Town Hall Meeting Video

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

What if FIRST gave a party and no one came?

What if the top tier teams looked at the split championships and the possibility that they might have to fundraise for yet another event after that to crown a single champion? Might they consider skipping those those championships entirely? The IRI already exists to bring together top tier teams. Might the most competitive teams simply decide to avoid Detroit and Houston and just go straight to Indiana (or some other new event)?

I'm not sure that FIRST is considering this possibility sufficiently. Top tier teams aren't only the most competitive--they usually are also the most organized and networked. Organizing a separate championship event won't be that difficult. Look at the success of the Chezy Champs as one example of staging a significant well run event on a low budget, where all of the teams left happy.

And if those teams didn't attend, how would the other teams feel about going the the dual champs now? They wouldn't be able to rub shoulders with the best teams or see top level competition. And how would they feel about winning a further diluted championship?

FIRST needs to think about this more dynamically. It's not a static situation with no other avenues available.

Dude chill. You even won it this year.

I thought the "top tier" wanted to help other teams do better and set an example on the field? But I guess you and your friends on all the other "top" teams would rather not even bother with the rest of us?

An amazing club. Draped in glamorous running molten blue. As the heat of their misplaced frustration melts away all they have accomplished.

Originally Posted by jman4747

Also if you believe FIRST is removing your ability to be the only winner and that makes you quit than you literally just quit because you can't be the only winner.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Dude chill. You even won it this year.

I thought the "top tier" wanted to help other teams do better and set an example on the field? But I guess you and your friends on all the other "top" teams would rather not even bother with the rest of us?

An amazing club. Draped in glamorous running molten blue. As the heat of their misplaced frustration melts away all they have accomplished.

Think about it in the positive light.

If 200 or so teams go to an alternative World Championship, that's 200 more teams that can go to either 2017 FIRST CMP.

That's more inspiration for more students, right?

Everybody LOVES Championships.

-Mike

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Dude chill. You even won it this year.

I thought the "top tier" wanted to help other teams do better and set an example on the field? But I guess you and your friends on all the other "top" teams would rather not even bother with the rest of us?

An amazing club. Draped in glamorous running molten blue. As the heat of their misplaced frustration melts away all they have accomplished.

Dude.

I feel like you know little to nothing about these top tier teams.

Helping others? They do more to help those around them than anyone else...Basically why most of the top tier teams are also Chairman's winners. They help these teams with amazing initiatives and programs built from the ground up. They help them with mentoring and finding sponsors, as well as everything else. The elite teams I'm thinking of do more in one year to develop the programs of others than most do in 10 years.

Helping others starts locally and from the ground level, not at the $@#$@#$@#$@# championship event. I can help and develop more teams through mentoring locally and providing resources than I can by 1 more team going to champs.

How dare you say they don't want to help others do better.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Dude.

I feel like you know little to nothing about these top tier teams.

Helping others? They do more to help those around them than anyone else...Basically why most of the top tier teams are also Chairman's winners. They help these teams with amazing initiatives and programs built from the ground up. They help them with mentoring and finding sponsors, as well as everything else. The elite teams I'm thinking of do more in one year to develop the programs of others than most do in 10 years.

Helping others starts locally and from the ground level, not at the $@#$@#$@#$@# championship event. I can help and develop more teams through mentoring locally and providing resources than I can by 1 more team going to champs.

How dare you say they don't want to help others do better.

So why all the trouble with the championship split? You are literally saying that teams only seeing half of the "top" at one event isn't the main point. That everything else they do outside of it is more important so why do you even care if it is split? How does splitting champs stop them from continuing to do what you say?

The proposal in the previously quoted post has the "top" teams leave everyone else behind to have their own tournament at the same time. The problem is the message it sends to the teams still competing at the official championship events "we don't want you here because #1 we won't have a real champion and #2 because the event will be more fun to watch without you". That is one of the messages it will send. I am responding to the proposal in that post. I don't hold any animosity toward "top' teams and won't unless they did something like that.

FIRST gets more teams to champs and you help more of them at home. How do these things hinder each other?

[David Lame]

If the First leadership deigns to seek the opinion of students, I hope Rachel Lim is included in the focus group.


(Even if she really should be doing her homework.)

[Banderoonies]

Everyone criticizes my "divorce" analogy. However, when a family gets divided into two championships and the "kids" have absolutely no say in the matter, that is what it felt like to me. Sorry for those of you that took offense at this analogy. I meant no offense. I simply found the split really sad and very "dividing" of this organization.

Do I want more teams to have opportunity? Of course! That has been our operating model for a very long time. More of our work goes into helping other teams & the community than building our robot.

Ultimately,I fear one championship will end up being considered "better" than the other. There is a sad likelihood of that happening. What does that do to all of those competing at the other? Will that diminish their experience?

