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

[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.