ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

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.

My understanding, from what I have read and heard (after watching the Town Hall video), is that the reason why venues further west "didn't work out" wasn't because they didn't exist...it was because they were all booked out until 2020. From the town hall transcript:

Don Bossi: ...And so what I will say is in those areas in the southwestern and sort of western United States, those convention centers are actually completely booked out up until 2020 and beyond. We know, we’ve talked to everyone of them ad nauseam. We have begged, cajoled, and done anything we could to sweet talk it, but the honest to God truth is that those venues are really booked out far in advance.

Also...

Don Bossi: So again, our ideal probably would have been, I don’t know, let me say Phoenix (Steve Chism:Salt Lake actually), Salt Lake and Detroit, because they are sort of east coast, west coast, sort of north and south. There was absolutely nothing available over there so what we looked for was, I mean, what cities could accommodate our event.

There would have been no need to beg/cajole/do anything to secure a location further west if the issue was facility size, rather than availability during late April. And if Salt Lake City was considered big enough....

Colorado Convention Center, Denver: 54,300 m² of exhibition space
Phoenix Convention Center: 54,300 m²
Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis: 50,000 m2
Salt Palace, Salt Lake City: 47,800 m²
Minneapolis Convention Center: 44,100 m²....(and I'm sure that there are many others in the 40-50,000 m² range)

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

This is an interesting topic where I had thought the same thing also. I guess its a wait and see.

[Citrus Dad]

First, I commend Alex2614 for an excellent set of arguments for Championsplit. I'm not going to try to quote all of his points, but I am going to address a couple of central core premises.

The two premises that I am contending are 1) that FRC can continue to inspire with a more generalized participation concept rather than a competitive excellence model, and 2) that sponsors don't care about competitive scale and success.

On the competitive excellence, I've seen several great posts about the importance of competition in the FRC model. It's been alluded to, but I think the most important unique aspect of FRC is the competitive sports model. If FIRST had chosen a different approach, it would be veering into any number of other school science programs. We don't need more of those. Keeping our eye on what makes FIRST unique is most important. And at the core of that unique mission is competitive excellence. Diluting that competitive excellence too much dilutes our uniqueness. (And I've proposed several solutions that try to limit the dilution.)

I agree with Alex2614 that FIRST needs to expand the availability of Champs to more teams, but others have made the point that teams really turn over much more often than you might be aware. I think there's perhaps two dozen perennial powerhouses, and the other 376 to 576 teams move up and down the ranks and even churn in and out of Champs. Look at our alliance--only one team 118 had even been to Champs before 2011 (other than 1671 making it as a rookie in 2005). I don't see a problem going to 800 teams so long as the two events are well structured. The real issue is "why do the two events need to be co-equals?" If we have two levels of championships, and as Alex2614 asserts that competing for the single championship isn't important to his team, why is it important that the event his team attends have a championship that is equal to the other one? Why can't one of them have a different qualification system that brings together that year's top teams if we have as much turnover as we seem to have? Why not maintain FIRST's focus on competitive excellence which is it's core uniqueness?

And I will tell you from personal experience that making a selective Championship and winning a single World Championship does make a difference to our sponsors. We are in the midst of a whirlwind of press and community outreach efforts that did NOT happen last year or the year before when we won our divisions and played on Einstein. We are going to recognized by the State Senate and a meeting with state senator that wouldn't happen if we had won part of a multiple championship. The public understands "World" champion and sponsors want that cache. You're lying to your sponsors if you claim to be "world" champion after winning a championsplit event. That could badly damage everyone's credibility. I'm pretty sure that our largest sponsor, UCD, would be less interested in funding our competition fees if we weren't chasing a true world championship. They now have prestige that other universities can't dismiss. And we hope it makes other colleges and universities more motivated to catch up by sponsoring other teams. We have an opportunity to transform our success into a bigger statewide impact that "Southwest" champion will never carry.

Yes, only a few teams can expect to win Champs, but trying to attain it inspires many teams. The powerhouses have a credible chance each year, and their efforts inspire other teams. Trying to catch 254 (and we don't think for a moment we're there yet) is our local inspiration. 3824 might be your local inspiration. And in turn, we know that we inspire other regional teams, and given your success as evidenced by making the Hopper finals you do the same. And I know 254 is inspired by their very friendly rivalry with 1114--they traveled to Waterloo last year to compete against the best of the best. We have to keep in mind what motivates the very best teams if we want to keep the chain of inspiration going, which as EricH has pointed out needs recognition.