I am in total agreement with the goal of having more opportunities for other reams.....I simply think how FIRST developed a solution to this problem could have been better implemented and communicated.

But it's done. So lets all just accept it, and try to work within the new model. The swirl helps no one.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

So why all the trouble with the championship split? You are literally saying that teams only seeing half of the "top" at one event isn't the main point. That everything else they do outside of it is more important so why do you even care if it is split? How does splitting champs stop them from continuing to do what you say?

The proposal in the previously quoted post has the "top" teams leave everyone else behind to have their own tournament at the same time. The problem is the message it sends to the teams still competing at the official championship events "we don't want you here because #1 we won't have a real champion and #2 because the event will be more fun to watch without you". That is one of the messages it will send. I am responding to the proposal in that post. I don't hold any animosity toward "top' teams and won't unless they did something like that.

FIRST gets more teams to champs and you help more of them at home. How do these things hinder each other?

Firstly, it seems like the arguments you are presenting are an unfounded assault on every successful team that has a differing opinion that you, when the fact is... Without them you probably wouldn't even be here. These teams have a massive positive impact in their community and around the world. 1678 wasn't always a winner. A three-peat on Einstein is crazy awesome, and it took some hard work to get to where they are. (By the way, you won a regional in your second year of existence, it took them 6 years) But they were in your position once too, and while I don't know specifically what all the factors which made them a super successful I would hazard a guess that a significant factor was seeing top teams perform, possibly in their first ever champs trip in 2011. They haven't stopped being winners ever since, which inspires me because it drives people to do better.

Let me tell you a little bit about Canada, and a couple of teams that nobody has really heard of before called 1114 and 2056.

From 2006-2013 (That's 8 years! Or two full cycles of students. ) Either 1114, 2056, or both were on the winning alliance in every single event in Ontario. (2006-2011 if you want every event in Canada) They have 17 blue banner wins together. Was there complaining that they won everything all the time? Sure. Did they go sit in the corner and wait for FIRST to add more teams to the championship? Nope. Were 1114 and 2056 an absolute inspiration to the teams that chose to make them inspirations? Absolutely!

1114 and 2056 pushed all of Canada to do better. Not to mention the world. There were some close calls, which forced both the finalists and winners to do even better next time. Look at all the particularly strong teams that have come out of Canada: 188, 610, 1241, 1310, 1325, 1334, 1503, 4334 to just name a few. I want to leave this with you...

People are motivated by close failure, not big success.

What I mean by this is that if you "almost" win, this drives you even harder to do it next time. Winning is a self defined goal.

Take this self defined goal: When I faced the double (then undefeated) pair of 1114/3683 in the semis of GTR-East in 2014. My goal was to take it to 3 matches. Not let them walk away with an undefeated record from the event. Much to my surprise, we won the event.

Sometimes we succeed. And sometimes we "almost" fail, like our very next event.

My strong feeling is that if more spots had opened for Canadian teams to qualify earlier, all teams in Canada wouldn't be as competitive as they are today.

But, all that said. Seems like FIRST has made up it's mind, and we will have to do the best with what we have got. Just because they say it is right, doesn't mean it is.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Banderoonies

Everyone criticizes my "divorce" analogy. However, when a family gets divided into two championships and the "kids" have absolutely no say in the matter, that is what it felt like to me. Sorry for those of you that took offense at this analogy. I meant no offense. I simply found the split really sad and very "dividing" of this organization.

Your divorce analogy was very similar to one I've used in private conversations. It was wonderfully put, and I'm so sorry that the moderator was so rude to you for it. The 'family' doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

The fact about this split is, the community be segmented even further than it already is. Think about the reaction when Districts first came to be - "We'll never get to play with our friends from (insert location here) since they'll be locked to their region!" The response, before inter-district play, was - well, you can see them at the Championship, so....

Now we won't get to. There are so many people who travel on their own to the Championship to volunteer, to attend conferences, to watch their friends from all over the world play, to meet the 'greats'. FIRST would ask these die-hard supporters to travel twice?

I'm not a Championshplit fan, and it's going to be hard to ever convince me to be. The FIRST community does not need to be fractured in order for it to grow.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

The proposal in the previously quoted post has the "top" teams leave everyone else behind to have their own tournament at the same time. The problem is the message it sends to the teams still competing at the official championship events "we don't want you here because #1 we won't have a real champion and #2 because the event will be more fun to watch without you". That is one of the messages it will send. I am responding to the proposal in that post. I don't hold any animosity toward "top' teams and won't unless they did something like that.

And if they decided to do that what's the problem? It is their decision what events they go to. If they feel they would rather spend their time & money attending another event that is more competitive AND allows them to compete with teams from across the country they have grown close to over the years then so be it. Not every program has the luxury that they can travel to a ton of events each year and if you have to spend $20k-$40k+ to compete at the Championship you'll start questioning why you are attending that event.

