Championship Qualification - Constructive Criticism

Competition Championship Event
1

There is another thread where some good discussion is going on with regard to Championship Qualification.

This new qualification system has been developed over a good period of time and many people have put in many hours in making this change.

However, like any system, it is not perfect. Due to these imperfections, some teams feel like they are being “shafted”. People get mad when they are “shafted”, and they complain. As a FIRST mentor, I try to get people to give constructive criticisms when they have a complain.

So, here is a bit of constructive criticism:

The 2003 Rookies who did not attend the 2003 Championships are being overlooked by being placed in tier 1. They should be in tier 2.

Here is the current tier definitions:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1998 or earlier

Here is my suggested change:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or Rookie Year is 2004
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999 or earlier

This change makes things more “fair” for rookies from 2003 who did not attend the Championships.

I am thinking that this may just be a clerical mistake… I dunno. Hopefully, it is, and FIRST realizes this inequity and fixes it.

Please post your constructive critiques as you see them. I really don’t want this thread to turn into an argumentative discussion… I would just like positive ideas.

Andy B.

2

I agree that this would alleviate the issue for the second year teams who did not attend in 2003,
However it would be more appropriate to simply take the teams that DID attend in 2003 and make them Tier 0. (And move ANY team who has not been in the championships for ONE year into Tier 1)

If this is not done, new Rookie teams who obviously did not attend last year would be a year behind teams who went to the championships in 2003 even though BOTH types of team had not been in the championship for ONE year.

To see this from a rookie viewpoint:

One year from now they will have the same gripe we do this year. They will have not been in the championship for ONE year and the teams that are presently in Tier ONE will be a step ahead of them having not been in the championship for one year.

It is really a simple change… just make sure that Tier one is for teams that have not been in the championship for one year.

Tier two is for teams that haven’t been in the championship for two years … etc etc

Tier Zero is for teams that are either Rookies or went to the championship the year before.

I think that this is what was intended but for some reason it has gotten messed up.

At least I would like to think that this is what was intended…

thanks for your concern

Robert Steele
RoboDevils -

(who plan on going to the championships this year
by earning our way on to the field…)

By the way Andy… we would still like a chance at those pretty wings of the Auk …maybe our drive train will survive this year… lol

3

personally I think that FIRST needs to take the focus off the championship as a reward

and put more glory into the regionals. There is currently a lot of variation between the regionals - if you goto Cleveland the team party is at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but at Toronto the ‘team party’ was at the arena where the games were held

To level the field, every regional should have it own unique appeal and level of excitment, so that a team with a $6,ooo budget that can only attend the regional in its hometown

doesnt feel that its less a part of the FIRST program than teams that goto other regionals.

As for the championship - if they make qualification be by current year performance, and nothing else, then a lot of the hard feelings will go away

and maybe we can even set it up so that, if your team wins a regional, then you get to goto the championship for free?

To be honest, the two times Ive been to the championship (with two different teams) I got the impression that the regionals were more about FIRST, and the championship was more about rewarding the students for the effort they had put in.

I dont see any reason why the regionals cant be a reward too - why cant we have a regional at disney world? or on a cruise ship? or in Hawaii? London? Toyoko?

We dont need to have ALL the teams in one place for an event to be an outstanding life changing experience.

4

I would just like to say that yes, I think 2003 Rookies

5

I would just like to say that yes, I think 2003 Rookies should be in a different tier than say last years 2003 Stack Attack Championship Attendents.

I also just posted the following in relation to what FIRST has done in response to rookies and veterans:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=192411#post192411

6

As an advisor to Team 64, this is the first time in six years that we are not sure if we will attend the Championships. If we qualify, we wil attend. If we do not qualify…

Faced with this new situation, I have begun to question the necessity of the Championships. The glory is great… but is it fun?

I am beginning to believe that the atmosphere at the regionals is closer to the beliefs of FIRST.

Ken Loyd
Team 64
Advisor

7

IMHO,

I have attended the Championship round when it was last held in Orlando as a mentor of a rookie team. The atmosphere from the Regionals to the Championships was electric and the team responded with a fantastic finish. Last year as a mentor of another rookie team, in a different school district, we did not attend the Championship. The students used that first year as a building block to hopefully attend the Finals this year. It seems now, that as a year two team, our chances of attending are slim to none. I’m not exactly sure how they will react to the news.
I agree that the real meaning of FIRST isn’t a glitzy post-comp party, or a trip to an exotic city with many sights and sounds. The real meaning, in my mind, is to challenge young minds to do great things and to measure themselves against others of the same temperament and ability. Would I give up the opportunity to take this group to a Championship? Never! I will not, however, compromise what I see as a tremendous learning opportunity and a chance for students to be exposed to an opportunity that many others would give anything for.

8

*Originally posted by Andy Baker *
**There is another thread where some good discussion is going on with regard to Championship Qualification.

This new qualification system has been developed over a good period of time and many people have put in many hours in making this change.

However, like any system, it is not perfect. Due to these imperfections, some teams feel like they are being “shafted”. People get mad when they are “shafted”, and they complain. As a FIRST mentor, I try to get people to give constructive criticisms when they have a complain.

So, here is a bit of constructive criticism:

The 2003 Rookies who did not attend the 2003 Championships are being overlooked by being placed in tier 1. They should be in tier 2.

Here is the current tier definitions:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1998 or earlier

Here is my suggested change:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or Rookie Year is 2004
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999 or earlier

This change makes things more “fair” for rookies from 2003 who did not attend the Championships.

Andy B. **

I agree with Andy 1000% on this, and it’s not just because I’m from one of those '03 rookie teams. It only makes sense that an '03 rookie team that did not attend the Big Event in '03 should be one tier higher than teams which attended in '03, and '04 rookie teams. Tier 2 teams which do not qualify still might have only a small chance of “winning the lottery,” but it would be better than being a tier 1 team.