Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[skippy178]

What is the feeling about teams who compete at their "home" regional and then go on to compete at other regionals (some nearby, and others far away) ?

FIRST espouses "gracious professionalism", yet as I listened to the Championship webcast, I was amazed at the number of top teams who had won multiple awards at several regionals leading to Atlanta.

Some rookie teams struggle just to field a robot, yet there are veteran teams who are well-resourced and with deep pockets, who are travelling the countryside and beating the local talent on their home turf. What does this really say about the FIRST competition system ?

Does this REALLY encourage new teams to come back again next year when the out-of-towners take all the prestigious awards, and deny the locals a chance to go to Atlanta ?

The more I think about this, the more I keep wishing for FIRST to take some proactive steps to limit teams to entering their "home" regional event (the closest within their region, or if two are equally close, then they must nominate one as the home event) to qualify for Atlanta, and if they enter other "away" regionals, then they can compete, but are not eligible for moving into the elimination rounds, and that goes to the local teams instead.

I'm interested to know what others think about this.

Cheers

J

[BigJ]

This same topic has been made 2 or 3 times this season already, and I think they all had devolved into locked flame-wars.

Teams that do great are just role models, IMO. I know our team strives to be as awesome as many of the "big teams".

EDIT: As far as the "home regional" thing, then realize that certain regionals would be pretty stacked, and the Championship might be a little askew.

[Koko Ed]

If they can afford it there is no reason why FIRST should legislate where teams compete or how many times they compete.
It's just senseless for them to do so.

[Pavan Dave]

Define regional and you have my answer. Change the name, it is very misleading. As for actually competing in qualifying events, I think a reasonable cap needs to be established either by the community (which seems to be 2-3) or by FIRST which is currently 6.

[CarterM]

I kind of agree, due to FIRST calling it a "regional", hey! Why not make it a regional? When sport teams compete at a sectional, are they able to compete at three different sectionals? No. Then again, robotics is much cooler in sports in a way that it is a learning experience, so attending more regionals is a great way to become more involved in the FIRST community. Also, limiting teams to the number of events, is like saying your limiting a kids learning experience...It's just hard to do. Also, this subject has been beaten up a couple of times...search for it. In the end, it truly is a hard topic to come to a final conclusion.

[Alex.Norton]

I'm always very happy when a great team comes to visit my region because I personally don't have the time or funds to travel to other regionals or the championship. I get to see some amazing game play and get to see what that team did to be good.

This year I was very happy to get a chance to see 1625 because I liked there design and wanted to see it up close. The fact that they swept my local regional is a mute point IMO.

[Akash Rastogi]

We always do our home regional even if we are not determined to win in Trenton. After that we are known to go down south somewhere (eg: Palmetto, Chesapeake). And we love going there. So what exactly should be stopping teams from going if say..they are finalists one place and then decide to go somewhere else because they know they will have improved and win?

[Vikesrock]

This same topic has been made 2 or 3 times this season already, and I think they all had devolved into locked flame-wars.

Teams that do great are just role models, IMO. I know our team strives to be as awesome as many of the "big teams".

EDIT: As far as the "home regional" thing, then realize that certain regionals would be pretty stacked, and the Championship might be a little askew.

I agree this issue was covered pretty well here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66564&highlight=multiple+regionals

[Billfred]

What is the feeling about teams who compete at their "home" regional and then go on to compete at other regionals (some nearby, and others far away) ?If they feel that it's the best use of their money, let 'em run.

FIRST espouses "gracious professionalism", yet as I listened to the Championship webcast, I was amazed at the number of top teams who had won multiple awards at several regionals leading to Atlanta.Part of gracious professionalism is professionalism. I would be severely disappointed in my team if we didn't give it all we had at every competition we attended.

Some rookie teams struggle just to field a robot, yet there are veteran teams who are well-resourced and with deep pockets, who are travelling the countryside and beating the local talent on their home turf. What does this really say about the FIRST competition system ?Ignoring the rookie and veteran labels used, exactly that: there are teams that struggle to field a robot and deep-pocketed teams. At no point has FIRST said either is a bad thing, so long as there is inspiration afoot.

Does this REALLY encourage new teams to come back again next year when the out-of-towners take all the prestigious awards, and deny the locals a chance to go to Atlanta ?Yes. In the words of legendary professional wrestler Ric Flair, "to be the man, you gotta beat the man."

The more I think about this, the more I keep wishing for FIRST to take some proactive steps to limit teams to entering their "home" regional event (the closest within their region, or if two are equally close, then they must nominate one as the home event) to qualify for Atlanta, and if they enter other "away" regionals, then they can compete, but are not eligible for moving into the elimination rounds, and that goes to the local teams instead.Which, in effect, undermines the purpose of the qualification rounds. Consider 2237 at Palmetto, the #2 seed. Do we toss them out of the elimination rounds because they competed at Pittsburgh as well? What would a spectator who isn't as versed in the competition think? What would that do for teams that choose to travel to expand their horizons?

Instead of holding the top teams down, let's bring the bottom teams up. (And if you talk to those top teams, many of them are making great strides to do so!)

[Storcky]

After 6 weeks of such hard work, our team decides that two regionals are more rewarding than one. It means that our students must do extra work for us to go, but once we get there it's amazing and we get to make friends with a lot of new teams. Last year, for instance, we were the only team attending both the Chesapeake regional and the Pittsburgh regional, so we never competed with or against the same robot. Attending two regionals also spreads our image to the community. Instead of only being listed in the paper once, we are listed at least three times: once at the end of build season and once after each competition.

[Zyik]

Each regional a team attends has a greater chance of inspiring them and teaching them something. Why on Earth would you want to limit that?

[skippy178]

My main point is that a team competing in multiple regionals shouldn't be able to take home awards everywhere they go just because they have the $$$ to do so, and at the expense of the smaller-budget teams. Once they go to their first regional competition, it should become "practice only" (non-qualifying) at other events, and that should include being ineligible for the off-field awards too.

If every team could find a way to attend 2 or 3 regionals, especially if they were geographically convenient to home base, wouldn't that give them a much better (perhaps unfair) chance of qualifying for the Championship than if they competed locally, and then sat around for 4-6 weeks waiting for Atlanta (assuming you were pre-qualified) or else were eliminated and had to wait for next year to try again.

What do the top NASCAR / F1 / Indy teams do between races ? They spend time and money on practice, and practice, and more practice, and throw in plenty of workshop time too (without fix-it windows !). But, regardless of all that, they can't go out and add a few extra races to their season to give them more points in their championships.

In professional sports, the teams get a given match / event schedule, and over the course of the season up the finals rounds, each team will play the same number of games.

In FIRST, that's not the case. But, should it be ?

J

[usbcd36]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On one hand, I love seeing all of the interesting robots made by out-of-state teams (not that the in-state teams don't have interesting robots). On the other hand, it always seems like the top few teams are from out-of-state. Plus, teams at their second regional have had time to work out more of the bugs, which puts them at an even greater advantage.

Overall, I wish that I had pushed for us to go to a second regional. In retrospect, I think we would've been a lot happier to have a second chance, even if we didn't make nationals. Plus, it would keep us from complaining about the other teams who did it.

[sdcantrell56]

I don't see this as a problem at all. If a team has the money to do it why should they be stopped. Think of it as more opportunities for them inspire and help other teams.

Also the idea of FIRST being completely fair is not really valid. It is more like the real world in which some people or teams have more resources, and the other teams have to make do with what they have until they to work to obtain those resources.

[skippy178]

Each regional a team attends has a greater chance of inspiring them and teaching them something. Why on Earth would you want to limit that?

I'm not against "teaching". I am against the idea that a well-resourced team with (relatively) massive amounts of sponsorship funding, mentors and facilities can travel around squashing the "little guys", who are the new rookie teams that Dean Kamen and others so desparately want to attract to this competition.

Whether you realised it or not, you saw it happen this weekend in Atlanta, where the highest ever team number to be a Championship Winner in the finals alliance was team 1114. That means there are over half the teams with numbers above that who have NEVER been to that dizzying level.

Looking at

http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/events/Einstein/awards.html

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?

J

[Billfred]

My main point is that a team competing in multiple regionals shouldn't be able to take home awards everywhere they go just because they have the $$$ to do so, and at the expense of the smaller-budget teams.Perhaps it's because the teams that have the resources to do multiple events have the systems in place that make them more effective at achieving their objectives (inspiring students, changing the culture, etc.).

Once they go to their first regional competition, it should become "practice only" (non-qualifying) at other events, and that should include being ineligible for the off-field awards too.Nevermind that many teams fare better at their second event than at their first (which then causes issues already discussed with the competition).

If every team could find a way to attend 2 or 3 regionals, especially if they were geographically convenient to home base, wouldn't that give them a much better (perhaps unfair) chance of qualifying for the Championship than if they competed locally, and then sat around for 4-6 weeks waiting for Atlanta (assuming you were pre-qualified) or else were eliminated and had to wait for next year to try again.A better chance? Yes. An unfair chance? No. If you've worked to form the partnerships required to afford multiple events, you've earned it. (That's coming from the mentor of a one-regional-a-year team.) I'll leave alone the fact that at no point has FIRST called for its competition to be perfectly fair.

What do the top NASCAR / F1 / Indy teams do between races ? They spend time and money on practice, and practice, and more practice, and throw in plenty of workshop time too (without fix-it windows !). But, regardless of all that, they can't go out and add a few extra races to their season to give them more points in their championships.

In professional sports, the teams get a given match / event schedule, and over the course of the season up the finals rounds, each team will play the same number of games.You're drawing an apples-to-oranges comparison. In a professional sports league, the teams are all competing together in contests that can only generally happen around one match per day over several months, and the teams in contention don't change over the span of time that play is underway. In FRC, that's a regional competition. To compare multiple regionals with professional sports would be akin to saying that the Atlanta Braves would play the first half of its season in the National League and the second half in the American League.

In FIRST, that's not the case. But, should it be ?
No.

[sdcantrell56]

What do team numbers have to do with the winning alliance on einstein and how many regionals a team attends. There were plenty of rookie bots at the championship, they were simply not good enough to make it to einstein or for the most part the eliminations of the divisions either. The teams with large budgets attending and winning multiple regionals has nothing to do with the lack of rookie teams on einstein.

[Valley Raider]

I think the problem is more that there are teams that struggle just to make it to one regional and other can afford to go to as many as they want where ever they want.

If you look at teams that travel across the country, their robots are high machined and well built. This is because they have better resources than other teams, more machines, more material, and more money and time to prototype (time spent fundraising for other teams can be spent designing and making parts). So their bot are going to preform well because of the time and money put into them. Which means that at competitions they are going to win.

By stopping them from entering multiple regionals you may give more teams a chance but the best Robot want necessarily win. The fact remain the best Robots do win, mot at ever time, upsets are possible but in general...

Also keep in mind that these team didn't go to 2+ regionals then they would have an extra 15k to spend in entry fees a travel, (more in some cases). Are they going to donate this to other teams, maybe but more likely they are going to spend it to make their Robot better. Which means they are only going to increase their advantage over the rest of the field.

[BigJ]

My main point is that a team competing in multiple regionals shouldn't be able to take home awards everywhere they go just because they have the $$$ to do so, and at the expense of the smaller-budget teams.
I think the problem is more that there are teams that struggle just to make it to one regional and other can afford to go to as many as they want where ever they want.

If you look at teams that travel across the country, their robots are high machined and well built. This is because they have better resources than other teams, more machines, more material, and more money and time to prototype (time spent fundraising for other teams can be spent designing and making parts). So their bot are going to preform well because of the time and money put into them. Which means that at competitions they are going to win.
...
Also keep in mind that these team didn't go to 2+ regionals then they would have an extra 15k to spend in entry fees a travel, (more in some cases). Are they going to donate this to other teams, maybe but more likely they are going to spend it to make their Robot better. Which means they are only going to increase their advantage over the rest of the field.

The teams that have all this money to go places to win awards probably take initiative to get more sponsors for that money, and should be seen as examples on working to get more sponsors! Ask somebody from their teams. This is FIRST. I'm sure anyone would give pointers or forward you to someone who will.

Also, the judges don't give out awards for money. They give out awards for hard work and effort. Every team should and can put up the effort to make the judge's job that much harder. That's what FIRST is about!

[artdutra04]

If there are no top tier teams, then who do we look up to for inspiration?


I see no reason why FIRST should limit the number of regionals a team attends; if that team can afford it and their students and mentors can cope with the missed school/work respectively, then more power to them.

When one sees an excellent robot or team, why not take note of what they are doing right and apply it to your own team? "Well-resourced" teams with "deep pockets" don't just spring up, they are usually the result of a lot of hard work. And many of these teams are also quite large (upwards of 50-100 students), thus inspiring more students per season.

And yes, I do know what it feels like to be on a team with little resources. Over the course of two seasons from 2002 to 2004, the annual budget for my high school team (Team 228) dropped by over $30,000, our founding coach retired from teaching and mentoring the team, and our team size dropped from 40 to 15 students. The 2005 and 2006 seasons were tight, but we were determined to help being ourselves back to our previous levels of success, and worked constantly to help find new sponsors, teachers, mentors, and students.

To this day, we are still working hard, but we have also brought the team size back up to around 20-25 students, still working on recovering our pre-2002 sponsorship levels, recruiting several new engineers to our team (one of which was a student on our team back in 1999), professionalizing many aspects of our team, starting summer camps with interactive labs to teach our team members even more, and building the foundation for our team to incorporate as our own 501(c)3.

All of these changes are being made on the aspirations that one day we will again be able to compete at multiple regionals again, with the option of also competing at the Championships. (For the past few years, we've only competed at the CT Regional and the Championships). If all of a sudden FIRST came out and declared that we could only attend one regional, a good majority of the impetus for improving our team every year would dissolve.


FIRST should not dictate how teams run themselves; they should provide resources and incentives to teams to put their nose to the grindstone and continue working to help bring success to their team.

[Mr. Freeman]

I somewhat agree with placing the suggested restriction on teams.

It's not really inspiring when a team looses a chance in nationals to a team that has three or more chances to get to nationals.

I don't like the idea that to get to nationals, a team has to preform better than every single big name team that has enough money to attend more than one regional. The national competitions are supposed to determine which team preformed the best that year, not the regionals.

If there are no top tier teams, then who do we look up to for inspiration?
I'm not sure how the number of top tier teams is related to the number of regionals teams can enter.

[Valley Raider]

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?

J

i would like to point out that 254 has won like 20 regionals in their history and has never won nationals. But there picked every year because they have established themselves. Teams in the 2000's need to prove that their robot isn't going to brake and leave the alliance with a scoring robot. The first time you team qualifies for nationals they aren't very likely to win because they haven't prove themselves at the national level. Three years ago their was only one team over 1000 in the Finals? this year there was 1114, 1124, 1024, and some others which I forget (sorry).

