# of Divisions at Championships

[Lil' Lavery]

Does Dean refer to Championship as the Super Bowl of Smarts? Or FRC in general?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by InFlight

The stated reason to going to two championships was to give more teams the championship experience and to accommodate growth. The experience is being emphasized over competition. Many dislike that fact but it is the direction FIRST is going. Eventually with team grow the quality of completion will improve, but it will be a different experience for all involved.

1) I fail to see the gracious professionalism in cheating your way through the playoffs with altered balls. Cough. Cough.

2) No team name needed.

I'm WELL aware of FIRST's stated reason. However, having never attended championship with a team that didn't at least have a semi competitive robot I don't know what teams who aren't semi competitive (i.e. lose wheels) find fun at Championship. I've never enjoyed feeling outclassed.

1) Former Michigander here - wait, there's more than 1 playoff game?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

You know, it bugs me a bit when people talk about "quality of robot/competition", like it's a bad thing that not everyone at champs has a perfect robot. I think it really misses the point of the whole competition - rookies, smaller teams, worse performing robots can all gain inspiration from being at an event with better teams. Teams of all flavors can gain experience, friendships, and show and receive recognition from teams from across the country and the world. It's one thing to play at your local even with pretty much the same teams every year. It's something completely different to play in an environment where you don't know everyone.

Is Champs all about the robot, or is it about Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology? Those teams that only get to go to champs rarely, if ever, can find it a transformational experience. Those teams that are always in contention for Einstein may not see the event as inspirational when they look around at glorified kit bots... but maybe that's because they're supposed to be the inspiration.

Instead of bemoaning how "watered down" champs is becoming, we should be trying to figure out how to make the event great for every team there.

I think the discussion of 4@100 vs 8@50 is directly related to the quality of experience teams can have at either of the postseason expositions. Pros and cons of each of these layouts and the ones in between have been discussed (and have not yet been discussed to the length that might be merited here). Drawing from the well of "bad robots are great for FIRST" is tangential to the conversation here and comes off as bait (that some of the posts between this one and yours have unfortunately taken). Bad robots have been at the Championship Events since 1992. Teams with a volatile pool of resources usually have not been catered to in these events. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by InFlight

The stated reason to going to two championships was to give more teams the championship experience and to accommodate growth. The experience is being emphasized over competition. Many dislike that fact but it is the direction FIRST is going. Eventually with team grow the quality of completion will improve, but it will be a different experience for all involved.

1) I fail to see the gracious professionalism in cheating your way through the playoffs with altered balls. Cough. Cough.

2) No team name needed.

I really don't know where to start with or finish with this post, so I guess I'll just ask "Why?"

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Does Dean refer to Championship as the Super Bowl of Smarts? Or FRC in general?

FIRST has trademarked "The Varsity Sport for The Mind" as the tagline for the FRC program. Considering churches have been sent cease and desist letters by the NFL in the past for hosting "Super Bowl Chili Cookoffs", I'm going to assume a multimillion dollar not-for-profit also is discouraged from referring to the AFC-NFC Championship Game's title in any official capacity.

"The Super Bowl of Smarts" has morphed into a bit of a colloquialism. I am sure Dean has referred to the Championship Event being "like a Super Bowl" in the past, and you can find articles about the Championship event being referred to as "The Super Bowl of Smarts."

I have always agreed with using the tagline "The Varsity Sport for the Mind" and we will continue to use a less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag when we pitch our program.

[Koko Ed]

I would love for FIRST to keep 8 divisions in the dome but I doubt that will happen. I truly think they want to bring the other two programs back into the main building again and make them feel like they are as appreciated as FRC is.

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I have always agreed with using the tagline "The Varsity Sport for the Mind" and we will continue to use a less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag when we pitch our program.

I'm afraid to ask because I know the PayneTrain doesn't stop...but what is your less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag line?

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

I'm afraid to ask because I know the PayneTrain doesn't stop...but what is your less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag line?

