Future First Championship News

[Squillo]

Thanks for the input! Here's my analysis:

As you say, there were 56 regionals this year, and 5 DCMPs. Assuming a few more districts are created, in a year or two there might be 8 DCMPS and maybe only 44 regionals? Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

So with no overlap, with two teams from each regional and DCMP qualifying for my "double champs ticket" that would be between 122 (61 events) and 92 (46 events) teams qualifying that way, plus the HoF and Legacy teams (you say 27, so we'll go with that). We could even leave out the HoF and Legacy teams (many of those will get a double ticket anyway by winning something).

However, it won't be that many, because some of the same teams will be winning or finalist captains at multiple regionals, and some of those are also HoF teams (e.g., this year, Team 359 would have gotten a "double ticket" 3 ways - captain of winning alliance in Hawaii and Australia, and HoF; but with the new arrangement, they might have elected to stay AC of the #2 alliance at IE, rather than accepting the invitation of the #1 captain, and gotten a ticket that way too if they ended up winner or finalist). With more districts, this multiple qualification will decrease some. Let's say that about 20% of the total slots would be filled by teams that already have a ticket. No wildcards here! (However, these teams may elect to skip a 2nd or 3rd regional if they know they can go to 2 champs instead, so duplication may decrease. This is hard to predict but someone looking at the winners this year could maybe make a better estimate.)

So that leaves about 95-120 teams that would get a "double ticket". Half of these (well, +/-) will be "Region A" teams that get to also go to the Region B Championship, and vice versa. So about 50-60 teams from each region that would otherwise go, will get "displaced" by a 'double-ticket' team. With 400-team regionals, that means 50-60 fewer waitlist teams, and each regional would have maybe 90-100 of these elite teams (depending on whether a larger or smaller number could afford to make the extra trip), and 300 "not-so-elite" teams. A pretty good balance for inspiration of ALL teams, I think - just as "inspiring" (if top-caliber teams are where you get your inspiration) as the 2014 400-team champs, no?

What would this cost FIRST? Well, they would lose the registration fee for the teams that got displaced by the double-ticket holders, so about 50 x $5000 for each competition, or a total of about $500,000 (but they could get it back by increasing the total size of each championship to 450). If FIRST gave each team $5,000 toward their travel and hotel costs, that's about $1,000,000 total, to create what I think would be a really awesome experience for ALL of the teams attending both events. The teams that have earned a Top Spot would get 2 championship experiences, with all (or most) of their top competition at both (or at least at one or the other), and the ability to inspire 600 other teams in total (300 at each event).

FIRST could get whatever they are getting out of having two championships (more teams able to go, less travel distance/cost for many); the cities would get what they have bargained for (maybe actually more); the top teams would have what it seems they are looking for (top competition, to be able to inspire and be inspired by ALL of the best, to see their opposite-region buddies, etc.); the other teams would not lose out on the inspiration provided by top teams in the 'other region' and more of them could go - yet they could still aspire to becoming a "double ticket" team themselves. And the championships couldn't really get too stacked one way or the other, since a "double ticket" (DT) team could not eschew their "own" championship to go to the other. (I guess there could be an agreement that all DT teams from Houston would go to Detroit, and no DT teams from Detroit would go to Houston, making Detroit into the stronger competition - or vice versa - but I wonder if that would/could actually happen? They could implement some kind of swap, where a team from Region A had to agree to go to Region B before one could actually go from B to A - and vice-versa - as has been proposed in the basic swap idea. But here there would also be MORE top teams at both, not just different ones.)

$1,000,000 seems a small price for FIRST to pay for this much awesomeness.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

That strongly depends on the region. If the Capital region (MD/VA, possibly WV if they're interested) goes district it's 2 regionals. Indiana replaced 2 regionals with 3 districts. On the other hand, if TX goes district, they lose 4 regionals; CA would lose SEVEN. MI lost 3 when it made the move. HI, Israel, and Australia would lose one apiece. 6 Districts created, 13 Regionals disappeared.

Yeah, I think you're off slightly. OTOH, long-term, 4 is more realistic. (If MI was just now switching, I'd really hate to think how many events they'd have.)


There's something you're missing in the cost, BTW. I hinted at it already, but somehow the robots have to make the trek between the Championships for the double teams. 100-120 robots have to go between the two (you know, because there are 100-120 double-ticket teams). In crates. Shipping and drayage costs will need to be donated or otherwise paid for. (Did you know? At one time, every robot had to be shipped to every event--and FedEx donated the shipping. Now the FedEx donation no longer covers that, so it's just to Champs, maybe one or two special cases.) That's probably 2-3 semis for those robot crates. Think about that--that's not exactly cheap.

