Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[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?

[dag0620]

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.

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.

As Don said, Atlanta and St.Louis are the only two cities with that set up. Atlanta is building a new stadium, and at the rate things are going The Rams will be leaving EJD, even if they do stay in St. Louis. There are other candidates where a Dome and Convention Center sit next to each other (Lucas Oil Stadium as an example) but they lack adequate physical connections between the two buildings that EJD/AC and GD/WCC had.

While the current championship format could have been prolonged, it would have to go away at some point. While having the majority of Champs in a convention center isn't quite as glitz and glam, it can work. As long as Champs is held in large enough exhibition halls, and they get the right people to run champs, they can do some amazing things to mimic the existing experience better then you think.

I hope though, as Steven mentioned, that Einstein is held in the arenas with closing ceremonies. As long as a decent break (2-3 Hours lets say) is scheduled between the end of division finals and Einstein, they could easily get teams and their essential equipment loaded on trucks to ferry them over to the dome/arena. Is it inconvenient for the teams actually competing on Einstein? Yes a little bit. Does it work better off overall for all the teams attending and wanting to watch? Yes.

These changes in terms of how a championship event will run definitely aren't as great as the current set-up, but they have to happen as we move forward.

(To be clear I'm talking about the setups at each Championship event, as for having two Championships, there's no reason for that).

[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.

[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.

[Green Potato]

I like the sound of the 2-tiered championship with a lower tier and a higher tier, but I strongly oppose having your performance at a previous championship decide where you go for the next.

Think about it. I know a team X that did REALLY well in their regular-season events, looked like they could contend for Einstein, and then proceed to have their robot break down at STL. That team was much better than now their robot preformed, and could wind up dominating the "Challenger" championship because they're not really a "challenger," they simply had bad luck.

Likewise, teams change in ability level every year. Some teams are primary juniors and don't loose much after a year, some teams are senior-heavy and could struggle. Just because a team number stays the same doesn't mean that the composition of that team does.

Thus, I approve the 2-champ format (400 and 400), and really like option A on the OP. However, I would hold back on "relegation" or "Ascension" for reasons stated above.

[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 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.

[Citrus Dad]

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.

Others have made suggestions about the Challenger champs could evolve into a number of Super Regionals, which is one answer. And others have pointed out that college football already works like this. There's a BCS that involves only 4 teams, yet there over 40 other bowl games. The teams playing in those games aren't complaining that they are playing in second tier post season events.

For many teams getting to the Challenger Champs will be their first goal and then moving on will be the next goal. Understand that we've just added 200 teams to Champs this year, and FIRST will be adding another 200 that would have never qualified before. They will be happy to just have any kind of event to aim for.

And we can't be overly worried about disappointing students. Trying to achieve true measured success is an important motivation. The "everyone's a winner" outlook that permeated kid's sports is falling into disfavor because it really isn't a good motivator. And what are we to do about the 2500+ other teams that don't qualify for either championship? How do we satiate their disappointment if that's so important?

And let's not forget the core principle used by FIRST to engineer cultural change: the competitive sports model. In that model, there are clear winners and losers and championships. Sports with multiple "champions" lose fan interest. College football recognized this in the late 1990s. College basketball went through dual NCAA/NIT champions into the 1950s before unifying. Pro baseball and football both unified competing leagues by first playing for a unified championship. Disappointment at not qualifying or winning are inherent in that model. And just as importantly is having a "top dog" that can be recognized by the sport's fans.

The tiered championships keeps the important incentives of clearly defining a winner while still opening up the festival experience to many more teams. Its a compromise to address the logistic problem of our expanding program while keeping the core of using the sports metaphor.

[Citrus Dad]

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.

As I posted earlier, we can easily discard system C and focus solely on A or B. The dual level championships is not dependent on using system C with promotion and relegation. Qualifying can be done within a season using either A or B. System A really wouldn't be different than the current system, just how they are assigned to events would differ. Under either A or B, teams would be assigned solely on their merit within that single season. There is no splitting into separate leagues or a splitting of FRC.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Green Potato

I like the sound of the 2-tiered championship with a lower tier and a higher tier, but I strongly oppose having your performance at a previous championship decide where you go for the next.

Think about it. I know a team X that did REALLY well in their regular-season events, looked like they could contend for Einstein, and then proceed to have their robot break down at STL. That team was much better than now their robot preformed, and could wind up dominating the "Challenger" championship because they're not really a "challenger," they simply had bad luck.

Likewise, teams change in ability level every year. Some teams are primary juniors and don't loose much after a year, some teams are senior-heavy and could struggle. Just because a team number stays the same doesn't mean that the composition of that team does.

Thus, I approve the 2-champ format (400 and 400), and really like option A on the OP. However, I would hold back on "relegation" or "Ascension" for reasons stated above.

No, the Challenger/Premier status wouldn't only be from champs. It's the cumulative points over the year.

[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.

[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.