Championships in 2017

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by AnnaCC

Forgive me if this is already common knowledge, but I wondered if it's absolutely confirmed that the FRC itself will be split up? Or is it possible that FIRST might just be moving some of the programs to Houston? (for example, Jr. FLL, FLL, and FTC in Houston and FRC in St. Louis)

This has been confirmed at least since the last update. (I don't expect it to change either).

It is two champs with all programs at each.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by AnnaCC

Forgive me if this is already common knowledge, but I wondered if it's absolutely confirmed that the FRC itself will be split up? Or is it possible that FIRST might just be moving some of the programs to Houston? (for example, Jr. FLL, FLL, and FTC in Houston and FRC in St. Louis)

Originally Posted by orangemoore

This has been confirmed at least since the last update. (I don't expect it to change either).

That and splitting them up into two different cities and two different weekends breaks up the "progression of programs" that FIRST strives to show during Champs. It already was broken when they stopped having FTC and FLL play in the Dome; I'd hate to see it split up completely.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by CalTran

That and splitting them up into two different cities and two different weekends breaks up the "progression of programs" that FIRST strives to show during Champs. It already was broken when they stopped having FTC and FLL play in the Dome; I'd hate to see it split up completely.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant each champs will have all 4 programs to my knowledge. I'm looking for my proof now...

Edit: http://www.firstchampionship.org/welcome#block-block-54

It will be 2 champs with all programs at each.

My apologies for any confusion caused.

[GearsOfFury]

Originally Posted by CalTran

That and splitting them up into two different cities and two different weekends breaks up the "progression of programs" that FIRST strives to show during Champs. It already was broken when they stopped having FTC and FLL play in the Dome; I'd hate to see it split up completely.

At least now all programs can be back under one roof.

As "someone" important very recently said... It's for the greater good of inspiration of tomorrow's hope. "Get over it".

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

At least now all programs can be back under one roof.

As "someone" important very recently said... It's for the greater good of inspiration of tomorrow's hope. "Get over it".

While your post is incredibly edgy, the shift from one championship to two postseason expos is at best an unknown quantity. The idea of increasing inspiration is entirely subjective, but you can potentially quantify inspiration by team count I guess. If that is your sole metric for a direct increase in inspiration, I guess you might be right. However those of us who subscribe to an idea that an unsupported team is worse than no team also believe that two poorly supported expos can be worse than one adequately supported championship.

Fewer things in life can be more powerful than participation on a FIRST team at a FIRST event, but it's important to realize that fact can swing both ways. Putting at-risk kids into failing teams is damaging. Having volunteers who don't put students first can be damaging. Sponsors and sponsoring organizations who don't understand why a team wants 15k+ to go to one of these expos instead of one championship is confusing for them and can be potentially damaging.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

While your post is incredibly edgy, the shift from one championship to two postseason expos is at best an unknown quantity. The idea of increasing inspiration is entirely subjective, but you can potentially quantify inspiration by team count I guess. If that is your sole metric for a direct increase in inspiration, I guess you might be right. However those of us who subscribe to an idea that an unsupported team is worse than no team also believe that two poorly supported expos can be worse than one adequately supported championship.

Fewer things in life can be more powerful than participation on a FIRST team at a FIRST event, but it's important to realize that fact can swing both ways. Putting at-risk kids into failing teams is damaging. Having volunteers who don't put students first can be damaging. Sponsors and sponsoring organizations who don't understand why a team wants 15k+ to go to one of these expos instead of one championship is confusing for them and can be potentially damaging.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PayneTrain again."

[Van.Augur]

I saw this mentioned earlier in the thread but didn't see anyone link to it directly: FIRST has put out an official update with regard to the changing Championship structure at http://www.firstinspires.org/2017-20...mpionship-info

Notable (for me, at least), was that they mentioned they are looking to put together a "Culminating Event" to have the Champs from each event face off at a possibly televised event.

[scooty199]

I saw this mentioned earlier in the thread but didn't see anyone link to it directly: FIRST has put out an official update with regard to the changing Championship structure at http://www.firstinspires.org/2017-20...mpionship-info

Notable (for me, at least), was that they mentioned they are looking to put together a "Culminating Event" to have the Champs from each event face off at a possibly televised event.

My thing with a televised event, while it would be awesome is that for 8 teams on 2 alliances, playing a max of 3 matches that are 150 seconds each... that's just under 8 minutes of total action. How much stuff would you have to jam in there for a made for TV event?

