[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

I would love to hear why a two-tier Championship model wouldn't work.

I disagree with the label "Poverty Champs." I'd rather call it "stepping stone," or "redemption" Champs.

1) Prestige - One event would mean more, it'd be where the sponsors put out their A game because, let's be honest, the top tier teams more than likely spend more and push equipment harder. Recruiters and media would be more likely to be in attendance. And sponsors would want their names associated with the A champs instead of redemption.

2) Qualifying - Teams would be offended they were "relegated" to B Champ. And how would you determine it? Would it be 3rd picks? EI/RaS winners? Point System? None of those are completely fair. And where do CA winners end up?

3) Locations - Part of the incentive for 2Champz is cost savings for teams (I think this is horse crap). This defeats it completely.

[iVanDuzer]

I believe my ideal solution (posted above) addresses a lot of these points by emphasizing multiple, local "second tier" "Super-Regional" Championships.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

1) Prestige - One event would mean more, it'd be where the sponsors put out their A game because, let's be honest, the top tier teams more than likely spend more and push equipment harder. Recruiters and media would be more likely to be in attendance. And sponsors would want their names associated with the A champs instead of redemption.

Local sponsors and local universities can advertise at their local Super Regional. For example, I've walked up and down Scholarship Row at St Louis, and I have never seen a single Canadian University there, despite many offering FIRST-specific scholarships (York, Waterloo, Western, Windsor for sure - I'm not really looking for scholarships anymore so I don't know what's out there). There would be space for these schools at a hypothetical Canada / Michigan / New York Super-Regional.

Similar case for local sponsors. There's not really an incentive for a corporation located almost entirely in Michigan to pay for an event in Missouri, but put a big event next door and they might be interested.

Since these local schools and sponsors no longer need to compete with the "big dogs" for advertising and/or speech time at Champs, they get to be headliners at these smaller, more local events. I would hazard a guess that, if FIRST ran with multiple Super Regionals, they would see an influx of sponsors (especially if their sponsorship scale shifted accordingly).

Alternatively, FIRST could allocate money spent for Champs towards the Super-Regionals. Sort of a "if you want to sponsor our Big Show, you have to also help our Slightly Smaller Show" deal. This definitely isn't an ideal situation, but it is a model that is used.

2) Qualifying - Teams would be offended they were "relegated" to B Champ. And how would you determine it? Would it be 3rd picks? EI/RaS winners? Point System? None of those are completely fair. And where do CA winners end up?

There would be basically three types of teams at these Super Regionals:

1) Teams in the ~30 Percentile who wouldn't make it to Champs, regardless of whether we're using the current model or the Championsplit (FIRST wants 25% of FRC teams each year, but as shown elsewhere in this thread, having a Champs with 25% of all FRC means having a ton of repeats, so very few teams make it every four years anyways). These teams should jump at the opportunity to have post-season play and a Champs experience.

2) The Teams that should be at Champs but don't quite make it. These are the "redemption" teams. As the system currently stands, these are the teams that make it to the finals and lose, while missing out on Wildcard spots. The current reactions can either be unmotivating disappointment (we tried so hard but didn't make it, what's the point?) or motivation (we came so close, and we'll make it next year). In either case, the existence of a lower-tier Championship does nothing to change this current dichotomy, so I would argue it's a moot point: some teams will be disappointed, other teams will come out guns a-blazing trying to prove they're a force to be reckoned with.

Sidenote, generally speaking, the teams that make the biggest splashes at IRI are the ones who feel "shafted" at Champs. For example, 2056 winning in 2014 after being knocked out in the QF (their worst showing). Or 469, who put on a clinic on winning in 2010 after losing on Einstein with arguably the best robot ever built for an FRC game. This would apparently support my idea that most teams would jump at the opportunity for redemption.

3) The "Non-competitive" teams. The third picks, the "carried" robots, the RAS, the Engineering Inspiration winners that don't have a "competitive" robot. This is the only group that would feel "offended" that they're at this event, I think. However, winning an event could still net a butt-load of points that, paired with a decent qualification record, would be worth a ticket to Worlds.

In terms of qualification, one of the things I like most about the District system is the points system, so I would love to adapt a points system to the Regional Model. In terms of Chairman's, I would love to say "all Chairman's Teams should end up at the Tier One Event." I think that winning Chairman's would net a bunch of points, but unless you have a semi-decent robot (say, Semi-Finals at a regional, OR decent seeding, depending on how the points work out), then you wouldn't qualify for the Championship Event. A similar structure should be implemented for RAS and EI, although they'd need better on-field performance to qualify. Basically, winning any of these big awards should make it easier for you to get into the top-tier event. I firmly believe in the worth and value that Chairman's, RAS, and EI teams bring to the Championship event.

In terms of accidentally stopping a Chairman's team who would win the CCA from attending Worlds... this is again another issue. BUT I don't think it's a huge issue, given that, traditionally, the Hall of Fame teams are competitive on the field as well and generally would have an easy time qualifying even without their automatic HoF status.