The point is that teams in the 2000's have to prove themselves by beating these top teams before they are going to be selected. They need to do this first a the regional level and then at nationals. Note 1114 did this. They have won multiple regionals the past few year. Teams need to earn there spot by beating the best teams, so I don't see the point in preventing the best teams from competing, and thus allowing other teams the chance to prove their worth.

[XaulZan11]

I don't think attending more than one regional is just about having a better chance at winning a regional, going to Atlanta or winning awards. FIRST shouldn't just be about winning.

There are two reason to attend more regionals:

1. Meet, teach and inspire more teams. Like mentioned above, the teams that have enough funds to attend more than one regional, have to be doing something right. These teams usually have alot of experience that they can teach other teams. By going to more than one regional, these teams have more opportunity to teach and inspire other teams, including rookies. I know in my rookie year at Wisconsin, I know I was inspired and learned from teams like 70, 494, 111, 1625, who were all making Wisconsin thier second regional. Although all of these teams reached the finals and I'm sure won their fair share of awards, they were also fantastic role models for the plethora of younger and rookie teams in Wisconsin that year.

2. Regionals are fun and should celebrate all the work that teams do. Teams put in a ton of work each year and the regionals is where they can enjoy all the work they put in. The teams that attend more than one regional, usually are the teams that put in the most work, so it makes sense that they should be allowed to enjoy and celebrate the work that they put in.

[whytheheckme]

The teams that have all this money to go places to win awards probably take initiative to get more sponsors for that money, and should be seen as examples on working to get more sponsors! Ask somebody from their teams. This is FIRST. I'm sure anyone would give pointers or forward you to someone who will.

Also, the judges don't give out awards for money. They give out awards for hard work and effort. Every team should and can put up the effort to make the judge's job that much harder. That's what FIRST is about!

*my entrance into this hot topic*

In our rookie year, we attended two regionals, and the championships. We won the Rookie All-star award and the Website Design award. We had 4 major corporate sponsors, and a world-class robot, completely designed and built by students with guidance from our fine mentors, teachers, and parents. Our team's image, logo, and mission was clearly displayed and well known everywhere we went. We partnered with a deaf school to reach across disability lines to spread the message of FIRST to everyone.

How did we do it?

We had a set of awesome parents, and awesome teachers, who were determined to have an awesome robotics team. With careful planning, we were able to find the corporate sponsors we needed to do everything that we did. We found the mentors that we needed to help with the design process of our robot. We spent the time planning and preparing to work with students from the deaf school. We have some VERY determined individuals on our team that made all of this possible.

Their work would be in vein, and would be partially nullified if we were not allowed to compete in multiple regionals.


Imagine the U.S. only being allowed to compete in ONE track event at the Olympics, because it would be unfair to have multiple shots at a track medal.

-Jacob, Team 1991

[waialua359]

Sorry for being blunt, but life isn't fair and most teams dont just inherit an unfair advantage. They work for it.
I think as a Hawaii participant even from one of the most remote places on our island, we've had to overcome a lot of hurdles and challenges just to get where we are, 9 years and counting. Its been a roller coaster ride.
The fact that so many "excellent" teams came to our regional, winning many of the awards, didnt outweigh the positives of what they brought to our 21 rookie teams this year. The proof is when these "mainland" teams had nothing but nice things to say and shared whatever questions and information that the new "rookies" wanted to know.

Embrace the challenge, dont shoot it down.:)

[Akash Rastogi]

Sorry for being blunt, but life isn't fair and most teams dont just inherit an unfair advantage. They work for it.
I think as a Hawaii participant even from one of the most remote places on our island, we've had to overcome a lot of hurdles and challenges just to get where we are, 9 years and counting. Its been a roller coaster ride.
The fact that so many "excellent" teams came to our regional, winning many of the awards, didnt outweigh the positives of what they brought to our 21 rookie teams this year. The proof is when these "mainland" teams had nothing but nice things to say and shared whatever questions and information that the new "rookies" wanted to know.

Embrace the challenge, dont shoot it down.:)

Kudos, I was just going to point out your team to answer this one :]

[dsm]

It seems to me that you have a classic issue of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" -- and if that is a FIRST precept, then I must excuse myself and find another program to inspire students, because this one is clearly not for me.

I think the problem is not that the "Best Teams" excel, it is that in doing so, they often prevent "Pretty Good Teams" from excelling too. The answer is clearly NOT to keep the Best Teams from /going/ to additional regionals, because certainly they set an example of something to strive for, etc.

But the issue of how awards and Atlanta invitations are handled is a bit problematic, I think.

As it stands, I believe when a team wins a regional and already has a slot in Atlanta, their Championship slot is opened up to whoever happens to register for it first. This seems somewhat unfair to, for example, the alliance that just barely lost the last round of the finals at that regional. It would seem to make more sense if they awarded "deferred" slots (for lack of a better term) in some sort of logical order, rather than just randomly. After all, there are already open slots available for first-come-first-serve registration.

For awards, if one of the Best Teams does a lot of Award X kind of work, for example, and wins that award at three different regionals, it again seems unfair to the runner-up Pretty Good Teams also striving for Award X. Maybe some clause should be included that once you win an award at a regional, you forfeit that award at any other regionals? Something like that?

Some might say that this now seems unfair to the Best Teams. Why shouldn't they get Award X at every regional if they deserve it more than the Pretty Good Teams? After all, they're the Best at X. My answer to that is that I personally believe that you should share the opportunities, and that you should strive (and strive hard) to beat your opponents, but not to crush and humiliate them -- that is how you can be "professional" and win, but still be a "gracious" winner.

There is no need to do a three-peat at regionals to prove you're the best at X -- that's precisely what the Championship is for, after all.

Cheers...

[Amanda Morrison]

It seems to me that you have a classic issue of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" -- and if that is a FIRST precept, then I must excuse myself and find another program to inspire students, because this one is clearly not for me.

The love of competition is human nature. If I can find a way to come up with the funding and give the kids on my team one more chance to compete, I will do everything in my power to make that happen.

I've been on teams in the past where the travel is the only time the students have been on a plane, the only time they've been out of state or country. It becomes an experience for them, especially if they would otherwise be unable to afford the trip.

Because of our travels, our kids have made friends with teams all over the US and Canada. They ate meals at competition with these kids and we joined forces with other teams to scout our division at Championship. We like being able to travel and compete with our 'friend teams' and enjoy playing against the 'big dogs' of FIRST. Even if we play and lose every match against them, it gives us a reason to try harder next year and gives us a goal to work towards.

I've been on a team so poor that I donated a chunk of my tuition money to them. And yet, even when we put our robot back in the crate and went home, the conversation in the car always was, "Man, did you SEE that robot? Now THEY were awesome!" And even though our year was over, the competition set a bar for us to aspire to reach.

You can be a one-regional team and have an inspiring experience in this program. Limiting those teams who are better off than we are doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel worse. Who are we to lower the bar?

[techtiger1]

Personally this topic is a very important one to me. Going to 3 regional competitions is a feat in itself. If you can build a robot that can last 3 regionals and championship be my guest. Good luck just accomplishing that task. Then go and win three events it's nearly impossible teams that go to 3 regionals and champs or 3 and 4 events are what is supposed to draw the rookies in. I stay in FIRST because I am continually inspired to better myself and my team as a whole. Just that fact alone is worth it for me. The teams that inspire have worked hard and are well organized so that they can do such things as 4 FRC events. 1114 for example just doesn't build great robots neither does 67 or 217. These teams also have exceptional websites, community outreach and chairmans teams. They also have gone out and gotten the sponsorships and raised money to do all this traveling. All I am saying is that being a topflight FRC veteran team year in and year out takes a lot more then deep pockets and you should respect the work that these teams do. The more rookies that see the great veteran teams the better, they will be able to learn from the best and find out what works and what doesn't. So that they too one day can become a great FIRST team with there own ideas,programs and budgets.

My two cents,
Drew

* This post is my own thoughts and does not reflect the views of team 1251.

[SU 39]

My main point is that a team competing in multiple regionals shouldn't be able to take home awards everywhere they go just because they have the $$$ to do so, and at the expense of the smaller-budget teams. Once they go to their first regional competition, it should become "practice only" (non-qualifying) at other events, and that should include being ineligible for the off-field awards too.


I don't think that this would be fair. Let's say that you're on a team that's above average, but still not "top-tier" yet. You can afford to go to two regionals. At your first regional, the field is stacked full of top-tier robots who win all the awards. You still have a pretty cool robot, just not as cool as all the other robots. Let's say your second regional was filled with teams that had robots "not as cool" as yours. If your team was ineligible to win any awards that it COULD win, it is unfair to all the participants. There's no real "fair" way that awards can be limited. The hard work that a team puts into their robot should be recognized. How and where do you draw the line to say this team has been recognized enough? You can win different awards at different regionals, not necessarily winning the same award at every regional, with perhaps the exception being the Website Award.

For my team, we won the Rockwell Automation award for our steering system at SVR. When we got to Hawaii, another team had a "better" or more impressive control system. However, we were rewarded for all the little things (DBS steering system, vacuum, driver/operator LED hats, etc.) we had on our robot with the Judges' Award. I'm glad we were able to win both awards because just about every aspect of our team was recognized through both awards.

Honestly, I don't think it is fair for a team that is "not as deserving" to win an award over a team that has been deemed ineligible just because it was their second regional.

P.S. I was in Atlanta for a day visiting Georgia Tech and decided to drop by the Georgia Dome for about an hour. One of the first things I did when I went into the pits was find the 1114 machine and see it in person. I wouldn't have had the chacne to be so impressed with their engineering feats if they had only attended one regional. With each regional, they gained more and more publicity, demonstrating that they truly are a top team.

[artdutra04]

I'm not sure how the number of top tier teams is related to the number of regionals teams can enter.If teams are only limited to one regional, then there would be a lot of teams who are Regional Champions. But when you can attend multiple regionals, the really good teams win multiple awards at multiple competitions and place themselves a cut above the rest.

These are the teams that inspire; the ones that engineer awe-inspiring designs or build rock solid machines, or have been able to start more FRC teams than one can count on both hands. These are the role models for FIRST.

Lowering the bar to force equality upon a group of participants is never a good idea. It's a horrible idea as No Child Left Behind, and it would be a horrible idea in FIRST. The only thing it would do is drag down the top tier teams, which are the usually role model teams and some of the strongest for growing, expanding and inspiring in the program.

[Tim Delles]

Newton Division Winners:

330 - 67 - 503 (2005)
968 - 233 - 60 (2008)

Archimedes Division Winners:

245 - 217 - 766 (2005)
1124 - 1024 - 177 (2008)

Galileo Division Winners:

56 - 254 - 64 (2005)
1114 - 217 - 148 (2008)

Curie Division Winners:

175 - 33 - 108 (2005)
67 - 16 - 348 (2008)

This shows that there has been an increase in the average team number of the divisional winning alliance... (if you look at all the divisional winners since say 2000 i believe this would hold true as well)

Now taking a loot at how many teams above 1000+ where involved in the eliminations we get:

Newton: 10 (2056, 1574, 2016, 1251, 1625, 1502, 1714, 1086, 1806, 2591)
Archimedes: 8 (2166, 1124, 1024, 2081, 1218, 2335, 1598, 1771)
Galileo: 8 (1114, 1717, 2340, 1450, 1983, 2046, 1089, 1503)
Curie: 8 (1592, 1126, 1511, 2337, 2171, 1071, 1649, 2344)

so that is 34 teams out of 128 teams were numbers 1000+, considering these teams have only been in first since 2003 (so this would be there 6th year).

Also looking at the teams we have:

the #1 alliance on curie was made up of ALL teams being over 1000.
the #2 alliance on curie was led by team 2337
of the 8 alliances made on curie 5 of them were led by teams over 1000.
of the 8 alliances on newton 6 of them were led by teams over 1000
the #2 alliance was led by a 2nd year team
the #3 alliance was led by team 1574 (on of the Israel teams)
the #5 seeded alliance on archimedes was made up entirely of teams above 1200.
the #1, 2, and 3 alliances on Galileo were captained by teams over 1000 (1114, 1717, and 2340)


In all honesty i think that teams over 1000 are doing exceptionally well for being as new as a lot of them are. and its part of the challenge right?


As for being able to go to multiple regionals i'd say that that is perfectly fine... there was a statement made that 1114 went to 3 regionals, won them all and took awards home. Honestly if i was to attend a regional that was suppose to be dominated by a team it would give me that much more drive to beat them.

[KarenH]

Whether you realised it or not, you saw it happen this weekend in Atlanta, where the highest ever team number to be a Championship Winner in the finals alliance was team 1114. That means there are over half the teams with numbers above that who have NEVER been to that dizzying level.

Looking at

http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/events/Einstein/awards.html

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?
I don't know about those particular teams, but I was astonished to see a rookie team, 2340, seeded 3rd on Galileo. In Curie, 2337 was seeded 2nd; they even made it to their division semifinals. With this kind of performance from rookies, I wouldn't be too concerned about who wins the Championship. It could very well be one of them next year.

[Vikesrock]

I'm not against "teaching". I am against the idea that a well-resourced team with (relatively) massive amounts of sponsorship funding, mentors and facilities can travel around squashing the "little guys", who are the new rookie teams that Dean Kamen and others so desparately want to attract to this competition.

Whether you realised it or not, you saw it happen this weekend in Atlanta, where the highest ever team number to be a Championship Winner in the finals alliance was team 1114. That means there are over half the teams with numbers above that who have NEVER been to that dizzying level.

Looking at

http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/events/Einstein/awards.html

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?

J

I am a bit unsure of the point you are trying to make with this post. Are you suggesting that if the "powerhouse" teams did not go to multiple regionals that higher numbered teams would magically start appearing on Einstein?

Would 1114 or 330 or 968 or any other powerhouse team be any worse at Championships because they only went to one regional? Yes, they would have less time to make and test tweaks in a competition situation. They would also have less time driving in a competition situation (although for many or all of the powerhouse teams, not less time driving period due to practice bots). However, I would suggest that even with these teams limited to one regional they would still be the ones that come out of the heap at Championships.

The reason for this is experience. Not necessarily experience in terms of number of competitions (although I think this does help some), but experience in terms of number of robots built and number of different games played. These lower numbered teams have a lot of knowledge built up through experience. There are a lot of things that seem good on paper, but don't work quite as well in the actuality of a FIRST competition, the lower numbered teams have seen these or even tried them themselves and built up the information on their success or failure. Each year these teams have been able to look at the things that have gone well and the things that didn't go so well and have been able to improve for the next year. These teams have not remained powerhouse teams through sitting stagnant, the rest of FIRST would have long since passed them by if this were the case. These teams are constantly evaluating and improving themselves to stay at the top. You can limit them to one regional, but they will still be the teams left standing when all is said and done on Einstein.

