ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.

With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits". Predicting that we can preserve the championship experience spilt in half is one thing. 60ths is a super regional experience. Nothing wrong with that, but that's an entirely different FRC that's decades away at least. We currently have no idea what it'd mean to FIRST performance metrics to have that level to advance to without also having Worlds to aim for, and even that's only been discussed abstract. It (0.5%) is an unrealistic dichotomy for today's situation that exaggerates the current issue past it's real cost-benefit discussion. Who knows what the "history of the structure of FIRST" post will like by the time we're facing that balancing act (e.g. is 60 necessary or is 58 okay, because those last two venues are really pushing it?)

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.

Go look at any major sport at the highest level. Basketball, baseball, soccer, football. How many people make it to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc? Now look at how many people have ever played that specific sport. A few hundred make it to these leagues. A few millions have played the sport. Then tell me that sports haven't influenced/changed people's lives.

Live changing will occur regardless of champion split. The question is, which one does more of it.

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

It's a hard question, and one that society as a whole hasn't really had a competitive field where a massive number of individuals/teams are at the very top of success. I still think it's not the best direction for FIRST. We know small numbers of teams/people at the top is inspirational. Do large numbers of people at the top have the same effect? I feel like it doesn't, but I have no examples because everyone else uses the "small percentage format"

[GKrotkov]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

But isn't that a part of what makes FIRST different? We sell ourselves as the "only sport where everyone can go pro" (or something like that, not sure if that's exact). Shouldn't that be an aspect of how we're different from major sports, and one that we celebrate?

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by GKrotkov

But isn't that a part of what makes FIRST different? We sell ourselves as the "only sport where everyone can go pro" (or something like that, not sure if that's exact). Shouldn't that be an aspect of how we're different from major sports, and one that we celebrate?

It is. I was addressing the fact that saying that a program small numbers of "pros" isn't inspiring is false. I'm not sure which model is better in a large scale organisation. We will have to see.

[Joe Johnson]

First my historical Bonafides. I was baking in the Florida sun, doing the Macarena when it was "the new thing" in the spring of 1996 at the last Nationals (as it was called then) that was hosted actually inside the the gates of EPCOT (on the World Showcase Theater if you must know). I saw Dr. Murphy hand the first Woodie Flowers award trophy to Woodie at the closing ceremonies of that tournament. I was a co-founder of Team 47 and I actually coded (in Perl) some of the early versions of these very fori (still to be seen on the WaybackMachine.org).

I've been doing FIRST a long time and I believe that FIRST has lost its way (or at least is in the process of losing it).

I used to cheer inside when I heard Dean & Co. describe FIRST as "The Olympics of Smarts." (news flash, there are no Coop Points awarded during the Olympics, I'm just sayin'). Yes, Dean talked about FIRST being about much more than competing robots BUT it was ABOUT COMPETING ROBOTS! The Ends was changing the culture but it was understood that the Means was a robot competition.

For good or ill, The Culture we live in is a TV Culture. Back then, FIRST talked often about getting on TV, and not just tangentially, it was front and center. Getting on TV was the "Make it loud" campaign of the day. FIRST paid to produce an ESPN show every year back then, hoping that the following year's FIRST show would be funded by a real TV producer motivated by profit rather than altruism. Beyond the ESPN show, there were continual rumors and hints that this or that TV Superstar was talking about doing this or that movie. It was almost a done deal, they just had a few details to work out, but an announcement about some PrimeTime TV slot with FIRST playing a major role would be coming soon.

Getting on TV was so central that around this time, Dean often discussed the possibility of establishing a FIRST Professional Level. This didn't seem as crazy as you might think. Back then, Robowars, Battlebots, Junkyard Wars and others had TV slots. Why not FIRST Pro?

I believed Dean and the rest of the folks at FIRST when they said that Changing the Culture on the scale that FIRST had it mind required getting on TV.

Over the years, FIRST has backed away from this goal. The formation of Multiple World Championships seems to me to be just the latest in a series of steps FIRST has taken to deny their very heritage. While they seem to have reversed themselves of late, for a time, Dean could often be heard saying that FIRST wasn't even about robots.

