Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by dag0620

As much as I love going into the stadium, and getting to walk on the Dome floor Wednesday night in 2013 is one of my favorite memories of all time, loosing this set-up was inevitable.

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

Don't forget the forced false dichotomy ten levels deep in all this.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

Please note that this thread presumes that the 800 team multi championship is inevitable. It's not productive to try to argue for a return to a smaller single championship.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Please note that this thread presumes that the 800 team multi championship is inevitable. It's not productive to try to argue for a return to a smaller single championship.

I wasn't arguing for a single championship in that post - I just said that many cities would work as venues for a Championship with less than 8 fields (well, specifically 4). Even with 400 teams. My post applies for any number of Championship events.

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

As far as I know, there's just not a lot of large sporting arenas that can fit 4 FRC fields with attached or adjacent 60,000-80,000 sq ft required to host 400 team's pits.

If there's venues out there I haven't heard about, I'd love to be proven wrong. From my research though, I haven't seen much beyond the already discussed.

[Alex2614]

The only problem with a two-tiered system is the team logistics. Many teams are just flat broke after getting all the way to champs. Many school districts limit the number of days students can miss for a single activity (our school board just did this this year).

This is why I like the World Festival/World Championship model. FLL does this quite nicely, actually. Qualification requirements for the World Festival (Or US Open, whatever you want to call it) are the same as you mentioned, but instead of then sending them onto a DIFFERENT championship, they're just done for the season.

I actually like THIS version of two championships better than the current one-championship model. This ensures more teams can go, but you still have one real world championship. The experience of going to the US Open isn't really any less than the world championship, just the value and the wight of the awards might be within FIRST. But sponsors will still love it, they won't care if it is the World Festival/US Open or the World Championship. So, more teams can get hardware, you've settled the geographic separation dilemma (each event will still feature teams from all over), and you make those that care about having one "true" world championship happy. It's like a win-win-win-win.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

The only problem with a two-tiered system is the team logistics. Many teams are just flat broke after getting all the way to champs. Many school districts limit the number of days students can miss for a single activity (our school board just did this this year).

This is why I like the World Festival/World Championship model. FLL does this quite nicely, actually. Qualification requirements for the World Festival (Or US Open, whatever you want to call it) are the same as you mentioned, but instead of then sending them onto a DIFFERENT championship, they're just done for the season.

I actually like THIS version of two championships better than the current one-championship model. This ensures more teams can go, but you still have one real world championship. The experience of going to the US Open isn't really any less than the world championship, just the value and the wight of the awards might be within FIRST. But sponsors will still love it, they won't care if it is the World Festival/US Open or the World Championship. So, more teams can get hardware, you've settled the geographic separation dilemma (each event will still feature teams from all over), and you make those that care about having one "true" world championship happy. It's like a win-win-win-win.

I can't tell which proposal you support. What FIRST is currently proposing will not result in a single world champion unless they make some sort of add on event which they haven't actually agreed to or even laid out a structure for. Are you supporting one of the proposals in this thread?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I can't tell which proposal you support. What FIRST is currently proposing will not result in a single world champion unless they make some sort of add on event which they haven't actually agreed to or even laid out a structure for. Are you supporting one of the proposals in this thread?

Before I explain what he's saying:

FIRST has most definitely left the door wide open for a single world champion. They haven't said anything about HOW, yet, and I would imagine that given the reaction they'll be taking their time and talking to people. So maybe, before making threads about how we SHOULD do it, we wait for them to make a proposal, and if it's reasonable we go with that, and if it isn't we let them know? And maybe, instead of assuming that only your proposals are under discussion, allow others to float some?

Anyways: He's proposing that ONE of the two events not be a Championship at all. FLL World Festival is not a championship, though it is held at the FIRST Championships--it's a festival. This sort of thing was suggested before the Town Hall. This is neither of your active proposals.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

Before I explain what he's saying:

FIRST has most definitely left the door wide open for a single world champion. They haven't said anything about HOW, yet, and I would imagine that given the reaction they'll be taking their time and talking to people. So maybe, before making threads about how we SHOULD do it, we wait for them to make a proposal, and if it's reasonable we go with that, and if it isn't we let them know? And maybe, instead of assuming that only your proposals are under discussion, allow others to float some?