#tsimfd

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I think the discussion of 4@100 vs 8@50 is directly related to the quality of experience teams can have at either of the postseason expositions. Pros and cons of each of these layouts and the ones in between have been discussed (and have not yet been discussed to the length that might be merited here). Drawing from the well of "bad robots are great for FIRST" is tangential to the conversation here and comes off as bait (that some of the posts between this one and yours have unfortunately taken). Bad robots have been at the Championship Events since 1992. Teams with a volatile pool of resources usually have not been catered to in these events. There is a difference.

My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.

I'm going to agree on this.

I'm also going to reiterate a point I made the last time this came up, that some people, who think this is a robot building contest, are in serious trouble--and that's actually from Dean or Woodie at Kickoff some years back.

This is a robot building contest, yes--but it's also a bunch of life lessons, a passel of inspiration, and hopefully some recognition. It's also a pretty severe time sink... Treating it as just a robot building contest is not accurate.


What I'd be hoping for would be 8 divisions, 50 teams each, NO MORE THAN 12 matches per team. (Wait, what?) Before you all start going crazy, I'd also say that no fewer than 10 matches would be acceptable. And the reason for that is to allow either more free time or less overall time. This would particularly benefit smaller teams, in that they could get out more and see more of the event, if the free time route was chosen, or that they might be able to cheat a little bit on travel and come in on Thursday morning with minimal loss of time in the pits. More inspiration, less time sink/burnout... interesting dilemma, I'd say.

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

FIRST has trademarked "The Varsity Sport for The Mind" as the tagline for the FRC program.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...4810:ig89v.3.1

Actually, FIRST didn't trademark it - College Bowl Company Inc trademarked "The Varsity Sport of the Mind"

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.

My point (and as far as I can tell, everyone else in this thread who has argued against 8 divisions at half champs) is that with 8 50 team divisions, particularly in the South half champs (which is 25% waitlist teams, from what we currently know), the quality of the average robot will be substantially worse than the quality of the average robot at the 2015/2016 championship event, which was already worse than the 2011-2014 Championships.

We're well past the point about complaining that half champs is diluting the quality of the event. What I'm saying is that with an already diluted competition it would be idiotic to run 8 divisions and cause even further dilution. Not to mention the fact that it will put an even bigger strain on your volunteer base that you're already spreading too thin by holding 2 events in the first place.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

I'm afraid to ask because I know the PayneTrain doesn't stop...but what is your less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag line?

Originally Posted by scottandme

#tsimfd

This is pretty close. What I really mean is that calling it the Varsity Sport for the Mind is a good tagline that FIRST uses, and we use the same idea behind that tagline to form the recruitment process of our program. The long term goals set for 422 is to get strong, long-term investment of all stakeholders to ensure the longevity and alleged potential for any remotely interesting success in the far off future. (this is at leas half a joke)

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.

That's fair. The splitting of the event is a forgone conclusion and a fact that is baked into the existing value proposition for teams, for better or for worse. I am of the opinion that 4 @ 100 can provide the best possible experience for everyone at each event instead of 8 @ 50. You sacrifice division intimacy for what I would call a "balanced match schedule" that allows teams a fair number of plays and a lot of time to do the things at championship that aren't just the matches, a volunteer base that will not go from strained to structurally dangerous, and a better on-field product. I think having 128 teams in those eliminations would provide a better experience for all parties instead of the 192 you would get for 8 @ 50 (assuming that we drop backups).

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm going to agree on this.

I'm also going to reiterate a point I made the last time this came up, that some people, who think this is a robot building contest, are in serious trouble--and that's actually from Dean or Woodie at Kickoff some years back.

This is a robot building contest, yes--but it's also a bunch of life lessons, a passel of inspiration, and hopefully some recognition. It's also a pretty severe time sink... Treating it as just a robot building contest is not accurate.


What I'd be hoping for would be 8 divisions, 50 teams each, NO MORE THAN 12 matches per team. (Wait, what?) Before you all start going crazy, I'd also say that no fewer than 10 matches would be acceptable. And the reason for that is to allow either more free time or less overall time. This would particularly benefit smaller teams, in that they could get out more and see more of the event, if the free time route was chosen, or that they might be able to cheat a little bit on travel and come in on Thursday morning with minimal loss of time in the pits. More inspiration, less time sink/burnout... interesting dilemma, I'd say.

