[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[Siri]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

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.

I can think of this one and this one, which were the ones I was thinking about and I am describing in the post. One's about Districts the other is 2015 Championship eligibility. The latter is closer to the topic at hand, but was not used for the "this project". (I won't detail the 'who' in terms of who's clarified they didn't know, but I feel this is important enough to say in generality. If someone involved objects to this level of detail, please tell me.) Perhaps the makeup of the task force did change without affecting representation. If this is the case, it would be very good to know. I am not personally appreciative of HQ's closed lips about this even after the fact.

[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).

___________________________________________
Found it, sry I was way off on the post count (post 624...Hey after 900+ posts read in a single sitting to hit within 76 posts wasn't actually too bad, 703 was the start of the Town Hall Thread Link!), and the actual Committee Subject was "2015 Championship (and beyond) Eligibility" Blog Posting...Then read down a bit further to the post after that....The "Beyond" part.

Yes, you had to read a bit between the lines...But, the tea leaves (and that's all they were...nothing but road signs.....Were there.
_______________________________________________
http://community.usfirst.org/robotic...nd-Eligibility
________________________________Reprinted below for direct reference.

2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Blog Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 - 11:18.

As I said in an earlier blog, we have had a task force working on Championship eligibility for FRC. The members of this task force are as follows, in no particular order:

•Jamee Luce – Districts Representative
•Dennis Hughes – Mentor for Team RUSH, 2014 Chairman’s Award Winner
•Lane Matheson – 2014 Woodie Flowers Award Winner
•Naomi Mancuso – FIRST Operations (Customer Service)
•Jen McManus – FIRST Finance
•Cindy Stong – Chief Judge Advisor
•Dana Henry – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Teri Benart – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Connie Haynes – FIRST Regional Director
•Collin Fultz – FRC Team Advocate
•Me

I want to thank the task force members for all their hard work. We’re not quite done yet – see below – but we’ve made significant strides. We have, however, completed our work for changes to the 2015 FRC Championship eligibility. As a reminder, you can find information about the 2014 eligibility rules here. If no change to the 2014 rules is noted below, the 2014 rules will still hold.

Also, Districts will be getting the number of available Championship slots (total Championship capacity less the number of pre-qualified teams) proportional to their percentage representation in all FRC. As an example, if a District has 10% of the teams in FRC, they will be getting 10% of the available slots. This is similar to what was done last year, but this year, the allocation will be done on current season - 2015 - team counts. Districts will still be using the points-and-awards system to determine Championship eligibility, as they have been.

Wild Card Changes for 2015

Unlike in prior years, any team arriving at a Regional who has already earned a Championship spot, and ends up on the Winning Alliance at that Regional, or earns an award at that Regional that would make them eligible for Championship, will generate a Wild Card slot. As an example, if a Hall of Fame team (who is pre-qualified for Championship before the season starts) ends up on the Winning Alliance, that will now generate a Wild Card slot for the Finalist Alliance. Or, as another example, a team that is on the Winning Alliance at one Regional, then wins the Engineering Inspiration Award at a later Regional, will generate a Wild Card slot at the later Regional.

Also, if a team at a Regional earns the right to attend Championship through two accomplishments at the same event, for example, being on the Winning Alliance and earning Chairman’s Award, that will also generate a Wild Card slot.

These rule changes are cumulative. So, if a team who already has earned a slot at Championship attends a Regional and is both on the Winning Alliance and wins a Championship qualifying award, like Engineering Inspiration, that team will generate two Wild Card slots. And will get a congratulatory phone call from POTUS, as they clearly rock.*




If you think this through, you will find that, in most cases, this means that Regionals will be making 6 new, unique teams eligible for Championship attendance. One important caveat – Wild Cards recipients will still be limited to the Finalist Alliance. If more Wild Cards are generated than can be absorbed by the Finalist Alliance, those Wild Cards will still go unused and can’t be backfilled or replaced.

This is good news, right? I think it’s good news. But I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Waitlist Changes for 2015

With the increase in team capacity at the 2015 FIRST Championship, even with the increase in Wild Card availability outlined above, we expect to be able to offer a good number of Waitlist slots in 2015. To support our interest in the fair distribution of these slots, and to provide greater opportunity for teams that haven’t attended in a few years, we are making some changes.

