ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

[Alex2614]

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits? I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives (and not just the same teams every year), then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring. There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows. What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you. And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. There are some really really big inspiring "regional" events out there, too. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here. I can see that none of you are going to budge. I was very upset at the championsplit at first too. But at the end of the day, FIRST is still going to impact and change lives and change culture. And we are going to face these 2 championships anyway, whether you like it or not. I think most will find that it will be okay, because the students on their team are still just as impacted, and they are just as inspired. And THATS what matters for me. Our kids' experience at these events is what is on my mind. And if I can make one more kid smile, one more kid have this life-changing championship experience, I'm going to do that. And this model helps us all bring that to thousands more kids. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but to me, that is all that matters.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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?

This is it exactly.

As things are now, I can hit up my sponsors because I QUALIFIED for the WORLDS. What kind of a heartless sponsor would say no to that?

If, instead, I went the my sponsors and said, "It's my TURN to go to ONE of a NUMBER of world class events." I am not sure that my sponsors would be as forthcoming to such an appeal.

Dr. Joe J.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

This is it exactly.

As things are now, I can hit up my sponsors because I QUALIFIED for the WORLDS. What kind of a heartless sponsor would say no to that?

If, instead, I went the my sponsors and said, "It's my TURN to go to ONE of a NUMBER of world class events." I am not sure that my sponsors would be as forthcoming to such an appeal.

Dr. Joe J.

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."

It's still just as marketable as it was before. Saying that we're going to get to 60 world championships is a straw man, and really weakens his argument.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

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. [...] 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.

You've gone fishing, right? Let's take a look at a typical fishing trip from the perspective of a fish. (Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "Eh, not bad. But I'll pass for now--wait, it's leaving!" (This is the one where the fisherman thinks the nibble is the real bite.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "YUM!" *bites the whole thing* "Hey, OW, WAIT, STOP, I don't like this! Wait, there's a new world out here I can just barely see OW!" (Doesn't end well for the fish, so I'll stop there.)

"That" is the bait, wrapped around the hook--which is, of course, reeled in. Did I mention that I was going somewhere with this? First, let's see if you can figure out this one: who's saying it, and what is "that"?

"Hey, that looks interesting. I'll take a look and see what's up." *a few months--or years--later* "WOW. That was intense. There's so much to learn and see out in the STEM fields." (or... "Meh, not my cup of tea.")

Give up? Of course, it's a new student joining a robotics team because of the robot! (The other one is a student deciding that he/she isn't interested.)


By this time, if you've made it this far, you're asking "what's his point?" My point is this: It's not about the robots, because the robots are the bait, hook, line and sinker. We're the fishermen trying to catch the students to inspire, and we're using a robot to do it. For the students, yep, it's all about the robot: for those that see the bigger picture (including the students who've been around a while), the robot is just a vehicle. To go back to fishing for a moment, you could also: use a big net (trawling), "tickle" a fish (AKA barehanded grabs), or spear a fish (or other ways).

This is all about the robots because it is NOT all about the robots. For better or worse, FIRST has chosen to use robotics competitions as their primary vehicle of achieving their goals. They've put a lot into those competitions. After the first year, they could have backed off, gone to another idea... but they stayed with it. Now... there's no way out, for them. It has to be about the robots... because otherwise, how are they going to reach kids? It has to not be about the robots... because their purpose is not to find the best robot for X but to inspire and recognize.

It's a vicious cycle, and it's difficult to explain. I hope I've been clear enough, but if I go further I'll be having a circular argument with myself on how it is/is not about the robots because it is not/is about the robots and all that.


Which leads us back towards the original question, which I'll expand slightly:
Is there a way to still crown a single World Champion Alliance, while still maintaining the Inspiration and the Recognition of a single Championship event, in two (or more) ChampionSplit events? As a side item, is it possible to also get 25% or so of FRC teams TO the Championship?


My answer to my own challenge... let's just say I cheat in mine, and look a lot longer than the two years we have to come up with a good one. I don't look at 2017. I'm looking at 2021 and beyond. I'm also looking at all the areas that aren't districts.

Spoiler for stop reading if you don't want my opinions to form yours:

My answer is simple: We've got 5 years to get as much of FRC as possible into a district system. THEN we can go to FIRST and say, "You know that SuperRegional model you had like 10 years ago? You wanna break that out again, and reformat the DCMPs and ChampionSplits into SuperRegionals, and give us one World Championship again? Oh, and while you're at it, can we get some of the Championship items like conferences and a Hall of Fame to the SuperRegionals?"