2015 was a robot building contest and the community very soundly rejected it. Most years however we do still have a robotics competition. It is still called the FIRST Robotics Competition. The powers-that-be have the ability to change the name of the program if they see fit. Until then, the competition should not necessarily be the end-all-be-all of every FIRST event (if only because it violates the internal logic of this argument, the name FIRST Robotics Competition does still have "FIRST" in it) but it also not something to be actively ignored.

I am pretty thankful that we usually do not have robot building contests because frankly I am very terrible at building robots but do what most would describe as a remotely passable job or at least a somewhat disguised impersonation of a coach for a competitive team.

12 matches per event in the district system is very much pushing many team's limits in terms of in-event upkeep and the time spent at the venue. I think the 12 matches per event is GREAT at the local level. For large scale travel, I think it could be considered a mistake.

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...4810:ig89v.3.1

Actually, FIRST didn't trademark it - College Bowl Company Inc trademarked "The Varsity Sport of the Mind"

FIRST has trademarked "Sport for the Mind" and describes FRC as the varsity "Sport for the Mind." While I initially found your semantics here to be grating, my frustration at the USPTO database to attempt to explain myself is currently... considerable. Guess the joke's on me. I can't find it anywhere on there, but someone had it down as a trademark in the championship program. Take it up with them.

[Siri]

I have a problem with the argument that ties inspiring more teams to the current and very specific Champion competitiveness situation. Claiming this as a necessary sacrifice for broader inspiration actively implies that more-competitive teams who do not qualify are actually less deserving of Champs inspiration than the less-competitive teams that do.

This isn't necessarily an argument for a powerhouse Champs (or a particular division/bracket style). It's directly about the many teams we all know in that operable-but-improvable realm who could benefit massively for years from just one Champs experience. It doesn't take much to lift them, and it doesn't take much to raise current Champs' lost-bumper competitiveness. I'm not claiming that these above-par (or any) teams are more deserving of inspiration than others, but they are certainly not less. At worst, switching should have no net effect; at best we argue that fewer lost wheels at Champs is better for everyone's inspiration quotient.

The qualification system is not perfect, and we all know that. It's iterated pretty regularly. And even in a perfect system, it's likely FiM DChamps would outperform many Divisions. But dismissing all desires to raise attendee competitiveness as inherently detrimental to inspiration is a disservice to the many above-par teams who would benefit hugely from a Champs attendance.

[cgmv123]

Frank just said nothing is official yet, but he's "not a fan of 100 team divisions".

[Brian Maher]

On the FUN Q&A, Frank said he isn't a fan of 100-team divisions, that they are too big, which suggests (these are now my words, not his) that there will be more than four divisions for each super regional.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

On the FUN Q&A, Frank said he isn't a fan of 100-team divisions, that they are too big, which suggests (these are now my words, not his) that there will be more than four divisions for each super regional.

I don't think anybody's a fan of 100-team divisions... except those folks that think 66-team regionals are really nice. They are, because you have more teams to meet and greet and more time between matches, but then you realize that you only get 8 matches and everybody else gets 10+.


To go with a point I was making earlier: smaller divisions, with fewer matches overall, to get into the 10+ matches/team range (for a 50-team field, 84 total matches with a couple of surrogates playing in one or two of 'em will give 10 matches each; to get 12 matches, 100 matches even will work) and more downtime or a more compressed schedule is probably the way to go over bigger divisions and fewer matches.

That underlined part is the key tradeoff. More downtime means longer lunch breaks, or more time to see the rest of the competition/festival--read, conferences, other divisions, other teams in the pits, the other three events, supplier showcase, innovation fair, you get the idea. But a more compressed schedule can mean shorter time at the event, which can maybe allow teams (or volunteers?) to redeye in and save a night's hotel.


Back when I was a student, 75-80 team divisions were the norm. Seemed about right, but then you get the challenge of sorting out who's playing for the half-trophy and half-banner for winning the half-championship if you've got 400 teams and you're capping divisions at 75-80 teams each.