I am personally extremely inspired by these powerhouse teams and seek to bring our team up to their level, not them down to ours. I think that these powerhouses establish themselves through competing at multiple regionals, so I would like to see the rules regarding this remain the way they are.

[Shankar M]

I'd like to address a couple of things here.

Firstly, I think the idea of teams attending multiple regionals allows for opportunities that would not otherwise be possible in terms of exposure. I'll point out a couple of personal examples.
It's always amazing to see some of the incredible robots that are at the Waterloo Regional and the Greater Toronto Regional. We have a multitude of home-grown talent, but there are always some American teams who make the trip up north that add so much to the competition. Some very impressive teams such as 68, 176, 217, 229, and 703 have made the trip up, however, if regional attendance were to be limited, I'm not so sure we would see so many of these teams up in Canada. Seeing some of these great teams is a rare opportunity, and allowing for teams to travel to regionals as they please is really the only way to encourage this sort of exposure. Great things can come about as a result of this exposure. For four years Team 4/22 and Team 188 had an international exchange program that saw us travel to the each other's "home" regional. Everyone involved had tremendous experiences as a result of the program, and many of us still remain in contact to this day. However, none of it would have been possible with a capped regional attendance system. Winning is not the goal in what we do. I think if people look beyond that aspect of the competition, and took the time to embrace everything else that makes up FIRST, everyone will come away much more enlightened, much more inspired, and much happier.

Secondly, it seems a lot of these sorts of threads are coming about as a result of disdain towards successful teams. People need to stop vilifying these teams and instead see them for the valuable sources of inspiration that they are. Talk to them, ask them questions, they will tell you all about anything you want to know. That's how you can improve. Also, the prospect of facing up to these "powerhouse" teams should never discourage anyone. It should instead be seen as a challenge that, like every other challenge during the FIRST season, one must find some way of overcoming. Team 188 has faced some pretty stacked alliances in the past few years (1114/1503 in '06, 254/330 in '07, 1114/2056 in both '07 and '08). However, despite who we are up against, we are never willing to settle for anything less than our very best attempt to beat our opponents. We may fall short in our efforts, but that only makes us hungrier to try again.

If a powerhouse team is at the same regional as you are, I think to a degree you have to almost want face them. You have to be driven to want to beat the best. There is really only one way to get better as a team, and that is to play against teams that are better than yourself. You don't have to beat stronger teams to get better, but I certainly think that the only way to get better is to be forced to push the envelope against stronger teams.

[IKE]

Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair? Right Idea, but you are asking the wrong question.

Soapbox time: (Please read because I think I am stating a new point for this thread even though it is not new to FRC)
Does competing in multiple regionals make you better? For most of the teams that compete yes.
Should the awards be limited?
They currently are. For several awards you are only allowed to submit at 1 regional.
Should teams be limited by geography? This one is interesting to me being a Michigan team. For the last several years we have competed in only in Michigan. This year we went to Midwest.
End of the year results: 1 second place, 2 tech awards. We were the #2 pick on Curie (I take this to mean we had a strong team) where as a 2 time regional champion was not picked. Would it be "fair" to those starting michigan teams to have to go up against: 67, 27, 217, 47, ......... Not really if fair is defined by everyone have an even playing field. That being said you will hear no complaints from 2337. They were the #2 seed on Curie because they got some experience by going against those strong teams at multiple regionals.

How many kids would want to play soccer if they had to do drills for 4 hours a night and all day Saturday for 6 weeks just to get to play 1 soccer game that decides whether or not they get the opportunity to play a second soccer game. Not many.

The right questions that we should be spending our time on is how to get low budget teams to be able to compete several times.
How to get a $10,000 season to include 3 local events, maybe 1 or 2 large regionals, and then a national?
How can we set up these events to not have too much out of school time and too much time away from work?
How do we get every team up to the level of these marquis teams?
How do we get people to come and see these events? (as Dean always says, if they see it they will get it)

Let me take a moment to compare arguably the best robot and best competition team this year and compare them to a sports team (the model we were told we are trying to follow). These is only from the information I have read and from talking with them.

There machine is elegant. If you really look at it the machine itself is incredibly simply. Given a 1114 kit, most teams could get that made in 6 weeks. For football, most schools have enough atheletes to field a team. 1114 attended 3 events. Most high school football teams attend about 10 games. 1114 practices. Almost every high school sports team practices 4 or more times a week for 3+ months. By High School Sports team standards, they would just be an average team. Below average in many respects, and really only above average in terms of their success. My conclusion would be that it must be a pretty weak sport.

With 1500 teams nationwide FIRST is ready and needs to take the next quantum leap into figuring out how to truly give every student an opportunity to compete. IMO they have done this by having lower budget competitions Like FTC. If you don't have the budget to have a killer FRC team maybe FTC might be a better fit.

At one point in time having a full size basketball court and gym was considered an unfair advantage to High Budget schools. Now it is considered the norm. I would like those that feel that "high budget" teams have too big of an advantage to talk with those teams an you might be surprised by the number of these teams working very hard to reduce the price events and make them more readily avaialbe so everyone can compete at their level. If you don't beleive me stop by the pits of team 33 and talk to Jim Zondag. The arguments I present here are a lot of the arguments he has expressed to me. Look up pretty much any WFA winner from a team that has been around more than 4 years and hear what they have to say.

One task for low budget teams: review your situation and think hard about how you too can attend a second regional (Better use of funds, possibly comp and pitcrew only to 1 regional and everybody to the second, more sponsorship, better off-season fundraising). Read up on Chairman Award winning teams because the answers are usually there. Once you figure that out, the rest is easy.

My task for FIRST is to come up with a way to be more like a sport and not cost $20,000 to have a strong team. Their answer may very well may be FTC.

I am stepping down from my soapbox now. Thanks for reading and good luck.

[jasper.s.jacobs]

there is no reason why teams should ever be limited in the regionals they go to no matter where it is. It would be quite different if someone like 1114 or 987 went to one regional every weekend just so they could beat the bejesus out of every team possible, but no one would want to do that anyway because it is way too time consuming. Regardless, limiting the regionals a team can go to ruins the competitive spirit of the game, and if rookie teams want it to be easier to compete then they shouldn't be in first in the first place; they should be striving to be the best they possibly can be. That to me at least is what first is all about.

also, there may be a reason that teams travel far to go to regionals, maybe they are looking to finding better competition, so they go to regionals where other teams go. I find it very hard to believe that a good team would travel a long distance just to go to a regional that would be easier for them to trample the competition.

on a side note, I dont understand why people have been making such a big fuss about teams that won 3 regionals like 1114. They may have won 3 regionals, but that is only because they went to 3 regionals. My team only went to two regionals, and we won all of them

[GaryVoshol]

I'm not against "teaching". I am against the idea that a well-resourced team with (relatively) massive amounts of sponsorship funding, mentors and facilities can travel around squashing the "little guys", who are the new rookie teams that Dean Kamen and others so desparately want to attract to this competition.

Whether you realised it or not, you saw it happen this weekend in Atlanta, where the highest ever team number to be a Championship Winner in the finals alliance was team 1114. That means there are over half the teams with numbers above that who have NEVER been to that dizzying level.

Looking at

http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/events/Einstein/awards.html

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?

JMaybe 5 seasons from now, just like it took 1114 six seasons to get to where they are now? Or maybe far less. Do you realize that a rookie team was 2nd seed in Curie, and went on to the semi-finals, in which they won a match? And that a 2nd year team was in the Curie finals?

It seems to me that you have a classic issue of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" -- and if that is a FIRST precept, then I must excuse myself and find another program to inspire students, because this one is clearly not for me.
I'm not sure where you get this. Rich teams get poor - at least one example was given in this thread. Poor teams get rich, by seeing what the rich teams do and emulating them. They go out and find more sponsors and mentors. They learn from the "rich" teams, most of whom are very willing to teach and mentor the other teams.

I think the problem is not that the "Best Teams" excel, it is that in doing so, they often prevent "Pretty Good Teams" from excelling too. The answer is clearly NOT to keep the Best Teams from /going/ to additional regionals, because certainly they set an example of something to strive for, etc.
How can this be, since every "Best Team" that wins a regional does it with 2 other teams on their alliance?

But the issue of how awards and Atlanta invitations are handled is a bit problematic, I think.

As it stands, I believe when a team wins a regional and already has a slot in Atlanta, their Championship slot is opened up to whoever happens to register for it first. This seems somewhat unfair to, for example, the alliance that just barely lost the last round of the finals at that regional. It would seem to make more sense if they awarded "deferred" slots (for lack of a better term) in some sort of logical order, rather than just randomly. After all, there are already open slots available for first-come-first-serve registration.Please read the Championship eligibility criteria here: http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=944 - something that has been posted since last fall. Teams that didn't go to the Championships last year had equal opportunity to sign up and pre-pay for Championships this year. When the available slots were not filled, they opened up Championship registration to every team. The waiting list for Champs was formed only after the registration process was opened to all teams. As the teams qualifying from regionals were determined, those teams next on the waiting list were contacted to finalize their Championship registrations.

For awards, if one of the Best Teams does a lot of Award X kind of work, for example, and wins that award at three different regionals, it again seems unfair to the runner-up Pretty Good Teams also striving for Award X. Maybe some clause should be included that once you win an award at a regional, you forfeit that award at any other regionals? Something like that?

Some might say that this now seems unfair to the Best Teams. Why shouldn't they get Award X at every regional if they deserve it more than the Pretty Good Teams? After all, they're the Best at X. My answer to that is that I personally believe that you should share the opportunities, and that you should strive (and strive hard) to beat your opponents, but not to crush and humiliate them -- that is how you can be "professional" and win, but still be a "gracious" winner.

There is no need to do a three-peat at regionals to prove you're the best at X -- that's precisely what the Championship is for, after all.Hmm, 1025 won the Motorola Quality award at Detroit, one of the regionals where Rush competed. 27 won it at Great Lakes and at Atlanta. If the "best at X" theory holds, why did they not win it at Detroit as well?

there is no reason why teams should ever be limited in the regionals they go to no matter where it is. It would be quite different if someone like 1114 or 987 went to one regional every weekend just so they could beat the bejesus out of every team possible, but no one would want to do that anyway because it is way too time consuming. Regardless, limiting the regionals a team can go to ruins the competitive spirit of the game, and if rookie teams want it to be easier to compete then they shouldn't be in first in the first place; they should be striving to be the best they possibly can be. That to me at least is what first is all about.

also, there may be a reason that teams travel far to go to regionals, maybe they are looking to finding better competition, so they go to regionals where other teams go. I find it very hard to believe that a good team would travel a long distance just to go to a regional that would be easier for them to trample the competition.Precisely.

[gibbyrawr]

Being a part of team ULTIMATE 922, we are self sustained and have absolutely no corporate sponsors or engineers helping us. We struggle in creating a really good robot. Luckily for us, we are extremely strong in our marketing aspects that teams coming to our regional in addition to theirs has not effected us. regardless, we have been able to win some of the most prestigious awards. And ultimately if your as good as you believe, than other teams coming to your regional shouldent be a problem. Besides who doesnt like a little extra competition?

Although I do agree with a few teams on how you should only be able to win at one regional instead of winning multiple awards at many. If anything, allow teams to continue competing at other regionals but make as the chairman's award submission is. You in a way can only "submit" or in this case be eligible to receive an award at the regional you "submitted" at.

[EricH]

I don't know about those particular teams, but I was astonished to see a rookie team, 2340, seeded 3rd on Galileo. In Curie, 2337 was seeded 2nd; they even made it to their division semifinals. With this kind of performance from rookies, I wouldn't be too concerned about who wins the Championship. It could very well be one of them next year.Anyone remember one of the 2006 rookies with the number 1902?

Division finalist, Archimedes (where 217 won before carrying their win to Einstein).

2007: Division champ. (Sorry, I don't remember the division, but they weren't Curie or Newton.)

I too wouldn't be too worried.

On to the topic: Yes. Any team with the funds can do it. Many teams do do two regionals.

For the "only win awards at one event" crowd--FLL already does that, at least for qualifying for the next level. There are some teams that aren't exactly happy about that. This might lead to teams intentionally seeking out weak regionals so they can qualify. I don't think that's what FIRST wants--or what you want. Do you really want to be trounced by a top team who came there only to add to their trophy collection or get into Championships?

And, a question for the OP: Is FIRST REALLY fair?

[01101101 011011]

I'm a parent with 1024. Here is our story:

We did not do very well, AT ALL, last year. Because of that and the cost of events, the team decided that they would go to the Midwest to see how the robot would work. We did not expect to win and the team doesn't really have the funds to attend mulitple events. 1024 sent a skeleton crew to Chicago and parents organized to send food with the kids to cut on cost. Parents also carpooled the crew up to avoid the cost of a commercial bus.

As an Indiana team the Boilermaker is one of the main events for us. Again because of cost, a local event is only the cost of the event. No hotel stays, no restaurant bills or commercial transportation costs. The kids and the parents pay for any of the extras... not the sponsors.

We were at the Buckeye, only because we had already paid for it, no refunds. Again parents got together and provided food and help.

For the Championship; The team set up some pretty strict criteria for travel to Atlanta. If you didn't fundraise a certain amount of money you didn't go.

Additionally: Other teams get a chance when they are picked as part of an alliance. At both the Buckeye and Atlanta there was proof. 1024 picked 1386 and then we subbed in 2048. 2048 is in it's second year of FIRST and granted they weren't originally picked, they were high enough in ranking to sub into the finals. 1124 picked 177, because as the team captain stated (not quoting) that the points & ranking don't always show the quality of a team.
To say that the winning bots are out to squash the little guy is just not a fair stament.
Bottom line... if you are trying to say that teams with money get more chance to win. I think someone else also said, that it isn't only the robot ability, it is the mentors, parents, coaches, and students (and believe me a LOT of luck) who have the heart and drive to try to achieve what they want.....
Which, if I remember correctly, is Dean Kamen's goal.

[Bongle]

Restricting regionals wouldn't 'solve' this 'problem' anyway.

Let's say we restricted teams to 1 regional per year. To claim that this will somehow eliminate the spectre of powerhouse teams dominating regionals is incorrect. At least in my neck of the woods (Canada), there are 48 (Ohio), 68 (Detroit? I'm thinking of Truck-town, I may have got the # wrong), 188 (Toronto), 217 (Detroit again?), 1114 (St Cats), 1503 (Niagara), and 2056 (somewhere in Ontario) who are consistently high performers. Since that's more teams than there are regionals in my area, you can infer that it will STILL be very difficult to win nearby regionals. In fact, by reducing the number of powerhouse teams, you reduce the probability of anyone BUT the powerhouse teams winning by reducing the depth of the field at each regional. If there are only 2-3 of these top-tier teams at a regional, you pretty much guarantee that the #1 alliance will face little opposition as they pick the other powerhouse team and steamroll to a regional win.