Waitlist slots will no longer be first come first served, as they have been – essentially – in prior years. When teams sign up for the Waitlist will no longer matter, as long as they sign up during the time the Waitlist is open.

Also, teams will be selected randomly from the Waitlist, with the number of chances they have of being selected equal to the number of years they have missed attending Championship. As an example, if a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2012, that team has ‘missed’ Championship twice, and so will have their number ‘put in the hat’** twice. If a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2004, they have ‘missed’ Championship 10 times, and will have their number put in the hat 10 times.*** Teams who have never been to Championship will be considered as missing every year they have been a team. You will note this means that teams who attended Championship in 2014 will not be eligible for selection from the Waitlist. As a practical matter, though, since for several years Waitlist sign-ups for teams attending the prior year Championship have been later than those who had not attended the prior year, we rarely – if ever – have ended up inviting those prior-year teams anyway. One final note – teams must have participated in FRC during all their ‘missed’ years for those years to count in this system. As an example, for a team that participated in FRC in 2002, then did not participate again until 2005, we would only look back to 2005 in determining Championships missed.

Rookie All Star Changes for 2015

This is less of a change and more of a fine-tuning that we wanted to let you know about. Rookie All Star winners at Regionals, and District Championships, will still be offered a slot at Championship. However, we have noticed that at nearly every Regional, regardless of the number of Rookies present, Rookie All Star gets awarded. It has become more of an ‘automatic’ award then was intended. We will be working with the Judge Advisors this season to help clarify the standards for this award. We love having Rookies at Championship, and we absolutely want to recognize the many outstanding Rookies we have every year, but winning an award that makes a team eligible for Championship should be a big deal, and we want to keep it meaningful. We don’t expect, or desire, a significant drop in the number of Rookie All Star awards presented, but you may see a few more Regionals not presenting Rookie All Star award than you have in the past, and this will be the reason.

This issue is not a concern at District Championships, as Rookie All Stars selected there have already had to pass through a selection gate at the District level, and only one or two Rookie All Stars from each District as a whole are selected to go to the FIRST Championship.

Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.

Frank

* I’m joking about that call.

** No actual hat will be used. We think.

*** Yes, this is the Hunger Games model, but you’re getting invited to an awesome party instead of near-certain death. No, you may not ‘volunteer as tribute’, wise guys.
_________________________________________

Looks to me by that last part, they fully thought it over as a fully formed task force...And this was the decided on result...Not to decrease slots in the future as we outgrow 1 single site, but to increase Championship Slots as Growth is predicted to increase beyond a certain line in the sand that 1 site cannot possibly service all, and still hit the goal of 25% FRC Team participation (hitting that goal of at least once having each High Schooler have an opportunity to be inspired at The Championships!)

**I have no actual factual or personal knowledge of whether it came down that exact way or not, but I'll bet that is as good a guess as any. (I'm usually pretty good at reading tea leaves)...Especially after Frank's recent Blog Posts. He pretty much spells it all out as much. At least the decisions that were reached.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

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

If they did, they showed no evidence. I'll explain that farther down.

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.

Only one is still in existence: 330, BeachBots. (Other than the team I currently mentor--1197, Torbots.) I might suggest playing Fantasy FIRST next year; it'll greatly broaden your teams horizon. I attend local regionals and I know those teams--but I know other teams, or know OF other teams, from either their (long-past) travels out this way, or through Fantasy FIRST, or through discussions on Chief.

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. .

Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. The "well connected" part is because I've been on CD for quite a while.

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?

No: It means that they really give that appearance.

Let me put it this way: You're thinking about some major life change that will affect you, your family, and your friends. You know that that change will be a difficult one. Do you make it without talking to at least some of your friends? What about your extended family? How about your immediate family? If you're like most people, you'll talk to both sets of family, at least to say "hey, I'm considering this" (and for immediate family, some serious discussion would naturally ensue). And the vast majority of people will also at least mention it to their close friends (not necessarily acquaintances, and maybe not even distant relatives). If you just make the decision without talking to your immediate family, you probably didn't give the decision the weight it deserved. Probably. It might have taken a while to reach that decision, but it still looks like you didn't give it enough weight to consult others, when maybe it should have.