I'd like to see more of a rationale that having two, or multiple, coequal champs is key to driving inspiration rather than having two, or multiple, tiered championships. What I've seen so far is "FIRST HQ has made a choice to change the status quo dramatically, and we're OK with that because it might work." That's not a very inspiring argument. What is the proactive argument multiple coequal champions is key to inspiration?

Which brings me to rebutting Taylor's point:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

The fact is that a single event in each of the listed sports is considered supreme, and the other events reside just below them. Ask any athlete which they would prefer winning. In some cases, the supreme event happens only once every 4 years, which works for career athletes but not high schools students, but the principle is the same:

gold: Masters
horse racing: Kentucky Derby
tennis: Wimbeldon
auto racing (type matters): Indianapolis, Daytona
swimming: Olympics
marathons: (this is my sport) - it's gotten very muddled which is actually hurting the sport. The Olympics has become diluted due to a lack of a monetary purse. So this is good counterexample of how to ruin a positive model through dilution. Note also that marathoners can run only 1 or 2 fast efforts a year, so it's completely different from any of the others.

There are NO coequals to these events. The associated events are series championships that key off that one supreme event.

As for college football, it moved to the BCS format because it was losing ground to other sports with the lack of a single championship. Why not learn their lesson now rather than waiting 140 years?

Originally Posted by magnets

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?

I think a big part of FIRST's problem here is that it really hasn't grasped the difference in retail and business to business marketing. I posted in the Championship Survey thread about the problems with presentation. If groups of high school students can put on better webcasts, that means that FIRST should bring in real professionals to put together a top line package. When they do that, then ESPN or someone else will get a lot more interested. Right now grainy choppy images aren't a great selling point.

Which brings us to keeping our eye on the prize. Backing away from reengineering our culture is giving up. Trying to reach that goal is even more important to keeping the energy behind FIRST than competitive excellence.

[MrRoboSteve]

Are there any examples of national championships in High School sports/activities? The only examples I can think of national youth/sports championships are Spelling Bee and Little League.

All of the examples I see being discussed are at the adult level, where people have more control over their time and there are more financial resources available.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

...snip...
marathons: (this is my sport) - it's gotten very muddled which is actually hurting the sport. The Olympics has become diluted due to a lack of a monetary purse. So this is good counterexample of how to ruin a positive model through dilution. Note also that marathoners can run only 1 or 2 fast efforts a year, so it's completely different from any of the others.
...snip...

How is it hurting the sport? From what I can tell, the sport has had tremedous growth and appeal:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics

[Siri]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Are there any examples of national championships in High School sports/activities? The only examples I can think of national youth/sports championships are Spelling Bee and Little League.

All of the examples I see being discussed are at the adult level, where people have more control over their time and there are more financial resources available.

In high school I know of cheerleading (NHSCC), wrestling (NHSCA), and hockey. There's also baseball invitational, and Dick's runs national basketball championship. Soccer has it for multiple age groups, not sure about any others. I don't know how prestigious some of those are within their communities, but they certainly exist.

[meaubry]

Hi all, it’s been a while since I posted anything, but this subject peaked my interest. Especially reading some very well thought out posts and historical memories.

I used to be involved on Team 47, Chief Delphi - started in 1997 (that was a magical year for us).

The historical discussion is interesting in that I find as time went by and things changed, so did FIRST.

It started as US FIRST, and I recall the emphasis in a speech stating the United States was in big trouble because it was being projected, that there would be more jobs in Engineering, Science, and Technology that were upcoming candidates. The US was losing the battle to just “keep up”, let alone maintain it’s status or not fall further behind the rest of the world. The clear emphasis in the early years was focused on one country. Later, the focus drastically changed and spread and became worldwide.

That is one example of how and why - FIRST is like most other expanding organizations impacted by all sorts of outside pressures, and influences.
FIRST changed as it grew (scale and quantity of teams and events to manage) and matured (became more philosophical in behavioral expectations of the participants), to best assure that it can position itself to continue trying to achieve it’s mission.