I should note that I had the same negative opinion of multi-regional attendance until I was on a team that went to multiple regionals. Going to multiple regionals increases the enjoyable:miserable ratio of a FIRST season quite a bit by allowing you to have fun with your robot for longer. You spent thousands of man-hours building it, compete with it as much as you can! For large tracts of North America, there are multiple regionals in driving distance. If you can't afford to house everyone, get a hotel for a few select students, pay just the entry fee, and ask everyone else to bear their own costs. Multiple regionals is really the way to go.

My solution: Change the name from 'regional' to 'invitational' so that the name more closely matches how people actually treat it with regards to attendance.

[catsylve]

I think a lot of the reason that this thread is so interesting is the number of teams this year that qualified for championship at more than one regional, thus limiting the number of teams that qualified for championship. I see no problem whatsoever with teams competing at more than one regional, but perhaps FIRST should implement a procedure to fill the spot that may be lost to a repeating winner by another highly seeded team at that competition. Just a thought that might let the teams still compete together and still give teams hope for earning a spot to championship.

As for the fairness of going to multiple regionals, the only issue that I have is that some regionals will save spots for local teams, allowing them to register for other regionals while having a spot secured at home. This seems to cause problems when teams cannot get into other regionals. Since this is not a practice at every regional, it unbalances the system.

[GaryVoshol]

I see no problem whatsoever with teams competing at more than one regional, but perhaps FIRST should implement a procedure to fill the spot that may be lost to a repeating winner by another highly seeded team at that competition.Those spots freed up by multiple regional winners, or when a team on the winning alliance also wins the RCA, EI or Rookie award, are offered to the teams on the waiting list. That list is created way back in the fall, so there's no reason for any team not to be on the list.

[mgurgol]

I do not have a problem with teams attending more than one regional if they have the funds available, but by attending the multiple regionals, it gives the team more time to work on the robot and make improvements.

Our team attended the St. Louis Regional this year (Feb 28, 29, Mar 1) and did not touch the robot again until Atlanta. We were not able to tweak any of the hybrid modes, or make any modifications outside of the practice day on Thursday, and even then, the practice fields were booked solid, so the only way to test was in the matches.

Should allowances be made for those robots that are not attending multiple regionals to have the robot shipped back before Atlanta to allow an additional window of time to work on the robot? If cost wasn't an issue, would spending the entry fee for a regional be worth the 3 days of being able to make improvements on the robot?

[Steve Wherry]

I can admit that today our team has opportunities that other teams might not have; however I can remember the day when we were getting squashed by the competition and had to work our way up. Back in 2000, we idolized Chief Delphi, HOT, the BEAST, TechnoKats, and several other teams. We were often in their way during matches and had to learn how to be a better team. We used these teams as role models and outstanding examples of how to do it the right way.

Obviously, money helps, but it takes time and not money to inform your community about FIRST in order to raise funds. We posted our business plan on the forum and have taken much time and effort developing our program over the years...it did not happen over night, and we needed to be shown by veteran teams who "invaded the regionals" that hard work will eventually pay off.

[Uberbots]

accusing teams of attending more than one regional only to 'steal' the awards from the local teams is the only unfair statement here. A team who does this is just as apprehensive about winning anything as the team who attends the local regional, and in no way are the 'bullies' of FIRST. Rather, they are the ones who are there to inspire, always coming up with an effective design for the current game.
If teams would take the time to learn from such excellent teams instead of trying to find a way to impede their ability to do well (aka restricting them to one regional), then maybe the bar would raise itself?



complaining about the good teams in an effort to cut down their success is definitely not one of the ideals of FIRST, nor should it be in the real world.

[JesseK]

I would love for any caliber team to come to my home regional prove to all of us "locals" that their design is truly better than ours.

If 330 showed up on our doorstep at VCU, I would have been pretty happy to be able to see such a great team in person. The same goes for 254, 67, 1565, 1114, or any other team with a simple or unique design. To me, it doesn't matter that their design beats mine: what does matter is that I get to see it and learn from the ingenuity of it. Sure, it's frustrating that some awards are won over and over by the same team (meaning we go back to sponsors with almost nothing to show for measured success) but to be honest, competition for awards is not the point of FRC. Most sponsors understand that.

Every veteran team has the opportunity to sign up for a sort of lottery every other year to go to the championships. There is no reason any team that sustains itself for a few years should complain about not being able never making it to the championship. Be patient, save some money, and go when you can: it is very worth it.

[sdcantrell56]

In addition, how will limiting the amount of regionals that powerhouse teams attend increase the number of teams over 2000 that end up on einstein. The powerhouse teams will still end up in the championship. Maybe a few more teams over 2000 will get in but for the most those teams will not be ranked highly at regionals anyway ( I know some are like 2056). Additionally we were on Archimedes this year and there were a good amount of teams over 2000; however, most are not good enough to be selected for an alliance and certainly not to win the division ( I know there are exceptions). Increasing the amount of high number teams at the championship will only make the competition more boring as many of those teams function quite poorly and simply cannot stand up to the elite teams.

Also, we are team number 1771, a high number, and we were one of the top hurdling robots in the entire championship. Just goes to show that high numbered teams can get into, and do well at the championship.

[Wayne C.]

The attendance of multiple regionals is not only fair but it should be encouraged.

Our team, a veteran team, typically has been attending 2 regionals and the Championships since 2000. We work all year to raise the funds for the travel to these events and they are an intricate part of how our team operates.

reasons for multiple regional attendance include-
1. exposure of the team to new opponents- after many years of competing at our home NJ regional we have pretty much seen the same teams annually and we know them well. So every year we try to visit some other region where we would meet new challenges and make new friends.

2. rewards for our workforce- Frankly it is no treat for my hard working mentors and team to spend a weekend in Trenton, NJ. But if I can arrange a trip to Vegas or Hawaii it rewards the elders for all their hard work and motivates them to work even more for the following year.

3. contribution to the local regional- One tenet of our team is that we believe in contribution to the local regional (NJ) and we volunteer there, work on recruitment, etc. THAT is where the local involvement should be more encouraged. At distant regionals my crew that worked at NJ get their chance to have some fun.

4. Motivation- the work required for travel to a distant regional requires the team to gear up and continue the FIRST experience all year round. If the team wishes to do the work why shouldnt they be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Right now we are fund raising for the 2009 travel regional.

5. Fairness- The easy response is "who said anything is fair?". Hard work SHOULD get rewarded but obviously not all teams can attend multiple events. I personally believe that if a team sincerely believes in a goal and they work to get it they will be successful. But nobody ever said it is easy.
The only fairness issue I would insist on is that EVERY team be welcome in their home region as first priority. Second regional teams should never be able to bump teams that have nowhere else to go and I know that FIRST tries to insure that they cant.


Now my rant on FAIRNESS at regionals-

Chairman's Awards should not be awarded the same team at the same region two consecutive years in a row. If the team is truly worthy that should be evident to judging panels at more than one region and they should apply in different regionals. And at a given region the monopolization of the award by the same team annually makes the CA seem unattainable to the other teams and defeats the motivational incentive behind the award. Multiple CA's- sure. But the same regional year after year? Aren't there other teams at that regional worthy of something too?


Something to chew on...

WC :cool:

[EricH]

Chairman's Awards should not be awarded the same team at the same region two consecutive years in a row. If the team is truly worthy that should be evident to judging panels at more than one region and they should apply in different regionals. And at a given region the monopolization of the award by the same team annually makes the CA seem unattainable to the other teams and defeats the motivational incentive behind the award. Multiple CA's- sure. But the same regional year after year? Aren't there other teams at that regional worthy of something too?Arizona no longer has to worry about that one...:D Since 2004, I think 842 has won every RCA there. Now, they can't win it there or anywhere. Problem solved!

In all seriousness, I think this might or might not be a good idea. It would motivate teams to go to multiple regionals. However, sometimes a RCA winner can't afford to go to more than one regional a year, so they need to go to a farther-away regional to compete for it again. And it would show just how good a team is.

Hmm...Interesting side discussion, Wayne. I'll have to think about it a bit more.

[MoeMom]

Three important lessons your team might not get without going to more than one regional-


Importance of robust and reliable design and fabrication
Understanding of how strategy evolves with each week (shared learning)
Adaptation to new and different circumstances
Three important factors that having regional winners at more than one event MIGHT make it worth the risk to a smaller or newer team-


“David vs. Goliath” factor- They might take down the big guy
“Rocky” factor- They might go the distance against the big guy
“Tiger Woods” factor- Everybody loves watching that guy’s game


Alternatives, such as an elimination process where regional winners only play regional winners by design EXCLUDES more teams than it INCLUDES (not from competing but from competing with the really strong teams). I'd be afraid we all would loose the opportunity to share in a pretty amazing community.

When my dad started a rookie team, they couldn't and still can't afford two regionals, but there are alternatives, such as WATCHING TOGETHER the live or recorded feeds of other regionals and COMPETING in off-season events...two relatively inexpensive ways to get some of those same benefits.

[ttldomination]

There are a few ways to look at this,

1. The local teams are not getting chances to represent their area, and since they are truly not "regionals" it is kinda unfair for an area not to compete within itself.

2. Then again, you have those teams who may not get in through one regional but they win another one. Last year we lost Peachtree Regional but I am confident that had we gone to another regional, we could've won.

So I think there is no SOLID answer. Another debate.

[Alan Anderson]

I'm not against "teaching". I am against the idea that a well-resourced team with (relatively) massive amounts of sponsorship funding, mentors and facilities can travel around squashing the "little guys", who are the new rookie teams that Dean Kamen and others so desparately want to attract to this competition.

I will add my voice to those who say that inspiring the "little guys" is a better thing than holding back the well-resourced teams.

That you use the word "competition" instead of "program" is a good clue to your mindset here. Try to broaden your goals to include the stated mission of FIRST, rather than focusing on winning medals. Does it sting to be beaten by a powerhouse veteran team? You bet. Does it make me want to pout and go home? No way! It makes me want to do better next time. It inspires me to do better next time.

(Full disclosure: Team 45 always goes to multiple regionals. We rarely fail to compete in the elimination rounds. We won the last National championship to be awarded to a single team. I might be so far removed from Skippy's situation as to be completely unable to understand his viewpoint.)

[jasper.s.jacobs]

why would a rookie team ever even expect to do well in their first competition anyway? Would they expect to do really well, when the majority of the time they get destroyed? Wouldnt there be a Huge problem with First if rookie teams had it easy? Why would Rookie all star teams want to go to Atlanta if they knew they would get destroyed?
The answer is simple, new teams are not started with the hope of doing very well their very first years, they start for the overwhelmingly positive First experience which they most certainly get.

[Mike Schroeder]

Yes, yes it is

[Chris Fultz]

Traveling to multiple events is an exceptional way to spread the FIRST message through the visitor team and the visitee team (is that a word?).

We have competed in two regionas for several years, and try to pick different places to travel, not in an attemt to crush the local teams but to see other parts of the country, meet the teams we read about and see from a distance, and enjoy the different ways regions play together (there are differences, but that is another thread). I am always amazed at several robots and several teams that we meet when we are on the road.

As a team, we have been to Phoenix, Orlando, Kennedy Space Center, Houston, Cleveland, Grand Rapids, Chicago, Richmond, and Long Island, plus our 'local' event at Purdue. We have traveled to off season events in other states. Each place has its' own unique atmosphere. The volunteers are great to meet and talk to. We invite others to come to Indiana.

For many of our students, it is their first trip out of the state. It might be their first time to fly and see a very unique part of the country.

I am excited about some of the new regionals - I am looking forward to Oklahoma City and Washington DC in the coming years because i think they will be cool events, and they are cities with exceptional histories.

There are lots of reasons to travel to far away events and multiple regionals.
If you think most teams do it just to beat the locals, i think you are grossly underestimating those teams and their motivations.

[XXShadowXX]

Really this arguement is big guys vs. little guys. big guys want to pwm (pun) and little guys don't want big guys to pwn...

[Steve W]

I can only speak with the knowledge that I have with our team. Team 188 has been around a long time. The first year that I was involved with the team was 2003. I believe that that was the first year that we had done multiple regional events. The last event we went to was West Michigan and this was the first regional we had won. To this day we have attended 2 or 3 regionals a year and have come close but we have yet to win a second regional. Our team is competitive and we always seem to make the elimination rounds but we still have not won.

Working hard to raise money we have earned our way to multiple events. We are always competitive but we also don't put everything into winning. Our team is always willing to help any team that asks. We share what supplies we have, invite teams to our school to build, spend time at events helping others. We are also a team that does not have a lot of equipment. Come by our school and you will see our students with normal hand tools and some mentors cutting with the table saw. We have no engineers (yet, come on Shawn) on the team but we have experienced mentors with varying skill sets. The students are amazing. They see what others have and instead of complaining work hard to be just as good as other teams.

We also draw from the experience of other teams. Our drive base is based on that of team 25 who graciously sent us their plans and gave us their blessing with our project. Some of our best friends (and team 188 alumni) are from team 1114. Even though we seem to continually get beaten by them we strive to prove ourselves better. We also have no problem sharing with them or any other team. This is what makes FIRST so great. Having money does not mean that you will win. Going to multiple regionals doesn't mean that you will win. But I will tell you that the more regionals that you attend, the more friends you will make, the more inspiration you will receive and the the more chance that you will see that you have been winning all the time, you just didn't notice.

[skippy178]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.

Let me state a few things about my perspective of FRC.

I am a relatively new mentor at Team 178- I had a lot to do with our team for FRC 2007Rack'n'Roll (my first year of FIRST), but then very little to do with it this year (a lot to do with my personal schedule at home and workload at work).

Last year, the team took home the EIA in Atlanta, but this year, our team seemed to struggle a bit, and really didn't seem to have as much momentum going into our local regional and to Atlanta. The ever-changing team dynamic as old members move on to college and new members come into the team is definitely something that forces FIRST teams to have to find new ways of re-energizing themselves on a regular basis (and definitely this is different to the business world I live in daily).

I have no sour grapes against teams who have competed in multiple regionals, nor with those teams who out-designed, out-programmed, and out-lasted the team I've been involved with. You guys, gals, gents and ladies have done everything in your power, and within the current rules of FIRST, to attain those goals - the programs you initiated to start new FLL, FTC and FRC teams were innovative, as were the robots themselves, and also the many other ways that teams reach out to their communites, educators, and legislators to put science and technology on the same pedestal as sport is often viewed. All of these are good things that come out of FIRST.

Maybe I've been hung up on the term "regional", and as others have pointed out, the word "invitational" maybe seems a better fit for the way the current FRC competition operates.

I think I also feel strongly that FIRST needs to figure out how to allow newer teams (and mine is NOT in this category, so this isn't some sort of self-fulfilling barrow I'm pushing) to be recognized for their efforts across ALL categories, not just Rookie Inspiration / All-Star / Highest Seed.