In my opinion, that's the only way we can accomplish all of the items above. It's going to take time--time we have, and don't have. It's going to take volunteers we need to recruit, take venues we need to find, take teams that don't exist yet that need to be started. It's not an easy solution, but difficult problems often demand difficult solutions.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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.

Dr. Joe,
I believe ultimately, this is true. As an educator for 21 years. and prior to that as a former student involved in other STEM-related competitions, I used to be involved with other programs and competitions that students were heavily inspired by. I did ISEF for many years and competed in Electric Vehicle racing both during and prior to FIRST and VEX.
If ultimately down the road, FRC became just another "exhibition," I believe it would lose students to other competing STEM programs. So why does that matter?
ISEF and other STEM programs will never be a game changer to changing the culture of how people view STEM with respect to Sports.
FRC can by continuing to do what it has done all these years.

Whether it be 1 or 2 or maybe more championships down the line, keeping that vision of a competition model is essential to maintaining that momentum it has, even when we started back when there were only 359 teams.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by 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)

+1 Well said.

Even if they didn't ask teams, mentors or volunteers for feedback about 2 champs, you would think they would have tried to poll teams on potential attendance. Filling another 200 slots, regardless of the change in structure may be difficult...

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits?

Numbers taken from your earlier post where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.

But let's not look super far into the future - let's picture a world where FRC has grown to the point where we need, let's say, five Championsplits.

I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives, then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring.

I'm guessing you didn't read the Wikipedia page on the paper I posted. I'll relink you: Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Now, its relevancy is up to debate, but the thesis is pretty simple: the more of something there is, the less of an impact there will be. This is why particular sports events are so important (and also why World Jamborees are such special events; sidenote, I have 13 years of Boy Scout experience, from Beavers to Ventures, and while I didn't get my Chief Scout, I like to think I know that program as well). Olympic Gold is so crucial to many athletes because they only get to compete for it every four years. The exclusivity is what makes the event special! Also, if you read on, I'll go into depth as to why these events won't be as huge as we're used to.

I'm basically arguing that the Championship experience will change, period. The general argument is that the Championsplit will either increase inspiration because more teams will experience the event, or will decrease inspiration, because part of the Championship experience is being with all the top and international teams, half of which would be missing at a Championsplit event. It's obvious which sides of the fence each of us are on, but it'd be nice if we try to take the other side into account. Neither of us has enough FIRST experience or have talked to enough FIRSTers to get an accurate idea of what the majority of teams value, so let's not put words into each others' mouths. Instead, let's look at other, more arguable and concrete reasons why the Championsplit model is good or bad.

There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows.

A Post-Championsplit event where the event winners face off was not in FIRST's original plan, and so it doesn't suit the sustainability of the Championsplit model. As more and more Championsplit events are added, the number of alliances that will want to play at that Winners' Event will increase. Soon, there will be the need for round-robin play before eliminations, if there aren't 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 teams attending. Otherwise, how do you decide who gets bye's? Better yet, how do you decide who faces who? Scheduling becomes longer, and suddenly this event, which FIRST has said that they are looking to pay for in its entirety, becomes more and more expensive.

For example, League of Legends just had their Mid-Season Invitational, where they took the Spring Champions of their six leagues from around the world and played them off of each other. Their six-team tournament lasted four days. There are some obvious differences here (LoL games last longer than FRC matches by quite a bit, and they waited a day between the semis and final matches), but it just goes to show that the time that these events need to be run properly balloons.

What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

I honestly don't understand this point, because I never once (nor did anyone in this thread) say that FRC should stop growing. And, for the record, my idea for a Post-2016 Post-Season Model does account for team growth (and so do many others in that thread which advocate for a single-Championship model).

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

This is a fair point.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you.

Which is exactly why the Championsplit model as presented by FIRST is unsustainable once we get above four Championsplit events. There are currently only four cities FIRST thinks has the facilities and location to fit a 400 team event: Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit (with the last one including lots of travelling between buildings). We were told at the Town Hall that venues further west "didn't work out." Where does the fifth Championsplit go? If FIRST wants to keep with their 25% number, we will need a fifth Championsplit event when we hit 8000 teams.