This is a huge mistake. Robots Competing is the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs. Kill competition and you kill FIRST. There are a LOT of things that FIRST has done that are amazing. Almost none of them would have been possible without Robots Competing. Period. End of Story.

Is FIRST still awesome? Yes. After work and sleep, I spend more time volunteering for FIRST than any other activity in my life. I would do that if I didn't think FIRST was still worth doing?

THAT SAID, I can see a day when I stop doing FIRST if they do not right this ship.

I hope Manchester is listening (as Frank often says it is doing) and that they reverse this trend.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. If FIRST wanted to turn a loss into a win, then they would basically take a page from the District Model's Playbook. Yes, crown a "World Champion" at as many 400 Team "World Championships" as you need to get every team in the world a theoretical chance to make it to "the Worlds" one year in 4. But, define a ranking system that determines a select group from each such tournament to meet at much a smaller venue (~60 teams) to crown the "Solar Champions." If we can't get TV interested in that tournament, then there is no hope for getting FIRST on TV.

[John Retkowski]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

Reserving a spot to make a post until I get home tomorrow and can actually use a computer instead of an iPhone. I've been thinking about the topic of inspiration and competition for a long time now and I need to speak my mind. Even if it's just for my own sanity.

Well it seems I can't edit my post for some reason so I'll just make a new reply.

I agree very much with the OP's point of view. However, with all due respect, I find it hard to understand the argument: "It's not about the robots." I believe the robots are a lot more important than many of us realize both in a competitive way and different way.

Let's ask ourselves this,” If it’s not about the robots, what's FIRST about?”
Easy. It's about inspiration.
Next question: What are we trying to inspire?
Another pretty straight forward answer. We're trying to inspire young people (really everybody) to become STEM leaders and show people how much science and technology matter.
One more question. (cmon you guys are smart you can do it)

How do we inspire? By building and competing with robots!
But it's not about the robots. Heh? Why are we trying to inspire people again? Yet the one thing that we might try to convince ourselves isn't important is the example of the same science and technology that we're trying to inspire people with. The robots! This might not be focused around competition, (although I feel that is getting undervalued as well but that will be my second point) but it should be focused on learning about science and technology and how we learn is by building robots. I can only speak for myself, but when I first heard about a robotics team in my area I didn't join because I thought, "Hey, maybe I can work on writing a paper." I wasn't thinking, "I hope they'll have a business plan!" I'm willing to bet that most young people first joined a team for one reason: To build robots. Why they stayed or got inspired by FIRST may be a different reason, but a robotics competition got them in the door giving them a rare opportunity to start on an early path to success in life and realize their dreams. Being on a team, I realize how important Chairman's and a business plan are, but I'm not inspired by them.

I was inspired when I first heard about the concept of a chokehold strategy. I was inspired by seeing so many people put in ridiculous amounts of work to build amazing, beautiful, quality machines. (And I might add that by beauty I don't mean looks) I was inspired when our team won our first district event, and then our second and third. I was inspired when we came back from an 82 point match in the quarterfinals at MAR championships and ended up going all the way to win. I was inspired when I saw 971's arm come out to pick up a tote for the first time. I was and am still inspired by the countless mentors who sacrifice so much to teach these kids. I get inspired when I see teams working together both in the pits and on the field to break limits they never thought they could. I also understand that many people aren't inspired by the same things I am. People get inspired by The Chairman's Award, the business plan, getting sponsors, and many other things. I'm glad people get inspired by these things. They're all extremely important. But the Chairman's Award and the robots aren't as different as they first appear.

They both serve to push the message and ideals of FIRST. They both serve to inspire people about STEM. The Chairman's Award is the highest honor in FIRST. Teams are rewarded for getting out in their communities and not only teaching people about FIRST, but also helping people in general. What I'm trying to get to is this. What would we have if we took the robots and competition out of FIRST? Would we have a glorified woodshop? Would we have a community outreach program? I'm not undermining community outreach. We should be gracious and professional everywhere even outside of FIRST. We should do everything we can to help our fellow man. That's what engineers and all people should do. We should help people everywhere. That brings us back to why we're trying to inspire people: to prove that this stuff matters. Like it or not, the robots are what bring people to FIRST. They're what bring us all together. They're what make us a family .