Should there be a purely rookie-focused championship series (in addition to the existing Championship) where only new teams of 1-2 years standing in FRC are eligible to compete ? Multiple competition tiers in FRC would be similar to what is found in baseball with the major/minor leagues and also in other sports.

As an added wrinkle for 2009, I think the new control system has the potential to exacerbate the gap between veteran, well-resourced teams, and those who are new or struggling to attract mentors who can assist the teams to program the new control system (whether that's in LabView or C/C++). Personally I am excited about the possibilities, but in a 6 week FRC build season, it will be a challenge to really learn how to wring maximum performance out of the new system and make the most out of it - hopefully we'll get enough time in the pre-season period to familiarize ourselves with the hardware and software, and enough on-field time to iron the bugs out (again, it seems that the ability to compete in multiple regionals may really enhance the performance of those teams who can do this)

J

[Protronie]

I sat back and read this gibberish long enough...In the words of Popeye,"I've had all I can stand..." if your team can't afford to go to more than one regional...maybe you need to look at how the team is ran.

If you need help fund raising... speak up, there plenty here willing to offer ideas and ect.
Need more sponsors... get them. Why you think race cars have all them stickers on them.
Yes some teams have been blessed with sponsors with deep pockets... and some have whole machine shops at their beck n call.

If you look you'll see these powerhouse teams do spread their wealth,be it by forming other teams or mentoring to others. They too were small and poor once. With a lot of hard work, and yes a little luck they have grown to where they are now. Even with golden spoons the kids on these team work hard... why should they be held back cause a smaller poorer team fells left out.
A lot of teams build two robots... should that be not allowed too?

I bet I could give a rookie team a blank check and a full machine shop and they still won't win champs. Winning on Einstein take experience, team work, and luck. It takes time for a team to develop the winning elements

A violin player once ask a man how you get to Carnegie Hall, the man said, thats easy... practice, practice, practice.

[EricH]

Should there be a purely rookie-focused championship series (in addition to the existing Championship) where only new teams of 1-2 years standing in FRC are eligible to compete ? Multiple competition tiers in FRC would be similar to what is found in baseball with the major/minor leagues and also in other sports.Actually, there was a regional this year that was only open to rookies at Kettering University. The idea was to try out a low-cost event plan and give the rookies a little extra competition. I would support continuing this--bring the bottom up, not the top down. Some rookies don't need it. Most do. Even some veterans do.

[jasper.s.jacobs]

an all rookie competition sounds like a pretty good experience for the rookie teams, but I am concerned that it would just turn into a lapbot-fest that would be less than exciting to say the very least. Sorry for sounding harsh, but I think it might be pretty boring to be in, and much more boring to watch, thats why atlanta is so great, ever single match is full of action. Regardless it is probably a good enough idea to entertain, and try to develop.

[Billfred]

I think I also feel strongly that FIRST needs to figure out how to allow newer teams (and mine is NOT in this category, so this isn't some sort of self-fulfilling barrow I'm pushing) to be recognized for their efforts across ALL categories, not just Rookie Inspiration / All-Star / Highest Seed.There's no prohibition on rookies winning any award, save Chairman's. Consider 1398 (Imagery Award, Peachtree 2004), 1959 (Website Award, Palmetto 2006), 1114 (Xerox Creativity Award, Canadian Regional 2003), or 1002 (Johnson & Johnson Sportsmanship Award, Peachtree 2003).

Should there be a purely rookie-focused championship series (in addition to the existing Championship) where only new teams of 1-2 years standing in FRC are eligible to compete ? Multiple competition tiers in FRC would be similar to what is found in baseball with the major/minor leagues and also in other sports.Again, no. 1618 may have competed for four seasons now, but the vast majority of the team was new this season. We got just as much enjoyment playing the old-timers as we did from the newbies. (I draw a distinction between that idea and giving rookies a chance to get their feet wet through techniques such as the Kettering rookie pilot and hosting pre-rookies at off-season events a la Brunswick Eruption, though.) If you're looking for multiple competition tiers, try FTC and (J)FLL; some teams find fielding a JV team for their freshmen (or a feeder system with FLL) to be rewarding.

[DanTod97]

lol@this thread

and people seemed to think that my views were so audacious, I guess im not completely alone after all.

[Alan Anderson]

I think I also feel strongly that FIRST needs to figure out how to allow newer teams (and mine is NOT in this category, so this isn't some sort of self-fulfilling barrow I'm pushing) to be recognized for their efforts across ALL categories, not just Rookie Inspiration / All-Star / Highest Seed.

I don't believe teams automatically deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They should be recognized for their accomplishments. Billfred pointed out that FIRST already "allows" any team, rookies included, to receive every award except Chairman's.

[GaryVoshol]

Maybe I've been hung up on the term "regional", and as others have pointed out, the word "invitational" maybe seems a better fit for the way the current FRC competition operates.NCAA basketball "Regionals" - I rest my case.

Actually, there was a regional this year that was only open to rookies at Kettering University. The idea was to try out a low-cost event plan and give the rookies a little extra competition. I would support continuing this--bring the bottom up, not the top down. Some rookies don't need it. Most do. Even some veterans do.

an all rookie competition sounds like a pretty good experience for the rookie teams, but I am concerned that it would just turn into a lapbot-fest that would be less than exciting to say the very least. Sorry for sounding harsh, but I think it might be pretty boring to be in, and much more boring to watch, thats why atlanta is so great, ever single match is full of action. Regardless it is probably a good enough idea to entertain, and try to develop.You do realize that one of those rookies at Kettering was the 2nd seed on Curie, right? Most probably the Enginerds didn't "need" a rookie-only event, but it certainly didn't hurt - they went on to win the Rookie All Star at Detroit, and were in the top 8 in both Detroit and West Michigan. While the pace of the competition at Kettering might not have been equal to that at Atlanta, it was exciting (except for the 4-hour field delay). And I dare say that there were some matches at regular regional events that were not as exciting either.

[colin340]

what about the amount of $$$$$ your take from you sponsor or your communit
,in many case you could start a new team on the $$$$ you could save but my team would really love to go to a second regional but we can see who we would be hurting

[robochick1319]

Here's the thing about multiple regionals:

For six weeks straight you spend all of your time, energy, and efforts to build a fantastic machine. For six weeks straight you go to bed thinking of new strategies and ideas for the games. For six weeks straight you sit under flourescent lighting with a bunch of cranky, sweaty, and tired people. For six weeks straight you dedicate every waking moment to reading Chief Delphi and passing notes in class about new drawing ideas.

Now that you done ALL THAT for six weeks straight, why would you only want to go to 1 regional?!?!?

I can understand if money is the issue because that is something you cannot prevent. But if you CAN go you SHOULD go.

And believe me, it is possible. In 2006 we went to the Florida Regional, the Purdue Regional, the Palmetto Regional, AND Nationals!! That was the best season EVER for me because (even though I had a mountain of schoolwork) I really got enough time with my team and my robot to feel like those six weeks paid off.

If you can't count that was 3 regional events AND Nationals. Boy was I tired!!

So for all those people who disagree about attending multiple regionals all I can say is so what? If we can raise the money then I am sure y'all can. And if morality is the issue (not money) then I hope you have fun at your 1 regional.

But as for me, the more competition the better!! =)

[billbo911]

(Full disclosure: Team 45 always goes to multiple regionals. We rarely fail to compete in the elimination rounds. We won the last National championship to be awarded to a single team. I might be so far removed from Skippy's situation as to be completely unable to understand his viewpoint.)


This is one of the most honest and telling statements I have seen in a long time. It is one I MUST salute!

You see, I find myself and my team on the opposite side of the spectrum. We look longingly, and jealously, at the "other side". Although, we acknowledge, they have earned it. It was not handed to them. It took time, tears, sweat and work to get to the place the are in, and we expect nothing less for our selves.

Teams like 45 and people like Alan are an awesome example of what is possible if you are willing to do the work. They are indeed a rare breed. All I can ask is that you remember where you came from and understand that those on this end have a daunting task to even try to compete with you.

(Yes, I understand that this is not about the competition, it is about the inspiration. But you must admit, because we play a "game" every year, it will inherently breed competitiveness. That is human nature.)

[DanTod97]

That you use the word "competition" instead of "program" is a good clue to your mindset here. Try to broaden your goals to include the stated mission of FIRST, rather than focusing on winning medals. Does it sting to be beaten by a powerhouse veteran team? You bet. Does it make me want to pout and go home? No way! It makes me want to do better next time. It inspires me to do better next time.


I don't believe teams automatically deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They should be recognized for their accomplishments.

To me, these two ideas contradict each other.

[Billfred]

To me, these two ideas contradict each other.
Since elaboration wasn't provided, I'll ask: How do those two ideas conflict? I can't find any disconnect, but more explanation would be beneficial for the enlightenment of the group.

[GaryVoshol]

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

[Bobwhite2337]

an all rookie competition sounds like a pretty good experience for the rookie teams, but I am concerned that it would just turn into a lapbot-fest that would be less than exciting to say the very least. Sorry for sounding harsh, but I think it might be pretty boring to be in, and much more boring to watch, thats why atlanta is so great, ever single match is full of action. Regardless it is probably a good enough idea to entertain, and try to develop.

Team 2337 competed at the Kettering Rookie event, and while it seems like a lifetime ago now, at the time it was anything but a boring event. While understandably not at the same level as Atlanta, it was definitely exciting for those competing. There were some robots that were purely lappers, but we saw that at all of the regionals and the Championship as well (and what is wrong with that anyway??). There were also several hurdlers, both shooters and lifters.

For us, it was a very valuable experience. Having never been to a regional event, we got a chance to run our robot under game conditions. But more importantly, all of the teams learned just how a tournament runs, including alliance selections and eliminations, so that when we got to our first "real event", we had some idea what was going on.

I hope FIRST expands this program next year. We are already hoping to volunteer at the Kettering event next year, to help out those rookies coming up behind us.

[Bob Steele]

My reaction to this thread includes our perspective as a 2nd year team.

Our first year we did not get a NASA grant... we got busy and raised enough money for 2 regionals anyway.... We came to CD for help and we got it...
We ended up at our "local" Regional (in Portland) and at a distant regional (Las Vegas)

We received the Imagery award in Portland and we went to Las Vegas and BECAUSE we got picked by an Oregon team with experience (1425) and a powerhouse team (254) we won a regional. We also got Rookie All Star and got talked into going to Atlanta. We would NEVER have gone if we hadn't gone to a second regional. We scraped up that money too somehow... primarily on the backs of the parents and the PTA.

We got valuable experience in this which we parlayed into more fundraising this year.

If 254 and 1425 had not been in Las Vegas... or we had not been... we would probaby have not gone to Atlanta last year and this year would have been much more difficult.

We were INSPIRED by teams like 233 and 254 that attended Vegas... We came back with a desire to emulate them.... to become better....

This year again we had no NASA grant... but we started fundraising earlier...we were determined to be a better FIRST team... We worked offseason... we worked in season... We built a practice field for the region... We helped with a workshop and mentored FLL teams and had an FLL regional...

This year we were lucky enough to be 3rd seeded in our new Seattle Regional and to pick two terrific partners and to win it. We also got the EI award here and we won two more awards at Portland. On Galileo this year we were the 5th seed and played in the quarterfinals with some incredible teams.

I am not boasting here but we SAW what good teams were like in Las Vegas and in Portland... and in Atlanta....We came back energized... ready to take on a challenge.... We feel that we are well on our way to be a good FIRST team....

Without those big teams coming to small regionals ... rookies and local teams never get to see anything to aspire to.... Please keep them coming...

And that's all I have to say about that....

[thefro526]

I think that competing at multiple regionals is very fair. I don't really think that there should be any actual limit but, there is an understood one that's in the 2-3 range. I only know of one team that has ever exceeded 3 regionals in one year. Personally home regional doesn't really apply to us because we're about equidistant from two regionals Philly and NJ, and about 2 hours from Annapolis and NYC.

[Salbert]

I could see how it'd be unfair... not only does the team traveling to multiple regionals have greater chances of winning awards, but their drivers get more experience handling the robot, giving them more experience and an edge at the Championship. If I'm not mistaken, MOE 365 has provided funding to other teams, so maybe instead of going to more regionals, these teams should help new teams fund their way to the Championship. It'd look good on Chairman's and they'd get the Gracious Professionalism award.

[JaneYoung]

If you are comparing competing at multiple regionals with competing at one, no, it isn't fair. The more experience the team has competing, the more opportunities they have to improve, to hone their skills, and to deepen their understanding of the game. For the teams that consistently attend one regional, like ours, that is the choice that we make. We choose to attend one regional. The reasons for the choice can be many and can be varied but the decision is still the same: to compete in one regional per season.

Why does it have to be fair? It doesn't. Every time a team travels to compete, they are showcasing the development of science and technology that is so important to the competition, using the resources, brain power, and courage that it takes to compete in the current season's game.

If FIRST were ever to devolve to the point that only winning the robot competition mattered, then the program's vision would have vaporized, the dreams would have died, the purpose would have shriveled, and the participants would have lost. Before they ever received the KoP. If we feel pummeled by the program as it is set up now, we should re-evaluate why we are participating as a team and what we want out of the program. If we feel beaten up by the success of teams who have found the means to compete at multiple regionals, then we need to build stronger muscles, mentally and emotionally, as we are evaluating the purpose of FIRST for the team(s) and for each of us, individually. FIRST isn't for wimps. It never has been. Robustness is a part of the program: the robots, the teams, the individuals that develop while participating. There will never be a way to fully balance the big dogs with the little dogs. The haves and the have nots.

I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in the science and technology aspect of it. I'm interested in watching students be inspired by a wall of patents at Georgia Tech. I'm interested in listening to the team members of FRC 842 tell me all about their latest and newest project. I celebrate the robot performances and the teamwork that is evident during the competitions. I celebrate the fact that teams have found ways to travel to multiple regionals and continue to set the bar for themselves, inspiring others as they go. I also celebrate the teams that travel to one regional. They have all gone the distance.

[dsm]

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

I personally agree with your notion about accomplishments, but the comment in question (to split hairs :)) was made specifically in reference to awards, so I do see a contradiction. Regardless, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even the original poster, despite what many seem to think.

Awards are indeed not everything, and the simple process of building a robot, and competing with it in even one regional, has many intangible benefits in its own right -- benefits that won't ever be done justice by a trophy or medal.

But awards do matter, let's not kid ourselves. Especially those championship eligibility awards, which not only represent tangible recognition, but also something more important: opportunity. Opportunity to go to that next level, as well as to be exposed to more sources of learning and inspiration.

And no one likes to be denied opportunity -- especially when that opportunity must be earned.

