Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

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?

No, for 2016, Team B would go to the Challenger Championships. And based on their end of the year points total, they would either go up or stay. Team A would, most likely, drop down to Challenger for next year after not making it to Premier Champs.

So, at the beginning of each year, each team is in either Challenger or Premier. And over the course of the year, they build up points. Then after all FIRST events are held, the top 50% in points from Challenger switch with the bottom 50% in points of Premier. Then you roll into next season and repeat the process.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

No, for 2016, Team B would go to the Challenger Championships. And based on their end of the year points total, they would either go up or stay. Team A would, most likely, drop down to Challenger for next year after not making it to Premier Champs.

So, at the beginning of each year, each team is in either Challenger or Premier. And over the course of the year, they build up points. Then after all FIRST events are held, the top 50% in points from Challenger switch with the bottom 50% in points of Premier. Then you roll into next season and repeat the process.

OK...

Gary, can I trouble you to repeat yourself?

Seeing as you're going to all the trouble to track the event points separately, why not just make it two separate leagues? It'd be one heck of a lot easier. And BTW, that already got shot down about a decade ago. So now you have to justify blocking teams from the top event even if they would merit attendance, even by beating multiple teams from the top event if that happens.

Honestly, if this split happens in the way you folks envision, YOU. PERSONALLY. get to tell all the students on any team who would be in the top event by wins etc. why they must go to the bottom event, despite apparently qualifying for the top event. That goes for each and every one of you who is a proponent of this idea. And trust me, if I were you guys... I'd be bringing some backup, just in case. My team had some students that really wanted to do a third event (including trying to get to CMP via waitlist this year). We had to tell them no--and it wasn't easy to decide that, despite the numbers lining up in favor of not going.


Folks, this is the Championship HQ is splitting, not the entirety of FRC. But if this proposal goes through, you just split all of FRC.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

OK...

Gary, can I trouble you to repeat yourself?

Seeing as you're going to all the trouble to track the event points separately, why not just make it two separate leagues? It'd be one heck of a lot easier. And BTW, that already got shot down about a decade ago. So now you have to justify blocking teams from the top event even if they would merit attendance, even by beating multiple teams from the top event if that happens.

Honestly, if this split happens in the way you folks envision, YOU. PERSONALLY. get to tell all the students on any team who would be in the top event by wins etc. why they must go to the bottom event, despite apparently qualifying for the top event. That goes for each and every one of you who is a proponent of this idea. And trust me, if I were you guys... I'd be bringing some backup, just in case. My team had some students that really wanted to do a third event (including trying to get to CMP via waitlist this year). We had to tell them no--and it wasn't easy to decide that, despite the numbers lining up in favor of not going.


Folks, this is the Championship HQ is splitting, not the entirety of FRC. But if this proposal goes through, you just split all of FRC.

I would hope the kids on the team would understand the 2-League/Championship System. If in the first year they dont gather the needed points to qualify for Premier, then next year they shouldnt be angry when they do win and qualify for the Challenger Championship and not Premier. If they get angry and upset, then that is on the team leadership for not having that well known.

I would hope, if that were my team, that they would strive to win that Challenger Championship so that next year the team can compete in the Premier League and hopefully fight for a Premier Championship.

I could introduce Freshman into the concept.
I could tell the Sophomores/Juniors/Seniors to either fight and strive to do the best this year so we can get into Premier next year. Or, tell them to strive for their best against the best in FIRST's Premier Division.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by northstardon

While I love the location, I'm uncertain of the logistics. The Minneapolis Convention Center is more than a mile away from the new skyway-connected Vikings stadium site. That's a really long round-trip if the plan is to follow the St. Louis model, and put playing fields in a stadium, and 800 pits in convention area space.

On the other hand, the drive teams might love navigating their carts though the crowded Mpls skyway system during the business day. It'd be like that scene in the "Mighty Ducks" movie, only with robots instead of rollerblades.

I'd have to agree with you here, Don. Minneapolis/St. Paui area simply has too many logistical issues to host Champs here in its current format. If we were cool with just being in the MCC, it might be workable, but the new stadium is just too far away.