And that's exactly what appears to have happened here: There was no outside discussion. The usual folks who'd be the first in line to know before the decision came out knew NOTHING, at least that's what I've been picking up via the grapevine. In the districts case some years back, some folks from both HQ and MI said "Oh, yeah, we've been quietly discussing this for this long". This time? "I heard nothing", all across the board. FIRST could have been considering this since 2011, for all we know--and yet, nobody heard anything. Not even folks who'd be generally counted in the "family" part of that example I gave. That means that no matter how much weight was given the decision, the appearance is that it was somewhat spur-of-the-moment (which I'm fairly certain it wasn't). For that matter, there wasn't a hint that venue contracts were under consideration, and usually there is something somewhere.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Foster

-- 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!

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

Not that St. Louis is a particularly attractive, either. Actually, downtown Detroit is far less pothole-ridden than St. Louis, in my experience.

You're right that there isn't much we can do, even with the most pointed arguments against the new format. I'd like to see a long-term plan explaining why FIRST is going to this new format. I know about the super-regional format, but it's be nice to see a more defined year-to-year plan for the competition, not just the venues.

[cglrcng]

Frank is about as straight up as a man comes (Never met him, but read enough of his writings to know by now)...As transparent as they come, says what he means, means what he says...and very articulate in his writings (unlike myself).

(It isn't paranoid if there is possible evidence, facts, & truth to it!)

USFIRST & FIRST FRC/FTC/FLL was faced w/ a BIG ROCK, Big Hard Spot, pretty much no win situation (take away hard earned, special award slots, in the future HofF down to Rookie AllStars...Just imagine what the response to that would have been), or go more inclusionary to fit the FIRST vision of inspiring and rewarding, & it is no doubt Contract signing time again.

Re-read his "We're Listening" posting again, parse every word and sentence. He says it all! nothing should be misconstrued...Now, just constructive dialogue is all that is necessary. (and a little bit of understanding and reasonableness on all sides....Their side already shows much willingness to meet halfway.

But, certain things are absolutely necessary at this juncture is all. CHANGE is coming....CHANGE IS HERE!

How more prepared could they actually make us?

And folks...Bidness is Bidness...We don't guarantee the Champs Venue Contracts w/ our bank accounts!
___________________

Everything you need to know was spelled out in that August 14 Blog post, The Release, and The "We're Listening" Post,....It cannot be more plain or honest than those 3 postings about the current situation...And how it can be fixed...To a reasonable degree that is to assure both Inspirational & Rewarding.

__________________________
Addition:

Sry, I used the wrong wording...There is no their side (and no our side)...It is ONLY OUR SIDE TOGETHER!

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by EricH

For that matter, there wasn't a hint that venue contracts were under consideration, and usually there is something somewhere.

Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.

I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.

I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.

________________________________________________

Lets for a minute look back at an August 2014 Blog Post by Frank

Upper part about 2015 Champs snipped off-----
________
Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.

Frank

1. We will be soon overbooked.
2. There is a Task Force handling the issue, not a Committee.
3. Task Forces handle large items, Committes usually lesser important items.
4. We just may have to curtail Auto Award entries/berths (HoF~RookieAllStars). Imagine those results folks! (The Rock...)
5. We want to be fair. We will let you know more in OCTOBER...That info never came in October, they were probably in Contract Negotiations by then, or at least a bidding process maybe. But, the info did come and was fully explained by Post & Video, and now more coming.
6. We will detail THE RESULTS of these IMPORTANT DECISIONS WHEN THE INFO IS RELEASED!
7. Nowhere did they say they would be asking the community for input, or opinions, or anything. It appears to be a FIRST Decision w/ full and fair warning.
8. Usual Contract time is here (Hard Place...).

9. The man and his team cannot be more straight up...Say what they mean, mean what they say, and willing to work with the passionate community within reason.

**Opinion only, I feel more were just concerned (if paying attention at all in August), last August about how the 2015 Championship Eligibility applied to their teams, than reading about "The Longer Term- Changes" part.

I do remember reading it...Then again last night someone else posted the link and I read it again...LIGHTBULB! Oh, that's straight up. And now many affected either way are quite upset about it.

