[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward

[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.

[Rman1923]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

An alternative I've proposed: Stop the first event at the division winners, and take them to the second event the next week. Run full Einstein field with all of the division winners at the second event as part of the closing ceremony (which appears to be in different location than the competition site.)

Those at the second event get to see ALL of the top teams, and by alternating dates, each location gets to see ALL of the top teams every other year, and they get to see at least the 50% of the top teams every year.

There will advantages and disadvantages to each group of alliances but that already happens to a certain extent through random (vs seeded) assignment to divisions and random (vs seeded) qualifying scheduling.

I really like this idea as well, but I know teams will have issues paying for travel for two events, even if you alternate which champs go first every year.

As for DCMPs being replacements for champs, I can't honestly say MAR CMP is or ever will feel like champs. There, for me at least, is always a feeling of familiarity at MAR championships where I know what team is going to do well or not. I also know many people on other teams. Part of the appeal of champs, again, for me, is the feeling that you never know what you'll see, you meet and make new friends from all around the world and there is tons of anticipation and buildup to it.

Just my 0.02 dollars

[JB987]

The venue dates are already set, so wouldn't that mean Houston division winners would be forced to travel for 3 years straight while our friends in the midwest and northeast enjoy substantial cost savings (even if FIRST kicked in to defray costs for travel teams? Unfortunately, the only fair way (IMO) to have interaction between split champs is to have division winners from both 'championships' travel at another time which would be a huge cost in $$ and time for FIRST and the division winners. Would it really be worth it? Alternatively, would it really be worth it to just send the 'split champs' champion alliances to compete on another date to decide an overall 'world' champion alliance? I would love to be able to have a single champion alliance but it just doesn't seem reasonable as things stand now. And maybe having two 'champions' won't be as bad as many have postulated...or will it?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by JB987

And maybe having two 'champions' won't be as bad as many have postulated...or will it?

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

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by marshall

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

Likely the high school-ers 6 years from now won't even know the difference of pre-championsplit to post. Those mentors that do with have their rose-tinted glasses because lets face it, despite everything we perceive to be wrong with 2 championships, we still know the current format now is far from perfect.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Likely the high school-ers 6 years from now won't even know the difference of pre-championsplit to post. Those mentors that do with have their rose-tinted glasses because lets face it, despite everything we perceive to be wrong with 2 championships, we still know the current format now is far from perfect.

Doesn't logic like this rule out any and all improvement? People will just get used to whatever the new thing is, and all will be well.

[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.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Rman1923

I really like this idea as well, but I know teams will have issues paying for travel for two events, even if you alternate which champs go first every year.

I think FIRST would have to pay for it. No team has enough $ reserves to pay for a second trip on one week's notice. I expect it would cost about $150,000 for 4 alliances. That's less than 1 Regional (in California at least).

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

I don't have anything of statistical significance, no. I did text a few members of my senior class on 116 if they remember who won in 2007, and none of them did (with the exception of me, if that counts). One of them had even returned to mentor 116 afterwards.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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.

Fair enough. Maybe it isn't for you or your team. I can tell you that it is for me and mine. It's been a conversation we've had this season since it was announced and it's definitely going to be a drive towards success for this next season... beyond that, I'm uncertain.

[MichaelMcQuinn]

Even if there are two championships, no matter how diluted they are, teams will STILL try their hardest, and THAT is what motivates the kids.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Doesn't logic like this rule out any and all improvement? People will just get used to whatever the new thing is, and all will be well.

Not really, especially when the two championships can be a vehicle for improvement. Problems with the single championship includes a cap on the number of teams that can attend, the fact that it has never been the best of all teams, the limited number of matches teams have at championships, the format of the awards, the limited amount of time between week 7 and champs, and the lack of incentive for areas to go to districts to name a few.

Also since FIRST is paying attention to our solutions, as a community we have the ability to propose and debate the merits of new ideas. Apart from the two locations, FIRST has made it fairly clear that details still need to be worked out. While there may be pains right now, I believe ultimately it will work out for the best.

[Madison]

I don't really recall (nor care to recall, honestly) who won the Championship a month ago. That doesn't mean winning it isn't important to me.