|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
If I had to guess at their motivation I would say that it is because they want a broad variety of people to attend CMP. FIRST's first Strategic Pillar is: Quote:
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
I suppose using the lottery to send perennially bad teams makes some amount of sense. It's odd that FIRST is pushing for areas to go to the district model so much when districts have the exact opposite philosophy on team advancement. There are no waitlist spots at District Championships. This shows 3637 getting a wait list spot. I'm pretty sure there were 59 waitlist teams last year, although that number is going to be a lot higher this year. Last edited by AGPapa : 01-09-2016 at 17:30. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
What you call a "bad" team, FIRST might call a "competitively underperforming" team. It's possible to have a powerful impact on your team / community without performing well on the field. Maybe FIRST doesn't have a good method other than EI and CA (only awarded to two teams per Regional) to find them, so they hope that the waitlist will help them attend CMP?
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
Districts reward performance on and off the field; culture awards get points too. I like that culture award winning teams advance because they have shown off the field success. I also have no problem with using waitlist teams to bring an event to capacity when qualified teams can't be found. If the issue is that districts don't reward off the field performance enough, then the solution is to increase those point values or give EI teams qualification to the District Championship. Randomly picking teams weighted by how long ago they went to the Championship does not reward off the field performance. In fact, now a team who may have qualified with points partially earned by a district chairman's award could be denied advancement in order to let in a team that got lucky. Last edited by AGPapa : 01-09-2016 at 17:45. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
The point of my last post was to clarify that opposition to this change never came from a viewpoint that on the field success was all that mattered. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
That team was 971 in 2006. The senior leader was me. While it's not the only reason 971 is a powerhouse now, it was a big part of that team's transformation. I have, and always will, advocate for the opportunity for "bad"/"undeserving"/"unqualified" teams to attend a Championship, because it can be very inspirational. It's not currently in the district system to have waitlist teams at DCMP, but it could be. The difference is that districts are by definition geographically oriented. Those teams will already have played with most of the teams at their District Championship. It's not the same opportunity to meet and interact with the larger FIRST community. I do not believe that split-champs is the right way to go. I also don't believe that it necessarily helps get more teams "the Championship experience". But I do believe there is value in allowing some number of teams who likely would never qualify for a higher level of competition to go experience an event like that. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Thanks for sharing, I find that to be quite inspiring.
Coming from a rookie team that attended Champs last year, I feel that it had a huge impact on our students. Just being there and playing matches, even if we didn't do great, really showed everyone what it's like to be in the "big leagues" so to speak. And because of that experience, we're going to work as hard as we possibly can to be back. As I've said in prior posts, I believe students that get to experience events like the Championship and even play at several events each season are more inspired and excited about STEM than students who don't have those opportunities. Thus, at some point you have to decide what FIRST and the Championship is about. For some it might be winning, but for me - it's inspiration. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
If the goal is truly to ensure as many teams as possible get a Championship trip every four years, I'd like to propose a tweak to the waitlist system:
Continue to calculate waitlist lottery entries the same as currently, except do not consider teams who have attended Champs in the preceding three seasons. This way, a team cannot attend via waitlist twice during the same 4-year student turnover cycle, ensuring teams who have never or have not in a long time competed at Champs are more likely to get a chance. I think this tweak would better align with FIRST's stated goal to better spread out the Championship experience to teams who would not otherwise receive it. Last edited by Brian Maher : 02-09-2016 at 01:16. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
Quote:
There's also some value in extending waitlist spots to teams who will probably eventually qualify - those teams get to start planning sooner, and the spot isn't wasted when a different team gets their waitlist spot later. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|