[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by jman4747

And I hinted at it before but as I think about it how is "Keeping attendance costs reasonable" so low? It bothers me.

Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

Going to Detroit, going to Houston, going to St Louis, it's all about the same distance for us, and a lot of other teams. Had I not known what the venues were, or were they to tell me to disregard the venue choice, I may have answered differently, but as it is cost isn't a big factor when the only difference will be whether we'll be 10 hours away in intense humidity, or 10 hours away in a just-thawed city.

This also brings up an interesting point: Had this survey been given out before the announcements, I guarantee we'd see a different set of responses, and some different priorities (cost reduction would've been higher priority, and one true champion would've been less important).

I hope the committee will come up with a solution for region locking so that I don't have to go on vacation to California and Washington to see some inspirational teams and my skunk buddies...

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

True. Ranking cost #4 could mean, at least and in no particular order:
- Cost doesn't matter to me.
- This split doesn't affect my costs as significantly as it affects other things I want to check off.
- If the CMP doesn't give me 1, 2, and/or 3, cost doesn't matter because because I'm not going to fundraise (even some minimum reasonable cost) to go--e.g. I'll go to another regional, or save it for IRI, or build a better robot, or put it in the bank, or...
- And probably at least several other reasons. No need to jump to conclusions about respondents.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by jman4747

What that data tells me is many think current costs could change (rise) to make the top 4 options happen. This means that those individuals are very confidant that they can pay even more to get what they really value which are the top 4 options. 5k plus travel (3-4K) is a lot to some of us still...

Yes, I guess you can also interpret that as "As long as I still get to see my friends / top teams / etc, I don't mind if the cost goes up a little bit." That is how I ranked the factors, but I did so knowing that there is some reasonable limit to how much costs will change, having some knowledge of what FIRST is planning or typically does. In this case, I know they are looking for some large American city. I am OK with the cost variability of travelling to large American cities. I answered the question keeping that in mind.

My answer might have been different if FIRST had said, say "To give you what you want, in one giant world championship, we will need to move the event to some other country".

[maths222]

To throw a bit of FTC perspective into this thread: I understand that most FRC participants don't care about seeing FTC and FLL, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't either if I participated in FRC. However, it is the other direction which is much more significant (at least from my perspective). One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

[northstardon]

My beef with the "Favor/Oppose 2 Championships" question is that it was asked without context (or, more charitably, that it was asked assuming that the respondents all knew that context). It's like asking people if they favor/oppose eating their vegetables.

Better questions might have been:

"Do you favor/oppose two championships, if FIRST brought the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion?"

or,

"Do you favor/oppose two championships that are tiered, with all of the highest-ranked, most competitive robots attending one of the two events to determine the one true champion?"

or,

"The highest number of teams that could be accommodated by a single championship event is 650. The total number of FRC teams is increasing each year. Do you favor/oppose two championships, knowing that the number of teams attending a single championship each year will (on a percentage basis) continue to decrease?"

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Because the survey asked respondents to choose their top N items. The decision to split the Championship has only minor effects on cost for most teams.

I'm working of the assumption that they are using the survey to see what they can change in both the near and far future to get people what they want. Money being 5th sounds like costs can go up for other things which for many they can't.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

You know what answer to this question didn't even make the top ten?

Having the "full progression of programs" at one event. (I can't remember the exact wording)

Yet...



#priorities

Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by maths222

One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

I enjoyed the brief tour of the FTC pits I got, but I was only able to go over to Union Station (taking one of the shuttles) because our FRC team was working on the FedEx Innovation Challenge which required us to go over there to complete a task. Otherwise I would never have bothered to visit. That's not being mean-spirited, it's just that I didn't even really know that FTC was going on over there until I got off the bus and walked in, and even if I had, it's far removed enough from the FRC "campus" that it was quite a bit of effort to get there, and between our matches and the conference sessions and Scholarship Row and the Innovation Faire and that darned merchandise line-up, I probably would not have been able to squeeze it all in.

Was the reverse true for FTC? Did a lot of the students make the shuttle trip over to check out what was going on in FRC?

And, this being my first year seeing it -- were FRC and FTC always this physically separated?

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by maths222

To throw a bit of FTC perspective into this thread: I understand that most FRC participants don't care about seeing FTC and FLL, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't either if I participated in FRC. However, it is the other direction which is much more significant (at least from my perspective). One of the biggest things that made the World Championship so special and different from other tournaments, like super-regionals, was the opportunity to see and interact with FRC teams and robots, and by splitting the programs, the FTC championships immediately feel less big and magical. This doesn't mean I support two championships, but it does mean that if there are to be two, some presence of the whole progression of programs seems valuable.

Very true but I think a model like what Alamo does where the FTC super-regional held at the same time as an FRC event would be a better model then have both the FTC and FRC champs at the same location. This would allow FTC team to interact with FRC teams (and more of them) without the FTC game being totally overshadowed by the FRC game.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

But we are the most visible and highest paying stakeholders here (by a wide margin). FIRST can pretend that doesn't matter... But it does.

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Was this survey open to FLL and FTC teams? Was it advertised to them? How about sponsors (both team and event)?

FRC members are not the only stakeholders here.

True but they are the only stakeholders FIRST seems to be interested in. FIRST has barely talked about the effect this will have FLL and FTC other then their stance that they will be at both champs. I haven't see any details on where they will play, how many teams will be invited to each champs, or how they will decide which teams will go to which champs.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

But we are the most visible and highest paying stakeholders here (by a wide margin). FIRST can pretend that doesn't matter... But it does.

My point was primarily to point out that the results for that question could be misleading, when the other stakeholders were not invited to participate in the survey.

Also, I'd say the program/event sponsors are the highest paying stakeholder here (by a wide margin).

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

My point was primarily to point out that the results for that question could be misleading, when the other stakeholders were not invited to participate in the survey.

Also, I'd say the program/event sponsors are the highest paying stakeholder here (by a wide margin).

Is that true? Do sponsors really contribute more funds than the combined team fees?

I honestly don't know. Would be curious to hear the numbers.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

And, this being my first year seeing it -- were FRC and FTC always this physically separated?

In 2014, FTC had its pits about where Archimedes pits were in 2015, and had playing fields on the dome floor. So, this significant separation is new.