Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by EricH

How in tarnation do you deal with a team that just got relegated last year and now has 3 regional wins, one EI, and one RCA, or somesuch impressive resume? Do you put them in the relegated CMP or in the top CMP? Eh? How about the team that won the whole thing last year, and is nowhere to be found this year? Eh? Fair warning, I'm going to keep asking this until I get an answer. It shouldn't be all that hard to figure out--it'd happen often enough, no? And it's happened often enough with one CMP already, somewhat.

I don't doubt that there are issues; there are always flaws in any system. I just thought it was an interesting take on the dual championship format that no one has really brought up before, and it actually has some precedence.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by EricH

That's not exactly what I'm getting at here. As a whole, the number of sports teams stays the same, right? (Barring any school closings or openings or suspensions and all.) And between any two random years, the skill levels ain't gonna change all that much, right? Barring some random luck of getting a superstar on a low-level team, of course.

Not in FRC. Not only does the number of teams vary year-to-year, but the skill levels of those teams can change radically. Example: 330, from 2005 to 2007. 1 regional and world champs in 2005, didn't get closer than finalist to anything in 2006 (and didn't get picked for CMP elims), back on Einstein with two regional wins in 2007. If you went promotion/relegation, they'd be in Premier in 2006 and in Challenger in 2007, when you could sure argue the reverse ought to be true. This isn't the only team I can think of...

I would argue that good FRC teams are highly consistent, since the mentor base and team structure make good teams, and that doesn't turn over all that rapidly. Most drastic changes in performance are a result of mentor related changes. Sure there may be exceptions like 330 - but go look through the list of what teams have won CA regionals over the last 4 years, it's a lot of repeats, no? I haven't seen many established teams rocket up and down on a year to year basis. It's normally a gradual increase or decline in performance, short of massive school/sponsor/mentor changes. Talking about the top 10-15% of FRC here...

Again, I'm not arguing for fixed divisions, there's no need to since teams will still be attending districts, regionals, etc with all teams. Splitting champs into performance tiers would be simple to do on a yearly basis.

Originally Posted by EricH

My point wasn't necessarily that that was the case, but rather that one of FIRST's stated items was to reduce team travel costs. If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no? I mean, unless they offer to pay your travel down there, which I highly doubt they'd do. Being on the west coast, let's just say that for us out here it's kind of irrelevant, we have to fly anyways, so I'm really hoping that Salt Lake City is being talked to now about 2021...

Again, I don't buy that as a reason for the move to 2 events. If that was the reason, they did a horrible job picking venues. It's still a long bus ride or a flight from both coasts. Growth is FIRST's MO - and that's what this is about.

I have no problem with difficult travel to Champs, you go there to meet up with the best of the best. I'm less inspired by difficult travel to an event that might be less competitive than a District Championship, and only getting to see half of the best teams.

[alopex_rex]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no?

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by alopex_rex

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

And yet those of us out in many other states are forced to travel great distances to Champs EVERY single year... Many sports hold their championships in a variety of cities (yes partly to share the access to economic advantages of holding the competitions) but also as a gesture of fairness to competing teams (home field advantages, etc...). Sorry, but it's hard to buy your argument for cruelty unless it applies to others as well.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by asid61

I loved 971 and 701, particularly the incredible linkage the former used this year.
But if we deicded that anybody who seeds high or gets far in elims and all of those who won a regional were the only people who went to a "premier" championship, then it would feel almost fake to win a the "challenger" event. If all the winners go to one event, then the other event is left, not devoid of talent, but far more lacking in it. It would just be a really big regional event, except without 254, 1678, (probably) 971, etc. etc, and we get to see all of those teams at SVR. But 148, 1114, 624, I doubt we would ever get a chance to see in person without being among the winning group ourselves (in which case I would probably want to have a winner's championship to test our abilities against the best, ironically).

