd be surprised at how constrained their options really are, given their organizational mission, the resources they have available, and the multiple constituencies they work to satisfy.

Compare pages 4-5 of the FIRST Annual Report to page 5 of the BEST Annual Report. There's a reason why both programs measure their success along the same lines -- number of teams and number of volunteers. FIRST (or BEST, or the VEX competitions) are ecosystems, and you need the right combination of resources to make them successful. The organizations work both to optimize the set of resources, and define what success looks like to them. Think about the relative success of FTC since it started, and the discussion that must cause at BEST about whether their free-to-teams tactic is the right choice going forward.

I'm also trying to convince people to tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric, and focus instead on making the best of the situation. Something made FIRST think that splitting Champs was the best choice for those years. I can't believe that they made the decision stupidly, or uncaringly, or lightly, without considering the tradeoffs.

Originally Posted by EricH

It would, however, mean that I would reach out to those mentors either before or immediately following with a very detailed reasoning why the change was being made, and why it was being made in the way that it was. There's a difference between that and the method HQ used... It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly. I would be making sure that I had as much information as I could before making the decision.

They announced the decision two weeks before the largest annual F2F gathering in the FIRST calendar. They have positioned the announcement so that they can hear directly from people immediately afterward. I heard on another thread that they were at the FiM District champs last weekend, and there's no lack of long-time teams there from which to get feedback in person. If they wanted to bury this, they picked pretty much the worst time of year to do so.

Originally Posted by EricH

It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly.

A final goal I have in these threads is to get people to speak precisely about what they mean, and that's why I'm asking clarifying questions about your statements. Does your statement above mean that you think FIRST is not taking the change seriously?

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by Siri

(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).

A lot of people have seen decks similar to this. If you are planning a migration from the competition model in slide 6 to the one in slide 7, it is difficult to do in one season. The proposed North/South model for 2017 would make a good transition between the two.

[MrJohnston]

Please bear with me: I think I am about to get overly loquacious.

The mission of FIRST is to "inspire." FRC is a vehicle FIRST uses to that end. FIRST wants to inspire as many people (students, families, friends, acquaintances, etc.) as possible so as to bring an aura of "cool" to STEM education - and FRC does just this beautifully. However, as FIRST has grown we find ourselves dealing with a contradiction: Though FIRST strives to maximize the number of folks it inspires, the "competition" in FRC strives to narrow the field. As I float the the many pages of thoughts, ideas and I suggestions, it seems that the question that stands at the center is: "Are we about competition or inclusion?" At some point, one of these two has to give.

The reason FRC works so well is that it embraces certain aspects of our culture so as to promote something (STEM) that is not universally embraced by teenagers or, even, many adults in our society. It is the competition that gets the public to the events. It is the competition that brings excitement to our schools. It is the competition that pushes every team to do better each year. It is the competition that compels us to learn. Let's face it: in the very nature of our capitalistic society is competition. And, for good or ill, we demand a winner. We have a (rather illogical) need to always be able to name the "best" team, athlete, whatever. Every competition we know and admire has a "winner." If we take this away from FRC, we lose something that is at the very heart of the program.

At the same time, many of the teams that attend Champs are the same every year. The Championship does not really help FIRST to attain its goals if most of the same teams come back from year to year. In fact, nearly every team (and their families and communities) at the Championship each year is already "inspired." The Championship is just the icing on the cake. It's the proof of a good year at competition.

In other words, though an incredible event and a great experience, the Championship is necessary for FRC, but not for FIRST. Dividing it into two events or even making it so big that a huge percentage of teams can qualify seems to weaken the impact of the event for those that do qualify - not to mention create some legitimate logistical nightmares for those trying to travel with last-minute preparations!