Which is kind of what it smells like, to me, when what was previously a merit-based championship slot is suddenly relegated to the random waiting list. It was originally a merit-based slot for a reason (one would hope), but suddenly, for no other reason than because some team merits a slot so much that they in fact already have one, the meritocratic principle is simply cast aside.

That's what aggravates me as it relates to this topic.

And I think it's an easy thing to fix. :)

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
That you use the word "competition" instead of "program" is a good clue to your mindset here. Try to broaden your goals to include the stated mission of FIRST, rather than focusing on winning medals. Does it sting to be beaten by a powerhouse veteran team? You bet. Does it make me want to pout and go home? No way! It makes me want to do better next time. It inspires me to do better next time.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I don't believe teams automatically deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They should be recognized for their accomplishments.
To me, these two ideas contradict each other.
I'm not sure they contradict each other. But what does it mean to be recognized? And where do we draw the line between effort and accomplishment?

In its June 2005 newsletter, FIRST (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Media_Center/Newsletters/2005/newsletter_8.pdf) recognized its champions, but the lists linked from page 3 (Spotlight on FIRST Teams and Spotlight on FIRST Champions) do not include any teams that were awarded medals or trophies at the Championship. Even the Chairman's Award winner for that year is mentioned only in passing (on page 13)! Whatever the rest of us consider important, reading this newsletter forced me to realize that FIRST does not care at all about which team wins what award. The FIRST idea of what makes a champion diverges from what we think a champion is. So does the FIRST idea of accomplishment. Nor do I think that FIRST cares how many regionals a team attends, as long as that good ol' "Inspiration and Recognition" keeps flowing.

[fuzzy1718]

:mad: Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

[Alan Anderson]

If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta.

Not so. The number of teams attending the Championship does not depend on the number of multiple-Regional winners. A team that is already eligible to go doesn't take extra spots if it earns its eligibility in more than one way.

Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta...paid their way to Atlanta...Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.


What payment are you referring to? Every team pays in order to register for the Championship.

You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

I'm sad that you feel stepped on. I firmly believe that it's within your power to aspire instead of lament.

[Vikesrock]

:mad: Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

Surely you must recognize that this post is hypocritical? You ask these teams that buy their way in to Atlanta and win more than one regional to "stop stepping on the lower budget teams", but you seem to be putting your team (which attends 2 regionals) in this "low budget" category.

What separates these teams from yours? The fact that they are successful? No team goes into a season knowing that they will win the first regional they attend when they register for multiples. Are you asking them to not participate in the second if they win the first. How inspiring is it to go at all for the students on that team. In my opinion, you can't have the inspiration of bringing in the "powerhouse" teams and still have the "fairness" of keeping them out of the eliminations. The students on these teams will just not be as interested in being there if you're dragging them around like a show pony and taking away the fun, competitive aspect of it.

To take this to an extreme, should teams that buy their way into Atlanta not be allowed to participate in Elims at regionals at all? Or be eligible for EI or Chairman's for that matter? After all they do already have a spot in Atlanta so why should they have a chance to get another one and deny a "worthy" team of a spot.

Having said all that, I do think that there should be a better way of assigning the spots that are vacated by teams qualifying multiple times. Why don't we take the spots vacated by any teams that have qualified multiple times and pass them to other "deserving teams". Perhaps take the vacated spots and give them to members of the finalist alliance in the order captain, 1st pick, 2nd pick. If 4 or more of the teams from the winning and finalist alliance are already qualified then you can give them to the waiting list. Chairman's and EI spots can still go to the waiting list as normal as these are less affected by attendance at multiple regionals.

[EricH]

:mad: Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:So, you would rather we went the FLL road? So you want MORE teams coming (if you're a weak regional) just so they can win an award and qualify for the Championships?

I see what you are saying, but I would ask you to remember some things: You are making some generalizations. You're going to have to back those up, and I think you'll have a hard time.

There is a limit on where you can enter for the Regional Chairman's Award and the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award. One regional. However, there is no limit on all the other awards. You want a limit. Very well. YOU can tell the judges that team xxx can't win award yyy because they've already competed, even though they clearly have the best candidacy for it.

(I even know of a case where a team told the judges not to consider them for an award that qualified them, because they had already won it. This was a rookie team. While this is an option for judged awards, there is no guarantee it will work, and it isn't an option for competition-based awards.)

You're also saying that possibly the best robot can't compete in eliminations if they're already going. That's like telling the New England Patriots that they can't even start the playoffs. Or the New York Giants. You get me? Teams that are in the Hall of Fame need to stop competing, because they have already qualified and *might* win and steal a slot from a team that isn't the best? Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, then you need to revise your statements, because that's the impression you convey.

Your statement about teams "stepping on the lower budget teams" is annoying, to say the least. There is absolutely no reason that you can't go out there and build a robot that performs at least that well. It might not look pretty, but it can beat theirs. It's cheaper, but so what? Just go out there, and build a robot that can beat theirs. Anyone could have built 1114's design. No one did. Anyone could have built 330's design, and several did. The execution was what set them apart.

The time you spend on here complaining is time you could be spending figuring out how those teams do it and figuring out how to implement that.

[IKE]

Fuzzy1718 and others:
Actually, I am familiar with 1718 and they did build a great machine this year (and last year). Had they competed at various other regionals they would have been a top 3 machine, instead of a top 10 machine. Detroit and GLR are very tough regionals. If 1718 wants to win the easiest thing to do is go to a lower scoring regional (I won't name names). The harder thing to do is to rise up to the level of competition. I think you guys are there.
It is a 40 minute drive from Armada to Auburn Hills. Shoot me an email, you drive and I will buy you dinner and we can discuss our teams. I think what you will find out is that many of the "powerhouse" teams are that way more so out of years of experience and lots of determination than money. There is only 1 way to get more experience and it is not playing 1 regional a year and nationals every other year. Actually I will correct myself, there are several ways to gain experience. Talk to those "Powerhouse" teams (there are a lot within driving distance).
I hope you guys keep competing. IMHO you guys are one of the most impressive young teams out there and better than many veteran teams (from a competition perspective). Please keep up the good work. This team is actually one I specifically had in mind when discussing that if teams could only compete in their own neighborhood then 1718 would only get to compete with crazy tough teams (please read earlier thread).

[gblake]

Folks,

What with all the brain power represented by FIRST and the participants in this thread, I am surprised at the number of posts that "talk" past one another or that discuss some off-topic aspect of a broader subject.

And, in particular I am surprised that no one other than Ike ( here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=740058&postcount=36) ) has brought up the rock-bottom, essential nub of this discussion (if I missed anyone else I'm sorry). I believe that asking if something is "fair" is a 100% incomplete and ill-formed question. I'll assert that there is no such thing as something being "fair" without additional qualification.

Things/situations/actions/rules are only fair in some sense. Giving two children equal numbers of cookies is fair in the sense of giving everyone the same sized treat. Giving children equal numbers of cookies might be unfair in the sense that one child was given all the cookies with the most chocolate chips. Giving two children equal numbers of green beans is unfair in the sense of not recognizing that one is extremely hungry and malnourished and the other is well-fed. Etc.

This is a topic that comes up all the time in some branches of math and philosophy.

My suggestion to skippy is this:

Assert/define the team characteristics or accomplishments that you think should FIRST should reward and what you think FIRST wants the outcome of the individual regionals and the total regional process to be.
Describe the parts of the rules that you agree properly use those characteristics to increase the expected value of a team's reward; and
Describe the parts of the rules that you think improperly use teams' other characteristics to increase the expected value of the teams' rewards.
Point out that you think the rules are unfair in the sense of rewarding teams for ___ and remind everyone that you think FIRST does not intend to reward teams for ___.
You are now able to argue/assert that the rules are not fair in the sense that they reward ___.
If you can pose your question in this manner, we can have a debate that just might stay on topic :) and just might reach a useful conclusion.:)

I suspect that much of that debate will focus on whether or not you properly express the team characteristics that FIRST should reward, and whether you (or anyone) can properly express what the outcomes of individual regionals and the total regional process should reward/recognize. The part of the debate that touches on whether the rules are fair in the sense of measuring what they should measure and rewarding teams that maximize what the rules measure will be the easier part of the discussion.

Blake

[ktbcantrell]

I see no issue in teams competeing in multiple regionals. Competeing in multiple regionals allows the team to gain much practice in many very important areas: allows teams to trouble shoot and redesign robot components and compete to win multiple anual awards and titles. :D

Remember, competeing in multiple regionals requires a significant amount of moeny for entry, travel, room and board, food, all other incorporated expenses. The teams that compete in 2 + regionals are only able to do so through their prior fund raising and sponsorships. If they choose to spend their money on extra regionals why should we disallow this. :confused:

Personally if my team had the option to compete in multiple regionals we would have done so in a heart beat.

Fair isnt really the issue here. Since all teams have the opportunity to compete in multiple regionals then YES it is fair. Ability to do so is a different issue. :rolleyes:

[AdamHeard]

I've got much more out of FIRST ever since I stopped and realized I can gain so much more from trying to improve my current team's situation rather than complain about teams who have more.

I really don't think there is a single powerhouse team that hasn't earned what they have (sponsorship, members, experience, wins, etc...).

[dsmoker]

As a mentor for a team that attends only one regional and has only once in its 9 year existence competed in Atlanta, let me say the following:

1. Why are we so concerned with everything being "fair?" Life is not fair. FIRST is meant, at least in part, to help students succeed in life. Part of life is learning that everyone is not on an equal footing. Some teams will always have more resources than others. The challenge for teams with fewer resources, like ours, is to learn how to (a) increase those resources; and (b) work within the resources you have. It is possible to succeed without the biggest budget or most mentors. Not every team is the New York Yankees (who I love, btw).

2. I have nothing against teams who attend more than one regional each year. Ultimately, it is our goal, when finances permit. It's simply smart tactics to get as much drive time with your robot as possible. We are working toward that goal first by trying to get financially stable to attend two events at least every other season (either two regionals or a regional and the championship). That way each team member, in theory, has the opportunity to go to a second event twice in their high school career. This is especially difficult for us as an inner city team, as we cannot ask student's families to contribute financially. It simply isn't feasible. What we can and are now asking students to do, however, is to fundraise. They did this quite effectively last year, raising almost $3,000 in just a few weeks to help get us to Atlanta when we qualified.

3. I don't understand the whole thing about teams competing in multiple regionals taking up spots in Atlanta. As I understand it, any vetern team can register during the appropriate time period. There is then a wait list for situations where all the spots reserved for regional champions, EI winners, Chairman's winners and Rookie All Stars are not taken up, as would be the case when a team wins multipe regionals. So how is a multiple winner taking up space that someone else could occupy? Maybe someone can correct me on this point if I am mistaken.

Those are my three main points. Intersting thread.

[sdcantrell56]

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

The purpose of FIRST is to simulate a real world professional scenario. There will never be a time in the real world where every company is placed on a level field monetarily or experience wise. Like wise first is the same way and teams that work hard enough to be able to compete at multiple regionals should be rewarded for there hard work. Also if they are good enough to beat all of the teams at the regional why limit them. It should be taken as an opportunity for other teams to find ways to win. Also why don;t you divert the money from the extra regional to the championship. You can buy in just like all the other teams.

[Brandon Holley]

Getting past the "life isn't fair argument" which honestly, for the most part does not change someones opinion...

We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public community.

Just because your a "low budget" team doesn't automatically give you an excuse to go out there and complain that other teams have more money than you. How much real solid effort have you put into getting a sponsor? Believe me, I understand how hard it is to find a sponsor (especially in an area where FIRST is EXPLODING), but it isn't impossible, and it shouldn't be an excuse as to why you didn't get to go to Atlanta or you didn't win a regional.

Try and get past the squabbling that boils down to your team has more money than mine, and try to look at it is a challenge to say, i want my team to have as much money as yours, how can i do this. Maybe if winning competitions/getting to Atlanta is your end goal, the first goal should be to get your team financials established so that you may be able to compete at multiple regionals, and maybe then you will find yourselves in the ATL.

Hope it helps,
Brando

[dsmoker]

That was my point exactly, Brandon. I hope you didn't view my post as complaining about "big budget" teams. I don't resent them at all. I agree, as I stated earlier, that if a team has a smaller budget they have two options, which can work in tandem: (1) raise more money; and (2) learn how to do more with the money you have.

As for the life's not fair argument, I think the poster immediately after my first post said it better than I did. I think in today's society sometimes people feel entitled, that they should have all the same things others have. It takes work; if a team with a smaller budget wants to have the same budget as a larger budget team, you have to get out there and, as John Housemann used to say in those commercials, "earn it." Nothing worth getting isn't worth a little hard work.

[AdamHeard]

That was my point exactly, Brandon. I hope you didn't view my post as complaining about "big budget" teams. I don't resent them at all. I agree, as I stated earlier, that if a team has a smaller budget they have two options, which can work in tandem: (1) raise more money; and (2) learn how to do more with the money you have.

As for the life's not fair argument, I think the poster immediately after my first post said it better than I did. I think in today's society sometimes people feel entitled, that they should have all the same things others have. It takes work; if a team with a smaller budget wants to have the same budget as a larger budget team, you have to get out there and, as John Housemann used to say in those commercials, "earn it." Nothing worth getting isn't worth a little hard work.

Exactly, I read a great proverb that was quoted in a book I'm reading ("the World is Flat") that is perfect.

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the faster lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running.

[Pat Roche]

FIRST is a tool that is partly responsible to teach our students about the real world along with inspire them to better it through math and science. Well here is a two very basic economics principles. Business isn't fair. Companies will always try to look for a competitive edge. Just like teams will always try to find a competitive edge. Do you tell a company they can make one product in one industry and not allow them to make a product in another industry if they can afford both? No. You let them make both. So if a team wants to go to a regional and compete at that regional let them. Our robot is our product. Competitions are our industries. So go out and try to maximize your profits.
The other principle is that of competition. Economically its better for two companies to compete. Competition is what makes us better. If a winning team wants to compete against me go for it. It will make me better for doing it. Competition is what pushes us to do what we haven't done before. Competition causes us to push the limits and grow. I don't know if it can get any more real world than that.

Just my $.02

[gblake]

.. We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public community. ...I beg to differ - The situation certainly isn't black and white, but before matches announcers constantly and emphatically point out who won regionals and how often they did, particularly the closer the competition gets to "The Einstein Field!!!!".

We/FIRST very often, very much, measure a team's success by their regional wins. And we should.

Sure, there are other awards and other metrics we use, and I sincerely hope they are more coveted by most; but to say that "we" do not measure a team's success by their regional wins is a bit disingenuous. We give teams those big banners to take home and hang so that they and others associated with their team can revel in the rewards of a job well done and be proud of their accomplishment. We don't take a picture of them holding it and send them home with a stack of wallet-sized prints for each team member to tuck into their wallet/purse.
We send them home with a great, big, banner!