I'm not quite sure if you understand the premise of this thread. There are going to be two events of 400 teams each (800 teams total). Unless we change the format, they will almost certainly be divided geographically. The Texas teams (e.g., 148) will be in Houston; the Ontario teams in Detroit (e.g., 1114). In addition, California will almost certainly be assigned by Houston. So under the current proposal, 115 will never see 1114 at Champs even if you are the two best teams. And the best will never meet each other so you won't know which of the best you would be testing yourself against. Given that situation, would you still prefer to only go to the Premier event only and never the Challenge events? You can always choose not to go the the Challenge event if the team qualifies, so you won't be forced to go that event.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by ScandallB225

In my mind the most practical system would be to have Super Regionals with a CMP feel. (HOF, Scholarship Row, How To Conferences ...)Then the top teams qualify for Worlds. HOF RCA RAS have equal opportunity at the Super Regional level.

This idea does not solve any travel issues. For those that qualify it would add another level of cost, especially for teams not in the contiguous USA.

Are you proposing that Detroit and Houston would become Super Regionals? That's farther afield than what FIRST is proposing, even though the practical effect is that they will have a Northeast and Southwest North American Championship. My proposal is trying to stay within the objectives and constraints specified by FIRST.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by EricH

That's not exactly what I'm getting at here. As a whole, the number of sports teams stays the same, right? (Barring any school closings or openings or suspensions and all.) And between any two random years, the skill levels ain't gonna change all that much, right? Barring some random luck of getting a superstar on a low-level team, of course.

this is true for the usual popular sports but other sports like Lacrosse in California can be very turbulent. Coaches come and go, sports get canceled, I recall several lacrosse teams in California that moved to different leagues every year. Its just like FRC, many small tier sports struggle for money, places to practices, finding good coaches, loosing students to other activities and sports. Even popular sports, borderline teams find themselves being regulated every few years. Teams that find great windfall after being relegated have to wait to the following year to be promoted. Its just an accepted part of life for those leagues.


However proposal C will be a tough sell. Relegation is always a somber affair. I prefer teams that have a break out year can carry to their success to the very top of that very year. proposal C would make more sense if we had 10 times the number of current FRC teams.

I like B a lot better. Plus district points is a system our teams are more familiar with.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by alopex_rex

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

It would be interesting to see a poll of the teams in Michigan/Ontario and Texas about their preferences--different levels of championships vs. geographic distribution. I honestly don't know the answer to that. However the poll would need to be weighted by the likelihood that a particular team would get to a championship event.

As for teams in the East, Detroit is still 12 hours from Washington and further from NYC and Boston (I went to Michigan). At that driving distance teams are more likely to fly, in which case distance doesn't really matter any more and air fares are driven as much by traffic volume as distance, particularly after a certain point.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

My point wasn't necessarily that that was the case, but rather that one of FIRST's stated items was to reduce team travel costs. If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no? I mean, unless they offer to pay your travel down there, which I highly doubt they'd do. Being on the west coast, let's just say that for us out here it's kind of irrelevant, we have to fly anyways, so I'm really hoping that Salt Lake City is being talked to now about 2021...

First may lower the travels for a percentage of about 20% of FRC teams. For the remainder travel costs will largely remain unchanged because they will still fly in. The question then is whether the top tier teams in those 2 regions are interested in being locked into only those locations. This may be particularly true in Michigan where the District system already effectively excludes play with out of state teams. (I've heard those in the PNW bemoan the insularity of their season.)

Note that the event really can only be held where there is a covered stadium with an adjacent convention center. I think there's about a half dozen in North America: St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Las Vegas might have the convention center space to stage it.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

You HAVE TO have a mechanism for dealing with "improper relegation" here. I haven't heard ANYBODY say ANYTHING about it, which is why I keep bringing it up. In sports you've got the entire previous season's body of work, including the championship (if any) determining relegation/promotion. In FRC, you've got the current season's up to Championship and the previous Championship--sounds a bit off, no? Gary nailed it. Scandall got where I think this is going, long-term--the super-regional model isn't dead, just dormant for another 5 years.

Promotion/relegation is about consistency year to year. It's also about one of the most important lessons that you can teach a teenager--patience and persistence. Year to year consistency is more likely to lead to sustainability. Erratic team performance is more likely to see the demise of that team. We need to encourage consistency while teaching patience and persistence.