The notion that we could have another layer of "championship" after these two events is not feasible. Either it would have to be another huge event or it would be a major letdown after the previous week's (month's?) championship events. Moreover, I just shelled out over $60K in order to get my team to St. Louis - and only 1/3 of the team is attending. If we were to have a second event requiring airfare and missed school: 1) We would not be able to afford it; 2) Way too many students would have to skip out due to excessive missed school; 3) My school district would question why we have to have two championship events requiring long-distance travel when most teams don't have any and 4) My wife would kill me. Robotics events take me away from my family for an entire weekend - and leave me recovering for another day. And, of course, there is the pre-event preparations. To me, this seems excessive when we are talking about teams who are already 'inspire' to excel. (Had they not been so inspired, they would have either not put enough of a robot together so as to qualify in the first place or, had they gotten "lucky" would have not shelled out the cash to go. Do not a large number of teams turn down their bids to Champs each year already?)

It seems to me that, if FIRST is hoping to "spread the inspiration," it really needs to be targeting the teams that don't qualify for district championships or only tend to attend one regional event. I recently attending the PNW Championships and I believe I can safely say that all of those teams were inspired. It's the large number of teams who did not qualify for the event and are in danger of collapsing that need the extra boost.

So, I would propose that the extra efforts to "inspire" more teams should be handled on a more localized level. Some ideas:

* Increase the percentage of teams that qualify for district championships. The PNW championship was a huge spectacle. Let's get more of the "borderline" teams to these events: They can do it without having to cough up airfare and with fewer missed days of school. They might even be able to get more of their families to attend. There is plenty of inspiration for those teams.

* Add a second "district-wide" event for the "almost" qualifiers. Give them a chance to compete and win with all the pomp of a championship event without having to face all the power-house teams that blew them out at districts. If this is held on a different weekend than the district championships, you just might be able to get some of the powerhouse teams to lead really good seminars. Then, invite (and pay for!) mentors from the teams that did not qualify to watch the events, walk the pits and attend the seminars.

* Keep Champs exclusive - 600 teams really should be plenty. The teams who qualify - or come close - are already "inspired." Keep the event special, but put effort into helping more teams be able to complete for that qualification. For instance, a "price" of winning champs should be having a FIRST video crew interview the mentors and leadership students on the winning alliance about how they got there - everything from their training, to their design process, to the technical specs of the robot, etc. Post these online and send the links out to every team in FRC. Le't all learn from the best - not just the teams that can afford to go to St. Louis (or Houston, or Detroit, or wherever).

[drwisley]

Since you’re listening: For nearly a decade, I've been motivated by the competition and sport of FRC. Like many engineers, I spent a childhood of never really fitting in. High school, especially, catered to athletes and extraverts for most social development. I competed in band and orchestra, but nothing was celebrated in comparison to sports.

What has drawn me to FRC, not FIRST, has been the ability to take students, which resemble my former awkwardness, on a journey of greatness. Demonstrating to them every day, that it’s cool to be brilliant and investing in their mind will result in an amazing and fruitful life. That, in the not so distant future, we nerds do prevail. We find beautiful spouses, many friends, make lots of money and raise lots of cool little nerds of our own.

Decades ago, Dean recognized that the sports model worked. It motivated me and it motivated our students in a new direction. Moving towards the participation model demotivates me. Before FRC, I volunteered for SAE's A World in Motion, mildly. However, FRC has motivated me to involve my entire family, most of my friends and to spend 5 to 7 hundred hours a year motivating the kids. The hours I have put in are crazy, but I want to beat or compete with the best in the world, and the kids win, regardless.

This is because, FRC has given each team a progression model, and a culture that enables your team to progress and become better each year, working towards an ultimate goal of world champion or world chairman’s recipient.

Four months ago, I moved 4500 miles to England, and now I watch and chat with my team from a far. From my new perspective, I see a much larger issue to expanding FRC, broadcasting. Expanding FRC, or FIRST, would be drastically improved through broadcasting. It’s absolutely ridiculous how little the webcasts have improved in my decade. I have to walk up to the big screen and point to robots (when explaining FRC and the game), whilst consistently being interrupted by commercials at most regionals. I don’t get it. National Spelling Bees are broadcasted on ESPN and I can barely see my team on the big screen at home.