FIRST's actions certainly tell us that wins on the field are not the only measure of a team's success in FIRST; and that is a very good thing.

But, FIRST's actions also tell us that wins are certainly one measure of a team's success in FIRST; and I think that is also a good thing.

Blake

[Protronie]

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.

Yes it is a vicious cycle...but it is what it is.
Sponsors want to have their name seen, hence the more places your bot goes the more happy the sponsors are.

And don't think for a min the kids on the team that have many/big pocket sponsors have a easy road.

Double the pressure you feel and you have an idea what it might be like on a mega-team.
Everyone watching what you do, you always on the go it seems.
And theres many people to answer to when things don't go right and your bot has a bad event.

By the same token... I'm sure any die hard FIRST nut would trade places in a heartbeat. Instead of bashing or resenting teams that can go to many regionals... why don't you study them. See what they do and how they do it to attract the money and sponsors.

-p :cool:

[dsmoker]

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.


I totally agree. We have found it exponentially easier to get press coverage, support from the school, and from sponsors since we started performing better, especially after winning our regional last year. That said, the attention and support is continuing even though we didn't even make eliminations based on the fact that we did win two awards: Woodie Flowers for one of our mentors and the Johnson and Johnson Gracious Professionalism Award. The school, in particular, has viewed these as victories in equal important to actually winning the competition.

[christina_omg]

i think any team is able to go to multiple regionals. its all a matter of fundraising and how much you want to put into first.

this was my teams rookie year and we built a twin, went to 2 regionals, and had a free ride to georgia. all paid for by sponsors....

so it is fair. if a team is willing to work hard to get money then nothing should be holding them back from getting as much out of first as they possibly can. sure, some teams get lucky and come upon big money but everyone can do that. you've just got to keep looking and use time wisely.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I see your point but this argument doesn't make any sense...

If teams were limited to "local" regionals then the powerhouse teams would just beat the little guys over and over and over again indefinitely... (think 254 at SVR)

However, if you allow teams to move around, the stronger teams will invariably go where the competition is fierce - allowing the weaker teams a chance to show their stuff (and giving the big teams a bigger challenge).

Make sense?

[Brandon Holley]

I beg to differ - The situation certainly isn't black and white, but before matches announcers constantly and emphatically point out who won regionals and how often they did, particularly the closer the competition gets to "The Einstein Field!!!!".

We/FIRST very often, very much, measure a team's success by their regional wins. And we should.

Sure, there are other awards and other metrics we use, and I sincerely hope they are more coveted by most; but to say that "we" do not measure a team's success by their regional wins is a bit disingenuous. We give teams those big banners to take home and hang so that they and others associated with their team can revel in the rewards of a job well done and be proud of their accomplishment. We don't take a picture of them holding it and send them home with a stack of wallet-sized prints for each team member to tuck into their wallet/purse.
We send them home with a great, big, banner!

FIRST's actions certainly tell us that wins on the field are not the only measure of a team's success in FIRST; and that is a very good thing.

But, FIRST's actions also tell us that wins are certainly one measure of a team's success in FIRST; and I think that is also a good thing.

Blake


Blake,
You have completely missed the message of FIRST.

Yes we send people home with GREAT BIG BANNERS, but that is to prove that the competition isn't just for show.

The whole idea of FIRST is to realize that even though we crown a champion at an event, a teams makeup and how they can give back to themselves and the community is what really matters.

Yeah we can look at a team and say they have won 10 regionals in the past 5 years, but the goal and the point of FIRST is to say that yes that team can build a great robot, but can they win with gracious professionalism too.

Being a member of FIRST is supposed to teach people that winning is certainly something, but it isn't everything. Winning on other levels like inspiration and outreach are just as important if not more.

[Dancin103]

I have a few thoughts on this. I have been pondering this one for a while now. When our teams first started we only had the money to attend one regional and build a robot. A few years into competing, we got enough money to build the robot and attend both a regional and nationals (championship). And now we have the sponsorship to attend to local events and nationals. (There have been a few years, like this one, where we have attended 3 regionals and championships.) It's all about getting the sponsorship and the funding, and teams should not be limited, if they have the funds, well them let them compete at multiple regionals.

It is in my opinion that if a team has enough money to attend more than one regional and championship then let them. As well I think if a team wants to compete at a different regional out side of their "region" then let them. For some teams, their "home" regional is not within an hour or so of where they are from. Like us, a team from PA, our "home" regional is Jersey, and will always be Jersey. It was the first regional we ever attended and it will always be our home. (Thanks Jersey for making it our home, we love playing with you guys!) Also, for a team like Miss Daisy (correct me if I’m wrong here), they always attend the Chesapeake regional in addition to the Philly regional. Now, Chesapeake is about 3 hours from them and yet I’m sure they feel at home when they go there cause they have been competing their for a while now.

Allowing teams to compete at different regionals every year is all apart of the fun. It opens up a new realm of opportunities and allows teams to compete with teams they may not have competed with before.

Well, that’s my 2 cents and what I think about competing out side of your "home" and "region" and competing at multiple regionals.

P.S. I previously mentioned getting sponsorship and funding to "play the game" in FIRST, so if any teams reading this need help attaining the sponsorship, please drop me a note and we (my team and I) can help you out in that department. FIRST is all about partnership and helping others, and so if you are a team that needs help, please contact us, we would be more than willing to help.

Cass

[gblake]

Blake,
You have completely missed the message of FIRST...No, I don't think that I have. And for you to make assert such a broad and sweeping misrepresentation of what I wrote is seems just a bit presumptous.

I read exactly the same FIRST mission statements that you read. I attempt to inspire students and instill in them a gut-level understanding of the value of leadership through service to others, excellence for its own sake, expanding an appreciation for the value and role of STEM in our communities, and collaboration right up until the moment of competition.

But - My observation was not about what I or you individually do or do not think or do - My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards. In that way our/FIRST's actioins speak far louder than words.

The whole idea of FIRST is to realize that even though we crown a champion at an event, a teams makeup and how they can give back to themselves and the community is what really matters.Those are fine, interesting words; but they are not the words that were used over and over again by announcers, and they are not the words on the banners, and they do not describe the metric that separates the Winners from the Finalists on the Einstein field.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

I didn't say that makeup/giving isn't celebrated at all or that it shouldn't be celebrated more. What I said was that I disagreed to a large extent with the following assertion and I then cited evidence to back up my claim.
We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public communityAnd, again, I didn't say that we shouldn't measure teams by their conduct, etc. I observed that right now, to a very large extent, our actions seem to be attaching more importance to other measurements (i.e. regional and world wins)

I hardly think that you have evidence that justfies saying that I have completely missed the message of FIRST. I think what I have done is noticed how that written message seems to be out of synch with the actual message(s) FIRST tournaments are delivering.

Blake

[Alan Anderson]

My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards.

I'll agree with the "public spectacle", but I'll temper it by saying that it's because the robot competition is concentrated into brief matches involving very few robots at a time. The other awards have at least as much time devoted to them, it's just spread out much more evenly across both public and private contexts. And if you look closely at the teams who win the Chairman's Award, I'm convinced that you'll find that they put more effort and time into the activities that earned them that award than they do into building and competing with a robot.

Note that the Chairman's Award banner is just as large as the one given to the winner of the final robot match, so the "big banner" observation is irrelevant.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

Here's some evidence for you: Chairman's Award-winning teams are installed in the Hall of Fame, and they are invited back to the Championship in perpetuity instead of just for one year.

It is my experience that, with rare exception, teams that consistently embody the larger FIRST principles of inspiration, partnership, leadership, gracious professionalism, etc. are more remembered and celebrated than teams that merely consistently field winning robots.

[Brandon Holley]

No, I don't think that I have. And for you to make assert such a broad and sweeping misrepresentation of what I wrote is seems just a bit presumptous.

I read exactly the same FIRST mission statements that you read. I attempt to inspire students and instill in them a gut-level understanding of the value of leadership through service to others, excellence for its own sake, expanding an appreciation for the value and role of STEM in our communities, and collaboration right up until the moment of competition.

But - My observation was not about what I or you individually do or do not think or do - My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards. In that way our/FIRST's actioins speak far louder than words.

Those are fine, interesting words; but they are not the words that were used over and over again by announcers, and they are not the words on the banners, and they do not describe the metric that separates the Winners from the Finalists on the Einstein field.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

I didn't say that makeup/giving isn't celebrated at all or that it shouldn't be celebrated more. What I said was that I disagreed to a large extent with the following assertion and I then cited evidence to back up my claim.
And, again, I didn't say that we shouldn't measure teams by their conduct, etc. I observed that right now, to a very large extent, our actions seem to be attaching more importance to other measurements (i.e. regional and world wins)

I hardly think that you have evidence that justfies saying that I have completely missed the message of FIRST. I think what I have done is noticed how that written message seems to be out of synch with the actual message(s) FIRST tournaments are delivering.

Blake

Dean has said it from day 1, the competition is a vehicle, we are supposed to be able to look at the competition and realize there is more to it than robots running around the field and a champion being crowned.

Alan has already pointed out that the winners of the chairmans award at championships are put into the hall of fame and invited to come back to championships FOREVER. The winners of the whole entire thing? They can come back for 1 year, but thats it. Teams covet a chairmans award. Tell someone familiar with FIRST that you won a regional and they will congratulate you, tell them you won a chairmans award and they will celebrate you.

Its in the eye of the beholder...as mentors it is our job to let our students know that winning a competition is not everything.

[vivek16]

Here is the thing:

No matter how many regionals you go to, your overall probability of getting to nationals stays the same.

one regional - 3/50

two regionals - 6/100

three regionals - 9/150

and so on.

-Vivek

(sorry if this was already mentioned)

[EricH]

Here is the thing:

No matter how many regionals you go to, your overall probability of getting to nationals stays the same.

one regional - 3/50

two regionals - 6/100

three regionals - 9/150

and so on.

-Vivek

(sorry if this was already mentioned)Actually, it's more like 5/50. (Rookies have maybe a 1/10 additional, depending on how many rookies.) If you aren't submitted for CA, 4/50.

[Richard Wallace]

Here's some evidence for you: Chairman's Award-winning teams are installed in the Hall of Fame, and they are invited back to the Championship in perpetuity instead of just for one year.Word.It is my experience that, with rare exception, teams that consistently embody the larger FIRST principles of inspiration, partnership, leadership, gracious professionalism, etc. are more remembered and celebrated than teams that merely consistently field winning robots.Consider the robots: being mere machines, they lack the capacity for partnership, leadership, and gracious professionalism. All they can contribute to FIRST is inspiration, though the qualities embodied in their design and construction, and through their winning performance on the field of play. That contribution is very important -- without it FIRST could not be what it is -- but, as Alan points out, it is not enough.

Teams are made up of humans, and therefore have the capacity to embody all of the larger principles of FIRST. Being more than machines, we share a duty to strive for that goal.

Back to the main topic. My team has attended two regional events in each of the last five FRC seasons. We do it because we like to meet FIRST people from other places, and because we want to play robots as many times as possible.

[vivek16]

Actually, it's more like 5/50. (Rookies have maybe a 1/10 additional, depending on how many rookies.) If you aren't submitted for CA, 4/50.

True, but the point I was making still stands. Competing at multiple regionals is fair because from a raw probability perspective, it doesn't change your chances of going to the championship.

-Vivek

[GeorgeTheEng]

Note that the Chairman's Award banner is just as large as the one given to the winner of the final robot match, so the "big banner" observation is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure the chairman's trophy is larger then any other trophy FIRST gives (with the exception of the Founder's award and possibly the Woodie Flowers award).

On the initial topic, Life is about the opportunities that you create for yourself. Each team starts with the basics and it is up to them to make the most successful program they can.

Multiple regions != powerhouse robot
Money != successful robot
Lack of resources != team failure
Veteran Team != winning team
Single Regional != lack of inspiration

My team attends multiple regionals or a regional and championships, and our robot has not been in contention for the winners spot for years.

Edit - I want to provide some clarification. First, for those not of a computer science background != means does not equal. Second those are my opinions after having been a participant with a team and a event volunteer for a number of years.

[Cory]

I think this entire discussion is a moot point, because every year there's an open sign-up period for any teams that don't prequalify, who have the money and wish to go, so it's not like anyone is stealing spots from anybody else.

Not to mention the fact that this discussion is being perpetuated against teams under the premise that it's "not about the robots", like these teams should be ashamed of themselves for making FIRST all about winning, since they go to multiple regionals. The irony here is that this argument itself is making FIRST out to be about the robots.

[Rick TYler]

Multiple regions != powerhouse robot
Money != successful robot
Lack of resources != team failure
Veteran Team != winning team
Single Regional != lack of inspiration

Yabbut, you know, George, that pWinning goes up with practice (multiple regionals), money, resources, and experience. How many teams on Einstein were not top teams in all these categories? I believe you are saying that these factors are not sufficient, which I agree with, but it would not be accurate to say they do not have a positive effect on winning probabilities.

[waialua359]

Winning an award and trying to do so has its merits.
It can show where you are at as a program amongst your peers. If at first you dont succeed, you go back and analyze why, coming back better and stronger than the year before. It allows your team to set goals to improve, whether its building a better robot AND/OR building a better program.
The reality of winning is that it not only brings glory and celebrates an accomplishment, but it also brings about opportunities for more sponsorship and support by others that may otherwise not notice.
Success breeds success.
People that make excuses about it not being fair should take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves, "What are you going to do about it?" Trust me, we have done that many times several years ago trying to figure out how to compete against the highly successful teams in every phase of the program. We didnt make any excuses, instead embraced the challenge, even though we are still doing the chasing.:D

[GaryVoshol]

Here is the thing:

No matter how many regionals you go to, your overall probability of getting to nationals stays the same.

one regional - 3/50

two regionals - 6/100

three regionals - 9/150

and so on.

-Vivek

(sorry if this was already mentioned)
It's been a long time since I took statistics. But I think you're logic is flawed.

First, you assume that each team has an equal chance of winning the game. We'll overlook that for the time being.

But each regional is a unique event. If winning is truly random, the chances of winning one are independent of winning another. Therefore

1 regional - 3/50
2 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50
3 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50 + 3/50
etc.

[EricH]

It's been a long time since I took statistics. But I think you're logic is flawed.

First, you assume that each team has an equal chance of winning the game. We'll overlook that for the time being.

But each regional is a unique event. If winning is truly random, the chances of winning one are independent of winning another. Therefore

1 regional - 3/50
2 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50
3 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50 + 3/50
etc.We assume each team has an equal chance of winning one of the 4 non-submission, non-rookie awards. That is not the case, but we want a best-case scenario here.

I think your logic may also be flawed. You're saying that in two events, a team has a 6/50 chance. They have a 3/50 in each (using the numbers we're playing with). However, as I remember probability, you don't add. The odds of x event in two separate cases is multiplied. Your chances of qualifying twice are much smaller than indicated.