The goal or mission of this organization also seems to have changed over time. In the early years, the mission and goal was less complex and less philosophical - regarding how to eliminate the ugly part of many sports. This being the “in your face”, “win and all cost”, “if you ain’t cheatin - you aren’t trying” behaviors and attitudes demonstrated in many facets of the sporting world in the present and past.

Even with gracious professionalism and good sportsmanship being the focus, there was still room back in the early years of FIRST, for celebrating being #1 seed - regardless of how much or how little anyone cooperated with each other on the game field. Teams were ranked by winning and seeding selection rewarded teams that won.

Imagine FIRST being confined to just the game reveal & kickoff, on the first Saturday in January - followed by a 6 week build time.
Then it ended, with no way to see how successful anyone’s specific design and strategy played out on the playing field.

I believe FIRST leveraged the sport competition model, simply a "means to an ends". It provided the hook that was needed to fulfill the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. It provided a way to further get people/teams involved, and to see how successful the 6 week game playing robot design and build process worked out. Stopping without competing would have been a monumental failure (or as some have said nothing more than a science fair experiment).

Robots driven by students from each team competing against each other, in a game revealed 6 short weeks earlier that included rules on what was allowed and not allowed in order to beat the other team(s). The outcome a game winner - as defined by the rules of the game and it ended in a sports based tournament structure used for centuries in almost every competition known to man.

Robot competing against robot -while crowds cheer wildly, sing, and dance just because it is okay and fun to do! That might just get a few people to sit up and take notice. Helping kids learn that there are opportunities after high school and college in fields of study and occupations that use the same skill sets. Yep, that might just work.

But, don’t overlook that the real inspiration isn’t solely based on the outcome of competition. Many students that we participated with, were inspired just by interacting with us and walking through “the process”. Many students were inspired by the fact that they could help build, help program, help think of strategy, help brainstorm ideas, and be part of “the team” or perhaps a member of the drive team that went out to play the game. Much more than a robot was involved, and in many cases it was actually simply a sidenote - because there were far more students not really inspired by a successful robot or a not so successful one, but instead by a very successful team of people that believed the idea of participating in that program was worth every second - and all the blood, sweat, and tears that they put into it.

In the end - We shared a common bond, no matter what role everyone played - we were all part of “the team”.

I’m hoping that as FIRST continues to grow and as multiple championship event sites are considered, that the focus is not on a need to crown a single champion, but instead on a ways to improve the overall experience so that knowing which team is the greatest - doesn’t really matter.

Mike Aubry

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And I will tell you from personal experience that making a selective Championship and winning a single World Championship does make a difference to our sponsors. We are in the midst of a whirlwind of press and community outreach efforts that did NOT happen last year or the year before when we won our divisions and played on Einstein. We are going to recognized by the State Senate and a meeting with state senator that wouldn't happen if we had won part of a multiple championship. The public understands "World" champion and sponsors want that cache. You're lying to your sponsors if you claim to be "world" champion after winning a championsplit event. That could badly damage everyone's credibility. I'm pretty sure that our largest sponsor, UCD, would be less interested in funding our competition fees if we weren't chasing a true world championship. They now have prestige that other universities can't dismiss. And we hope it makes other colleges and universities more motivated to catch up by sponsoring other teams. We have an opportunity to transform our success into a bigger statewide impact that "Southwest" champion will never carry.

I'm wondering...do you think there would have been any less recognition or interest in your team's success if, after winning a "championsplit" event in April, your team then went on to defeat the winning alliance from the other split event(s) in a subsequent summer competition (the kind of "battle of champions" idea that FIRST has seemed receptive to considering)?

I agree with the idea that sponsors might be more willing to open their corporate wallets when a team qualifies for a world championship, rather than when a team gets a wait-listed invite to a world "festival." But if this is the case, then wouldn't it be preferable to have a system that would give all 800 teams a chance of "chasing a true world championship?" Wouldn't it be better to give all 800 teams a chance to make that stronger sales pitch to their sponsors, rather than just the 400 within a tiered system? As long as there was a way of bringing the best of the best together to battle it out in a post-chamionsplit event, that possibility seems covered.