[GearsOfFury]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

While your post is incredibly edgy, the shift from one championship to two postseason expos is at best an unknown quantity. The idea of increasing inspiration is entirely subjective, but you can potentially quantify inspiration by team count I guess. If that is your sole metric for a direct increase in inspiration, I guess you might be right. However those of us who subscribe to an idea that an unsupported team is worse than no team also believe that two poorly supported expos can be worse than one adequately supported championship.

Fewer things in life can be more powerful than participation on a FIRST team at a FIRST event, but it's important to realize that fact can swing both ways. Putting at-risk kids into failing teams is damaging. Having volunteers who don't put students first can be damaging. Sponsors and sponsoring organizations who don't understand why a team wants 15k+ to go to one of these expos instead of one championship is confusing for them and can be potentially damaging.

Yes it's unknown. To grow, we must adapt. We must reach more students, and quickly. While a single world championship is certainly inspiring and a very worthy aspiration, does the lack of one stop millions of high school students every year from striving for and being inspired by their state sports championship? Does knowing that you are "only" class 4A champ vs. class 6A champ, or "only" Illinois champ vs. Indiana or US champ, so significantly impact students' and coaches' drive to participate, succeed, and win that we can't go on?

I agree at some point of saturation the split would be a net negative. We are so, so far from that point yet in the reach of the program, we must take risks and exponentially grow.

At this point, in my opinion, the more people we reach, the higher chance of creating successful teams, of bringing more into the fold, of changing young peoples', and our country's, lives for the better.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

Yes it's unknown. To grow, we must adapt. We must reach more students, and quickly. While a single world championship is certainly inspiring and a very worthy aspiration, does the lack of one stop millions of high school students every year from striving for and being inspired by their state sports championship? Does knowing that you are "only" class 4A champ vs. class 6A champ, or "only" Illinois champ vs. Indiana or US champ, so significantly impact students' and coaches' drive to participate, succeed, and win that we can't go on?

An important difference that FIRST has failed to address: other HS championships have clear distinctions among schools or levels which are easy for participants and outsiders to understand. The Champs/Super Regionals don't have any such distinction--it's just a division of the world into 2 with some fuzziness that's unclear.

I posted extensively last year on why we lose a lot of inspiration with the split. It undermines Kamen's original insight that sports attracts kids attention because it builds up heros that they follow. We will lose our heros by not bringing them together.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

However those of us who subscribe to an idea that an unsupported team is worse than no team

This should be a thread by itself and warrants discussion. I'm definitely in the same boat. I encourage other teams to think about sustainable growth.

I would actually like to see data that shows the number of teams that are able to transition from being a 2nd year rookie team into a 3rd or 4th year team. Someone with time on their hands can probably use TBA's APIs to snag that data.

[jgerstein]

Originally Posted by marshall

This should be a thread by itself and warrants discussion. I'm definitely in the same boat. I encourage other teams to think about sustainable growth.

I would actually like to see data that shows the number of teams that are able to transition from being a 2nd year rookie team into a 3rd or 4th year team. Someone with time on their hands can probably use TBA's APIs to snag that data.

This is something I've been interested in as well, especially after working with a second year team this year who were struggling after the rookie support dropped away. I've got the data on longevity based on rookie year - I'll grab data on how many teams make it past year 1 and 2.

[Xavbro]

I've only experience Champs twice ('09 and '15) and let me start by saying, no one knows what Champs will be like in 2017. Yes, it will be divided but I would expect the atmosphere and level of competition to still be very good. Of course a lot of teams you normally would see every year there, you won't and we don't know yet which one teams will be going to but until we actually experience it, we can't judge it.

Now that that's been said, in my opinion, I think it will be the same. FIRST will do their best to make it feel the same at each one and I hope they mix up the competition so we don't get one Champs being better than the other but I'm sure it will happen a few times. I'm curious to see how it will work in Houston. The weather here is so bipolar and it can rain in an instant. Looking at how the setup be, I'm curious how they plan to transport robots and pits to Toyota Center and Minute Maid Park if it's raining.

I don't plan to make judgement until I've experienced it. I just hope my team isn't locked to only attending Houston every year.

[Koko Ed]

All I got to say is God forbid FIRST puts out a bad game next year. It'll make an already difficult transition even more painful.

[rich2202]

Since the two "champs" are on different weekends, how about FIRST pays for the Winning Alliance (10 members of each team) of the first Champs weekend to go to the 2nd Champs. On Saturday, the Winner of Champs 1 plays the Winner of Champs 2.