Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format

[blazingbronco18]

For those off us that weren't able to make it to the meeting can someone fill us in on what the jist of the meeting was?

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by blazingbronco18

For those off us that weren't able to make it to the meeting can someone fill us in on what the jist of the meeting was?

From the presentation slides:

Non-negotiable:

2 "Championships" through 2020
400 FRC teams at each event (800 total)

FIRST is "exploring":

- Options for a post-season, broadcasted, event between winning alliances
- Opening a percentage of slots at each Championship to teams from the other Championship region
- Other options for adding to the value of Championship for teams

Questions:

- What are FIRST's objectives with this decision?
- What process was used to make this decision, and why wasn't the FIRST community asked for input?
- How does this reduce travel costs, especially for West Coast teams?
- Doesn't having two championships weaken the competition aspect that helps make any sport exciting?
- What elements of the decision are set in stone and what elements can the community still help decide?

So basically - FIRST is unable or unwilling to make substantive changes to the plan, but you can rearrange the deck chairs if it makes you feel better.

Sounds like they barely provided answers to the "Questions" slide - they cited "contract negotiations" as a reason that the community wasn't consulted. Total cop out.

They had a big chart showing that the percentage of teams "that can experience Championship is shrinking". Going from 80% in 1995 to the current ~20%. The cheeky response is that 0% of teams will experience the "Championship" starting in 2017.

Unclear why FTC and FLL are so unloved that it's OK to have a very small % of those programs attend the Championship event, but that's unacceptable for FRC.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by scottandme

From the presentation slides:


So basically - FIRST is unable or unwilling to make substantive changes to the plan, but you can rearrange the deck chairs if it makes you feel better.

Sounds like they barely provided answers to the "Questions" slide - they cited "contract negotiations" as a reason that the community wasn't consulted. Total cop out.

They had a big chart showing that the percentage of teams "that can experience Championship is shrinking". Going from 80% in 1995 to the current ~20%. The cheeky response is that 0% of teams will experience the "Championship" starting in 2017.

Unclear why FTC and FLL are so unloved that it's OK to have a very small % of those programs attend the Championship event, but that's unacceptable for FRC.

Wow, that's a real screw you to teams if I ever saw one. Sounds like someone is trying to cover their behind/save their job by trying to convince the FRC community (which is teams, not administrators) that this is good for them.

[PayneTrain]

Glad to hear it's all going according to plan.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by scottandme

From the presentation slides:


So basically - FIRST is unable or unwilling to make substantive changes to the plan, but you can rearrange the deck chairs if it makes you feel better.

Sounds like they barely provided answers to the "Questions" slide - they cited "contract negotiations" as a reason that the community wasn't consulted. Total cop out.

They had a big chart showing that the percentage of teams "that can experience Championship is shrinking". Going from 80% in 1995 to the current ~20%. The cheeky response is that 0% of teams will experience the "Championship" starting in 2017.

Unclear why FTC and FLL are so unloved that it's OK to have a very small % of those programs attend the Championship event, but that's unacceptable for FRC.

Well that sounds incredibly disappointing.

[Munchskull]

Sounds like they were cowards. If they kept dodging questions then what was the point?

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by scottandme

From the presentation slides:


So basically - FIRST is unable or unwilling to make substantive changes to the plan, but you can rearrange the deck chairs if it makes you feel better.

Sounds like they barely provided answers to the "Questions" slide - they cited "contract negotiations" as a reason that the community wasn't consulted. Total cop out.

They had a big chart showing that the percentage of teams "that can experience Championship is shrinking". Going from 80% in 1995 to the current ~20%. The cheeky response is that 0% of teams will experience the "Championship" starting in 2017.

Unclear why FTC and FLL are so unloved that it's OK to have a very small % of those programs attend the Championship event, but that's unacceptable for FRC.

Did anyone ask about the potential issue of limited volunteers?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Wow, that's a real screw you to teams if I ever saw one. Sounds like someone is trying to cover their behind/save their job by trying to convince the FRC community (which is teams, not administrators) that this is good for them.

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Well that sounds incredibly disappointing.

Let's establish some truths:

In the long run, FIRST does not care about what you think concerning the prospect of two championships.

In the long run, FIRST is not scared of you.

