**FIRST EMAIL**/Please give us your feedback on FIRST Announcement of 2 Championships

[DonShaw]

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

[grstex]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

How can you say Champs was diluted this year when not a single match has been played. The total number of FRC teams grows every year. And, as has been pointed out several times, the actual percentage of teams attending Championships has been shrinking. If anything, that would mean Champs is more competitive this year than last.

As for money, the 5-tier approach you suggested adds costs too. If you assume a $5,000 fee for each level, That would mean a team hoping to go all the way would need $25,000 in registration fees alone. I'd imagine that's more than most teams would spend on an entire season.

Though I will say it brings up an interesting point. Has FIRST ever taken a team budget survey? I know this can be a touchy subject, but it would likely help guide the goal of making champs more accessible and affordable.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by grstex

Has FIRST ever taken a team budget survey?

Yes, it's actually an entry in TIMS for each team.
$22K was the average team expense in 2013

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Yes, it's actually an entry in TIMS for each team.
$22K was the average team expense in 2013

I'd love to see a distribution graph of this figure. I speculate it's heavily offset toward the low end by a large quantity of teams that attend only one event. For teams who attend championship, I imagine their annual expenses can easily reach double this number, if not more.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

~$18,000-$25,000 is way way too much in registration fees. Who is going to pay for all that?

Also imagine a scenario in which nationals and the southern regional took place in Atlanta for instance. That's 3-5 state districts, 1 state championship, a regional championship, and a US championship. You want to talk about volunteer and mentor burnout? Not to mention getting out of school and work. Gas money, food money, spare parts, hotels, etc. That many tiers is not sustainable.

We started the season with around 8,300 cash. How on earth would we get another ~12,000 to pay for that many competitions and still build a robot and put gas in the cars? Everyone doesn't have a +$20,000 budget.

[Chris Hibner]

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

[216Robochick288]

Can I just childishly sit here and after putting in my thoughts on the 2 championship things, it asked to put in my team number and it wouldnt let me put in all 6 of mine. I feel slighted. (Im from a team with 3 separate numbers, then I coach 3 up north)

#FIRSTworldproblems

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

I am surprised at your response. To me it seemed that the survey was constructed with questions that only helped to support the decisions that were already determined. Maybe I was too pessimistic - but the survey seemed to slant in the way of trying to justify the fore coming structure of FIRST.

To each their own!

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

I am surprised at your response. To me it seemed that the survey was constructed with questions that only helped to support the decisions that were already determined. Maybe I was too pessimistic - but the survey seemed to slant in the way of trying to justify the fore coming structure of FIRST.

To each their own!

What about the question where it asked you to rank your support of the two championships plan from 1-10, where 1 indicated that you "Strongly Oppose 2 Championships"?

I certainly agree with the sentiment that this survey is at least a year too late, but I don't necessarily think it was written with an outright bias.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by dcarr

What about the question where it asked you to rank your support of the two championships plan from 1-10, where 1 indicated that you "Strongly Oppose 2 Championships"?

I certainly agree with the sentiment that this survey is at least a year too late, but I don't necessarily think it was written with an outright bias.

While I agree that I don't believe it was meant to be biased, I noticed myself answering in ways that could be used to prove that people want the Championshplit. I think 2 champs is an awful idea unless it is just paving the way for super regionals, in which case it's an acceptable, potenially necessary evil.

[jds2001]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

While I agree that I don't believe it was meant to be biased, I noticed myself answering in ways that could be used to prove that people want the Championshplit. I think 2 champs is an awful idea unless it is just paving the way for super regionals, in which case it's an acceptable, potenially necessary evil.

This, and this is how I see it. I think that the scaling of FRC is such that right now, super regionals aren't really a possibility. However, by 2021, things should be scaled up enough that it's a possibility. Therefore, I see this as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

This is why in the survey to the first question, I said that I was ambivalent about the split, and provided the same detailed comments as to why.

Of course, the financial implications of such a move would need consideration as well - there's team travel to more events, more event registration fees (you can't put these events on for free, and the money has to come from somewhere), more time off school for students and teachers, more time off work for mentors, etc.

All in all, I think that this was messaged poorly, not that it was a poor decision. A lot of companies make that error - they make the correct decisions for the long term viability of the company/program/whatever and then completely mess up the messaging around it, making it seem as though it was a hastily made decision with no thoughts as to consequences. All in all, for a team PR person, I think that this is an excellent case study - getting exposure to the real world via FIRST

[Siri]

Originally Posted by jds2001

Of course, the financial implications of such a move would need consideration as well - there's team travel to more events, more event registration fees (you can't put these events on for free, and the money has to come from somewhere)...

Many (most?) events run on event sponsorships rather than registration funds. For instance, back in the day FiM wanted MSC to be free to teams; Manchester set the price. I don't know if this applies to Worlds, but in terms of districts and regionals. HQ may subsidize some, but there are a lot of event sponsors around.

Originally Posted by DonShaw

STL is an international airport.

STL is an expensive international airport.

[Kevin Ray]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

Emphasis mine
+1

[DonShaw]

So with more events could First not get the cost per event down or have we have just come to except an event cost 4-5k? I would like to see a cost breakdown from First.

If districts are Saturday and Sunday then school would not be missed.

By diluted I mean that the prestige of the event. If every team can go to worlds what makes it special other than teams from all over are there? I disagree with the buy in for worlds as well. We are a team that must qualify on merits not money!

STL is an international airport.

The district model will cost our team the same amount as two regional s and worlds.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

Wow, good luck convincing our school board to let the kids off of school that much! We would barely make it to the regional! Also, not sure how we are supposed to hold a state event with only 4 teams. And for a world event, do you realize how many events exist outside the US? Not very many. You would end up with a world event consisting of 20 teams.

As far as travel cost reducing, I do remember folks complaining that flying into St. Louis is much more expensive than other US cities. I.e. the travel cost went up for PNW teams when we moved from Atlanta to St. Louis because of airfare. I'm not sure how Detroit and Dallas play into that, though.

I get what you are saying, but in the current state of FIRST, that wouldn't work either. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now. It seems like either FIRST is moving towards a "super-regional" model, or this is their **temporary solution as districts expand and FRC and FTC keep vastly expanding. They needed some wiggle room while districts are in the process of becoming universal. And after that point, maybe one championship would be an option again.

Diluted competition this year? You realize that the 400-team championship is actually much larger than it used to be? It has grown from just a couple hundred to 400 in the 2000s. Did that dilute the competition? Expanding the championship by 200 teams has been done before. And while I wasn't there in the 200-team championship era, I do know people that were. And they never said "gee, I wish there were much fewer teams here this year, because the competition is much more dilute than it was 15 years ago."

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

I'm kind of disappointed there was no field for "any other ideas for making 2 venues work?". I was looking for a place to endorse the "World Champs" and "World Festival" compromise, but then the survey was over

I mentioned this multiple times in the comment boxes. Go take the survey again and advocate for that!!