Again, my proposed model calls for local, Super-Regional (or "Challenger Championships", as they've been popularly called) events capped at 200 teams, which makes finding local facilities much easier.

And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Two words: team turnover. The very very top teams are sure to stick around, but they've been sticking around for years. Teams go through noticeable dynasties, rising and falling with a core group of students. Top teams use mentorship and superior training to stay on top, but the majority of teams lose a lot of talent when their top members graduate. For example, the final six teams on Einstein in 2011 were 254, 111, 973, 177, 2016, and 781. Of those six teams, only 254 is still a perennial powerhouse. The other five teams have dropped off, although they are still mid to upper-middle of the pack teams (speaking in regards to on-field success). Go back even farther, and you get a whole other crop of dominating teams.

And there will always be the teams that have breakthrough years and build robots that do much better than the team's history would suggest. 1325, two-time regional finalist and Carson Alliance Captains / Champions, for example.

When you are talking about the true "powerhouse teams" of FIRST, the teams that can be expected to make a huge splash and contend for the Championship Title year after year after year, you get a list of 25 - 50 teams. And that's stretching it. That's a far, far cry from filling a 400 team event. There will always be "wriggle room" for new teams to make it in.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

I would argue that this is a false comparison, as the nature of the Chief Scout is one of personal growth, whereas a Championship should be about competition. The nature of the achievement is completely different. Unless you see the Championship event as a badge to earn, as opposed to being modeled off of sports, which was the whole point of FIRST to begin with (see Dr. Joe's fantastic post about how competition has been the backbone of FRC since day one).

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

Would FIRST run these events? If FIRST doesn't organize these Jamborees, then teams won't go. And if there isn't a competitive incentive, then the top teams won't go, and there goes a huge chunk of your inspiration.

Especially if you consider the cost of attending these events. How many teams are going to dish out $10,000 on registration and travel to attend an event where teams basically get to talk to each other. The cost/benefit issue will keep the majority of FRC teams (who can't even afford a second regional, by the way) out of the Jamboree entirely.

And then there's the size of the Jamboree to consider. Again, having a large event is limited by the facilities available. So we're basically capped at a 600 team event, which means a lower percentage of teams get to experience an international event as FIRST grows. Which is the problem we're having right now.

[jweston]

This is one those growing pains that FIRST is inevitably going to go through if it is successful in its mission to expand. It's not practical to maintain what is effectively 8-10+ district-championship-sized fields in one location. As FRC continues to grow, it becomes incredibly difficult to coordinate the logistics, not to mention ensuring safety, due to the number of people gathering in one place. There will not be a satisfactory solution if people want to keep everything about World Championship as it currently stands.

The next best solution I can think of is to create some sort of intermediate global regional championship level between district and world. That has its own problems with costs, lengthening the calendar, and requiring even more time from students during a school year. Pretty much anything that allows for growth is going to involve trade-offs. I have a hunch that these ChampionSplits may become that if FIRST finds it desirable to have a single Einstein field.

From a more personal perspective on what World Championships is about, this was the first year our team made it to World Championship since 2010. This means none of our current students have been there. One of the things our team loved most about going to World was the opportunity to meet in person teams from all over the planet. And not just the legendary teams but teams from places like the West Coast, Canada, Mexico, and Israel; teams we'd never, ever get to meet in New England. The students really connected because they all loved FRC and everything that goes into it, but they also got to share a little bit of their respective culture with each other.

Another big highlight were the workshops given by some of the most experienced and talented teams around. They are still talking about Karthik's strategy workshop. OTOH, our students certainly weren't able to meet every team at World. One of the downsides of it being so big.

Was our team excited to play in Hopper and watch Einstein in person? Of course! But the point is that the overall experience of being at World was a lot bigger than that. It wasn't about figuring out which alliance was the best but which teams were the ones to watch this year.

The ChampionSplit won't necessarily mean that the teams in any given ChampionSplit will be any less diverse or legendary (at least I hope not), but it will mean that attending World won't guarantee that you'll have the chance to meet specific people also attending World. But then, with so many attending now, that might already be true. It also might mean that certain teams that we're accustomed to seeing in the Einstein finals may not be together on the same field. But this might also be good since it widens the spotlight a little to other fantastic teams.