Anyways: He's proposing that ONE of the two events not be a Championship at all. FLL World Festival is not a championship, though it is held at the FIRST Championships--it's a festival. This sort of thing was suggested before the Town Hall. This is neither of your active proposals.

I started this thread to get other ideas. And I like that idea as well. The problem is that FIRST wants the top tier teams to be at the same event as the "festival" teams.

As to whether FIRST will propose a single world championship event, they only did so after a huge outcry on CD. It was not in their original proposal.

So I'm floating other proposals and opening up the discussion. The problem I've seen is that many are simply opposed to even expanding to 800 teams which means splitting into 2 events. I sympathize with FIRST on increasing access. But they seem to be tone deaf to those teams that are focused on achieving competitive excellence. (And there other aspects of excellence.) I'd rather that they develop a proposal in a transparent fashion after exploring different options. Going off to cook up a solution in isolation is not the right way, so, no, I'm not going to sit back and wait for FIRST to offer up a new solution. They may be too wedded to it by then to be open to further discussion. I've participated in too many organizational and political processes as part of my job to not understand that its almost a "done deal" when a public pronouncement is made. And FIRST HQ has already compromised its trust with much of the community with its initial proposal. Let's insist that they make the second go around more transparent.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And FIRST HQ has already compromised its trust with much of the community with its initial proposal. Let's insist that they make the second go around more transparent.

+1 to this.

[Citrus Dad]

After reading the discussion here, I am proposing System D. I am hearing that a number of teams that might be in the second 400 qualifiers to Champs want the opportunity to be at the same venue as the very top teams. On the other hand, I think it's very important to have a unified championship decided at a single venue where there are a large number of spectators. Particularly if FRC ever wants to get to TV that is an absolute necessity.

System D starts with general qualifying using A (status quo) or B (district points) to create a pool of 800 teams. Then a modified version of district points is used to select the first hundred and the second hundred teams. The first hundred are assigned to the First Century champs; the second hundred to the Second Century Champs. The remaining 300 teams are then assigned on geographic basis per FIRST's proposal. The site of each champ alternates each year. This way the 300 geographically assigned teams get to play with the very top teams every other year, and they still play with a set of very high quality teams the other year.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

After reading the discussion here, I am proposing System D. I am hearing that a number of teams that might be in the second 400 qualifiers to Champs want the opportunity to be at the same venue as the very top teams. On the other hand, I think it's very important to have a unified championship decided at a single venue where there are a large number of spectators. Particularly if FRC ever wants to get to TV that is an absolute necessity.

System D starts with general qualifying using A (status quo) or B (district points) to create a pool of 800 teams. Then a modified version of district points is used to select the first hundred and the second hundred teams. The first hundred are assigned to the First Century champs; the second hundred to the Second Century Champs. The remaining 300 teams are then assigned on geographic basis per FIRST's proposal. The site of each champ alternates each year. This way the 300 geographically assigned teams get to play with the very top teams every other year, and they still play with a set of very high quality teams the other year.

I feel like this might be a workable compromise. If you look at it as a method of implementing region switching, then it isn't too far from FIRST's current plan.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

I feel like this might be a workable compromise. If you look at it as a method of implementing region switching, then it isn't too far from FIRST's current plan.

And another note for Method D: if you assume that the first and 2nd 100 are distributed in proportion to geographic distribution, travel costs are reduced for 87.5% of the teams, thus meeting FIRST's stated goal pretty well.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I can't tell which proposal you support. What FIRST is currently proposing will not result in a single world champion unless they make some sort of add on event which they haven't actually agreed to or even laid out a structure for. Are you supporting one of the proposals in this thread?

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

You dont want one "lesser" championship but there will always be one if there are 2. One will have worse robots, one will have worse RCA teams(thats not a slight to teams, just using "worse" to keep context), one will have worse fields, one will have worse amenities. Any system that has more than 1 championship, will have event disparity.