Your ideas don't hold any weight as long as it is fundamentally different from the idea of the championsplit that has taken hold over HQ since 2014 (I assume)

FIRST thinks they are doing the right thing and those who don't fall in line to this line of thinking
a) are not a threat to the overall mission of FIRST
b) can only become a threat if their wishes are respected and thoughts are considered on equal footing to those who made the decision to split
c) will fall in line eventually because there is no alternative to FRC as far as they can see (which I assume is to the end of their nose)

If they do not fear a collection of individuals who are WFA, WFFA winners, employees of major sponsors, mentors on teams who share major sponsorship with FIRST, they fear no one. If the opposite were true, the town hall would have gone on as it should have in the eyes of the community, and not as planned out by FIRST.

I'm not a mind reader, but this is the perception, and perception is reality.

[Lil' Lavery]

The adversarial stance of the community here on Chief Delphi is helping the situation how, exactly?

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The adversarial stance of the community here on Chief Delphi is helping the situation how, exactly?

I guess it would be okay to give them a pat on the back and tell them that we don't mind if they keep making mistakes like this.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

Did anyone ask about the potential issue of limited volunteers?

I'm sure someone would have eventually, but the session was only an hour, and half of it was Don Bossi's presentation.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The adversarial stance of the community here on Chief Delphi is helping the situation how, exactly?

Don Bossi actually complimented us on how "constructive" our comments were.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

I guess it would be okay to give them a pat on the back and tell them that we don't mind if they keep making mistakes like this.

Or the displeasure could be expressed in a professional manner. Calling people "cowards" and openly insisting that FIRST should "fear" you and cannot see beyond the "end of their nose" is not constructive. This type of adversarial behavior would not fly in a professional setting. Voice your disagreement and concerns, don't make it personal. It's especially troubling to see this type of behavior coming from mentors.

[Green Potato]

...because currently, nothing the community is doing is really affecting FIRST's decision-making logic at all. Unless the community takes an obvious and impaction stance on pointing out the issues with champs AND rallying behind a straight-forward, obviously superior solution, FIRST is going to give us talk without really DOING anything at all. No single community member or group of passive members, as I see it, is influential enough to impact the doings of an organization that large. It will almost literally take an army.

And, obviously, this whole 2-destination championship means there is no champion anymore. It's like the AFL versus the NFL. Teams can use the metrics all they want, but if it's not settled on the filed, it's never going to be official. People are going to miss witnessing the "true champion" because there's another one being crowned in some city hundreds of miles away. That, and FIRST is going to live on and see a bunch of diffrent teams doing well, and probably doesn't mind a lack of a concluding event so long as "everyone has fun." Well, I only have 4 years I know I'm going to be actively in this program, and I can speak for more than myself when I say that crowning "co-champions" is a rather diluted way to end the season.

That, and we CAN come up with a better solution, but it will take more minds than are in this room right now. (1), and probably some FIRST reps too. That's why we have a forum, and I have an idea.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Green Potato

...because currently, nothing the community is doing is really affecting FIRST's decision-making logic at all. Unless the community takes an obvious and impaction stance on pointing out the issues with champs AND rallying behind a straight-forward, obviously superior solution, FIRST is going to give us talk without really DOING anything at all. No single community member or group of passive members, as I see it, is influential enough to impact the doings of an organization that large. It will almost literally take an army.

And that "army" can do so in a respectful manner. That army can also understand that the contracts are already signed. There are better ways to move forward than stamping your feet on the ground and personal attacks.

Originally Posted by Green Potato

And, obviously, this whole 2-destination championship means there is no champion anymore. It's like the AFL versus the NFL. Teams can use the metrics all they want, but if it's not settled on the filed, it's never going to be official. People are going to miss witnessing the "true champion" because there's another one being crowned in some city hundreds of miles away. That, and FIRST is going to live on and see a bunch of diffrent teams doing well, and probably doesn't mind a lack of a concluding event so long as "everyone has fun." Well, I only have 4 years I know I'm going to be actively in this program, and I can speak for more than myself when I say that crowning "co-champions" is a rather diluted way to end the season.

We crowned "co-champions" ever since alliances were introduced in 1999. There hasn't been a "true champion" in more than a decade. The champion alliance has emerged from a sub-set of all teams in which it was impossible to play with all teams since divisions were implemented in 2001.

There's plenty to be displeased about with the championship format. The "true champion" gripe is simply not legitimate. We don't have a "true champion" now as it stands.