I understand the desire to have a single grand champion alliance. I appreciate how that plays into the marketability of FIRST to the general public and to sponsors. I understand how satisfying it is to have that goal as to be on _the_ Einstein winning alliance. But given the continued expansion, there is a necessity to either limit the number of teams to a much smaller percentage than 25% or to split World. For now, it's probably better for FIRST to focus on making World managable and accessible to teams. Once they find a method that works with the current growth, they can focus on something that sells.

Anyway, that's my two cents from a first year mentor's perspective, never having been involved with FIRST before.

P.S. I don't understand the rationale of making it cheaper to travel. That may be true for teams in the center of the US, but there are a whole lot of teams that doesn't cover. It will definitely become more expensive for our team... not that I'm complaining if we make it to World again.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Numbers taken from your earlier post where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.

I explain the math in my own post (emphasis mine):

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.

Originally Posted by Siri

With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits".

Current model is 600/CMP: 600 teams at CMP / (0.5/100 qual rate) = 120,000 total teams
Future qual model: always 25% of teams (actually, I used 20% for the 60 number): 120,000 teams * .25 qual rate = 30,000 qual'd teams
Future CMP model: 400/CMPs*: 30,000 qual'd teams / 400 teams per CMP = 75 CMPs


*worth wondering how many venues and cities can actually support that.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."

It's still just as marketable as it was before. Saying that we're going to get to 60 world championships is a straw man, and really weakens his argument.

Speaking frankly, I don't think sponsors have any idea how many teams are in FIRST and what percentage make it to Worlds. I suppose if I asked them, they would give a number in the single digits maybe as high as 10%.

If I framed it to them as 1 in 4 teams make it, I don't suppose they would be all that impressed. I also imagine that they'd feel a little less guilty about not reaching for their wallet as they do now when they imagine an exclusivity aura that a single World Championship Event projects.

Dr. Joe J.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."

I think this is the root of the disagreement. On the one hand, some people want to have a level of qualification that every team can attend once every four years. On the other hand, some people want that level to be the "Championship experience". The problem is that at least one very important group wants both of those things to be true at the same time: FIRST HQ.

I'll discuss this with regard to more "-Splits", though I'm still not sure I want to project to the point where we're "having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship" (-post by Alex2614).* I think the more general question that comes from that post is: how long will having more Splits actually be sustainable for both goals? Right now two Splits is just an attempt (potentially successful) to split the baby between attendance and "Championship experience"--between number of inspired people and level of inspiration. In the long term the problem is still there: is it about what percentile you are in the organization, or about getting to be inspired by "the championship experience"? For ourselves, if we framed our Worlds bid as being 1 in 4, our sponsors would be as underwhelmed as Dr. Joe's. Money comes and kids go not because we're 1 in 4, but because it's an incredible experience and a chance to play and be ranked among the best in the world.

Personally, I keep wondering why the multi-Split vs Worlds experience have to be the same thing: if we've got more Splits in our future, be it 4 or 75, have the top teams qualify for Worlds and the next tier qualify for the Splits/Super Regionals. There's nothing that says Super Regionals and Worlds have to be in series as long as they're separate.


*For the record, my personal argument was that that's too far away to be worth talking about, but you [Alex] bring up that it's no so far away due to the growth curves. I haven't seen these(?) or run the numbers for myself yet, but I will. Do you have curves/data available? I'd like to run some numbers to get a better feel what we're facing.

[Taylor]

FRC is said to have been designed after the sporting model, and that is true. Sports are highly celebrated in our culture, and if you can't beat 'em, join em.
There have been spirited discussions, on this forum and others, about the validity of calling FRC a sport. It looks like the consensus says yes, FRC is a sport.
The breakdown comes from equating FRC with the wrong types of sports.

We instantly think of the Big 4 sports - Basketball, Baseball, Football, Hockey. But these are established, traditional, entrenched. The youngest of these, Basketball, has been around since 1891. That's five times as long as our precious FRC. Not only that, but going back to Dr. Joe's point, these sports are pervasive. They've captured Top Of Mind Awareness by being literally everywhere. Television (and other media) is a big part of this, but a bigger part is the fact that these sports are publicly played/discussed all year long.
Also, the Big 4 do have world championships, but there is a defined number of elite teams, and they're all bankrolled by million- or billionaires working closely with city, county, and state funding. They do the championship because they can.

What if we look at FRC as a sport, but compare it to other models that may more closely resemble the way FRC is set up?

