What percentage of FRC teams should attend championships?

[Caleb Sykes]

In the years 2017+, it will be much easier for FIRST to select the size of championships because the district model will be much more widespread. Assuming another level of competition is not added, what percentage of FRC teams do you believe should qualify for championships in the years 2017-2020?

I posed this question in this thread, but liked it so much I thought I should make a poll for it.

[Lil' Lavery]

Define "attend"

Why should there be a target percentage in the first place?

[Richard Wallace]

68/346

(and the prequalified teams)

-----

edit: the poll results are already moving toward a bimodal distribution, with just two dozen responses

Glad to see I was wrong about that. A consensus may develop yet.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Define "attend"

Why should there be a target percentage in the first place?

Good question. You should pose that question to Frank at the town hall, since FIRST has openly stated they think 25% of FRC teams should make it to champs every year.

[MrJohnston]

I just got a survey in my email from Frank on the subject.... I haven't opened it, but it sounds like he is looking to get real feedback from the entire FRC community - not just those of us on Delphi or who might attend a Town Hall meeting.

Good move, Frank!

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Define "attend"

Why should there be a target percentage in the first place?

In answer to your first question, "attend" should be roughly equivalent to "qualify for." My complete question is the first paragraph in my first post. The character restrictions in the poll would not allow this large of a question, so I simplified it in the question box.

In answer to your second question, Cory nailed it. FIRST apparently wants a target percentage of 25%, I personally think that is far too high, and I am curious to know what everyone else thinks.

Before last week, I was under the impression that champs would always be at a single venue, so the venue size would dictate the percentage of teams qualifying. That appears to no longer be the case.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Cory

Good question. You should pose that question to Frank at the town hall, since FIRST has openly stated they think 25% of FRC teams should make it to champs every year.

I guarantee everyone already knows what the answer is. FIRST wants every student to have the chance to attend CMP over a 4 year period. I don't necessarily agree with this reasoning, but that's what the answer will be.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by themccannman

FIRST wants every student to have the chance to attend CMP over a 4 year period. I don't necessarily agree with this reasoning, but that's what the answer will be.

The flaw in their logic is that if you qualify via merit you're going to need to allow a heck of a lot more than 25% to attend. (the top 15% are likely the same teams that consistantly qualify). That leaves the other 85% of teams trying to get in on that 10% of wait listers...

[Jared Russell]

400 / X * 100 %

That's the percentage of FRC teams that I think should compete at Championships.

[Sunshine]

I have no problem with 25% of teams attending BUTNthet don't all have to bring a robot to compete. If the experience outside of the game field is so enriching (and I believe it is) some groups could come for other things than the competition of their bot. Just another idea.

[Rachel Lim]

My first thought:
Whatever percentage of teams do well enough to deserve a spot at champs.

Since that's impossible to define:
Whatever percentage of teams are in the top 400 (or the number of teams at a single champs).

But that's not what first wants:
Whatever percentage of teams that allows every team to attend champs at least once every four years. 25% if no teams qualify every year, but significantly higher since they do.

What I'm hoping this will eventually become:
Whatever percentage of teams are in the top 400 (or the number of teams at a single champs) qualify for champs, and whatever percentage of teams that allows every team to attend super-DCMPs / super regionals at least once every four years qualify for that.

There is one winning alliance no matter what the size of the event is (besides divisions). Why doesn't FIRST pick the top percentage of teams and say they're winners? Because it stops being a competition--and a sport--if they do that. Setting a hard percentage of teams that deserve to win, or be at champs, or do anything else is dangerous not only because that number will change very often, but also because it doesn't mean much. Setting a hard number isn't ideal either, but it's by far the best of all objective values. And it pushes teams to be in the top XXX teams in their area (for districts) or in the winning alliance (for regionals), rather than saying being "good enough" to get into the 75th percentile deserves a spot at champs. And it allows for a single champs, so if you get in, you'll have earned a place to compete among the best in the world.

[AlexanderTheOK]

My team hasn't been to champs the entire four years I have been on it. That being said. I would be just a tad disappointed if I went to champs without being deserving of it.

I honestly think that the 25% mark is way too high. This is the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all. This is where the best of the best compete in a much higher scoring matches that make for much greater excitement.

The point being, not every team can be "the best of the best" once every four years. That is, after all, kind of the point of being in that fairly exclusive group of teams that regularly perform at a higher level and regularly win.

Of course, FIRST has it's own view of what champs NEEDS to be, and it may just be be the best course of action. Maybe it WOULD be a good idea to reserve our absolute best of the best competition to IRI. It's all about what you think champs is meant to be.

I PERSONALLY think that championship competitors need to be capped at the 600 level that we have now, and as the program grows it should simply be harder to get in and a more valuable experience. Whatever percentage that is, that would be the percentage.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I have no problem with 25% of teams attending BUTNthet don't all have to bring a robot to compete. If the experience outside of the game field is so enriching (and I believe it is) some groups could come for other things than the competition of their bot. Just another idea.

Why would a team spend 20k to watch

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Why would a team spend 20k to watch

Already answered:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

If the experience outside of the game field is so enriching (and I believe it is) some groups could come for other things than the competition of their bot.

These enrichments include the exposure to the top teams, with opportunity to "pick their brains" as to how to improve both our team and the students' individual engineering capabilities. And oh, yeah, there's that inspiration thing that Dean and Woodie go on about ;->.

That said, attending a championship without having pay the entry fee to compete is a significant savings for those in the conterminous US (33% in our case, paying for 25 students and about eight coaches/mentors to take a bus from Southeast Louisiana). Getting the school and school board to approve that much field trip time to "attend" would be a far greater challenge than raising the money. If we were "attending", we would probably try to send about a dozen students and three mentors, and bus-pool with three other teams.

For the record, I'm not voting. I'd love to take the team every year. I'd also love to see some "superregionals" each of which send about a dozen teams to the "real" championships, and have 25-50% of the teams get to a super. One big problem with this model is that the championship gets smaller. The really big thing about the super that bothers me is teams (many from outside North America, but quite a few within) that qualify for championships but can't afford the travel. Supers would make this situation even worse.

The bottom line is that I'm thrilled to be going this year, and taking two of my three children (even though the other one founded the team), and about two dozen other teens that I've come to know as extended family. We've roughly doubled our budget, and have raised nearly as much money in the past four weeks as we did in the previous eleven months to make this work. I'd be thrilled to do this every year. I also understand that getting about 4000 FRC teams in one place jus' ain't happ'nin'.

[grstex]

For a sense of scale:

18.2% of Division I teams compete in March Madness
33.3% of MLB teams make the playoffs
37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs
26.7% of NBA teams make the playoffs