Proposal for the 2 Championship format

[AChattin]

For anyone who claims that teams have sustained success, or enough to reach the championships every year, let me show you the state of Indiana for a moment.

The best team in the state, year in and year out is team 234. If I had to pick a team that would be at champs every year, it would be them. In fact, going back to 2009, the only year they WEREN'T in Elims at champs was 2014, where they failed to qualify, despite having one of the best robots in the state. Is 234 now not allowed to go to champs in 2015? (where they made semifinals in their division).

Team 234 is the only team I would consider a "Tier 1" team, a team who is consistently at the very top every year.

That is the top, and most consistent team in the state of Indiana, as for the rest, teams have up and down years.

In the past 2 years, team 135 has won 3 events, and been an alliance captain at championships both years, in 2012, they weren't picked at one of their Regionals, and wouldn't be eligible. They improved in 2013, and were picked for eliminations at championships, which they wouldn't have been able to do in this format, and even then, would they even qualify for the "Real" Championships in 2014?

Team 447 had a great robot in 2013, winning an event and being a finalist in another, they then got to play with teams 118 and 610 at championships, I don't know about the general population of FIRST, but playing with dominant teams is inspirational to me, and it likely was for them.

Team 1024 has had a resurgence in the past 2 years, seeding high and winning the state championship in 2015. They reached the division semifinals this year, but they wouldn't have been able to in this format because last year, they didn't make champs with one of the best robots in the state.

QUALIFYING for champs with a regional system is "Fluky" and sometimes, the best teams don't make it, given that, is it fair to make teams ineligible to compete for a world championship next year, because of a fluke in the previous year? Or would people rather have a longer qualifying cycle where students may never get to compete for a championship at all?

And what about Rookie/ Sophomore teams? 5188 was the #2 pick in the state championship, would they be able to go? They were picked to be in eliminations, and wouldn't have been able to.

There are many more examples of teams that put together good robots nearly every year in Indiana, and sometimes the Pull out great ones, Teams like 45(2009), 71(2011), 829(2012), 868(2013), 1501(2010), and several other teams in the state that I am neglecting to mention.

What about senior-only programs? Should a team be disallowed from championships because a completely different set of students failed to qualify them for the "Premier" in a previous year?

What inspired me was working with the TOP teams at championships/IRI. I know if I was a student again, I wouldn't be nearly as inspired if I wasn't able to work with the ELITE teams.

Looking at a split champs system overall. Maybe some teams would be happy just to get a championship "Experience" but without teams like 1114, 16, 254, 118, and 148 just to name a few, It wouldn't feel the same to me.

Obviously I would prefer one large championship, but I realized one thing, competitively, 2 split championships are exactly the same as one big one, as long as you bring the champions together in a final series. Yes, the environment wouldn't be the same, bus as people want to name a champion, you're just adding more divisions. You wouldn't see every powerhouse team every year, which would be sad, but you would see some, which I believe for a "Tier 2" team would be far better than being at a "consolation" championship.

[JB987]

I'm not inherently against using a two tier system. I do have concerns with the logistics (the details where the Devil lies sometimes). Out of fairness, will events be rotated between cities, will regional event teams have the exact same chance as district teams to place in the premier league using some new district/regional performance metric, and do you weigh previous or current season results more (or equal) when doing so? Can a hybrid of options b and c be formulated? I prefer weighing current season results more than previous seasons for some of the reasons previously posted by others but I wonder if teams would front end load on early season regional events for their one or two only shots at qualification to ensure enough time to arrange flights and hotels, etc...

I certainly would prefer a two tiered system over an added, minimally attended final championship after the two events to identify a 'true' champion...as long as qualification opportunities are the same across the board regardless of regional or district origin.

[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]

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.

[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.

[EricH]

Here's a proposal, just kind of at random. It'd make some things a smidgen tougher, but I think it could go a long way towards making things a little more interesting.