At every FRC event (on- or off-season) I've ever attended or heard of, there is an awards ceremony at its conclusion. I've never seen awards handed out after a regular-season baseball, hockey, basketball or football game.

I have, however, seen this tradition with golf, horse racing, tennis, boxing, auto racing, marathons, swimming. With these sports, each event stands on its own; there are a series of large events that have a lot of prestige throughout the year but are roughly equal in weight. Racing has the Triple Crown; golf and tennis with the Grand Slam.

Yes, I understand that athletes may participate in multiple grand events, and that doesn't necessarily translate to FRC. This is where I, like Richard McCann, am reminded of the CFB Bowl Series.

Oh yeah - that paradigm has become obsolete. But it worked for a while, and only got replaced 140 years after the game was invented. We haven't even hit a quarter century yet.

Another issue is that with all the sports I mentioned above - they're all boutique activities. For eleven months a year, hardly anybody gives a rip about IndyCar. Horse racing? In May, everybody is an expert, but try to start a conversation in November and you'll get blank stares. Boxing relies on events called "The Fight of the Century" - that's literally once every five generations.
These niche sports are all woven into our culture, and for brief annual flashes, they capture the nation's imagination, but for the majority of the year, nobody cares about them.

That's where we are.

Only, as Dr. Joe says, we're not televised.

Once we've enchanted the masses, then a World Champion will be meaningful. But until then, we're just trying to be bigger than kayaking.

[magnets]

Every year our team's primary goal is to be a World Champion. Although we have failed many times to reach our goal, we never stop trying or set a lower goal. When we don't win, we look back and find the root cause of our failure, and try to correct it. At the end of the season, we reflect on what caused us to get eliminated, and how we should have avoided it. The students are always happy because they know they helped move the team closer to the ultimate goal, and that the team will keep trying long after they graduate.

With the championsplit, we only have one more opportunity to win a world championship. Although we probably wouldn't have won any world championships in the next 20 years if there wasn't a championsplit, we are slightly depressed.

FIRST was about a culture change, where STEM competitions are really exciting and popular. Sadly, it didn't really happen. The ESPN broadcasts were the closest we ever got, and over ten years later, we still haven't made too much more progress with television coverage. Have we given up trying to change the culture, and instead decided to try to give lots of kids a fun weekend?

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

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.

Lets see...

2015 Einstein

2/32 (6.25%) Were repeats
6/32 (18.75%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
21/32 (65.62%) Were first timers.

2014 Einstein

3/16 (18.75%) Were repeats
8/16 (50.00%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
8/16 (50.00%) Were first timers.

2013

0/12 (0.00%) Were repeats
1/12 (8.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
9/12 (75.00%) Were first timers.

2012

2/12 (16.67%) Were repeats
4/12 (33.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
4/12 (33.33%) Were first timers.

Doesn't look like we see the same teams year after year as you said. One could even say the opposite.

Originally Posted by Alex2614

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).

Many sports have athletes that repeat over and over again. People watch because of them. And there is always the "underdog" that makes it in and shocks people.

Originally Posted by Alex2614

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? .

Teams compete for success. For some teams that is winning worlds, for some not. Who are we to tell some other team exactly what their goal should be?

Originally Posted by Alex2614

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.

You are missing some info here. World Festival is by far the most coveted event. Biggest show, coolest teams by far. Other national events are inspiring, but they don't try to "hang off of" FLL world festival by saying there are "Two world championships" National event qualification isn't run by FIRST, it's by FLL people around the world making their own separate event. Picture several IRI's, run by community leaders. Very inspiring, but definitely not world championships. These are not comparable.

[MrRoboSteve]

I think this is a great conversation. Too busy at work to write a long response, but have a couple observations regarding this thread:

1. I suspect that FRC team count will reach equilibrium in the US in the next couple years, primarily because teams exist in nearly every location that can sustain a team. If team count levels out, what does that mean regarding future structure.

2. TV coverage of FRC, as entertainment, would be a sign that we've succeeded in changing our culture, but should not be a goal. We can be effective in changing our culture without that happening. Don't take that as me being opposed to a televised event -- I have started floating a proposal for an uber Champs event.

3. Up in the north country where I'm at, most teams will experience a net positive in inspiration as a result of the Championsplit. Our team and our sister team are already discussing including Champs visits in our event rotation, based on the increased size of the waitlist. We'd be doing it as a substitute for our second regional.