[Squillo]

Oh, yeah, I thought of shipping the robots, then forgot about it again. (And yes, I do remember when they shifted to "bag & tag" - that was when we started having to get shipping exemptions every year, and I'm the one who handles that! And this year, since we went to two regionals, we had to pay to ship our 'bot home from Oahu, even with the 2-free-legs covered by the exemption.)

What DOES it cost to ship a robot crate overland in the U.S.? (I figure ours is more expensive because it has to fly.) You're right, that is something that I would think FIRST would have to cover.

I was thinking more like about 80-90 double-ticket teams; they could make it a lottery from among those who qualify and want to go (if enough want to go). Then the next year any qualifying team that didn't go the prior year would get preference, and so on.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Thanks for the input! Here's my analysis:

As you say, there were 56 regionals this year, and 5 DCMPs. Assuming a few more districts are created, in a year or two there might be 8 DCMPS and maybe only 44 regionals? Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

So with no overlap, with two teams from each regional and DCMP qualifying for my "double champs ticket" that would be between 122 (61 events) and 92 (46 events) teams qualifying that way, plus the HoF and Legacy teams (you say 27, so we'll go with that). We could even leave out the HoF and Legacy teams (many of those will get a double ticket anyway by winning something).

However, it won't be that many, because some of the same teams will be winning or finalist captains at multiple regionals, and some of those are also HoF teams (e.g., this year, Team 359 would have gotten a "double ticket" 3 ways - captain of winning alliance in Hawaii and Australia, and HoF; but with the new arrangement, they might have elected to stay AC of the #2 alliance at IE, rather than accepting the invitation of the #1 captain, and gotten a ticket that way too if they ended up winner or finalist). With more districts, this multiple qualification will decrease some. Let's say that about 20% of the total slots would be filled by teams that already have a ticket. No wildcards here! (However, these teams may elect to skip a 2nd or 3rd regional if they know they can go to 2 champs instead, so duplication may decrease. This is hard to predict but someone looking at the winners this year could maybe make a better estimate.)

So that leaves about 95-120 teams that would get a "double ticket". Half of these (well, +/-) will be "Region A" teams that get to also go to the Region B Championship, and vice versa. So about 50-60 teams from each region that would otherwise go, will get "displaced" by a 'double-ticket' team. With 400-team regionals, that means 50-60 fewer waitlist teams, and each regional would have maybe 90-100 of these elite teams (depending on whether a larger or smaller number could afford to make the extra trip), and 300 "not-so-elite" teams. A pretty good balance for inspiration of ALL teams, I think - just as "inspiring" (if top-caliber teams are where you get your inspiration) as the 2014 400-team champs, no?

What would this cost FIRST? Well, they would lose the registration fee for the teams that got displaced by the double-ticket holders, so about 50 x $5000 for each competition, or a total of about $500,000 (but they could get it back by increasing the total size of each championship to 450). If FIRST gave each team $5,000 toward their travel and hotel costs, that's about $1,000,000 total, to create what I think would be a really awesome experience for ALL of the teams attending both events. The teams that have earned a Top Spot would get 2 championship experiences, with all (or most) of their top competition at both (or at least at one or the other), and the ability to inspire 600 other teams in total (300 at each event).

FIRST could get whatever they are getting out of having two championships (more teams able to go, less travel distance/cost for many); the cities would get what they have bargained for (maybe actually more); the top teams would have what it seems they are looking for (top competition, to be able to inspire and be inspired by ALL of the best, to see their opposite-region buddies, etc.); the other teams would not lose out on the inspiration provided by top teams in the 'other region' and more of them could go - yet they could still aspire to becoming a "double ticket" team themselves. And the championships couldn't really get too stacked one way or the other, since a "double ticket" (DT) team could not eschew their "own" championship to go to the other. (I guess there could be an agreement that all DT teams from Houston would go to Detroit, and no DT teams from Detroit would go to Houston, making Detroit into the stronger competition - or vice versa - but I wonder if that would/could actually happen? They could implement some kind of swap, where a team from Region A had to agree to go to Region B before one could actually go from B to A - and vice-versa - as has been proposed in the basic swap idea. But here there would also be MORE top teams at both, not just different ones.)

$1,000,000 seems a small price for FIRST to pay for this much awesomeness.

