Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[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?

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by JB987

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?

The issue isn't not having a 'true champion', it's not having an event with all of FRC in one place. A two-tier system (which does not have to be complex*) allows for a championship event to continue as it is in the present, but also expands post-season play for more teams (which is HQ's goal).

As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that a system like isn't unprecedented. Off of the top of my head both College Football and European soccer have similar systems with the post-season broken up into tiers. In soccer the 'Europa League' is a tournament for teams who didn't reach the 'Champions League'. In college football only the top 4 teams can win the National Championship, but other successful teams still get bowl games to cap off their season.

I really like this two-tier system. It seems to check most boxes.
It has one championship for all of FRC.
It sends more teams to big post-season events.
It reduces travel costs.**
It avoids having a silly event over the summer to determine the world champ.
It collects more registration fees.
And it's completely scaleable.


*A simple solution like top X from each district go to champs, next Y go to nearest 'challenger' event would work. For regional teams something like all chairman teams and RAS/EI/Winners who seeded in the top ~40% of their event go to champs.


**More 'challenger' events can be added over time. Teams could qualify for their nearest one. For example, one could be added to the west coast.

[R2D2DOC]

How about finding enough volunteers?

[JB987]

"As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event."

Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by JB987

Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?

I'm saying that the two-tier champs format is an improvement over the current situation (one champs). That's why I related the tiered system to the status quo. I recognize that this subsection of teams may be better served in a championsplit format, I'm just not sure if it's worth the cost of removing a single unifying championship.


Let's look at how things will scale in the future. Under the championsplit model more and more "Championships" will be added over time. What's now an event that has all the good teams would eventually be reduced to having a quarter or less of all the good teams. Students who see a cool robot on a webcast will probably never be able to see that robot in person, no matter how hard they work to reach the highest level of competition.

Meanwhile, in the tiered system a single Championship remains. Student's hard work is rewarded with seeing all of the best robots. Additionally, the goal of reaching this event will inspire many students. Meanwhile, many other 'challenger' events give other teams a goal to reach and a reward for a successful season. Teams that haven't been in the global spotlight will be able to show their talents in a large-scaled event. Many 'challanger' events can be easily added without worrying about diluting the championship (unlike in the championsplit model). So under the tiered system, we may be able to send more teams to a large-scaled event than in the championsplit system.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by JB987

"As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event."

Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?

I think the question is whether a team is MORE inspired by seeing half of the really top teams at a single event than seeing top teams at a challenger event that are nearly just as good (and often has just as deep a history)? In addition, the teams at the challenger event are much more likely to be competitive than at a split event. In fact the split is more likely to make the championship LESS competitive because the top tier teams will see fewer competitors. That can be LESS inspirational if the weaker teams are thumped more easily.

FIRST hasn't shown that its explored this issue. It's acting solely on unsubstantiated conjecture. It needs to have a dialogue with the community about which approach is more satisfactory for the teams that are now in the bottom half of Champs or just on the margin of getting in.

Along these lines I think we should consider the difference between AYSO soccer and Little League baseball and their impact on kids' lives. (My family has experience with both.) AYSO focuses on participation and only holds local championships. Individual excellence is rarely rewarded (and even deflected at times.) Little League requires universal performance (with further recent rule changes moving further that way). It has an international championship in which individual performances are celebrated.

I can't claim a universal experience, but I haven't ever met anyone who lists AYSO as a seminal life-changing experience (my wife is the person with the closest experience of this type). What happens is that the best soccer players move to select teams where they continue their careers. For AYSO players its just another childhood activity that isn't really revolutionary.

On the other hand many Little League players look back at their competitive careers. Even among those who didn't play baseball after age 12 recall their team experience. The higher competitive intensity makes it a more memorable activity. It has a real impact.

FIRST's current proposal looks like AYSO and likely will blunt the momentum that FRC is generating for cultural change. Let's make it look more like Little League. FIRST has another program that look like AYSO--that's FTC. FIRST can use the geographic split for the FTC teams.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by JB987

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?

- First, many, many top tier teams will end up at the Challengers event. Based on this year under System A, from Northern California, 971, 846, 701 and 2085 would have been in the Challenger's event. I'm sure that others can list other similarly stellar teams that fall into that category. In addition, HOF teams that don't qualify for the Premier event would go to the Challenger event. Yes, the effect might be diluted, but the added 200 teams still would see top teams. And I don't think interacting with half of the top teams is a better outcome than with the FRC-wide excitement generated by having ALL of the very top teams in one venue. Diluting the field will dilute the interest.

- Second, sending the two "championship" teams off to play a final championship in front a few hundred spectators completely undermines the excitement that FIRST is trying to generate through the sports metaphor. The thrill of Einstein is felt by all of the spectators, not just the teams playing. Say focused on why FIRST constructed FRC in the way that it did. This isn't kids' soccer where everyone gets a trophy for trying. It's competitive to make it matter. If it doesn't matter then students will lose interest.

I posted about this in the Town Hall video thread: if the final championship just brings together the the top two alliiances in a different location, the top tier teams may decide that going to one or the other champsplit may not be worth the cost. They may decide going to a unified event like IRI is more attractive. IRI doesn't have many teams from the West traveling there now due to the cost, but that barrier disappears if those teams decide to go there instead of Detroit or Houston.