With regards to the promotion/relegation system, I haven't made up my mind about two championships, much less how assignment needs to work. I'd be worried that nobody is really getting what they want with the system-- die-hard competitiors aren't necessarily getting their best robots, and everyone else isn't necessarily getting to see any of the top 5% of teams that I'd say generates 95% of our inspiration. I'd echo earlier sentiments of this turning one of our championships very quickly into some sort of ghetto for teams who are perpetually on the edge of greatness.

In any case, I sincerely hope we only have to deal with this question until 2020.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

I would hope the kids on the team would understand the 2-League/Championship System. If in the first year they dont gather the needed points to qualify for Premier, then next year they shouldnt be angry when they do win and qualify for the Challenger Championship and not Premier. If they get angry and upset, then that is on the team leadership for not having that well known.

I'm going to disagree with your last statement. Really simply, no matter how much we as leaders explain the system, they're still going to be upset. You should have heard my team trying to figure out getting into CMP after L.A., when we hadn't qualified. Let's just say that was not an easy discussion set on anybody--and we had the whole "this is what stuff has said since back before build" to refer to, among other things. I've been on the receiving end of a couple of those "you're not advancing because..." discussions--it doesn't often sit well with the kids for a few days at the least.

And it's still not on team leadership for not having it well known. It's on HQ for using a lousy system that traps them into this. After what they heard at the townhall, I think they'd be very reluctant to try something like this without asking some folks, and I'm pretty sure that there's enough folks willing to speak up and tell 'em it's a lousy idea that it'd be a non-starter. Not sure if we're dealing with a vocal minority or a silent majority on that, though.

This is basic human emotion, 101 level: The "Life isn't Fair"/"Why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" discussion. It's quite possible to understand something rationally--and emotionally, it just makes absolutely no sense. So, for the first three or four years, AT LEAST, someone (read: whoever was responsible for the "split by levels", ideally) has to tell the kids that they can't go to the top-level championship even though they won everything because they are only rated at the second-tier level based on last year's results--which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with this year's results.

The reason I linked Gary's earlier post was this: this works well in the sports leagues because it's the entire season, including championships, and you never play teams in another tier. If you try to do it where you're playing against--and maybe even beating--teams in the other tier, you get some skewed results and lousy reactions/emotions running high. So you either split the whole durn competition, which we've already pointed out got shot down years ago when it would have been a lot easier, or you don't try any sort of relegation.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind doing a split along competitive lines, mind you. I just think that current year's data ought to be used, because the exact relationship between any two years in FRC is approximately zero. They just happen to use the same general vehicle and a certain "core" set of rules just happens to stay largely the same year to year--but that's not always the case. (Imagine deciding who went to the 2015 CMP based on the 2014 season...) So if I ruled FRC, I'd see how I could leverage the district point system to my advantage, maybe add a secondary set of "Inspiration" points (tacked to some awards, or awarded by judges for certain actions/impacts, or as a bonus for how long since you've been to CMP) to sort of help separate everybody by whatever, and bias one championship slightly towards "inspiration" and one slightly towards "competition". Of course, I don't rule FRC, so this is all hypothetical.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm going to disagree with your last statement. Really simply, no matter how much we as leaders explain the system, they're still going to be upset. You should have heard my team trying to figure out getting into CMP after L.A., when we hadn't qualified. Let's just say that was not an easy discussion set on anybody--and we had the whole "this is what stuff has said since back before build" to refer to, among other things. I've been on the receiving end of a couple of those "you're not advancing because..." discussions--it doesn't often sit well with the kids for a few days at the least.

And it's still not on team leadership for not having it well known. It's on HQ for using a lousy system that traps them into this. After what they heard at the townhall, I think they'd be very reluctant to try something like this without asking some folks, and I'm pretty sure that there's enough folks willing to speak up and tell 'em it's a lousy idea that it'd be a non-starter. Not sure if we're dealing with a vocal minority or a silent majority on that, though.

This is basic human emotion, 101 level: The "Life isn't Fair"/"Why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" discussion. It's quite possible to understand something rationally--and emotionally, it just makes absolutely no sense. So, for the first three or four years, AT LEAST, someone (read: whoever was responsible for the "split by levels", ideally) has to tell the kids that they can't go to the top-level championship even though they won everything because they are only rated at the second-tier level based on last year's results--which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with this year's results.

