Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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.

Never claimed anyone should be feared, just that if they think they should be, they aren't.

As far as the beyond the nose comment, it's a reiteration of the decision makers being unable to anticipate a nontrivial level of detractors at best, and not really caring at worst. It's a flash of ineloquence on a good day and really unnecessary on a bad one, but it's nothing that hasn't already been hashed out enough already. A lot of things that have happened regarding the championsplit have been pretty unprofessional and they don't start and end at post 113 in this thread.

I'm not even stamping my feet, I've already accepted the fate.

[DonShaw]

Numbers can lie.

The better question to ask is why do only 40 percent of the registered teams in First compete in any event?

So to say a less percentage teams are competing at worlds is not a valid statement.

First needs to look at cost of a team to compete in events to gain more participation.


I think the two venues will allow First to have 800 teams participate as there was no venue in one place for this many teams.


So out of 6k teams and 600 of them at worlds they hold a town hall meeting after the fact.

Poor management decision, should have been held last year and discussed at district's and regional's throughout the year and summarized at worlds.

In the end I think it is all about the money in their account.

[grstex]

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.

Based on your post, can I assume you were not in attendance? I wasn't and would like a report from someone who was there.

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Let's establish some truths:
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.

I'm not sure why they should fear anyone. The goals of FIRST and it's major sponsors are aligned. Why would the sponsors care how many championship events there are? They put $$$ into the program because it readies people for the workforce. The goal for FIRST is much the same, get students interested in STEM, get them to pursue post-secondary training in such things and be productive members of society. End of story.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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.

Not that I necessarily fall into this category, I feel this is a pretty poor argument.

There is a very big difference between 3-4 teams working on the same alliance to achieve the same goal while getting to know each other, and two 3-4 alliances of teams operated by hundreds of miles which have nothing to do with each other and never actually interact during the season... Ever.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by grstex

Based on your post, can I assume you were not in attendance? I wasn't and would like a report from someone who was there.

No, I wasn't. Text is from the slides that FIRST presented, and impressions are from those who were there. Pretty well captures the spirit of it, and all the key points.

Some information is better than no information, right?

[grstex]

Originally Posted by scottandme

No, I wasn't. Text is from the slides that FIRST presented, and impressions are from those who were there. Pretty well captures the spirit of it, and all the key points.

Some information is better than no information, right?

I suppose. Really I want to know what questions were asked that were "barely answered."

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Not that I necessarily fall into this category, I feel this is a pretty poor argument.

There is a very big difference between 3-4 teams working on the same alliance to achieve the same goal while getting to know each other, and two 3-4 alliances of teams operated by hundreds of miles which have nothing to do with each other and never actually interact during the season... Ever.

There is a very big difference between a single team beating all of the others in a double elimination tournament and 3-4 teams being crowned simultaneous champions after competing in a subset of a competition than is a subset of all the teams in the world. Yes, two championship events moves us further away from a "true champion," but we've already been very far away from a "true champion" for a long time. We already have multiple winners each year. Those alliances already form from a subset of teams.

You won't find any disagreement from me in terms of thinking the region locking is a negative asset. But I don't think it particularly impacts how legitimate our champions are. Especially given that FIRST is considering some amount of flexibility between the two regions.

Further still, did you skip over the information posted by Scott Meredith than FIRST is considering a post-season event where the two champions face one another?

[smistthegreat]

I was at the meeting taking notes, and have some pictures of the slides shown. I'll try to upload what I have after opening ceremonies, but our hotel wifi is super sketchy so no promises.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by smistthegreat

I was at the meeting taking notes, and have some pictures of the slides shown. I'll try to upload what I have after opening ceremonies, but our hotel wifi is super sketchy so no promises.

That would be super. Thank you.

--
Let's take the high road with this discussion. The high road consists of mature responses/reactions that contribute to a professional and thoughtful atmosphere. There is no reason to behave otherwise.

This is an emotional and frustrating time for some, perhaps many. Don't feed or fuel the emotions with name-calling and assumptions. In the end, it will only reflect poorly on you and will not accomplish anything productive.

I am very interested to learn more and hope to hear of more opportunities for discussions at the event.

Jane

[MrTechCenter]

It's likely too late for FIRST to even change anything. I'll bet they've already signed some sort of contract with the cities (or venues) of Houston And Detroit. If they can't get out of it, then everything is pretty much set in stone. But I really wish FIRST would just tell us things for what they are instead of beating around the bush.

[ezygmont708]

It is about the KIDS!
In talking with a freshman today, I asked what he thought about FIRST Champs as it is his first experience with an event outside the district model>
Reaction > AMAZING!!! "I love seeing the teams and the different ways they solved the same problem"

For everyone who looks solely at the competitive nature of the event, I want to say: I am sorry for you. The experience that students take away from the event is THE important part of the event. Mentors, we are here to support the students in their endeavors to discover and achieve great things. "More than Robots" - quite frankly it is.