[David Lame]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

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.

You seem confident in this statement. I hope you are right.


This statement, though, is at the heart of the controversy. Just what is it about the season finale event that makes it so extraordinary? Is it the size of the event, or is somehow "world championship" a special phrase that, by itself, creates excitement?

Not many representatives of non-US countries correspond on Chief Delphi. I have to wonder what those people think of this move.


Anyway, I don't really know. I know there are tradeoffs, and it may be that more people going to a season finale event held at a stadium will really work, with or without a "world champion" title.

One final thought. An awful lot of people, including the post I'm replying to, seem to think that "the championship experience" is limited to the people inside the stadium. I really hope the error of that idea sinks in at least to the people in leadership positions.


ETA: And as long as I'm here, what do I, personally find inspiring? (As a fifty year old mentor, in case it matters.) I often tell people that I meet and describe First to, that I was the "brainy" kid in high school, and I did the "brainy" things. Speech. Debate. Chess.

There's nothing wrong with those events. I still play Chess. But, let's be real. BORING!!!! Two years ago, I went to a First event. (Actually, an "off season" event, much smaller, but obviously an offshoot of, First Robotics.) There was loud music. There were kids dancing. There were last minute, buzzer beating shots that put the whole crowd on their feet. This was amazing! I was hooked.

How does that affect championships? I'm not sure. I know, though, that I find myself really wanting to watch how my favorite teams are doing at the world championship, and I'm not sure I would bother at a half-championship. I'm not sure why. Rationally, there's not a lot of difference, but somehow it seems significant. I see an awful lot of comments these championship debates that are variations of, "You ought to think this is important, instead of that." Those comments don't sit well with me. People will respond according to human nature, not according to some idealized version of what we ought to think is important.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

<snip>
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.
<snip>

There are 20,000 (ish) high schools in the US. SO, yeah, FIRST FRC will reach an equilibrium in the US at some point but is that point going to be reached in the next couple (or even several) years? I don't think we're anywhere close to that point.

A few years back, when CA and MI were essentially tied for the most FIRST teams in a state at ~150 or so. I thought, well, CA is so much bigger, they have all those sexy SV start ups, they have a diverse high tech economy, their biggest employers are not going bankrupt, they're clearly going to leave MI in the dust. I didn't think MI could really expand much. In short, thought MI wasn't far from its FRC peak.

Years passed, CA now has 300+ teams. But to my surprise, MI has grown even faster still with 400+ teams.

Bottom line: I don't think we really know where FIRST is going to peak. With the right group of motivated people (I'm looking at you FiM), I don't see any reason FIRST FRC can't peak and something close to 20,000.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. Don't tell me that MI is a special case. Of COURSE it's a special case. Every state, country, continent is a special case.

Just to be clear, yes, MI had some advantages when it comes to supporting FIRST FRC teams but not everything in MI was a bed of roses. FiM was started when many of the states' biggest employers were filing for bankruptcy. There was every reason to lay down and die. But they didn't. They worked their butts off and fought and fought and got knocked down but then got up and fought some more. From my POV, the MI experience should give every region, state, whatever hope that they can make themselves a into special case.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IKE

How is it hurting the sport? From what I can tell, the sport has had tremedous growth and appeal:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics

The recreational participant level has increased, but that has NO tie to the competitive interest in the sport. The two strands have diverged. The participation rate has been growing continuously since the 1970s. On the other hand, obesity has been rising so even marathon participation hasn't created a lasting cultural change.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Siri

In high school I know of cheerleading (NHSCC), wrestling (NHSCA), and hockey. There's also baseball invitational, and Dick's runs national basketball championship. Soccer has it for multiple age groups, not sure about any others. I don't know how prestigious some of those are within their communities, but they certainly exist.

Add track and field and cross country. The New Balance Indoor (NYC) and Outdoor (Greensboro, NC) are the de facto national champs. (These are muddied a bit by the international definition of "juniors.") The individual cross country championship for decades is Footlocker (San Diego). Nike recently started a team championship (Portland) that even has a work around national high school federation rules.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by northstardon

I'm wondering...do you think there would have been any less recognition or interest in your team's success if, after winning a "championsplit" event in April, your team then went on to defeat the winning alliance from the other split event(s) in a subsequent summer competition (the kind of "battle of champions" idea that FIRST has seemed receptive to considering)?

