ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.

Originally Posted by IKE

I am not saying that the Lamborghini should not be inspiring (I prefer Viper), just maybe you might want to look a little harder about what inspiration 100 minivans could provide. ...Your Mileage May Vary...

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Do you value that more or less than having one champion?

Why is this a comparison that has to be made?

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Why is this a comparison that has to be made?

Because you linked the two here

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

You're implying that:

1. This split alienates a portion of the community here: "Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community."

2. That this is enough to have those teams quit (here: "and losing even a percentage of them") and stop doing the "inspiration and training of the community".

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Because you linked the two here

You're implying that:

1. This split alienates a portion of the community here: "Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community."

2. That this is enough to have those teams quit (here: "and losing even a percentage of them") and stop doing the "inspiration and training of the community".

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.



You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

[Rachel Lim]

Most of what I'd say in response to this discussion I've already said in my post about why we care about the competition aspect of FRC but I thought I'd add in a bit more.

People care about winning. They want to be the best. I'd argue it's a natural instinct that came out of the desire to survive. Whatever it is, that desire to be the best drives people to do more than they'd ever do otherwise. It drives innovation to happen faster than it would ever happen otherwise. In FRC it creates the very top teams.

Instead of trying to work against that view, why can't FIRST use it to their advantage? Use the fact that people are competitive to bring the program farther than it would ever go otherwise. They've been doing it for a long time--it's what sets FIRST apart from most other STEM programs.

Originally Posted by jman4747

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

I'm going to ask you something: if aiming for the top is what has been pushing teams on, and what has created the powerhouse teams, do we want to lose that?

FRC as a program will go on without them. Even if (and I don't believe this will happen, but just imagine) the top 10 or 20 teams suddenly disappeared, the program isn't going to just collapse. But FRC as we know it will not be the same, and not in a good way.

So much of the awe, inspiration, and "how is that even possible?" I felt this year came from watching the top teams. Staying up to watch 148's reveal over and over (and it came out at like 11pm), reloading CD until 254 posted their reveal, looking through all the pictures and videos of 1114 my friends and I could find to try and figure out how their robot worked, watching the webcasts as 2056 won their 22nd regional in a row, plotting data to see how high an OPR of 158 really is, talking to various teams at champs, watching the matches on Einstein...if these experiences were possible because of the desire to be the top--and some teams getting there--is that bad?

I'll be a senior when the split champs is implemented. The rookies who join that year will not experience a single championship as a student. Do I think FRC will drastically change in 2017 just because of that change? Yes and no. I don't think everyone is suddenly going to stop trying to do their best. But I do think something will change. At the very least we won't be seeing those final matches played out in front of everyone at champs, and I think the changes go deeper than that. They may not know what is missing, I may not know what is missing--we may never know exactly what we've lost. I can imagine, but will never know, what it's like to have champs without divisions, and I think this is a larger change than that.

Losing the top to benefit the bottom isn't a trade we should be looking at, not when there's a way to help everyone. I'll say it again: 2021, districts > DCMPs or super regionals > single champs. Both levels of inspiration, less traveling for a larger competition, less expensive per competition, more sustainable, etc.

[Knufire]

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

Since some of the top 1% also helps run local organizations and events, you don't have to worry about needing new teams or KVs when there are no events to go to!

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

I would instead say that FIRST Board of Directors is removing the current source of motivation that pushes many teams ("elite" and "non-elite") forward.

Teams have the choice to re-establish this source of motivation and teams have the volunteer capacity to make it happen by 2017.

-Mike

[Lil' Lavery]

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

[waialua359]

As stated earlier by others, the 1% represents a greater significant amount of influence and inspiration than the percentages suggest.
When you look at who these teams are, many of these programs were started a long time ago, or consists of mentors that came from other programs from much earlier. These mentors (many of which are former students) are critical for FIRST to succeed and grow.
In looking much deeper, it would be interesting to further research how these veterans became involved with FIRST. I always thought the majority of the best teams that succeed in the competition aspect still do so today because of how they became involved in FIRST initially.
When 359 and 368 first formed in Hawaii, it was not a random selection. We both were successful in racing electric cars as part of the Electrathon Marathon competition since 1996 and when FIRST was looking to expand to Hawaii, the STEM figureheads in Hawaii looked to both of our schools first.
Other examples include:
148 who is an original team and their partnership with IFI-sponsored team.
610 and 1114 consists of mentors who were from 188, the 1st Canadian FRC program.
118, 233, 254, 399 are veterans for FIRST due to their association with NASA centers.
67, 33, etc. have GM, Chrysler, and other big industry roots.
Tons of other inspiring programs of which the list goes on and on.

These generous, outstanding mentors are your stakeholders. Inspire and support them and they will ultimately make FIRST a better program year after year.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

I'm saying that the we shouldn't be framing the conversation in the form of "Inspiration versus competitiveness".

Ideally, we can find ways to increase both inspiration and competitiveness. But when the worldview of many is that these two are direct tradeoffs, such solutions won't be explored and found.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

Originally Posted by jman4747

Those are two different tasks. How is the competition structure related to community enrichment other than the fact of their being a competition is why you may have started doing that work? Are you saying that splitting championships thus prevents that sort of work?

It comes across like anything not directly related to the competition being valuable to you is solely dependent on winning and how important the victory is. I wouldn't think that would be the case.