The reason I linked Gary's earlier post was this: this works well in the sports leagues because it's the entire season, including championships, and you never play teams in another tier. If you try to do it where you're playing against--and maybe even beating--teams in the other tier, you get some skewed results and lousy reactions/emotions running high. So you either split the whole durn competition, which we've already pointed out got shot down years ago when it would have been a lot easier, or you don't try any sort of relegation.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind doing a split along competitive lines, mind you. I just think that current year's data ought to be used, because the exact relationship between any two years in FRC is approximately zero. They just happen to use the same general vehicle and a certain "core" set of rules just happens to stay largely the same year to year--but that's not always the case. (Imagine deciding who went to the 2015 CMP based on the 2014 season...) So if I ruled FRC, I'd see how I could leverage the district point system to my advantage, maybe add a secondary set of "Inspiration" points (tacked to some awards, or awarded by judges for certain actions/impacts, or as a bonus for how long since you've been to CMP) to sort of help separate everybody by whatever, and bias one championship slightly towards "inspiration" and one slightly towards "competition". Of course, I don't rule FRC, so this is all hypothetical.

To the first thing: qualifying to a single championship is wholely different than qualifying under a 2 league championship setup. Under a single championship, its almost win to get in. Under a 2 championship system, you are locked into a championship that you have to win into. If you are gaining Challenger points, you can only get into Challenger Championship. If that isnt put forth to the team at the beginning of the year, that is on leadership.

To the second thing: I agree. This is FIRST's fault to begin with; but if we are getting stuck with 2 championships for a while, I think this is the best option.

To the third thing: Like I said before, kids that are already on the team, should know how the system would go. New kids would come into the system knowing they either have to win their way to the Premier Division or do the absolute best to stay in Premier. I dont think it would be that hard to understand nor that hard to motivate the kids to strive to be better.

To the fourth thing: If you are in Challenger and win events where Premier teams do bad or worse than you, feel great about that. Because that gives you a better chance of moving up to Premier.

To the fifth thing: Wrong. Every year connects to each other. Do you want a bunch of one-and-done teams or do you want to build programs? How would FIRST be if 254, 1114, 233, 2056,... were all one-and-done teams? FIRST wouldnt be 1% as Inspiring as it is now; it is, because these teams are programs that sustain over multiple years. If you build a system that promotes success over periods of time rather than each individual year, you will build programs and thus FIRST as a program.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

If by "adjacent" you mean within 1.1 miles, then Detroit qualifies.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by asid61

I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.

That's why you make more "loser's champs," (which is an awful way to look at it) and make them local, to foster regional rivalries and regional fame. Teams that consistently get to the Challenger Championships will grow plenty of relationships with more local teams. And if the "powerhouses" are at the premier champs, then the Challengers can actually win and compete against teams of their own skill level. Basically, learn during regionals, and grow at the super regionals.

Super Regionals as a "Challenger Championship" model, as opposed to a "qualify for champs" model, does the same thing for mid-low tier teams that the current Championship event does now. Mid-tier teams can "prove" that they belong in the Premier Championship by winning the event. Low-tier teams get the inspiration of advancing to a performance-based event based on their actual successes they had in the season.

Will there be bitterness when teams that usually make it to the Premier Championship don't qualify and go to the Challenger? Yes, but there are plenty of teams every year that deserve to be at Champs with great robots, but don't make it in. In my opinion, having the chance at redemption, at winning an event that says "see? We could have competed at the Premier Championship", is a lot better than not competing at all.

Again, why are we looking at this as a "Two Championship" problem? FIRST signed a bunch of contracts, why can't they sign more? Turn one of Houston / Detroit into a Super Regional, and add in MORE Super Regionals (that are smaller, say, 200 teams) in regional Hubs.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by dodar

Minnesota could, so could Chicago, Orlando, probably somewhere in Texas, along with somewhere in California.

Mainly look for big convention centers. But, like I said, you'd have to sacrifice the stadium feel.