Actually, we qualified 4 ways this season giving 3 wild cards. You don't have to be an alliance captain to give a wild card as long as you win the event.

[Squillo]

Hi, Glenn. I was talking about qualifying for a ticket to both championships under my "double ticket" system. It's kind of a complicated scheme I came up with for solving some of the problems cited on CD with the new "2 championship" arrangement. In my plan, only the alliance captains of the winning and finalist alliances would qualify, so the one where you were a first pick would not have gotten you a "double ticket" (only the two where you were alliance captain + HoF status.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Squillo

Hi, Glenn. I was talking about qualifying for a ticket to both championships under my "double ticket" system. It's kind of a complicated scheme I came up with for solving some of the problems cited on CD with the new "2 championship" arrangement. In my plan, only the alliance captains of the winning and finalist alliances would qualify, so the one where you were a first pick would not have gotten you a "double ticket" (only the two where you were alliance captain + HoF status.

OK, I understand now.
I'm not sure I would implement such a system to give out wild cards only as an alliance captain.
We have been fortunate to have been an alliance captain often in recent years. Those that are familiar with the role, understand that the 2 driving forces to selecting partners is optimizing your alliance while limiting the extent in which the other alliance is better than yours. Giving out a wildcard should not be influenced by me choosing to be an alliance captain vs. accepting a higher seeds selection.
In the case of the Week 1 IE regional, we weighed our options on whether to accept or decline and create our own alliance. Because the #1 seeded team had planned to do what I described above, it would have been scorched Earth if we had declined.
Ultimately, we felt our best chance was to accept and the wildcard was given based on our HOF status to a very good finalist alliance, specifically Team 3250 who is worthy of participating at Champs.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

You devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.

How? So many teams are deserving of HOF currently, and yet only one can be added at a time.

Two things have been happening annually in FRC:
1. More teams are added every year.
2. Earning CA at any level gets more difficult.

I've already been called out once by stating this, but I stick with its truth: some current HOF teams would not earn the contemporary Regional/District CA, much less HOF status.

Acknowledging two HOF teams per year (as long as they continue to receive the same benefits) will increase the communities awareness of things that contemporary HOF teams accomplish, and provide more teams with the chance to be inspired by them and potentially earn their level of respectability.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

- You devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.

Bull. Ask if any of the teams from Michigan, MAR, New England, or PNW feel their Chairman's Awards have been devalued by giving out multiple at their championship events. The answer is a resounding no.

[rsegrest]

Connor

The trust and transparency being developed with the community up until this point was completely betrayed by this surprise decision, and that's an unacceptable way of managing this program.

Thank you for the clarification. And I do understand your points. I will add this; this is not a surprise decision on the part of FIRST. It is a surprise announcement to us. While it may be semantics to some it really isn't. I think FIRST HQ has more planning involved in this than anyone is really realizing in the heat of the moment. I am not sure we are all privy to the 'big picture' yet. Someone else pointed out that there was a time when the game wasn't played as a 3-man alliance and coaches and mentors quit over that. That was before my time but I personally believe that it has been a great thing. It has given my team the opportunity to play against and with several of the elite powerhouse teams. Forgive my asking but were you involved in FIRST when that particular switch was made? Did you see it as a good change or a negative one? If you were around, you survived it and can survive this too. If you weren't around, I guess the question is can or do you want to survive this change to continue to inspire your students through this vehicle we call FIRST?

Qbot2640

That is where the focus should be...and if there are still too many teams, then reduce the number each of those districts send.

FIRST is about inclusion not exclusion. (sarcasm alert) If we are going to reduce the number of teams then 2900 (or so) of us should just quit right now and let the same 100 or so elite battle it out every year for the number one spot (end sarcasm). Goodness knows my team is not one of the top 100 elite and may never be yet slightly more than 50% of my team alumni are majoring in STEM fields (and no, these are not the ones who just knew they were going to be engineers before they became part of my program). I kind of thought that was the whole point though, to inspire students who might not otherwise investigate/pursue STEM careers to reconsider their choices.

AGPapa

And if not for meeting all of these great people, how exactly are these teams getting inspired?

In the hope that I am reading this incorrectly I am going to ask for clarification. What exactly are you trying to say? I agree that it would be inspiring to meet some of these greats but we can be equally inspiring within our regionals and districts. I have personally seen it happen.