Now to the competition aspect. Before I even talk about competition in regards to FIRST, let me talk about the most famous form of competition in the world. Sports. Every year, millions and millions of people act crazy over sports (kind of similar to how we do over FRC). Many kids dream of growing up to be pro sports players regardless of the minute chance that they will. Why? Because they are inspired by it. They are inspired by the fierce competition. They are inspired by beating their opponents when no one thought they would. They are inspired by working their butts off, competing, and trying to win. Who wouldn't be? It's human nature to be inspired by these things.
Now bring it back to FRC. Why do we hate competition so much? Why do we say it doesn't matter? We put in so much hard work to sell ourselves short. Competition has become a dirty word, but it's not just about winning. It's about striving to be your best, it's about sportsmanship a.k.a. GP and encouraging your teammates and competitors to pick themselves back up when they lose and to never stop trying to be their best.

This is all just my opinion. I apologize if I'm not even mentioning the championship, but whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing, I don't think the Championship(s) will matter at that point.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Go look at any major sport at the highest level. Basketball, baseball, soccer, football. How many people make it to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc? Now look at how many people have ever played that specific sport. A few hundred make it to these leagues. A few millions have played the sport. Then tell me that sports haven't influenced/changed people's lives.

Live changing will occur regardless of champion split. The question is, which one does more of it.

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

It's a hard question, and one that society as a whole hasn't really had a competitive field where a massive number of individuals/teams are at the very top of success. I still think it's not the best direction for FIRST. We know small numbers of teams/people at the top is inspirational. Do large numbers of people at the top have the same effect? I feel like it doesn't, but I have no examples because everyone else uses the "small percentage format"

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

You also have to look at the turnaround on sports vs the team turnaround here. The smaller the percentage of teams going, the more "repeat offenders" you're going to have. While I love watching Einstein, it gets old seeing the exact same teams every year. It's still inspiring to a degree, but it's the same exact teams year after year. Do you really want to see a championship where it's the same 5% of teams every year for 5 years in a row? (Warning. Exaggeration but you get my point).

Originally Posted by Siri

With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits". Predicting that we can preserve the championship experience spilt in half is one thing. 60ths is a super regional experience. Nothing wrong with that, but that's an entirely different FRC that's decades away at least. We currently have no idea what it'd mean to FIRST performance metrics to have that level to advance to without also having Worlds to aim for, and even that's only been discussed abstract. It (0.5%) is an unrealistic dichotomy for today's situation that exaggerates the current issue past it's real cost-benefit discussion. Who knows what the "history of the structure of FIRST" post will like by the time we're facing that balancing act (e.g. is 60 necessary or is 58 okay, because those last two venues are really pushing it?)

We aren't that far away. Look at the growth curve of FRC, FTC, and FLL. It's been almost an exponential growth for a while now, with FTC growing the most rapidly. Many FTC teams I have heard from hate how so few teams can go to champs. They have a much smaller percentage of teams that make it to worlds. FLL is even smaller than that. Many FLL and FTC teams have no hope of ever going. They're not inspired to do better so that they can go, they're discouraged that it is the same teams every year that go, because the championship has not grown at all with their team growth. The number of teams going to worlds is the same as it was many years ago, and there are thousands more teams. I think this is a pilot for a super-regional model anyway. They just don't want to have everyone jump into it feet first. Whether that is the right approach or not, I'm not really sure. But that's probably what they're trying out, if I had to guess.

And going with a "teams should get the opportunity to go every 4 years" won't really work either, when you're talking about the same number of teams I'm thinking about.

We're really not that far away. Our growth is not really on a steady incline last I checked. It's increasing by more every year. And with the legislation going through congress that RUSH and the Advocacy Conference is focused on, we could see even greater growth.