Assumption: FIRST backs away from their stated intent of geographic sorting of teams (corollary, they do it because an awful lot of teams think this is all about the competition).
Assumption: FIRST wants to have a top-tier and not-top-tier event. (See previous assumption.)
Given: FIRST wants to maximize inspiration.

Proposal: In addition to whatever base model is used, just as an example we'll use district points, each team earns some number of C.I. points (Championship Inspiration). C.I. points can be earned based on: Time since last championship visit, at the rate of +-X points/year; Winning certain awards, e.g. RCA and EI and the like; judges' nomination; HoF and Legacy status; I'm sure there could be other ways.

The championships now get names: Recognition and Inspiration. I'm sure y'all can guess where this is going.

Teams that qualify to attend via winning an event, or by points, are automatically assigned to Recognition--at first. That's when the fun begins. All CMP teams are sorted by their C.I. points. Any spots left in Recognition are filled from one end of the sorted list; all other teams go to Inspiration. First event "grand winner" (champion or CCA) gets to send representatives to the other if they want to.


The other trick that could be pulled with C.I. Points happens to be "balancing the inspiration", where you aim for "equal" inspiration at both events--but I think I know how that proposal would go over around here.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's a proposal, just kind of at random. It'd make some things a smidgen tougher, but I think it could go a long way towards making things a little more interesting.

Assumption: FIRST backs away from their stated intent of geographic sorting of teams (corollary, they do it because an awful lot of teams think this is all about the competition).
Assumption: FIRST wants to have a top-tier and not-top-tier event. (See previous assumption.)
Given: FIRST wants to maximize inspiration.

Proposal: In addition to whatever base model is used, just as an example we'll use district points, each team earns some number of C.I. points (Championship Inspiration). C.I. points can be earned based on: Time since last championship visit, at the rate of +-X points/year; Winning certain awards, e.g. RCA and EI and the like; judges' nomination; HoF and Legacy status; I'm sure there could be other ways.

The championships now get names: Recognition and Inspiration. I'm sure y'all can guess where this is going.

Teams that qualify to attend via winning an event, or by points, are automatically assigned to Recognition--at first. That's when the fun begins. All CMP teams are sorted by their C.I. points. Any spots left in Recognition are filled from one end of the sorted list; all other teams go to Inspiration. First event "grand winner" (champion or CCA) gets to send representatives to the other if they want to.


The other trick that could be pulled with C.I. Points happens to be "balancing the inspiration", where you aim for "equal" inspiration at both events--but I think I know how that proposal would go over around here.

I like the general concept. I'd like to see how it might play out in terms of which teams qualify to which event, but in general I think it would be a really cool approach.

I've thought that FIRST's innovation of using rotating alliances which turned other teams into both competitors and cooperators is tremendous. This type of championship qualification system could be along those lines.

[Chris Hibner]

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

I seriously doubt that even a significant fraction of teams go to champs with the intention to win it all. The second tier event(s) will still give teams a fun large-scale event to end their season.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

I don't think it's an issue, but sweetening the deal with stuff like qualifying the winners of the Open for the World Champs the next season could help.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's a proposal, just kind of at random. It'd make some things a smidgen tougher, but I think it could go a long way towards making things a little more interesting.

Proposal: In addition to whatever base model is used, just as an example we'll use district points, each team earns some number of C.I. points (Championship Inspiration). C.I. points can be earned based on: Time since last championship visit, at the rate of +-X points/year; Winning certain awards, e.g. RCA and EI and the like; judges' nomination; HoF and Legacy status; I'm sure there could be other ways.

Other award category to add to the CI points - GP. Also, perhaps the Chairman's Award is given at the Inspiration Champs, and teams qualified at the Recognition Champs can send their RCA presentation team to that event.

This proposal is so out of the box that it really fits with FIRST's innovative way of redesigning competitive games to lead to interteam cooperation (i.e., coopertition.)