As I sit here proctoring two promising young students AP Chem Test Exams, I can't help but notice the general tone of this discussion continuing to divulge into negativity. Does FIRST accomplish 100% of everything correctly on their first try? < NO. Are they trying to make a positive impact on the largest population of students? < YES

I have seen it on our team > Sometimes students experiencing something like Championships is all it takes for them yearn to accomplish bigger and better things. Who are we, as adults, to suggest that any one team or student deserves that privilege more than another.

Put the competition aside for a few minutes... Think about some of the most amazing moments that you have had as a mentor or a student not at a competition. Do those significantly change if there are 6 "World Champions"?

If you are in it for the ROBOTS and not the STUDENTS > Perhaps there is a better place to be spending your energies.

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by ezygmont708

It is about the KIDS!
In talking with a freshman today, I asked what he thought about FIRST Champs as it is his first experience with an event outside the district model>
Reaction > AMAZING!!! "I love seeing the teams and the different ways they solved the same problem"

For everyone who looks solely at the competitive nature of the event, I want to say: I am sorry for you. The experience that students take away from the event is THE important part of the event. Mentors, we are here to support the students in their endeavors to discover and achieve great things. "More than Robots" - quite frankly it is.

As I sit here proctoring two promising young students AP Chem Test Exams, I can't help but notice the general tone of this discussion continuing to divulge into negativity. Does FIRST accomplish 100% of everything correctly on their first try? < NO. Are they trying to make a positive impact on the largest population of students? < YES

I have seen it on our team > Sometimes students experiencing something like Championships is all it takes for them yearn to accomplish bigger and better things. Who are we, as adults, to suggest that any one team or student deserves that privilege more than another.

Put the competition aside for a few minutes... Think about some of the most amazing moments that you have had as a mentor or a student not at a competition. Do those significantly change if there are 6 "World Champions"?

If you are in it for the ROBOTS and not the STUDENTS > Perhaps there is a better place to be spending your energies.

Hi, i am student.

Big thing to think about, 400 teams will be about 800 miles away, never to be seen by you. You will not be able to see them, see how they tackled the challenge, compete against and with them, and learn how they work. Teams like us cant afford either to spend a few grand to go to stuff like IRI or Chezy Champs, so teams like us will never interact with teams in Israel or New York, and vice versa.

For that matter, a lot of my friends (and I) would feel cheated if we were to make it. The feeling of being a "top team" INSPIRES a lot more than people seem to realize. There are people i know who only do stuff like this just to get out of school, or to look cool because we are a decent team. Some students dont realize that its more than just robots, and some wont change that mindset.

Along with that, instead of feeling like you are good, you would just be another team with 800 other teams competing for 1/6th of a title, how fun is that? Or go to a sponsor, "We won 1/6th of a world championship." Not going to go well.

It is about the students, but splitting the championships is not the right way to get more involved, it just annoys and saddens all.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by ezygmont708

It is about the KIDS!
In talking with a freshman today, I asked what he thought about FIRST Champs as it is his first experience with an event outside the district model>
Reaction > AMAZING!!! "I love seeing the teams and the different ways they solved the same problem"

For everyone who looks solely at the competitive nature of the event, I want to say: I am sorry for you. The experience that students take away from the event is THE important part of the event. Mentors, we are here to support the students in their endeavors to discover and achieve great things. "More than Robots" - quite frankly it is.

As I sit here proctoring two promising young students AP Chem Test Exams, I can't help but notice the general tone of this discussion continuing to divulge into negativity. Does FIRST accomplish 100% of everything correctly on their first try? < NO. Are they trying to make a positive impact on the largest population of students? < YES

I have seen it on our team > Sometimes students experiencing something like Championships is all it takes for them yearn to accomplish bigger and better things. Who are we, as adults, to suggest that any one team or student deserves that privilege more than another.

Put the competition aside for a few minutes... Think about some of the most amazing moments that you have had as a mentor or a student not at a competition. Do those significantly change if there are 6 "World Champions"?

If you are in it for the ROBOTS and not the STUDENTS > Perhaps there is a better place to be spending your energies.

There has been plenty of discussion on the split and it's not all limited to the "true championship" argument. To think some detractors only focus on this is pretty one dimensional and insulting to people who have been in FIRST longer than you and me combined. Quite literally, over a thousand thoughts on Chief Delphi are available for you to sift through to help understand where detractors of the split are coming from. While I can easily point out a post here, there are others you are welcome to browse. Don't take false pity on people who made rational arguments against the split.

I will concede that my energies are better spent not performing the internet equivalent of talking to a brick wall.

[GKrotkov]

On the subject of potential solutions; I seem to remember Siri floating a "exchange" possibility on the first thread - where teams going to one championships would have the ability to trade their slot with a team going to the other championships.

That would certainly be a start towards solving the "region locking" - I can't see any downsides at the moment. Is there something I've missed?