There are lower tier (but still competitive teams) who forgo attending St. Louis because they really don't feel like spending the money to go if they know their shots at being successful are low. It is an expensive, time consuming trip.

Like Mike said if the Championship is more about how many teams we can get to attend so we can inspire more students then more teams choosing not to attend the event results in more teams getting to attend the event. Isn't this great?

I'd be interested if we saw a similar change in a different aspect of the program in an area other teams cared about and what their reaction would be. What if we completely re-structured the Chairmans award and removed giving out one at the end of the season and did away with HOF status to the winning team and no auto bid to champs. Would we see a drop in teams who presented? Its easy to look at this when it doesn't have an impact on your program but when it does this is serious.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Firstly, it seems like the arguments you are presenting are an unfounded assault on every successful team that has a differing opinion that you,

Um, how? My initial reply said that the idea of high preforming teams skipping championships entirely after qualifying merit based completely subverts the the argument that splitting champs stops other teams from seeing the best play in person. And that regardless of any other stated reasons sends a negative and demeaning message to other teams.

The second responds to a rebuttal that points out truthfully that what teams do for each other outside of championships often outweighs the single event. My response to that is why then the problem with a geographically split championship vs one split by robot ability? It shouldn't matter that it is split and measures suggested in the post I was replying to in the first place shouldn't be necessary.

At what point did I actually "assault every successful team". When you refuse to go to the official final event(s) in order solely to have one final elite competition it does sound like you don't want to be bothered with everyone else.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by jman4747

At what point did I actually "assault every successful team". When you refuse to go to the official final event(s) in order solely to have one final elite competition it does sound like you don't want to be bothered with everyone else.

Ok, I'll bite.

I have zero interest in competing with, or watching a competition, that includes the bottom 50% of FRC teams as the CULMINATING event of the season. I don't want to be bothered by everyone else; I want to watch the best of the best duke it out because it's inspiring. And each year our team works our butts off to earn the right to be part of that inspiring event.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Um, how? My initial reply said that the idea of high preforming teams skipping championships entirely after qualifying merit based completely subverts the the argument that splitting champs stops other teams from seeing the best play in person. And that regardless of any other stated reasons sends a negative and demeaning message to other teams.

That's the point I think. To get people to change. Doesn't mean it is the best way to do it.

Originally Posted by jman4747

The second responds to a rebuttal that points out truthfully that what teams do for each other outside of championships often outweighs the single event. My response to that is why then the problem with a geographically split championship vs one split by robot ability? It shouldn't matter that it is split and measures suggested in the post I was replying to in the first place shouldn't be necessary.

Apples and Oranges aren't the same thing, even though they both are fruit. Yes a "split" occurs in both scenarios. They aren't comparable in the way you describe. One cuts the globe in half, while the other does not. Any attempts to merge them together are nothing more than small bridges that don't really suffice.

Originally Posted by jman4747

At what point did I actually "assault every successful team".

I actually wrote "unfounded assault on every successful team that has a differing opinion that you" which implies some successful teams may have the same opinion as you. I don't know for sure. I suppose it was mainly this post. If you like to discuss this specific part further we can move it to PM's.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by jman4747

So why all the trouble with the championship split? You are literally saying that teams only seeing half of the "top" at one event isn't the main point. That everything else they do outside of it is more important so why do you even care if it is split? How does splitting champs stop them from continuing to do what you say? How do these things hinder each other?

I'm not sure where you think I wrote this at all. Your interpretation is incorrect. I am not literally saying this at all.

As a response, I would agree with Andrew's post, even if it comes off as a little abrasive, at least it is honest.

"I have zero interest in competing with, or watching a competition, that includes the bottom 50% of FRC teams as the CULMINATING event of the season. I don't want to be bothered by everyone else; I want to watch the best of the best duke it out because it's inspiring. And each year our team works our butts off to earn the right to be part of that inspiring event."

It is about earning the right to be there. That is important as ever in today's world to teach people that they need to earn their way into something based on merit. No waitlists, no random spaces for teams who didn't win events, or get here based on a good points system like the districts. (Again, why I'd rather grow the district system so that more teams can "earn" their way into a championship event.) FIRST is using the worst and least productive method to actually grow this program and inspire more kids.

If you don't earn a spot somewhere, I don't believe you should be there.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

If you don't earn a spot somewhere, I don't believe you should be there.

Originally Posted by FIRST Wobsite*

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

It would be quite difficult for one to Change The Culture if one only preaches to the choir.
*

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Taylor

It would be quite difficult for one to Change The Culture if one only preaches to the choir.
*

You act as if this 1 event is the only place these kids can be inspired. Is that honestly what you think?

Inspire people locally. Have them earn their way to champs.