Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification

[cgmv123]

http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprog...idays-07252014

Today’s good question comes from Adam Salem, from FRC Team 3419, The Rohawks, out of New York City, New York, USA:

Question:

Hi Frank,

My name is Adam Salem and I am a mentor on team 3419. I read your note about increasing the size of nationals and think it's a terrific idea. I have a suggestion about how to select some of the additional teams. One of the awards for engineering the robot (either the Excellence in Engineering Award, the Innovation in Control Award, the Industrial Design Award, or some combination of those) should come with an invitation to nationals, in the same way the Engineering Inspiration award does. I think this would help to solve two major problems I see transpiring with FRC:

• The popularity of the "Robot in 3 Days" videos has led a lot of teams to build very similar looking robots (how many loaders did we see this year which were almost identical to each other?). These videos have taken a lot of the desire to innovate out of the students. I think this generation of students - who have had things like Google at their fingertips for most of their lives - are used to immediate answers and don't see much value in researching a problem themselves when another solution is promptly available. By having an Innovation in Engineering award that gets you to the finals, it would encourage students to think more out-of-the-box rather than taking the easy way out and copying what they see on the videos.
  
• Every year my team faces at least one design decision wherein one option would build a robot more likely to win the game, and the other option would present a more interesting engineering challenge. The students always push for the former, as they are focused on winning. I always push for the later, as I am focused on the educational and fun nature of the build process. I know other teams struggle with the same thing. By allowing teams to get to nationals via an innovative robot, I think you'd see a lot more unique and interesting robots get built. In the extra 200 robots at nationals, you would see a way more diverse set of designs. One of my favorite parts of every tournament is walking around with my students and talking about the interesting designs other teams have and seeing how they solved the same challenges we experienced in different ways. By encouraging a wider variety of robots, it would make this experience more enjoyable and educational for everyone.

Thanks,

Adam Salem

Mentor, Team 3419

SVP Of Technology, AllianceBernstein

Answer:

Thanks for the question, Adam.

We currently have an eleven-person task force working on the question of FIRST Championship FRC eligibility for 2015 and beyond. Four of the task force members are volunteers, and the balance are FIRST staffers, both from HQ and the field. We plan to be able to announce the eligibility criteria to teams by the end of August.

The system used in 2014, under the 400 team FRC limit, was ‘almost broken’. With only five waitlist slots awarded, we were very close to being overbooked for the FIRST Championship. While it would seem that the significant increase in slots we’re looking at for the 2015 Championship - exact number still TBD – will solve this problem to the point where we would actually have too few teams attending Championship on merit, this isn’t necessarily the case, at least longer term. Districts get a percentage allocation to the FIRST Championship based on their representation in FRC. So, if a given District has 10 percent of all FRC teams, they get 10 percent of the slots (excluding pre-qualified slots) at Championship. This means that as we increase the number of teams we can host at Championship (and add Districts!), the number from Districts increases as well.

Under the existing system, we typically qualify 6 or so teams for Championship from each Regional. In practice, it doesn’t average exactly 6, because we occasionally have multiple award winners – who use only one slot - or 4 team winning alliances if back-up robots are called. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing an additional award that would raise that number to about 7. Based on current estimates, and some educated guesses, while we could accommodate this approach for 2015, in 2016 we would be close to being overbooked again, even assuming we have 600 teams at Championship. I appreciate your interest in encouraging design diversity, but I think it unlikely the task force would be taking this specific approach. We are looking for a solution that will serve us comfortably for several years.

Thanks again for your question.

Frank

[PayneTrain]

inb4 Gregor comments on "nationals"

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by Frank

So, if a given District has 10 percent of all FRC teams, they get 10 percent of the slots (excluding pre-qualified slots) at Championship.

This is rather interesting. Last year Michigan had about 10% of all FRC teams. If this continues next year then they will have about 60 slots at Championship. Only 4 or 5 of the teams at the Michigan State Championship will not qualify for St. Louis. At this point the state championship is essentially meaningless in deciding who advances. In fact, many teams can completely skip MSC and still qualify for World's. This seems to go against the point of the state championship.

How can Michigan solve this problem? Increase the size of MSC by moving to a new venue? Adding divisions like World's?