Regardless of all of that, we are still running out of venue space that can handle these big events. St. Louis is over capacity right now. I imagine Deteoit and Houston will be at capacity too. So we might see championship events that are actually smaller than we are used to in the future. 600 teams at a championship is too many, imo. 8 fields is too many for one event. We all just get lost in the shuffle pretty much. Judging is a nightmare. The way the venue flows is a nightmare.

No, not everybody can be winners. But nobody is really advocating that, are we? That's the very definition of a straw man argument. We're not giving everybody a world championship winners trophy. Just giving more people the experience. But the same percentage of teams the championship experience as we had before.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Many FLL and FTC teams have no hope of ever going. They're not inspired to do better so that they can go, they're discouraged that it is the same teams every year that go, because the championship has not grown at all with their team growth.

Not true at all. My FLL team has never made it to the World Festival, but they've been close a few times. St. Louis has been a stated goal for them every year. They've not been less inspired when they didn't have a chance. They didn't try less hard when Ontario wasn't even given a qualifying spot at all for the World Festival. Competitive FLL teams don't compete to win the World Festival, they compete to do the best they can, and it's fun.

Making generalizations to try and prove your point weakens your argument.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Not true at all. My FLL team has never made it to the World Festival, but they've been close a few times. St. Louis has been a stated goal for them every year. They've not been less inspired when they didn't have a chance. They didn't try less hard when Ontario wasn't even given a qualifying spot at all for the World Festival. Competitive FLL teams don't compete to win the World Festival, they compete to do the best they can, and it's fun.

Making generalizations to try and prove your point weakens your argument.

First of all, I meant to say that many teams I'VE personally talked to and heard from. Not just your team. I didn't say al teams. I apologize for that omission. But comparing the behavior of all teams based solely on your team's example is a generalization, isn't it? Plus, it is possible to be inspired by these teams that make it to champs every year, AND be discouraged at the same time.

But you just proved my point anyway. Competitive teams don't compete to win the world championship. They compete to do the best they can, and it's fun. Therefore, how many teams get to go to the championship shouldn't matter in that aspect, should it? Would it water down the competition if suddenly they invited more teams to the world festival? Or have several national events? Oh wait, they do actually have several national "open national championships" in FLL. And it's no less inspiring. In fact, it's MORE inspiring, because more teams can have these "national event" experiences.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

<snip>

This is not true. There has been a large group of people, not the majority by any stretch but not one or two odd balls out in left field, that have said for years now that the World Championships are in fact, too big. The entire Division Structure of the Worlds came up as a response to many of people saying, "there are just too many teams for one competition." The largeness of the Worlds is awesome. But I do think that it can get too big.

If I had my way, I would ask the question this way: How many teams should attend the World Championships such that it maximizes FIRST's chances of getting the event picked up as a Prime Time show on TV? I think by this standard, even 400 teams is higher than optimum.

Read my rant above, but I still believe that the fastest way for FIRST to make the cultural change that it seeks is to get the World Championships on TV.

Dr. Joe J.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

This is not true. There have been a large group of people, not the majority by any stretch but not one or two odd balls out in left field, that have said that the World Championships are in fact, too big. The entire Division Structure of the Worlds came up as a response to many of people saying, "there are just too many teams for one competition." The largeness of the Worlds is awesome. But I do think that it can get too big.

If I had my way, I would ask the question this way: How many teams should attend the World Championships such that it maximizes FIRST's chances of getting the event picked up as a Prime Time show on TV? I think by this standard, even 400 teams is higher than optimum.

Read my rant above, but I still believe that the fastest way for FIRST to make the cultural change that it seeks is to get the World Championships on TV.

Dr. Joe J.

Don said in St. Louis they they are looking into holding a small event where the winners of the two championships compete together. Now THAT is an event that could be televised. And then everyone that is complaining about having one world champion can be happy.

But for me, I personally don't really care about that, and neither do our sponsors. Our sponsors care that we attended championship. And if more teams can go back to their sponsors and say that they went to a world-level event, how can that be a bad thing? They won't care that there were 2 world level events. They won't care about how many teams were there.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

If it wasn't currently an issue, or expected to become an issue, would people have a reason to shout about it?

