[FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by grstex

But you can't say "62.5% of respondents oppose the split." That's just not true. the "mandate" is that 55% oppose the split. you CAN'T just discard 12% of the responses. That's more misleading than average from the blog.

I approached this issue as a presidential election. You can't vote for "neither of the above" or "both of the above." You have to choose. The "5s" refused to choose. In an election, those folks don't vote--it's a very common assumption by pollsters making projections for election results.

Similarly, we don't apply an intensity of like or dislike to presidential candidates. It's either "A" or "B". There's some indication in 2012 that Romney supporters were more intense in their positions, but there were fewer of them. Ultimately, I believe we should really care about which side people fall on.

One other polling note: while this is a voluntary poll so it could be biased, pollsters find that usually the opinions of respondents generally reflect the views of non respondents.

I used a set of common polling assumptions to provide a clearer view of how community preferences fall out. I see others have provided other metrics that arrive at the same conclusion--that opposition is running 2 to 1 against.

[grstex]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I approached this issue as a presidential election. You can't vote for "neither of the above" or "both of the above." You have to choose. The "5s" refused to choose. In an election, those folks don't vote--it's a very common assumption by pollsters making projections for election results.

Similarly, we don't apply an intensity of like or dislike to presidential candidates. It's either "A" or "B". There's some indication in 2012 that Romney supporters were more intense in their positions, but there were fewer of them. Ultimately, I believe we should really care about which side people fall on.

One other polling note: while this is a voluntary poll so it could be biased, pollsters find that usually the opinions of respondents generally reflect the views of non respondents.

I used a set of common polling assumptions to provide a clearer view of how community preferences fall out. I see others have provided other metrics that arrive at the same conclusion--that opposition is running 2 to 1 against.

There is such a thing as a 3rd party candidate. Ross Perot captured almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and over 8% in 1996. in 1928 Robert La Follette even won a state. (of course, you could hold the Kang and Kodos perspective of politics)

But more importantly, in this survey you DID NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE. You WERE GIVEN A NEUTRAL OPTION. 12% chose that option. FIRST could have structured the survey as a simple for or against, but they didn't. As others in this thread have already stated, the people who chose neutral did so for a reason. Their response counts too.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I approached this issue as a presidential election. You can't vote for "neither of the above" or "both of the above." You have to choose. The "5s" refused to choose. In an election, those folks don't vote--it's a very common assumption by pollsters making projections for election results.

This is absolutely nothing like a presidential election. That is a choice between two people, whereas this is a statement of approval/disapproval of a policy. A good example of what that should look like is here. Note how the approval and disapproval numbers don't add up to 100%. That's because some people are neutral. Here's another potentially enlightening link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

[mklinker]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

This statement is misleading! There is no valid interpretation of the data that shows 62% of respondents opposing the championship split.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This statement is misleading. Based on the graphic, the respondents to the survey oppose the championsplit 62.5% to 37.5% (after removing the '"5s"). That's a pretty overwhelming landslide in opposition. I'm not sure if a presidential candidate has ever exceeded that in the popular vote. The decision looks to be deeply, deeply unpopular.

Voluntary survey. Not a census. Not a study. Statistically speaking, the survey means very little to me.

Now if they had picked individuals in FRC at random, with a very high response rate, I might be more inclined to give weight to the results. Otherwise the survey is suffering from a tremendous response bias (how many people that don't have a strong opinion on a subject are going to volunteer their time to do a survey?)

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Voluntary survey. Not a census. Not a study. Statistically speaking, the survey means very little to me.

Now if they had picked individuals in FRC at random, with a very high response rate, I might be more inclined to give weight to the results. Otherwise the survey is suffering from a tremendous response bias (how many people that don't have a strong opinion on a subject are going to volunteer their time to do a survey?)

This is my opinion towards this as well, and I think it's interesting that so many people are drawing the conclusions they want from the survey results.