Lastly...To ask for community input (where potential loss of high award auto berths are concerned ~anybody involved in any team could potentially be affected), would actually put forth a potential set of conflict(s) of interest(s). If it appears so, rest assured, it usually is. Or, will be conceived to be by someone,...somewhere.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.

I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.

________________________
Of course they did, and the didn't want to punish those they actually reward for growing the organization, due to said growth. And they want to inspire every High School Student w/ at least a chance to be inspired by attending at least 1 Championships in their high School years. You can plan for growth all you want, but, if your Organization does a really great job...It will sneak up on you quickly when you must sign venues years out. (Rock/Hard Place).

[cglrcng]

Siri,

I agree with staying away from that kind of detail...They probably couldn't discuss it if they even knew, and wanted to. (Non-disclosure agreements and all, you know). Those are usually rock solid and highly, swiftly enforced. (No comment, or I know nothing!)

The looking at direct post community informative evidence was pretty easy in hindsight though (Oh WOW! Bing!). All the facts were laid out, just not the exact details, until as promised, when the VERY HARD decisions were finally made, and the ink was almost dry.

The response came, they heard the passionate crowd, they will work w/ the community..Nuff said. Sleepy time.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

The looking at direct post community informative evidence was pretty easy in hindsight though (Oh WOW! Bing!). All the facts were laid out, just not the exact details, until as promised, when the VERY HARD decisions were finally made, and the ink was almost dry.

Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)

I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)

So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)

I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)

So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".

Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.

Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.

On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?

A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.

As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.

I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.

-Mike

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.



On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?

A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.

As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.

I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.

-Mike

Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.

All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.

It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.

Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.

All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.

It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.

Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.

I never said they went against their word. I proposed that:

1) Frank has not followed up on his word (to "detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released")

2) FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that went in a different direction than the items discussed in the August 22nd, 2014 blog post.

The speculation in your post may or may not be true, but they are not a precise response to the main thought of my post. I simply aimed to highlight the discrepancy in Frank and FIRST's communication and allow discussion to come from that.

Thanks for reading and responding, I'll try to be clearer in the future.

-Mike

[George Nishimura]

Frank's Blog Post from above opposes the reasoning for having two championships. To compare, in the reasoning for having two championships they said they wanted more teams to attend because of its transformative experience. In last year's blog post, he speaks of "cutting eligibility" and re-enforcing that the RAS does not become an "automatic bid" to championship for regionals with very few rookies. If the long-term goal was to give more teams a transformative experience, isn't a rookie team a fantastic candidate?

I don't see how people are reading the blog post and seeing this announcement, except the realisation that the current structure is unsustainable, which has always been known.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I never said they went against their word. I proposed that:

1) Frank has not followed up on his word (to "detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released")

2) FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that went in a different direction than the items discussed in the August 22nd, 2014 blog post.

The speculation in your post may or may not be true, but they are not a precise response to the main thought of my post. I simply aimed to highlight the discrepancy in Frank and FIRST's communication and allow discussion to come from that.

Thanks for reading and responding, I'll try to be clearer in the future.

-Mike

Thank you for your clarification.

All I'm saying is that it is possible that it wasn't a different direction and maybe they are doing both. Redoing the eligibility (as discussed in the fall) and this. This task force was charged with a number of things, and eventually they realized that they might not even be able to sustain a new cmp qualification structure at one event. Or maybe they realized that they can't take away Chairmans ei, rookie all star, etc from champ qualifications because it goes against FIRST's goals and objectives.

Maybe they could not announce anything in October because of non-disclosure agreements, or maybe they were still in full discussion about this and the time just wasn't right.

So just because we all read into Frank's earlier announcement in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is in a different direction. And if it is, maybe it is not bad, but maybe they decided to go in a different direction to meet several different criteria. Maybe they realized that what they originally wanted to do was not possible. None of us were in the room discussing with them, so we don't know. I'm not speaking just to you, Michael, but to everyone. Just because we may see a discrepancy in something like this doesn't automatically mean foul play or poor leadership or anything bad. Maybe it just means that they later came up with a different idea that met more objectives. Or again maybe they realized that with more exponential FRC growth in coming years, this was the only sustainable option.