Also, as a side note. For all those still decrying the Houston choice, I would say come and join us at Lone Star to see how things have changed since 2003. I wasn't there and understand that it was...less than ideal...but that's been 11 years ago and much has changed since then. Come on down in 2016 and see how much.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

AGPapa

In the hope that I am reading this incorrectly I am going to ask for clarification. What exactly are you trying to say? I agree that it would be inspiring to meet some of these greats but we can be equally inspiring within our regionals and districts. I have personally seen it happen.

I'm saying that champs is inspiring because of these people. If we remove half of these people champs will be less inspiring. Creating a second event isn't more inspiring because there will be less of these great people.

Basically, a lot of people in this thread are saying, "Champs is so inspiring! We should invite more teams!" without explaining what makes champs inspiring and if those qualities will still exist if the community is split.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

I'm saying that champs is inspiring because of these people. If we remove half of these people champs will be less inspiring. Creating a second event isn't more inspiring because there will be less of these great people.

Basically, a lot of people in this thread are saying, "Champs is so inspiring! We should invite more teams!" without explaining what makes champs inspiring and if those qualities will still exist if the community is split.

Will there be less inspiring people?

Or will there be more people inspiring there, who we haven't collectively discovered?

Perhaps there will be more opportunity for upcoming inspiring people to step out of the shadows of others.

[Jared Russell]

Most sports with a "Hall of Fame" do not have hard rules that exactly N players be enshrined each year. Instead, they try to maintain an objective bar, and the precise number of new Hall of Famers varies from year to year (within some min/max guidelines).

[rsegrest]

AGPapa,

I understand what you are saying but I think I am more in agreement with Carolyn_Grace. As stated previously my team has had the opportunity to compete with some of the elites. Some were incredibly inspiring...others not so much.

As an example of Carolyn’s reference to people coming out of the shadows: Four years ago I had two team members that were best friends. They played robots with me for three of their high school years (we founded our team the year they were sophomores). Even though they worked hand-in-hand and side-by-side it seemed that student A always outshone student B. Much of that was due to their personalities. After graduation A went to one major university while B went to another. And low and behold, once B was out of A's shadow he just...flew. All the things that were overlooked in him were now plainly visible just because he had the opportunity to shine in his own right. Now here we are four years later, A is currently working as an engineer and B finished his BS in Physics in 3 years and is now pursuing a BS in Mech Eng. Both are successful in their own right. Isn't it possible that there are teams who are equally as inspiring as the elites but are overshadowed by them?

[Rachel Lim]

I think at this point it's important to look back and understand what exactly caused some (many) people to be very upset with this news, while others are either less certain on their side or like it. This is my interpretation, when I tried my best to step back from everything I dislike about it and see it from farther back.

It starts with FIRST's vision: "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
And their mission statement: "Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

At it's most basic, FIRST aims to inspire students to go into STEM fields. There are obviously many ways to do this. One way is through engineering challenges.

But FRC wasn't created to be an engineering challenge. It's in it's name, FIRST Robotics Competition. It's in the way FIRST describes it, sport of the mind. That was the issue with Recycle Rush: it was more of a challenge than a sport. That is the issue with the split champs: it is more suitable for a challenge than a sport. That is the issue with having more than one champs and more than one winners: it's no longer a competition.

A challenge pushes teams to do the best that they think they can do. A competition pushes teams to do better than the best that they think other teams can do. Often, a competition is necessary to complete a challenge. Consider the space race--would we have landed on the moon nearly as soon if the Cold War hadn't been raging? On the other hand, Curiosity landed on Mars without the need of a war (or the threat of one).

What is my point, then? Challenges and competitions can both push people to do their best. They can both lead to incredible results. They can both inspire students. But they're very different. They attract different people. They inspire differently.

When they said "change is coming," looking back on it, it could be interpreted to say FRC is turning away from being a sport to becoming a challenge. This is the decision FIRST has to make, and the one that we're divided on. Should FIRST continue to try and change our culture by making FRC more like a sport, or by turning it into an engineering challenge? Should the "C" in FRC stand for competition or challenge?

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Bull. Ask if any of the teams from Michigan, MAR, New England, or PNW feel their Chairman's Awards have been devalued by giving out multiple at their championship events. The answer is a resounding no.

To add to that even more, try competing on a yearly basis for more than a decade against teams like 27, 33, 503, 548 etc for Chairman's. You are pretty much in a holding pattern year after year waiting for them to win worlds to get out of your local region because they are so well established and have done incredible things for so long. Because of the district system, you need to beat all of them to get out of your region.

I'm happy they're so incredible, but I stand with the other person who said there are a lot of deserving teams out there and 2 Chairman's per year would be a nice remedy.