Future First Championship News

[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?

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

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.

I mostly agree with your analysis between the differences between challenges and competitions, but what I don't agree with is how splitting champs into two events automatically places FRC into the challenge category, completely taking away the competition.

It's STILL a competition. FIRST/FRC has never said that they are about ONE winner. In fact, every year we have THREE winners. If we truly wanted the best of the best of the best to win, then perhaps we shouldn't call the second and third robots on Einstein winners...

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

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?

After considering this for a significant period of time, I'm come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, FRC still stands for competition. Follow me through the end:

District competitions still crown one set of champions. So do district championships and regional competitions. These are still competitive events, and make up the majority of the events in FRC. Are they the goal of the FRC super-elite? Not necessarily, but they are still an integral part of the FIRST Robotics experience, and I would easily call these competitions.

Does not having a single, world champion alliance make that big a difference? To some, for sure, but I still think having six or eight champions is nearly no different from four. Think about the Einstein finalist from the last season: sure they didn't beat the eventual champions, but I could easily imagine a world where that alliance squeaked out a F3 win. So two champion alliances doesn't bother me from that perspective: it still is a competition.

I agree with the idea that FIRST is moving toward a challenge-based game series rather than sports. Whether this is good or not is entirely up to the individual. But I still believe it is a competition. We still have two alliances competing, even if only loosely this year. We still name winners. We still aim to score the highest, instead of just achieving a time or a number. If the GDC ever makes the game end at a certain score, or stop the match at a certain time once the goal is achieved, then maybe we will have to consider FRC a challenge instead of a competition. But for now there still is an element(s) of competition, and I treat it as such.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by 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).

Jared,
love this post!!

Why not have N no. of teams each year receive the CCA if they deserve it based on a criteria set forth by FIRST?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Jared,
love this post!!

Why not have N no. of teams each year receive the CCA if they deserve it based on a criteria set forth by FIRST?

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.

Eric, I see your concern.
With the direction that FIRST is going increasing the venue capacity and/or having more than 1 venue, I could see it not being a problem, at least for now.

Karthik did some no. crunching on behalf of the HOF teams earlier this school year, where the majority of the HOF teams have qualified anyways without the status in recent years.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.

I think this becomes more manageable as a larger percentage of teams competes under the district system. Give each CCA team a 4 year window of auto-qualification, afterwards they receive some number of district points as a recurring bonus to compensate for their ineligibility* to receive the large culture changing awards.

(* officially, there is no policy that disqualifies CCA teams from District/Regional Chairman's/EI consideration in later years, and indeed, some have received EI since their Chairman's win. Unofficially, there is often some sentiment among the judges that it is time for someone else to win these awards.)

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

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.

_______________________

Or will "more be inspired" by the inclusion annually of another 400 teams gaining the Championships experience in 2017, over the 2014 Championships? (Yes, they added 200 this year and possibly next, but was that to gradually prepare and slide into the even higher inclusion and get set for 2017?)

Which is the already stated goal by FIRST and The Committee that was no real secret (3 Doc's were listed in the other thread, some repeatedly). There was a roadmap and tea leaves (only the final result was an actual secret), and they have already said they are listening and wish to work with the community to help cure the biggest ills of a completion of an annual Championship that many do seek as inspiration they put forth for their teams as a mission ...My take...The Community missed the hints and street signs along the way (I think in hindsight and looking back over all that was said and laid out over the last 3 or so years), mainly because the community as a whole, or here on CD at least, simply don't want the current conditions to be modified or change.

But continued existensial growth is requiring it do so (change), or we add another expensive & time consuming layer taxing all teams. Mix em up often(as most teams really won't save that much money anyway given the locations), and send the winners only from South to North to finish off Einstein, set aside $50.00 from each of the 800 Teams entries, and give each of the 4 Teams 10K addl'. expense money to fly home & back (shipping their Robots and equipment from Houston to Detroit), only 4 teams get that inconvenience...The 4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a Championship after Championship #1 each year.

Or, Set aside $100.00 from each of the 800 Teams and bring all 8 Teams back mid-June for a Televised Superbowl Of FIRST FRC World Champs Playoffs (Best of 5, or 7, or even a Best of 9 matches), giving each team 10K for expenses, and ship all 8 teams Bots & Tools to that location as soon as their Co-Champs matches are completed. A showcase event both Alliances would certainly deserve...The Full Red Carpet Treatment! (Then send them to The Whitehouse, or maybe Disneyworld!)

Hey, hold that Championship Playoffs it at either place.