Additionally, teams that qualify "twice" should probably get an automatic invite to the top event. This includes multiple event winners, but also teams that win Chairman's at their first regional, and then EI at their second, or a rookie that wins multiple RAS. Or a team that wins an event and also wins Chairman's. These teams would probably have qualified anyways, but it's good to solidify their place.

One issue with a points system is that in Districts, you get points between two events. Until FIRST goes completely to districts, I think the point system should count for each team's most-successful event. Yes, this is unfair in favour of the teams that can afford to attend multiple events, but so is the current system. I think the best thing, in terms of fairness, would be for all of FIRST to convert to the District System, but until that happens, we have to work with imperfect systems.

The Districts would still use their current qualification model.

3) Locations - Part of the incentive for 2Champz is cost savings for teams (I think this is horse crap). This defeats it completely.

Right now the cost savings "excuse" is horse crap, I agree. But if FIRST were to expand the second-tier Championship model and include multiple second-tier champs, then the events would actually be local, and therefore would actually save teams money.

The locations for a 200 team event would be much easier to find. For example, such an event could be held at the Hershey Centre in Mississauga, Ontario (previous home of the Greater Toronto Regional). It would be very cozy, but the teams would probably fit. I would assume that there are plenty of other venues that would be good for a competition of this size scattered throughout Canada and the US.

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

In terms of Chairman's, I would love to say "all Chairman's Teams should end up at the Tier One Event." I think that winning Chairman's would net a bunch of points, but unless you have a semi-decent robot (say, Semi-Finals at a regional, OR decent seeding, depending on how the points work out), then you wouldn't qualify for the Championship Event. A similar structure should be implemented for RAS and EI, although they'd need better on-field performance to qualify. Basically, winning any of these big awards should make it easier for you to get into the top-tier event. I firmly believe in the worth and value that Chairman's, RAS, and EI teams bring to the Championship event.

Isn't there some conflict between a tiered model that relegates CA winners to the lower tier event and the fact that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award that a FRC team can win? If regional/district CA winners with "semi-decent" robots qualify for Tier 1, and the other CA winners are in Tier 2, then how would you go about determining a CCA? Would there still be HOF teams?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by northstardon

Isn't there some conflict between a tiered model that relegates CA winners to the lower tier event and the fact that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award that a FRC team can win? If regional/district CA winners with "semi-decent" robots qualify for Tier 1, and the other CA winners are in Tier 2, then how would you go about determining a CCA? Would there still be HOF teams?

I think he's saying that a Chairman's award AND a semi-decent robot should be necessary, but a Chairman's Award alone shouldn't be enough. However, I'd guess the Chairman-winning teams with a bottom tier robot are few and far in between; the type of program that earns a Chairman's Award correlates strongly to the type of program that will put out a quality machine.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by northstardon

Isn't there some conflict between a tiered model that relegates CA winners to the lower tier event and the fact that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award that a FRC team can win?

I do believe there is. HOWEVER, I think that that is primarily because certain people absolutely insist on having "tiered" events rather than geographically-apportioned events. Remember, folks, always choose the LESSER of two evils (if you have a choice, which I'm pretty sure we DON'T).

If regional/district CA winners with "semi-decent" robots qualify for Tier 1, and the other CA winners are in Tier 2, then how would you go about determining a CCA? Would there still be HOF teams?

Probably about the same way you'd do it under the "even-tier" system. Each event contributes one. And of course they'd be HoF teams. Think about it this way: Is [insert sport here]'s Hall of Fame cheapened by the addition of X players/year instead of just 1, when there are about 5X players that are probably deserving? Course not. And, just to drive the point home: There are about 60 RCA/DCMPCA winners per year right now. 1/60 is a shade under 2% of all current regional/district champs winners. For reference, that's about how many Boy Scouts make Eagle in any given year. Pick 2 instead of 1, that's 3% or so. It just means that it's a slightly bigger crowd in there.

And if you're giving double the CCAs, that should mean more inspiration from (and for) those teams, and definitely means more recognition (within FIRST) for one or both of their efforts. Now that, I think, is a win-win--might even be something that should be done anyways. Bring back the CCA Honorable Mentions!

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by EricH

I do believe there is. HOWEVER, I think that that is primarily because certain people absolutely insist on having "tiered" events rather than geographically-apportioned events. Remember, folks, always choose the LESSER of two evils (if you have a choice, which I'm pretty sure we DON'T).

Well, I'm still under the impression that a two-tiered system (where there are multiple tier-two events) IS the lesser of two evils

And if you're giving double the CCAs, that should mean more inspiration from (and for) those teams, and definitely means more recognition (within FIRST) for one or both of their efforts. Now that, I think, is a win-win--might even be something that should be done anyways. Bring back the CCA Honorable Mentions!

I like this. The Chairman's Award judging process is always so nebulous and opaque. Giving teams a "runner's up" nod would go a long way to transforming many of these already-great programs into Hall of Fame worthy, astronomically inspiring programs.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Well, I'm still under the impression that a two-tiered system (where there are multiple tier-two events) IS the lesser of two evils

That whole "multiple" part is where I can agree, somewhat--if you look at my other posts, I actually advocate scrapping DCMPs AND any "extra" championships for super regionals once enough areas go district. Just that some folks seem to be thinking that there are two CMPs, therefore there must be tiers between the two.


