Changes to FLL Champions Award criterion

Other FIRST Lego League
1

This FLL thread seems pretty slim, so let me pose a question.

How many FLL coaches noticed that the FLL Advancement / Champions award rules have changed significantly this year?

The big change seems to be that the actual Robot Performance Score (mission points) do not factor into the Champions award any more, other than to set a “top 40% minimum threshold bar” that must be reached.

So in past years there was a 4 way split between Performance, Technical, Project and Core Values, now it’s only a 3 way split: Design, Project, Core Values.

It’s now more important that you can convince the judges that your robot is efficient and reliable, rather than actually being able to demonstrate it repeatedly in competition.

I’m not sure what has lead to this change… it was snuck in without much fanfair, especially if the judge reactions in MD were any indication.

I can see some logic in sepparating the actual Robot Game scores from the “Overall award” because it keeps it more in line with FTC and FRC…

EXCEPT that in FTC and FRC the Overall winner AND the Robot Game winners advance to worlds. In FLL, only the Overall winner advances.

I’m not saying the game score is the only thing that matters, not by a long shot. But it should matter SOME !!! Otherwise what’s the point?

It seems odd to me that despite the big fanfair that is made of the FLL robot games at worlds (it’s the only thing the general public gets to watch), we are only sending our above-average robots to compete, not the TOP robots. How is this inspiring?

Does this mean that soon only the FTC Inspire and FRC Chairmans Award winners will get to go to Worlds? Makes you go Hmmmm.

Phil.

2

That change happened last year.

3

Phil,
I really hate the performance part of the award. For so many years we have been told ‘it is not about the robot’, but now it really is. As a judge we bypassed some teams who were having a bad day at the table. In an attempt to let everyone on the team at the table, these great teams had some issues with inexperienced drivers. Teams who played very well at the regional level also fell apart at the state level.

4

Seriously? I guess I was in limbo-land last year.

I probably didn’t notice since our state didn’t get into the Championship lottery last year, so there was no opportunity to advance anyway.
Not to mention our performance wasn’t great either.

I still don’t get why the robot performance less important than everything else now.

5

They say they are dividing it equally between Robot, Project and Core Values. The robot judges take some notice of your table scores when deliberating the champion award (and advancement criteria from local to state events).

In the past the robot portion was divided between performance and judging.

6

It was top 53%* at our regional.

*Double the percentage of teams that advance.

I do agree that it devalues the robot performance aspect, even though advancement is apparently all subjective, that is, judges’ choice.

7

Correct, advancement criteria is different than championship award criteria. Else it could devolve into a farce:

  • Suppose exactly 40% of teams advanced - the judging would be immaterial because the top 40% of teams would be determined by the robot game
  • Suppose 50% of teams advanced - where would that last 10% come from if all teams had to be in the top 40% of game scores?
8

I sort of see what you are saying about Qualifier to State, although our advancement % was 25% I think. So judging is still very important.

However, advancing from State to Championship is just 1 team.

With State tournaments getting larger (72 teams in MD) it’s nearly impossible for judges to get a consistant ranking across all teams. Each method used to normalize the judging has pitfalls and can be effected by random team groupings or judge differences. Adding more judged categories doesn’t necessarily help normalize the results.

Why throw away the one and only non-subjective ranking component available?

Phil.

9

I think clearly it IS about the robot, just not just ALL about the robot.

I don’t want advancement to be JUST the robot game, but why is the concrete result of all that effort thrown away.

Science and Technology is about producing results, not just about putting in the effort. We are trying to instill the concept of work hard, produce great things and it will be incredibly rewarding.

I know every event and team is different. We have kids of all grades. We all have good days and bad. On my team, everyone always works the table every time. We always work for the best project we can, work hard for the technical presentation and core values.

We strive to be the best in every category… so WHY is the robot score thown away.

When kids leave the judging rooms they all think they did great, but we know that’s very subjective. However when they see their table score at the top of the list, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind… yet, that score doesn’t amount to a hill of beans for advancing to worlds.

I just don’t want the message to change from “It’s not just about the robot” to “Don’t worry about the robot, it’s good enough.”

Side question…
Does your dislike of the performance part of the award extend to FRC? I know Wild Stang is a world class team so maybe it wouldn’t matter to them, but do you think the regionals be the same if ONLY the Chairmans and EI teams went on to worlds?

Phil.

10

Phil,
I think you missed my point. I know that there are many world class FLL teams that excel both on and off the table. However, I also know that the nature of students of this age is to fail at some tasks from time to time. I have seen great robots at one event fail at another due to fatique, lack of focus, or confusion. It breaks my heart when a team does very well in judging but has to be eliminated due to table scores.
In FRC there are some fantastic teams that have gone through an event with hard luck for the entire weekend. They would get paired up with a robot that failed to move, or failed to show up for the match on many matches. Now there is no way for them to perform well in competition even though they have a superb robot. From our standpoint, every team should have a chance to compete on and off the field. As a Chairman’s Team we are committed to helping others achieve judged awards including helping them practice their presentations, informing them about the process and insuring that rookies get the extra added help to make their first event a memorable one. Many teams should be given the opportunity to make it to Champs. We support them whether they achieve success on the field or in the judging rooms. For us TEAMS are judged and TEAMS win so TEAMS should make it to Champs. If your team concentrates on performance then fine. If you concentrate on community, great, if improved technology or innovation is your bag, then we hope you are recognized for your achievements.