The response rate to the survey was only 10%. I'm one of those neutrals in the remaining 90% that didn't respond.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I'd be curious to know how many active users their are on CD. Many have been using the hive mind argument to show how the negative opinion of champs is only the most vocal people but I think this survey pretty much counteracts that. It doesn't really surprise me though after I had talked to many AZ FRC alumni who had pretty similar thoughts about champs. Wasn't sure about everywhere else though. I agree with others though about what was the point of the data if the results weren't surprising. I disagree that the point of the poll was about how to improve the 2 champs when a lot of the discussion just focused on what people thought about it. And why does what people think matter if it isn't going to change a single thing.

[Rman1923]

I think it's great that FIRST has tried to survey teams, and I thank them for that. But I would like to point out that two championships will completely ruin the prestige of going to champs. This happens in two ways, one, the obvious way, when you get an award at half champs, it's not really winning the award, it's sharing the award. If FIRST really trying to be a sport for the mind, it can't say it has a superbowl because there are two trophies. How are winners going to explain what happened? "oh our robot's the half best in the world"? How can we make it loud when we aren't sure what we are. Are there any winners in two champs? Or just two finalists?
The second way prestige would be affected is qualifying. I have gone to champs twice, and no matter how we did it was really inspirational for me. I have to commend FIRST, that organization that we still all know and love, for adhering to its mission statement and inspiring twice the amount of people. It's great that FIRST is growing and that it is accomodating for its growth. But with more teams qualifying for worlds through regional points, what is the drive going to be to build the best robot, or make it loud to the world? Why go for prestigious positions such as regional robot winner our chairman's winner? Why not just actually care about the safety award a few times and make it to half champs? In the end, we're actually uninspiring teams and people.

I really like FIRST and I love everything it has done for me, my FLL kids, everyone involved, but I don't want to see this awesome organization ruined because it can't scale up properly. I want to be able to come back and be proud that I had the opportunity to graduate from an amazing program. Two champs will definitely uninspire more people than it will inspire. No one wants to say that they are half winners. And again, I have to applaud FIRST for their efforts to get feedback from teams.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Rman1923

I think it's great that FIRST has tried to survey teams, and I thank them for that. But I would like to point out that two championships will completely ruin the prestige of going to champs. This happens in two ways, one, the obvious way, when you get an award at half champs, it's not really winning the award, it's sharing the award. If FIRST really trying to be a sport for the mind, it can't say it has a superbowl because there are two trophies. How are winners going to explain what happened? "oh our robot's the half best in the world"? How can we make it loud when we aren't sure what we are. Are there any winners in two champs? Or just two finalists?

I'm sorry, I have trouble following this logic. There are only two annual trophies, of which there is only one winner: Championship Chairmans and Woodie Flowers. Everything else has multiple winners. There are four World Champions. There are four Engineering Inspiration winners. Heck, there are thirty-two Division Champions.
So of the two actual single trophies, there has been a TON of conversation about expanding these anyway. There are hundreds of really awesome teams and really awesome people who deserve to be recognized at the worldwide level, but only one of each per year is not enough.

The second way prestige would be affected is qualifying. I have gone to champs twice, and no matter how we did it was really inspirational for me. I have to commend FIRST, that organization that we still all know and love, for adhering to its mission statement and inspiring twice the amount of people. It's great that FIRST is growing and that it is accomodating for its growth. But with more teams qualifying for worlds through regional points, what is the drive going to be to build the best robot, or make it loud to the world? Why go for prestigious positions such as regional robot winner our chairman's winner? Why not just actually care about the safety award a few times and make it to half champs? In the end, we're actually uninspiring teams and people.

Why do traditional sports have a regular season? The games don't really matter. We haven't seen a sports champion go undefeated through the regular season in decades (yes I know this statement is not true for FIRST).