*I'm not trying to rag on the percentage right now. I could certainly come to terms with everything that comes with an expanded Championship, especially if it was under one roof...

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

If it wasn't currently an issue, or expected to become an issue, would people have a reason to shout about it?

*I'm not trying to rag on the percentage right now. I could certainly come to terms with everything that comes with an expanded Championship, especially if it was under one roof...

Exactly. But it's an issue now, for some reason. We can't have it all under one roof. There just isn't a venue out there that can do this with the needed hotel capacity.

If the championship was able to be under one roof, and have 25% of teams, most people would be okay with it. But if it's 2 championships, they suddenly have a problem with 25%.

But I'm not in FRC for the hype or for the championship. I just want my kids to be able to experience the championship and have a good time seeing amazing things. And I want as many people as possible to experience that (which btw St. Louis is terrible for, I'm glad we're moving). And if that means we go to 2 championships, okay. I guess my priorities are different than most people on here.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Don said in St. Louis they they are looking into holding a small event where the winners of the two championships compete together. Now THAT is an event that could be televised. And then everyone that is complaining about having one world champion can be happy.

Yes, it could be televised, but then you have additional costs, to teams and to FIRST. You need to find another venue. Students need to take more time off of their jobs or school. Mentors need to use more vacation days. It just doesn't make sense at all. If FIRST decides to cover the entire cost of the special weekend event, that's a HUGE expense for them to cover. I would much rather FIRST spend that money on other things.

Plus, when we get to the point of 60 Championsplit events, how are we going to decide which alliances go to that premier event? Separating Einstein (or whatever the Field of Champions is called) from the Championsplit events is just as unsustainable as the current model.

But for me, I personally don't really care about that, and neither do our sponsors. Our sponsors care that we attended championship. And if more teams can go back to their sponsors and say that they went to a world-level event, how can that be a bad thing? They won't care that there were 2 world level events. They won't care about how many teams were there.

Except when we get up to 60 Championsplit events, they wouldn't be world-level, because there wouldn't be any international teams. With your projected growth, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Mexico, Israel, Australia would all have their own Championsplit events. Even if you lived right across the border in Windsor, you would still probably go to the Ontario event, not the Detroit one.

There's an undeniable prestige that comes along with attending the Championship, and with each additional Championsplit event, that prestige is decreased. This is a known phenomenon in art, where the more available something is, the less "special" the reproduced or original piece of art is (ask anyone who has seen the actual Mona Lisa, and they'll probably say "it's smaller than I thought it would be." Not "It's amazing," not "it was just like I imagined it." Just disappointment because of oversaturation). The paper is called "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and it's a great read (PDF here - but fair warning, it's fairly jargon-y)

You really do have to ask yourself the question "why is the Championship a special event?" Because if it's the prestige of the event, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the ability to talk to teams from very different places, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the need to crown a single champion, the Championsplit wrecks that. What do you want a Championship to be?

[Chris is me]

This is kind of an aside, but something I haven't seen mentioned is, where is FIRST getting the idea that every team both wants to go and can go to the Championship every four years? They keep pointing out that making champs bigger means 25% of teams get to go, which means everyone gets to go every four years. But that's ridiculous. I think it's fair to say at least half of the teams at Champs had been there in the past 3 Championships. If 25% just happens to allow everyone who wants to go every four years to go, that's one thing, but that's not how the argument is being presented and they haven't shown us data to support that.

I'm really curious how much demand there is for the Championship. The length of the waitlist is one way to tell, I guess, but being on the waitlist and desiring to go to Champs off of it are two different things. Some use it as a hedge, if they have a good season but don't qualify, then get a waitlist invite, they go, otherwise they don't.

I get FIRST's position here - the championship inspired me as a student, and not really just because I was playing for the championship, but because of the overall experience. I just think they vastly underestimate how much of that experience they'll lose by cutting out half of it from each one. It's not two championships; it's two halves of what was one championship (plus 100 extra teams each, true)