Jim Zondag addressed this issue a few years ago in his whitepaper.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Q30: “What will you do when the State Championship is no longer large enough to house all of the good teams in the State?”
A30: This will be a good problem to have . We are still many years away from reaching any real limits in this regard. That said, if our population of teams continues to grow at its current rate, the threshold to make it to the State Championship will continue to rise. When we launched the District System in 2009, 1/2 of our team population advanced to the State Championship. After 4 years, this percentage is down to 1/3rd. By 2016, we project this percentage to fall to below 1/4th. Entry will keep getting harder, and the competition will continue to increase. There are over 700 public high schools in our state plus hundreds more private schools. If we grow large enough to reach Dean Kamen’s goal of a team in every school, then perhaps someday we will need to create a second Regional Championship. We will cross this bridge when we come to it.

Well, I think we've arrived at the bridge, now what?

[Jon Stratis]

Yes, having so many teams make it from a district that the championship is worthless is a problem... but perhaps more of a problem is for the areas that aren't districts.

Minnesota, for example, is probably going to have about 200 teams next year. As a state, we have 4 regionals... which means 24 slots at champs. Sure, a few teams travel to out of state regionals, but even more teams from out of state come to our regionals and win slots. What it ends up meaning is that, as a state, the number of teams we send to champs is essentially a constant, and not comparable to the number districts send, as a proportion to FIRST population. We don't grow as champs grows - if we want more MN teams to make it to champs, we have to hold more events. The same isn't true for the districts, which creates, in my opinion, a severe imbalance across FIRST.

FIRST needs to come up with a system whereby they can support both the district and regional model while allowing proportional representation from every distinct area. Picture something like drawing up district lines across all of FIRST for Champs participation, but the method of entry for each individual region could be different - The district model could use the point system with a district championship, while the regional model could pull X teams from each regional, based on the number of teams needed for that area (with each area designed to have a minimum of 6 teams attending). For the regional, you could use a point system for the event, or base it on awards, or whatever.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Yes, having so many teams make it from a district that the championship is worthless is a problem... but perhaps more of a problem is for the areas that aren't districts.

Minnesota, for example, is probably going to have about 200 teams next year. As a state, we have 4 regionals... which means 24 slots at champs. Sure, a few teams travel to out of state regionals, but even more teams from out of state come to our regionals and win slots. What it ends up meaning is that, as a state, the number of teams we send to champs is essentially a constant, and not comparable to the number districts send, as a proportion to FIRST population. We don't grow as champs grows - if we want more MN teams to make it to champs, we have to hold more events. The same isn't true for the districts, which creates, in my opinion, a severe imbalance across FIRST.

FIRST needs to come up with a system whereby they can support both the district and regional model while allowing proportional representation from every distinct area. Picture something like drawing up district lines across all of FIRST for Champs participation, but the method of entry for each individual region could be different - The district model could use the point system with a district championship, while the regional model could pull X teams from each regional, based on the number of teams needed for that area (with each area designed to have a minimum of 6 teams attending). For the regional, you could use a point system for the event, or base it on awards, or whatever.

Just to add some numbers to this:
MN Teams in 2014: 186
FRC Teams in 2014: 2707

Percentage of FRC teams from MN: 6.87%
Number of slots if represented at champs by percentage: 27.5
Current in state slots available: 24
Percentage of MN teams at champs if all slots won by MN teams: 6%

2014:
24 slots available, 6 slots won by non-MN teams
2 MN teams double qualified (one of them providing a wildcard slot to another MN team)
Slots won by MN teams: 18
Slots used by MN teams: 17
Percentage of champs teams who are from MN: 4.25%

The percentages currently aren't that far off, but as MN grows it will become farther and farther away from equal representation if more slots aren't available to MN teams. Of course there are two other regionals frequented by MN teams that are available but for the most part MN brings in more out of state teams then we send to other states.

I may go through at some point and run the numbers for 2013 as well if I get the chance.

[MooreteP]

Unfortunately, there is a conflict between continuing the idea of a World Championship for FIRST, and "having s team in every high school".

How many High School sports have a National Championship, let alone a World Championship?
Why do we want to believe it is possible to pull this off?

Do the math.

The FIRST experience practices project management with technology.
It's a time and motion study to coordinate the creation, competition and ultimate arbitration (Einstein).
To keep growing, the four month window should to be doubled to a September start.

If you had to pick just one of these goals, Growth vs. No World Championship, which would it be?
(check your ego).

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

Unfortunately, there is a conflict between continuing the idea of a World Championship for FIRST, and "having s team in every high school".

How many High School sports have a National Championship, let alone a World Championship?
Why do we want to believe it is possible to pull this off?

Do the math.

The FIRST experience practices project management with technology.
It's a time and motion study to coordinate the creation, competition and ultimate arbitration (Einstein).
To keep growing, the four month window should to be doubled to a September start.

If you had to pick just one of these goals, Growth vs. No World Championship, which would it be?
(check your ego).