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery that they have seen before in other threads where I've posted: Based on my 30 years of professional education and work experience, people do NOT do what they OUGHT to do just because we expect them to do so. They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so. People do not voluntarily reduce their air pollution by driving less voluntarily; they only do so through a combination of higher gasoline prices and enforced automotive technologies. Charities know that their contributions will decrease dramatically if the charitable deduction is removed from the tax code. If you can provide real, not speculative, counterexamples, then I might accept your premise that elite teams will continue to compete and contribute at their current levels simply because they the community believes that they ought to.

Originally Posted by jman4747

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

Originally Posted by BrennanB

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

BrennanB is on point. Again, Kamen's brilliant insight was "why fight what our cultural worships? Why not use that cultural pathway already blazed by someone else to promote STEM?

Some of our best marketing geniuses work in the sporting world. Did you know that Nike's "Just Do It" was started 27 years ago? Nike uses the success of the very best athletes to market to masses. They are HUGE dominant sponsors in most sports, and they are the dominant sporting goods company. Why would we think that FIRST has a better thought on how to reach the masses?

Remember the mission of FIRST is NOT to reach just the current team members or those who would go into STEM in any case. They are trying to bring a broader group into STEM. While you might say we are different sports, I don't see the rationale for why we should use a different marketing approach than sports. Why not use the most successful model and build on that?

An additional point that I've made before: We already have other organizations that promote STEM through less or non competitive activities. Why should FIRST move away from its unique and seemingly successful niche? Is there some type of encroachment that threatens the existence of FIRST that I'm not aware of? And even so, isn't our overall goal promotion of STEM and shouldn't we stand aside if someone else has a better widget?

I'm not seeing the compelling argument that says that FIRST should diverge from its current product; only that teams that use competition as motivation should accept a less motivational format that is somehow more inspirational in an unstated way. The counter argument seems to be that many would prefer to be at an event with (the same every year) half of the now less motivated elite teams rather than being at either an event with highly motivated elite teams plus an event with equally motivated not quite as elite teams. I'm not seeing why the former is more inspirational than the latter.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

The general public wants competition and excitement. There is no reason an increase in competition has to lead to a decrease in sportsmanship (aka GP). By hinting that GP can only be maintained with competition being sub-servant sends the message to students that they can't be competitive AND have GP.

Adam is reiterating what I've already posted earlier here. The INSPIRATION that other teams get derives substantially from the COMPETITIVENESS that drives the elite teams. Do you remember the excitement last fall around Chezy Champs? My take was that there were many following it on CD who were not attending? Who put that on? The World Champion Cheesy Poofs. Do you think that they would have made the effort to gather those teams if they hadn't been inspired by their own success? Do you think that even the lowest placing team was inspired by that competition? I think someone needs to provide an example of how reducing 254's incentive for excellence improves the inspiration that other teams derive from 254's efforts.

Originally Posted by NoahTappen

In Michigan we have a similar format to two championships for FLL. Both teams address themselves as state Champs. And the only problem is the fact that only one team goes to the FIRST Championship. It doesn't make the competition any less competitive.

Also Imagine years down the road when there is a North North American Championship, a South South American Championship, a European Championship, a South American Championship, an East Asian Championship, a Pacific Championship, And a North African Championship. Then we will have a need for a "World Championship" but having more competitions doesn't take away from a competitive nature it only allows more people to be exposed to FIRST and encourage growth in STEM fields.

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

And championsplit is not about creating continental championships (which would be inevitable.) FIRST HQ has not shown any indications that heading that direction is behind their decision, so I heavily discount that motive.

Originally Posted by Taylor

To steal the conclusion from the Mentor-Driven vs Student-Driven Team debate:
It depends on what works best for your team. YMMV.
It is my opinion that HQ is trying to find a solution that works the best for the most teams.
Some may feel alienated; some may disagree with aspects of the proposed solution; some may have 'better' ideas. But HQ is trying to work toward (what it believes is) the greater good, and I can respect that.

This is not about what is best for an individual team or what individual teams decide. We are working as a cooperative community across all teams, and the the larger point is that FIRST is trying to inspire the entire culture. (The Mentor v Student Led debate is only germane to individual teams that have already been formed.) And as a community, many of us are questioning if FIRST HQ understands what is best for the greater good. As members, we should not just stand back and leave what we think is a harmful decision be made by HQ--we're speaking out.


See my preface above. Your are asking teams to what they OUGHT to do, not what the community has given them the INCENTIVE to do. When those run at cross purposes, incentives will trump.

Originally Posted by IKE

Which is more inspiring, owning any lamborghini, or:

Ike's story made me ask a question which I think demonstrates my point. Why does Dodge build the Viper, when it has already invented one of the most successful and wide selling passenger vehicle types, the mini-van? Simple answer: Dodge needs a hot singular, identifiable car to inspire through this imagery a desire to buy its mini-vans. The chain of inspiration may not be immediately obvious, but the auto marketing gurus, who are the other hugely successful marketers along with sports, have made that connection. Dodge probably makes almost no money on the Viper. (I'll bet it actually loses money.) But having a noticeable car attracts attention to the rest of its car line. Having a "World Champion" is FRC's Viper that helps it sell all of its new FRC rookie team mini vans.

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

I'm afraid this could really happen if we lose the motivation for the elite teams. I've seen what those teams do in action. (If anyone thinks of including us in that group, understand that we're really late comers to this.) There is a chain of causation. It may not be obvious to you, but its there. Dean's great insight was seeing it in front of him. Let's not lose it.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

Because while the majority of FLL teams may not be run by students, The ones that actually make it to champs are largely student run (aside from administrative tasks) FLL's top level is comparable to some extent. The bottom level however is not.