We’ve definitely expanded past the days where teams were intended to ‘buy in’ every 4 years. I personally never allowed my team to ‘buy in’, because when you earn your way in it’s truly gratifying. However, consider solving the problem of having all students experiencing championship, through improved broadcasting.

I’ll close with this: You won’t lose me as a mentor, because I’ve already left the country for five years, but you have made it impossible for me to even consider starting an FRC team in North East England. Thanks for listening.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

A lot of people have seen decks similar to this. If you are planning a migration from the competition model in slide 6 to the one in slide 7, it is difficult to do in one season. The proposed North/South model for 2017 would make a good transition between the two.

I understand that you see it as a 'good transition', and I understand why. However, FIRST has been quite open about the difficulty of Slide 6 to 7 for many years now. To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me), splitting Worlds was never floated. I see people draw their line of what to consider reasonable unilateral latitude at different places. I'll present my reasoning and agree to disagree:

This method has led to completely blindsiding many [majority position unknown] people best positioned to positively contribute to the change. This includes both those who are personally opposed to content and method of the decision, and more notably those who now have the legitimate problem of "how do we actually make both of these events as inspirational as possible with only 2016 Worlds as a true preparation?" (The announcement being so close to 2015's that it cannot be fully utilized for this purpose.) I do not personally understand why HQ would do this or what upside they were looking for. I understand that they can of course, just not why they would. Moreover, the split was announced entirely as corporate "spin" (or insert a positive term), with exactly zero attempt to preemptively discover or address community objections and get people on board. Again, particularly in light of the first issue, I don't understand this choice. Both results are directly antithetical to all of our goals.


This is not to say that the community as a whole or myself individually have taken this in the most productive way possible. (Though I argue expressing upset is productive in this instance, if only to illustrate the cost another such action would entail.) But failure on the part of the community does not absolve HQ of not taking its own helpful action. Perhaps this split is correct. I am personally working to make it a positive experience. But this process have given me me very, very little confidence in its reasoning and management.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

I don't actually buy the FLL and the FTC angles, as most~ if not all of those younger participants (if we all continue to do our jobs right, and continue to INSPIRE THEM), will also have that 4 year window of opportunity when in High School to experience attendance of at least 1 FIRST Championship event or more, if the recently unveiled plan works.

"Don't worry about qualifying for champs due to ridiculously small percentages of qualifying teams because there's always next year"

"They are young, it's okay for them to lose chances they could have, they have time"

These are bad arguments. Not all FLL students go to FRC.

If we are expanding champs for FRC, we absolutely must expand for FLL and FTC.

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by Siri

However, FIRST has been quite open about the difficulty of Slide 6 to 7 for many years now. To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me), splitting Worlds was never floated. I see people draw their line of what to consider reasonable unilateral latitude at different places.

I think this is a key observation about the situation FIRST found themselves in -- that there's no obviously superior transition between the current model and slide 7. There are factors, not all of which are visible to us, that cause them to move away from slide 6 in 2017.

When I said "good transition" in an earlier post, what I meant was that it was a transition that would merit consideration (a "good choice"), not that it was the best choice. If I was making the presentation for the town hall meeting, I'd be sure to discuss that and what other options were considered.

"Why this decision now?" is another good question for the town hall meeting.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Siri

(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).

Give me a few hrs. to sleep (NM, I'll just go search for it now)...It was linked back to Frank's Blog from "the longest thread" here somewhere near the 700 or so post mark as I remember.

The Committee Names List was over 6" long (ending w/ Franks..."and Me")....I will locate it as soon as I can, and both PM the link to you, and post it back on this thread requoting you. It did not specifically say anything about splitting Championship into 2...But more about looking toward the future and dealing with growth issues and the like.


Off on the hunt, BB soon.