To be clear, where I see FIRST given enough time: "local" event (district) x2 -> Super Regional (x some number TBD) -> Championship. Possibly sneak a "state" championship in there somewhere. Super Regionals get a lot of the attention CMP currently gets--conferences, etc.--and CMP is the best of the best, for both competition and CCA/EI. WITH their robots!

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

1) Prestige - One event would mean more, it'd be where the sponsors put out their A game because, let's be honest, the top tier teams more than likely spend more and push equipment harder. Recruiters and media would be more likely to be in attendance. And sponsors would want their names associated with the A champs instead of redemption.

2) Qualifying - Teams would be offended they were "relegated" to B Champ. And how would you determine it? Would it be 3rd picks? EI/RaS winners? Point System? None of those are completely fair. And where do CA winners end up?

3) Locations - Part of the incentive for 2Champz is cost savings for teams (I think this is horse crap). This defeats it completely.

4) Inspiration - The "A" Championship would probably contain most all of the "elite" or "inspirational" teams that other teams want to see/compete against/be inspired by. If that's the most important aspect of a "championship experience" for a team, then how enthusiastic are they going to be about settling for second best (but paying just as much)? I'm going to guess that the "elites" and a lot of the "almost-elite" teams that just miss qualifying for an "A" championship will decline the invitation to "B," and save their money in the hope of qualifying for the top tier next year. Which would mean that there would be an even bigger competitive gap between the two events, and even less "inspiration" at the B event.

[Gregor]

A quote from Dean at 4:07 in this video.

Originally Posted by Dean Kamen

I think that most of the kids here in a year or two will not remember which robot won, they will not care which robot lost...

That pretty much settles it.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Gregor

A quote from Dean at 4:07 in this video.

That pretty much settles it.

He really said that? I'm afraid he's lost touch with the program.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Gregor

A quote from Dean at 4:07 in this video.



That pretty much settles it.

I remember every robot that won Einstein since I started participating in FRC. Then again, I may be not your average robotics dude.

I'm an avid sports fan as well, but don't remember who won the super bowl last year, or the college football national championship 3 years ago. I'm not sure if we can apply a greater context to that quote.

[JesseK]

Heavy Sigh. I wish there were a better option than abstaining from the survey. This is the exact crap my company just pulled to skew data in order to convey to 17,000 employees that a "majority" want a 9/80 schedule. It's the same conclusion too, ironically: only 33% of the total favor it.

My Decision Theory Professor would put heavy red marks all across this blog post and give it a 'D' as a paper. She might not have even accepted the original survey for turn-in. '5' cannot be 'neutral' if there are 4 options below it representing 'against' and 5 options above it representing 'for'. There is also no analysis given for whether or not the survey represents statistical significance, but I applaud the effort to analyze on a per-team basis (just keep in mind that 5.2 isn't "in favor"...).

These are the game politicians play. Luckily, we're engineers.

Fundamentals, people.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Heavy Sigh.
....
My Decision Theory Professor would put heavy red marks all across this blog post and give it a 'D' as a paper. She might not have even accepted the original survey for turn-in. '5' cannot be 'neutral' if there are 4 options below it representing 'against' and 5 options above it representing 'for'. There is also no analysis given for whether or not the survey represents statistical significance, but I applaud the effort to analyze on a per-team basis (just keep in mind that 5.2 isn't "in favor"...).

Super, you are the guy we are looking for. Put together a poll with similar questions, but the correct range of possible answers. Then post it on survey monkey and put the link here. Take results for 10 days and report back your findings!!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

I remember every robot that won Einstein since I started participating in FRC. Then again, I may be not your average robotics dude.

I'm an avid sports fan as well, but don't remember who won the super bowl last year, or the college football national championship 3 years ago. I'm not sure if we can apply a greater context to that quote.

Anupam, I can say for certain that you're not an average robotics dude (nor are you a student ). Don't take CD's investment in the on-the-field success as total community's investment in the on-the-field's success. What Dean said is 100% true. The majority of student won't remember who won on the field in a couple years. Chief Delphi will remember, but Chief Delphi is only a small portion of our community.

Originally Posted by marshall

It's demotivating... that's for certain.

Is it? For the vast majority of FRC it won't change any motivations. The vast majority of teams don't have that on their radar when deciding their motivations, and plenty more will still be motivated to win the highest level awards they possibly can. I don't buy that's "for certain" at all.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

What Dean said is 100% true. The majority of student won't remember who won on the field in a couple years.

Do you have empirical evidence for this statement for students who attended Champs (which is only a small proportion of all student in FRC)? Dean was talking about Champ attendees, and they are more invested than the average FRC participant (and I agree from most of them they won't even KNOW who won much less remember.) I assert with at least as much evidence as you have that those who attended will remember who won for a fair amount of time, or at least will need little prompting to remember.