I don't see the conflict between having a world championship and having a team in every high school. Can you explain with some facts (not unsubstantiated rhetoric) why you believe that to be the case?

I'm not sure how the lack of a national championship for most high school sports means FRC can't pull it off-- for one, if I remember correctly most sports aren't completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC is-- they don't have a national/world governing body that issues guidelines to teams from elementary to high school on starting and competing as a team in the broader sense of robotics. FIRST fills that role for us-- sure they partner with local organizations, but the advancement criteria are defined by FIRST.

I also don't see how increasing the build season length would increase growth, perhaps you could explain this to me?

Also, regarding your question, which, if I read it correctly, looks like I can have growth and a world championship or no championship or growth, which seems contrary to your point.

The fact is there is always an opportunity cost. Right now, if what you are saying is that the cost of having a world championships is too high, I completely disagree with you. Perhaps my mind may change in the future (the future is such a funny place), but right now I don't see FIRST outgrowing a championship event in the near future.

[Dragonking]

Next year we will have 600 teams at champs representing about 3000 teams. If all high schools had a team there would be 30000 just in the US. How would a 6000 team world championship work.
I do agree that if anyone could pull it off it would be FIRST- a unified organization run by engineers.
There are ways to do it but if we get to the point where there are so many teams, it makes it extremely difficult to have a world championship that includes both the elite teams and the rookie/lower tier teams.

I also don't see how increasing the build season length would increase growth, perhaps you could explain this to me?

I think he's talking about increasing the length of competition season which would be necessary and has already been happening as FRC grows.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I don't see the conflict between having a world championship and having a team in every high school. Can you explain with some facts (not unsubstantiated rhetoric) why you believe that to be the case?

Can you give me a substantiated example of a High School "World" Championship? Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Lacrosse, et al...?
Track and Field has "National" Championships, but they are conducted by many different organizations.
The only real "World Championships" are of Olympic proportion.

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I'm not sure how the lack of a national championship for most high school sports means FRC can't pull it off-- for one, if I remember correctly most sports aren't completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC is-- they don't have a national/world governing body that issues guidelines to teams from elementary to high school on starting and competing as a team in the broader sense of robotics. FIRST fills that role for us-- sure they partner with local organizations, but the advancement criteria are defined by FIRST.

"completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and hyperbolic as well. Have you seen the variety of teams in FRC?
Nonetheless, if anyone can do it, we can do it.

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I also don't see how increasing the build season length would increase growth, perhaps you could explain this to me?

This V

Originally Posted by Dragonking

Next year we will have 600 teams at champs representing about 3000 teams. If all high schools had a team there would be 30000 just in the US. How would a 6000 team world championship work.
I do agree that if anyone could pull it off it would be FIRST- a unified organization run by engineers.

There are ways to do it but if we get to the point where there are so many teams, it makes it extremely difficult to have a world championship that includes both the elite teams and the rookie/lower tier teams.

I think he's talking about increasing the length of competition season which would be necessary and has already been happening as FRC grows.

Math! Release the game in October, Build until End off Year Break, Six weeks of District/State/Province/Nation High School competitions in January/Feb. "Regional" competitions in March, World Championship in April.

Math! Hello Mentors / Volunteers. This will strain the organization.
High Schools will need to buy more deeply into this program to make a longer season work.

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Also, regarding your question, which, if I read it correctly, looks like I can have growth and a world championship or no championship or growth, which seems contrary to your point.

I was asking people to prioritize. I do not like to think of this tradeoff.
I prefer both, but this thought has been bothering me.

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

The fact is there is always an opportunity cost. Right now, if what you are saying is that the cost of having a world championships is too high, I completely disagree with you. Perhaps my mind may change in the future (the future is such a funny place), but right now I don't see FIRST outgrowing a championship event in the near future.

I disagree with me too, though not "completely".
The future is a harsh mistress. TANSTAAFL

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

High Schools will need to buy more deeply into this program to make a longer season work.

Agreed. In preparation for the 2015 FRC season, I've already worked 180 hours, and it's not even August 2014 yet. School boards typically see a year long class as about 180 hours, and they have difficulty wrapping their head around paying teachers/coaches/advisors for more than that. In some cases, it can become an equity issue with teachers in other extracurricular programs.

As the schedule currently stands, it already takes far more than 180 hours per school year to run a comprehensive successful FRC team. If it expands to much more than currently, you're going to see two things happen: the quality of the program will fall, and adults will drop out because the time commitment required.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Why does FIRST have to ensure proportional representation from all areas?