As for moving to Super Regionals, I have no idea of how FIRST's proposed model moves that way if there is no single championship. Instead I see a proliferation of regional championships that starts looking like pre 1998 NCAA football.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Promotion/relegation is about consistency year to year. It's also about one of the most important lessons that you can teach a teenager--patience and persistence. Year to year consistency is more likely to lead to sustainability. Erratic team performance is more likely to see the demise of that team. We need to encourage consistency while teaching patience and persistence.

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

Or would you be completely and thoroughly "annoyed" (to put it mildly--there are other terms that could be put in the quotes and be more accurate)? Annoyance and inspiration don't usually go hand-in-hand, mind you. Matter of fact, I would probably suspect a host of rather annoyed folks not bothering to stick around for future years, or writing nasty letters, or writing nasty internet posts. You get the picture.


I disagree on the whole premise of erratic performance seeing the demise of a team. I've got a number of counter-examples that I can think of fairly quickly of erratic or semi-erratic performance that have been doing this for a long time--some of them longer than your team.


And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I think that FIRST is trying to get back to what it did best: to inspire a generation of students. The board feels that increasing the number of students that attend Worlds is the best way to do that. After going to Worlds this year, I can agree that we can't fit in one location and accomplish what the board wants to do. The only reservation I have about the split is if there were some sort of year after year geographic split between the teams. It would be a shame if west coast teams never got to play with east coast teams.

Percentage wise, does FIRST really inspire students?

The bulk of inspiration comes from teams, which trickles down from their mentors.

The magic is ALL in the mentors.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

Or would you be completely and thoroughly "annoyed" (to put it mildly--there are other terms that could be put in the quotes and be more accurate)? Annoyance and inspiration don't usually go hand-in-hand, mind you. Matter of fact, I would probably suspect a host of rather annoyed folks not bothering to stick around for future years, or writing nasty letters, or writing nasty internet posts. You get the picture.


I disagree on the whole premise of erratic performance seeing the demise of a team. I've got a number of counter-examples that I can think of fairly quickly of erratic or semi-erratic performance that have been doing this for a long time--some of them longer than your team.


And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

But thats not how it works. If you win multiple events in one year, the previous year has no bearing.

If 2015 was the base for Premier/Challenger Divisions in FIRST, and Team A won 2 events while Team B was dead last at 2 events, Team A would go to Premier and Team B would go to Challenger.

But, if in 2016 Team A was dead last at both events, and Team B won both events, 2015 would have no bearing on 2017. Based upon 2016, Team A would be in Challenger and Team B would be in Premier.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

But thats not how it works. If you win multiple events in one year, the previous year has no bearing.

If 2015 was the base for Premier/Challenger Divisions in FIRST, and Team A won 2 events while Team B was dead last at 2 events, Team A would go to Premier and Team B would go to Challenger.

But, if in 2016 Team A was dead last at both events, and Team B won both events, 2015 would have no bearing on 2017. Based upon 2016, Team A would be in Challenger and Team B would be in Premier.

So let me get this straight: You're adding complexity to an already complex system? (BTW, I don't think 2017 even factors in here, I'm going to assume that you're pointing at 2016 with that statement. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but then I'm going to have to dose you with Occam's Razor.)

Just to make sure I understand, or not:
So, at the start of 2016, Team A is in Premier and Team B is in Challenger based on 2015 event results. For the 2016 Championships, Team B ends up in Premier, based on their 2016 results, and Team A ends up where based off of which year's results?

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

Remembers teams would already know if they were eligible for the Premier or Challenger champs at the START of the season. They would already have that expectation baked in. So they wouldn't face the disappointment that you're envisioning. And they also would know that they need to build a consistent program over time to advance.

But that said, I'm hearing enough reservations about system C that it may not be workable--it was just one of my 3 ideas. And I think there's probably even better systems out there.

As for the Super Regionals, I'm not seeing the path back to a convergence to a single championship once they move to a dual championship. Why would one of them fade away unless that one was already subservient in some fashion to the other? I think instead, as with the fight to form the BCS, interests would form to preserve the two championship mode. And like the proliferation of football bowl games in the 70s and 80s, we might see even further diffusion, not consolidation. Isn't that one of the laws of thermodynamics.

(And thanks for adding to the list of indoor stadiums.)