[Rman1923]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I'm sorry, I have trouble following this logic. There are only two annual trophies, of which there is only one winner: Championship Chairmans and Woodie Flowers. Everything else has multiple winners. There are four World Champions. There are four Engineering Inspiration winners. Heck, there are thirty-two Division Champions.
So of the two actual single trophies, there has been a TON of conversation about expanding these anyway. There are hundreds of really awesome teams and really awesome people who deserve to be recognized at the worldwide level, but only one of each per year is not enough.

Sorry, I was addressing the champion title to the winning alliance, not individual winning teams, but the logic is still the same, you can't exactly say that you are a world champion when there's four other teams claiming the same thing. Truthfully this is gong to happen, and when it does, invitationals like IRI and Cheesy Champs are going to be the real world champs. And that's going to be terrible for morale if you're not invited. If FIRST really wants to inspire the world, they should keep worlds an official event.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

...Part of FIRST HQ's understanding is the Championship "experience" is one they want as many students to be able to achieve as possible."

"But what defines the championship "experience"? What does FIRST want to provide as many students as possible, and how can we make it reach as many students as possible?

For me this is the essential point. My team has been to Championship exactly once - when we QUALIFIED to be one of the 400 teams there. A significant portion of the "Championship Experience" in our case was the pride of being part of that elite group. The two components of this portion are the singularity of the group, and the degree of selectivity...neither of which are present in 800 teams divided into two events. WHEN my team qualifies again, I don't want to go to "a" championship...I want to go to "the" championship. And I would prefer to wait until we deserve it again (even if it never happens) rather than lower the entrance bar. I suspect there are many survey respondents, and posters to this thread (like Rman1923 above) who find their definition of the "Championship Experience" and FIRST HQ's definition incompatible.

Originally Posted by R2D2DOC

. . . .

Ultimately, if we saturate the season with districts (even that is contentious), then district champs would be the primary players at world champs. The remaining participants would be up for discussion: HOF, Rookie, Chairmans, etc. . . .

Would we than go back to a smaller single championship event?

And this is my great fear. Even with a monumental effort to create universal districts, and roll out a suitable championship "feeding" structure...how does FIRST go from two events and 800 teams back to one event and 400 or 600 teams without it appearing and feeling like a shrinkage. Further, HQ was originally saying that the two championships were guaranteed from 17 - 20...in this blog post that language has changed to "beginning in 2017..." removing any possible end date.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Rman1923

Truthfully this is gong to happen, and when it does, invitationals like IRI and Cheesy Champs are going to be the real world champs. And that's going to be terrible for morale if you're not invited. If FIRST really wants to inspire the world, they should keep worlds an official event.

I would actually say that IRI and Cheesy Champs will never be the real world championships. In the grand scheme of things, nobody watches it, and nobody cares. I would be shocked if more than 10-15% of FIRST 's members have even heard of either of these events.

[Rman1923]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

I would actually say that IRI and Cheesy Champs will never be the real world championships. In the grand scheme of things, nobody watches it, and nobody cares. I would be shocked if more than 10-15% of FIRST 's members have even heard of either of these events.

It's not only about people watching it, but more about finding out who the winners of the world are. I feel like just out of curiosity, invitational events would pit the winners of both champs against each other, to see who wins. That would be cool and fun to watch. When I say they will be the real champs, I mean that we'll find out the best alliance in the world at these events.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Rman1923

It's not only about people watching it, but more about finding out who the winners of the world are. I feel like just out of curiosity, invitational events would pit the winners of both champs against each other, to see who wins. That would be cool and fun to watch. When I say they will be the real champs, I mean that we'll find out the best alliance in the world at these events.

A closer representation of the best alliance in the world? Sure. Best alliance in the world? No. Many top tier teams don't attend IRI or cheesy champs.

I would hope that a "two winning alliances" event is televised and hyped for that.

[Rman1923]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

A closer representation of the best alliance in the world? Sure. Best alliance in the world? No. Many top tier teams don't attend IRI or cheesy champs.

I would hope that a "two winning alliances" event is televised and hyped for that.

Yeah, that would be really cool, I think many would watch and it'd be really easy to market that to non-firsters as well