Idea of superchamps

Everyone wants one championship. What if FIRST had a superchamps? Basically the thought is to have the regular two championships in Houston and Detroit. I like this because it allows more teams to experience world’s. What if FIRST ranked the teams at world’s into one new pool.

The top 50 (or whatever) teams at each championship get to attend superchamps.

1 Like

There isn’t really any point. The highest level of play occurs at worlds (the two championships). Anything past that is kind of a waste of time as teams won’t have significantly higher play at “superchamps” level. People have talked about this before, BTW. It would be too selective and there is a high chance that only rich teams could afford to attend because they have the extra money to go, changing what teams actually go vs. those that should. There are a slew of other problems with this.


It also wouldn’t let more people experience worlds.


@Joel.Olivares Research project for you: “Festival of Champions”, 2017.

The short version is that back when the ChampionSplit happened, a lot of folks were thinking along those lines, so FIRST put together a 1-day event in NH in July to generate 1 Champion. Reviews were… well… meh. They haven’t done it since.

IRI, on the other hand…


The one true champs … :roll_eyes:


What was wrong with one champ (not another limited foc/superchamp after two half champs) ?

I get they “FIRST” want more teams to experience the championship(s), that’s great. Build a bigger/better champ then. Possibly lessen wildcards and alternate entry methods and let the best bigger pool in that season.

Where is the rational though in two champs in two locations with half the teams that somehow found a way in to fill the two champ slots?
Two of the same yet different? A week apart?
One better and one worse?
Two that don’t answer the simple question, who won that season?

The answer is ONE expanded championship, satisfies all. One place to see the best.

Hmm like we used to have?

By now two champs should have proven its worth, still an incessant calling for one champ… listen

What’s the end goal? More teams in half champ?


A much better product to expand First interest to new folks?

Look at AFL/NFL then it exploded with one NFL… go forwards not backwards

1 Like

Congrats, you figured it out!


I would like to see it, but 2 questions need to be answered:

  • When would it be?
  • Where would it be?

The end of competition season right now already almost conflicts with AP tests and is close to school finals in some areas. If you hold it in summer, you run into issues with some school-affiliated teams being unable to attend.

As for where, they would have to find somewhere that you could convince 50 teams from all over the world to travel to. That’s not an easy task.

I agree with EricH that IRI basically fills the same purpose as this idea for now.


I’m aware of festival of champions. Doesn’t make much sense to put on an event for 8 teams.

IRI is fantastic every year and so is chezy champs.

It’s just an idea obviously but wouldn’t it be cool to see 100 of the best teams in the world compete at one competition?

1 Like

So…district champs and then a single champs?


My proposal: Bring back 1 championship and make it 8 divisions again. Instead of making it a single-elimination bracket or a round robin, however, make it a double-elimination bracket. Basically, the winners of each division get placed into the bracket and play bo1 matches until the top 4, where it switches to bo3. This allows for a larger variety of matches than a single-elimination bracket but also makes matches feel like they have a more significant effect than a round robin.


Cool, yeah.

Practical, nope.

Consider this:
You’re asking 100 teams to take an unscheduled trip to a place for a competition that is simply to find the absolute best among those 100 teams.

Wait. Let me rephrase that.

You’re asking 100 teams to spend money and time and TRAVEL (you’re in MI, I don’t think you know how long it takes for a coastal team to travel to Houston–but you have a better idea than the folks in New England) just to play once more–either during AP testing, or during finals, or during the SUMMER when lots of teams go into a light snooze so students can go on vacations with their families, on relatively short notice, just to find the absolute best team from 50 teams at each Championship.

Thanks, but I’m pretty sure that’s a non-starter out this way. If it was required there’d be a lot of grumbling to put it mildly. Now if you were to pay those teams’ travel expenses, or partially pay them, I think you’d get more interest. But still, it’s going to be a hard sell.


Very understandable

1 Like

Just ask 2928, who was on the winning 2017 HOU alliance and was to play in the Festival of Champs.

TL:DR, they did not go.


Given that we can’t easily extend the season (earlier means we must start before Christmas, later means we run into AP/IB tests and school letting out), and given that HQ has made it clear that their priority is giving more teams the championship experience, we really can’t have a single tournament with the highest levels of possible FRC play.

If your priorities don’t align with HQ, since there’s no real alternative program similar to FRC, it’s basically “sucks to suck”.

As others have mentioned, IRI is kind of what you described. I don’t think it is feasible for FIRST to create a “super-champs”. By the end of Detroit and Houston, most people are burned out from the work of a full FRC season, and need a break. Adding another competition on top of Champs will just further complicate things.

It’s hard to justify the travel costs of a additional national event. Going to champs for our team would cost around 50-100% of the budget of the rest of our program. Even the best teams don’t have infinite money. Add to that the cost of FIRST organizing and planning the event and it quickly becomes not worth it.

Now if high level FRC can support itself based on webcasts that’s one thing but we aren’t close to that point.

You know you’re right. I’m going remove that part of my post.

1 Like

I think that would be best. Everyone would have a chance to aim for something that is attainable, or at least feels attainable. Fewer teams would advance from DCMP to the one, single, worlds, so it would feel like a much bigger deal to qualify. Finally, and most importantly for those of us who mostly experience Champs as spectators, a single, climactic event to end the season is a much bigger thrill. Back when there was one Einstein Field, it just seemed so much more significant than it has since the split.

Now, let me explain my theory on why that won’t happen.

Reading through and participating in threads over the years, I slowly grew to realize something about various decisions made at HQ. Their primary goal is not to give the students or the teams the best possible experience. Their primary goals are to attract the most attention. They want to “make it loud”. Their decisions are outward facing, not inward facing.

That isn’t a complaint. They definitely want a good experience for the teams, but what they really want is to make it visible. To gain recognition. To attract the attention of the nation, the community, the world, onto FIRST and everything it does.

Two champs makes that work. Eight home town newspapers get to print “Local High School Wins World Championship.” Two different major metropolitan areas get to have high profile coverage of their town, playing on those iconic venues that are part of the local landscape. Two different sets of regional economic powers can be recruited to sponsor the activities. A cynic might suggest that that last bit might even be more important than the others, but, whatever role that plays, there can be no doubt that the presence and participation of these economic institutions help both FIRST and the students who participate.

Over time, it might work out that other district championships might generate the level of hype and publicity that we manage to get here in Michigan. If that happens, I could see HQ deciding that the combination of DCMP and a single World Championship might actually create even more publicity and attract more attention (and sponsorship) than the two champ system. At that point, we might see a change. Until then, the two champs system does a better job of “making it loud”.