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

What activities will be happening in each of the venues in each of the Championship host cities?

In 2015 and 2016, FIRST will host an expanded Olympic-style Championship throughout downtown St. Louis. In 2017, the St. Louis Championship will be similarly sized to the 2014 Championship held there

For the Houston Championship, Opening Ceremonies will be held in the Toyota Center, home of the Houston Rockets. Competition matches for all programs will be held in the George R. Brown Convention Center, followed by Closing Ceremonies in Minute Maid Park, home of the Houston Astros, which has a retractable roof.

For the Detroit Championship, Opening and Closing Ceremonies will be held in Ford Field, an enclosed domed stadium, which is home to the Detroit Lions. Competition matches for all programs will be held in Cobo Center.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

Isn't Lucas Oil Stadium also an option (in regards to dome/convention center criteria?)

Also I hope FIRST really reconsiders having closing ceremonies in a completely separate arena after the mess that was this year's closing ceremonies...easy solution I see would be to have Einstein played in the 'closing ceremonies arena'. Maybe even throw in FTC finals too.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

There are pluses and minuses to it.

IF you can provide adequate space around the fields, segment the pits from the fields so the traffic to/from the stands isn't going right through pit areas, and provide more seats it is doable. I won't say I loved the pit fields in 2011 but I did like that the commute to the stands was so much shorter than what we have had in Atlanta and St. Louis.

If they are going to keep 100 team divisions they are crazy you'll never have enough seats. If you do 50 team divisions the stands aren't that much of an issue anymore but I wonder if they have enough floor space to handle 400 pits, 8 competition fields, and 2 for practice?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

Wow, I can't believe I missed this before. This is just completely unacceptable.

They have stated they want to bring the "Championship Experience" to as many teams as possible, but to them the stadium really isn't essential to the championship experience? Have they no memory of 2011, how crowded the stands got, how unhappy people were that they didn't get to play in the Dome very much?

One of the only arguments I've seen against making DCMPs / "Super Regionals" a more champs-like experience is that you don't get the big event feel and importance of the stadium feel for Champs. If we are seriously going to be having World Champs take place on some mobile bleachers in a convention center, it's very hard to believe that we're going to have any more "magic" at Champs than we would at a DCMP event.

How can this be about preserving the championship experience if they are taking out one of the most iconic things that makes Champs what it is? This is a massive disappointment that weakens the Champs experience for absolutely everyone.

Put aside the "no true winner" argument for a bit (I'm really concerned they'll just fly the two winning alliances somewhere for a weekend to quiet this concern without changing anything else...), this is what outrages me the most. I thought the posts calling 2016 "the final Championship" were a bit of an exaggeration, until now...

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Isn't Lucas Oil Stadium also an option (in regards to dome/convention center criteria?)

Also I hope FIRST really reconsiders having closing ceremonies in a completely separate arena after the mess that was this year's closing ceremonies...easy solution I see would be to have Einstein played in the 'closing ceremonies arena'. Maybe even throw in FTC finals too.

Can't wait to move our pit a mile away to arena where Einstein/closing ceremony would take place with this proposal On another note regarding a two tiered system...FIRST has already indicated one of the motivations for the changes is to insure a large +/- 25% can benefit from the inspiration and experience of attending a Championship. Many posting in this thread have indicated much of that inspiration comes from "top tier/elite/whatever you want to call successful teams". Wouldn't a two tier system ensure that half of teams every year going to a "Championship" won't get the desired exposure to any of the top teams? As it now stands, teams at each event would at least interact with half of the top teams in a given year's competition.

Don and company (at the town hall) have indicated they are looking into ways for teams to cross geographic assignments and even mentioned they would consider ways to have champs from each event compete for a true world champion. Why open another can of worms with complex tiered systems when a simple compromise that results in a true champion could be facilitated?

[George Nishimura]

This is somewhat tangential to the discussion, but what about the idea of divisions being tied to qualification method?

For example, 3 divisions composed of teams who qualified through robot performance, and 1 division for everyone else.

It increases the competitiveness of at least 3 out of 4 divisions, while still giving non-robot focused teams representation at World's.