They don't have to do anything, but hypothetically if only 20 out of 110 teams from an area got a bid into championships, while another region got 30 out of 115 bids, someone is going to call BS on misrepresentation based purely on geography, event structure, venue size, etc.

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I'm not sure why a FIRST-wide points system based on the standard district model points system wouldn't work....

Top 600 teams in the world go to champs.

Provided that there are a series of normalizations for the points system, it's probably the best order AFTER you get through the idea of ensuring 6 teams from every regional go, instead of 5 or 4 or 3.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

They don't have to do anything, but hypothetically if only 20 out of 110 teams from an area got a bid into championships, while another region got 30 out of 115 bids, someone is going to call BS on misrepresentation based purely on geography, event structure, venue size, etc.



Provided that there are a series of normalizations for the points system, it's probably the best order AFTER you get through the idea of ensuring 6 teams from every regional go, instead of 5 or 4 or 3.

To your first point, I dont agree with that on the basis of it depending on the qualification structure. If everyone was in the same points structure as say FiM, then if one region had 20/110 and another had 30/115, then that just meant that that other region had better robots.

[Shrub]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

"completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and hyperbolic as well. Have you seen the variety of teams in FRC?
Nonetheless, if anyone can do it, we can do it.

Not to misinterpret what cadandcookies meas, but I'm pretty sure he means that every FRC team is organized under, well, FRC. This allows for champs, no matter what the location and variety of the teams (or whether its regional/district). The reason sports can't do this like FRC can (besides at the Olympic level) is because they don't have an international organization linking teams around the world together. It's difficult to do that with more common sports due to varying interest levels and the ways teams can be organized at different tiers.

Originally Posted by MooreteP

Math! Release the game in October, Build until End off Year Break, Six weeks of District/State/Province/Nation High School competitions in January/Feb. "Regional" competitions in March, World Championship in April.

Also, as much as I love a longer competition season, what happens when high schools that have both and FRC and FTC team, or mentor an FTC team, start build in October? That would be two kickoffs within a month with roughly the same build time and (again, roughly) the same days for competition. I know FTC is a lot smaller compared to FRC, but it could possibly make an impact on bot quality for the teams involved.

edit: If a state (ie: Minnesota (a very popular state in this thread)) runs on regionals, what do you mean by "regional" competitions? Does that mean that the teams that compete in regionals don't do anything for six weeks, or that smaller competitions are held that lead up to a limited amount of teams going to "regional" competitions based on performance and/or awards (that then merit going to champs)? Because then there would be a problem on giving out awards and whether they count for going to champs or not. But it's a cool idea!

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Dragonking

Next year we will have 600 teams at champs representing about 3000 teams. If all high schools had a team there would be 30000 just in the US. How would a 6000 team world championship work.
I do agree that if anyone could pul

I'm not sure why we're positing a linear scaling of championships. Wiki tells me there's ~15,000 school districts* in the US. (Add in other countries, but subtract a healthy chunk that wouldn't do FRC.) There are like 22,000 FLL teams in the World, and they have a very nice World Festival. It's darn near impossible to get into, but it means a lot. (I know it's "not a level of competition". But it's FLL.)

The point is, we can scale if we're flexible about our postulates. We'd need to tap many, many more resources to stay strong and stable at this size, and I concur that's going to be darn near impossible. But if we do, scaling Worlds won't be the way to provide a great experience and an inspirational environment. In fact, the idea that you'd need to a 2014-era Worlds to be so inspired would be downright laughable to these teams of the future.

Why? if we pulled this off, MAR alone would have ~500 teams (60% FRC). If 100 teams gets me young-ish teams like 1676, 1923, 2016 and 2590, then 500 with similarly distributed money and mentorship would be...whoa. And MAR Champs would have a steeper drop off than Worlds does now. And they'd all be closer to home! These top 10%-quality events would be a train ride away from a lot of the students in the country. Imagine a top 10% event in NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, DC, Dallas, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston, Portland, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Detroit, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Denver, Phoenix, San Francisco, Portland... I'm not very good at this, but you get the point. It's a heck of a recruitment and retention tool.

*We also shouldn't conflate "FIRST team in every high school" with "every high school has a FIRST team".

[RKazmer]

What I really want to see eventually is a competition of different areas of the United States. For example, say Team A is running a district system and qualifies for "Championship" on the East Coast. Team A would then go to the East Coast Championship that hosts all of the winners from around the East Coast. From there, either national or international competition.

I understand that this isn't feasible for a lot of teams due to the multiple long distance trips and missing school/work for the events. However, eventually that could be a solution to the problem at hand.