Two answers to that: First, that we can tell them that we were in front of 20,000 spectators has huge impact every time I say it. That wouldn't be the case in a tail end event. Second, it already costs us over $20,000 to travel to St. Louis, of which half is airfare. And we travel with only the team members that we need to compete. That cost is a key reason why we don't go to IRI right now. Adding a second national event is very expensive.

Originally Posted by northstardon

I agree with the idea that sponsors might be more willing to open their corporate wallets when a team qualifies for a world championship, rather than when a team gets a wait-listed invite to a world "festival." But if this is the case, then wouldn't it be preferable to have a system that would give all 800 teams a chance of "chasing a true world championship?" Wouldn't it be better to give all 800 teams a chance to make that stronger sales pitch to their sponsors, rather than just the 400 within a tiered system? As long as there was a way of bringing the best of the best together to battle it out in a post-chamionsplit event, that possibility seems covered.

First, I think it's critical to have a single event to arrive at a single champion if it requires traveling out of state to any event. A district championship model would greatly reduce those costs, so that option might work. As I said, travel costs are a huge barries to multiple events.

So given that a single event is critical, it's not possible to have 800 teams at a single event. I agree with FIRST on that point. So given those two constraints, it's not readily possible to allow 800 teams to compete for the championship on a single year. That's why we've proposed different formulations for a two-tiered championship.

The post championsplit championship undermines the single most attractive aspect for FIRST of publicizing its event to the broader culture--that 20,000 people are screaming in the stands watching Einstein. The media LOVES events with large vocal crowds. Competing in high school gym in front of several hundred spectators just doesn't cut it.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by David Lame

ETA: And as long as I'm here, what do I, personally find inspiring? (As a fifty year old mentor, in case it matters.) I often tell people that I meet and describe First to, that I was the "brainy" kid in high school, and I did the "brainy" things. Speech. Debate. Chess.

There's nothing wrong with those events. I still play Chess. But, let's be real. BORING!!!! Two years ago, I went to a First event. (Actually, an "off season" event, much smaller, but obviously an offshoot of, First Robotics.) There was loud music. There were kids dancing. There were last minute, buzzer beating shots that put the whole crowd on their feet. This was amazing! I was hooked.

How does that affect championships? I'm not sure. I know, though, that I find myself really wanting to watch how my favorite teams are doing at the world championship, and I'm not sure I would bother at a half-championship. I'm not sure why. Rationally, there's not a lot of difference, but somehow it seems significant. I see an awful lot of comments these championship debates that are variations of, "You ought to think this is important, instead of that." Those comments don't sit well with me. People will respond according to human nature, not according to some idealized version of what we ought to think is important.

I want to add a bit to David's point. Here I'll interject that I'm a professional economist so I think a lot about the difference between what people "ought to do" and what they "really do." Almost universally, people need incentives (both positive and negative) to do what we as a community want them to do. In some ways, social norms can drive behavior, but those move very slowly and still have uneven effects. I believe that FIRST has used two unusual incentive structures to create an atmosphere of coopertion. The first is the rotating qualification alliances. Other teams are both opponents and cooperants. This arrangement is truly unique and powerful. The second is the Chairman's Award. Even if teams don't win, many still make an effort. And it creates a social norm that even non submitting teams follow.

So FIRST needs to consider its incentives in moving forward in redesigning the championships. Unfortunately, I don't always see that elements of FIRST (e.g., the GDC) really think through the incentives. This year's game is exhibit A. I'm concerned that championsplit is Exhibit B.

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Years passed, CA now has 300+ teams. But to my surprise, MI has grown even faster still with 400+ teams.

MN has nearly 200 teams this year, more than the 156 Varsity HS Hockey teams (hockey is very big in MN). Note that MN has more FRC participation per capita than any other state, I believe, so CA and MI have some catching up to do to get where MN is.

I think there is a ton of FRC growth potential, even within MN, especially for more rural school districts-- although FTC may be more appropriate-- that's growing as well.