Assuming, of course, that everything is equal, which it isn't.

[Alan Anderson]

...Your chances of qualifying twice are much smaller than indicated...

Multiplying as you suggest will give the probability of winning all the events. Adding the probabilities gives the chances of winning one (or more) of the multiple events, thus qualifying for a Championship invitation, which is what Gary wanted to show.

[Nikhil Bajaj]

We assume each team has an equal chance of winning one of the 4 non-submission, non-rookie awards. That is not the case, but we want a best-case scenario here.

I think your logic may also be flawed. You're saying that in two events, a team has a 6/50 chance. They have a 3/50 in each (using the numbers we're playing with). However, as I remember probability, you don't add. The odds of x event in two separate cases is multiplied. Your chances of qualifying twice are much smaller than indicated.

Assuming, of course, that everything is equal, which it isn't.

Let's say that the probability of winning a regional is 3/50, and we want to win at least one regional. Well, then the probability of NOT winning a regional is 47/50. THIS quantity will multiply.

So then we say, well, the probability of winning at least regional as a function of N, where N is the number of regionals we attend, is:

P(N) = 1 - (47/50)^N

Because (47/50)^N is the probability of NOT winning a regional, and the sum of the probabilities of all outcomes must equal 1.

And the result?

1 Regional: 3/50 or 6%
2 Regionals: 11.64%
3 Regionals: 16.95%

Note that this is the probability of winning at least one regional. If you wanted to get the probability of winning exactly two, then it would be (3/50)*(3/50)*(47/50). The probability of winning three would be (3/50)*(3/50)*(3/50). So the teams that won three had a 0.022% chance of doing so. Congratulations, 1114 and 1024, you guy beat the odds! :D Or maybe winning multiple regionals has more to do with robot quality, drive team skill, and a good autonomous than pure luck...though luck certainly is always involved.

Thus, it does go up (given that EVERYTHING else is equal, which it isn't) which makes sense--more chances equals more probability, but it doesn't quite scale linearly with regionals. Think about it, if they just added, then if you had a 3/50 shot of winning a regional, then if you went to 17 regionals you would be guaranteed a berth at Nationals, and your probability would be OVER 1.0, which is not really possible.

[Wayne C.]

Let's say that the probability of winning a regional is 3/50, and we want to win at least one regional. Well, then the probability of NOT winning a regional is 47/50. THIS quantity will multiply.

So then we say, well, the probability of winning at least regional as a function of N, where N is the number of regionals we attend, is:

P(N) = 1 - (47/50)^N

Because (47/50)^N is the probability of NOT winning a regional, and the sum of the probabilities of all outcomes must equal 1.

And the result?

1 Regional: 3/50 or 6%
2 Regionals: 11.64%
3 Regionals: 16.95%

Note that this is the probability of winning at least one regional. If you wanted to get the probability of winning exactly two, then it would be (3/50)*(3/50)*(47/50). The probability of winning three would be (3/50)*(3/50)*(3/50). So the teams that won three had a 0.022% chance of doing so. Congratulations, 1114 and 1024, you guy beat the odds! :D Or maybe winning multiple regionals has more to do with robot quality, drive team skill, and a good autonomous than pure luck...though luck certainly is always involved.

Thus, it does go up (given that EVERYTHING else is equal, which it isn't) which makes sense--more chances equals more probability, but it doesn't quite scale linearly with regionals. Think about it, if they just added, then if you had a 3/50 shot of winning a regional, then if you went to 17 regionals you would be guaranteed a berth at Nationals, and your probability would be OVER 1.0, which is not really possible.

flawed logic- just showing up doesnt give you an equal probability of winning anything. A robot can win multiple regionals due to quality play or be the worst robot at every regional.

and besides- it isnt just about the winning........

[JaneYoung]

Passion and determination should be figured into all of this as well as hours and hours of practice. Or lack of.

.02

[Teammax]

This is an interesting topic of discussion and after reading the comments it is nice to see it has been discussed without attacks and negative comments.

As a team with limited resources we have discussed this amongst ourselves also. I have one point that I did not see in this thread. It might have been there in the 8 pages and I missed it but that was a lot of reading.

To me there is one pro to this that outweighs most everything else. It raises the bar for all teams. As a veteran team that does not have the money or the resources of other teams we know we have to excel in other ways because the standards will be very high regardless of what we have/do.

[GaryVoshol]

just showing up doesnt give you an equal probability of winning anything.Of course. But the original supposition was that every robot showing up had equal probability of winning. The contention was, given random equality, going to multiple events was of no benefit. While I calculated it incorrectly, Nikhil Bajaj showed that you would have better odds by going to multiple events.

A robot can win multiple regionals due to quality play or be the worst robot at every regional. And by fate, that worst robot could even win all it's matches due to help from partners, make brilliant alliance selections, and win the whole thing.

[EricH]

And, then there are the awards to qualify. CA can be known (Say a 1/7-1/10), Rookie All-Star is about the same as CA, and EI is 1/50. This is assuming that all teams that enter competition for those awards have an equal chance. So your chance may actually fluctuate, depending on how many you enter for. (min 4, max 5)

[dtengineering]

Well, the first question would be what, exactly is FAIR?

It is a pretty nebulous concept. If what you are asking is "does competing at multiple regionals give teams a competitive advantage?" then the answer is clearly yes.

Statistically it has been shown (thank you to those who clarified the stats on the previous page) that "all else being equal" you have a greater chance of winning a regional (or an award of any kind, for that matter) the more regionals you attend. But "all else" is not equal.

At Seattle this year we had a huge competitive advantage over teams that had not played the game before, simply because our drive team had three days to practice in Portland, our programmers had three days to refine code, and our build team had a chance to analyze the game video, identify a problem with our "ball knocking" mechanism, and replace it with a more effective mechanism for Seattle.

My advice to teams doing only one regional is to try and find a first or second weekend event if they are concerned about competing on an "equal" footing.

As for fair... well, we all compete under the same set of rules. So that part is fair. Some teams... for whatever reasons... have access to more resources than others. If we are going to start asking if it is fair for different groups of people to have access to different resources, then that is a question much, much larger than FRC!

Jason

[nlknauss]

Many of us may also participate in other technological design competitions at our schools. Basically any competition where there is a problem given that you are given limited resources to develop a solution.

One of the many characteristics that sets FIRST apart from the rest of those competitions is that FIRST gives it students the opportunity to modify and redesign their submissions after a single demonstration or regional. We all have the same opportunity to do this through the guidelines that FIRST lays out annually. Competing at multiple regionals is all a part of the real life experience FIRST provides. All professionals are provided with resources, guidelines, and opportunities to develop and present products.

[Dancin103]

And by fate, that worst robot could even win all it's matches due to help from partners, make brilliant alliance selections, and win the whole thing.

In my point of view, it's all about luck. Luck being hard work and preperation, matched with dedication.

Cass

[Kevin Sevcik]

flawed logic- just showing up doesnt give you an equal probability of winning anything. A robot can win multiple regionals due to quality play or be the worst robot at every regional.I believe he was just giving a lesson in the proper method of calculating that probability, based on obviously simplified assumptions. So my thanks atleast to Nikhil for getting at least a bit of good math into the thread.

Now then, not to be too crass about such a noble subject as fairness and all that, but I grabbed all the team lists and tabulated a few numbers for regional wins and awards. First and foremost, over 25% of FRC teams attend more than one event. This is not some incredibly small minority of "powerhouse" teams that are taking an extra try at the brass ring. Second, there were 14 teams that won multiple regionals that represent, as should be obvious to anyone that followed this year, 16 total "extra" regional wins. So out of a minimum of 656 regional wins, 2.4% were "extra". So I think at the least, the concern about multiple regional teams taking up lots of regional wins is unfounded.

Now, as groups, 3+ regional attendees received, per team, more regional wins and awards (-RCA, -WFA, etc.) than did 2 regional attendees. Similarly, 2 regional attendees received more wins and awards per team than did single regional attendees. This is not interesting, however, and is probably expected. The interesting bit is the 3+ teams received more wins and awards per team per regional than 2+ teams. And 2 teams similarly did better on a per regional basis than 1 teams. Feel free to interpret this data as you wish, but I find is rather interesting.

Finally, to be as utterly crass and base as possible in a thread about "fairness", it simply doesn't matter whether attending multiple regionals is fair or not. The plain fact is that the 432 extra regional attendances more or less represent about $1.75 million of pure extra revenue for FIRST, since teams receive no extra kits, benefits, or other outlays from FIRST for regional attendances after the first. I think it's fairly certain that FIRST depends heavily on this extra revenue and that no small part of it ends up acting as a subsidy for first regional fees for other teams. Coincidentally, if FIRST prevented teams from attending more than one regional, they'd have to raise the first regional fee to $7000 per team to make up the difference. And recruit something like 60-70 additional teams. So if you're convinced teams attending extra regionals is nothing but bad for FIRST, there's some food for thought.

[Team2339]

As a rookie team this year we found the teams competing in more than one regional a great source of information and inspiration. Our team placed 38th at the LA regional and wished we had another weekend to run our bot. We took it apart when it came home and fixed the bugs, now it works 100% better. :)

The team will make the effort to raise $ for two regionals next year, both somewhat local, just to gain more experience and push their learning curves.

Fairness is the opportunity to learn from the FIRST experience, regardless of a 1st place or 38th place finish. The 2nd or 3rd regional promotes the advancement of knowledge through experimentation and repitition. Seems like a fundamental reason for FIRST to me.

[fuzzy1718]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional. I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals. Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year. Our team has been turned down at a regional because and I quote them "Sorry, but we only pick veteran teams for our alliance partners" Straight to our faces, that is rediculous, esspecialy after we had gotten the highest scoring match at that regional with them. I simply seen that not competeing at multipule regionals as an oppertunity to let less experianced teams get a chance to be in the playoffs. Yes I know that alot of powerhouse teams are in my area, but I'm not worried about my team. I'm more worried about the teams competing with the powerhouse teams when the powerhouse teams get tired of fighting one another, and travel out of state. :ahh: If you notice my team only goes to regionals in our state, we don't go out of state, we have only gone to Atlanta when we qualified once, and we are striving to improve our team. We are not a veteran power house and never plan on acting like a few veteran powerhouses do, not all, but SOME. Do me a favor don't respond to this with "You should be spending your time improving you team and not complaining about others, that is a cop-out answer. You know who you are!!!:ahh: :ahh: :mad: :mad:

[Akash Rastogi]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional. I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals. Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year. Our team has been turned down at a regional because and I quote them "Sorry, but we only pick veteran teams for our alliance partners" Straight to our faces, that is rediculous, esspecialy after we had gotten the highest scoring match at that regional with them. I simply seen that not competeing at multipule regionals as an oppertunity to let less experianced teams get a chance to be in the playoffs. Yes I know that alot of powerhouse teams are in my area, but I'm not worried about my team. I'm more worried about the teams competing with the powerhouse teams when the powerhouse teams get tired of fighting one another, and travel out of state. :ahh: If you notice my team only goes to regionals in our state, we don't go out of state, we have only gone to Atlanta when we qualified once, and we are striving to improve our team. We are not a veteran power house and never plan on acting like a few veteran powerhouses do, not all, but SOME. Do me a favor don't respond to this with "You should be spending your time improving you team and not complaining about others, that is a cop-out answer. You know who you are!!!:ahh: :ahh: :mad: :mad:

The following are my own opinions:

I know where you are coming from by stating that vet teams usually pick vet teams. However, if you had the opportunity to pick a vet team that you scouted and knew had a better chance of alliancing with and winning the regional, would you not pick them over any other team (be they rookie or not)? How and which teams choose to select other teams is what I believe to be a privilege that they earn by competing their very best. Personally I don't think anyone has a right to judge why a team picks another certain team: its their shot to call if they earned that top 8 seed.

Also, read the post right above your recent one. I believe that this certain rookie said it best.

Now my rant on FAIRNESS at regionals-

Chairman's Awards should not be awarded the same team at the same region two consecutive years in a row. If the team is truly worthy that should be evident to judging panels at more than one region and they should apply in different regionals. And at a given region the monopolization of the award by the same team annually makes the CA seem unattainable to the other teams and defeats the motivational incentive behind the award. Multiple CA's- sure. But the same regional year after year? Aren't there other teams at that regional worthy of something too?


Something to chew on...

WC

I think that's one of the most appealing parts of the NJ regional...

I don't think that the same team has ever won 2 RCA's at Trenton. Am I correct Mr. C?

The new teams look up to the past winners such as 103, 75, 25, and 11 (sorry, but I don't know the other past winners) and strive to win the Chairman's Award here because they know they have a chance and they have great teams to look up to.

[EricH]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional. I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals. Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year.

However, if you had the opportunity to pick a vet team that you scouted and knew had a better chance of alliancing with and winning the regional, would you not pick them over any other team (be they rookie or not)? How and which teams choose to select other teams is what I believe to be a privilege that they earn by competing their very best. Personally I don't think anyone has a right to judge why a team picks another certain team: its their shot to call if they earned that top 8 seed.For one thing, you don't have to win a regional to go the championships. You can win Chairman's, EI, or Rookie All-Star. Or you can be a defending champion, a "legacy team" (as in, in FIRST since 1992 continuously), or a Championship Chairman's Award winner.

For another, I'm with lilstogi. It's not your fault if you aren't the best team for a given top-8 team! They might be the best robot for you, and you might not be the best robot for them. It happens. Or they might be there due to an "easy" match schedule and not know what they're doing. It happens.

There are no rules governing how picks are made, save the order and the "if you decline, you can't be picked again" rule. Even more, there are no rules that #x alliance will win. Even if an alliance is formed with three teams who need to win to qualify for Atlanta, there is no guarantee that they will win even one match! You're asking for teams to hurt themselves and others for a gain to some teams that will cost them, too. Tell me this: is it "fair" to pick a team that barely got the money together to enter, built a decent defender from the KOP, and then win the competition with them, thus qualifying them for Atlanta and costing them another $5000 plus travel?

[Alan Anderson]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional.

This contradicts the other complaint about powerhouse teams denying others the opportunity to win. Which argument would you like to contribute to?

My response to the issue of teams consistently doing well is simple: how do you propose to change the situation? Would you handicap teams having a history of strong performance? Would you prevent teams who earned a spot in the elimination rounds of a regional competition from entering another regional? Would you do something else to penalize success?

I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals.

Same question.

Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going...

If you don't want a team to win, play better than they do by playing better. Please don't tell me you want to play better than they do by forcing them to play at less than their best. (An apology follows at the end of my post.)

Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year.

There's that "buy their way in" phrase again. What do you mean? Everybody pays to play.

I'm more worried about the teams competing with the powerhouse teams when the powerhouse teams get tired of fighting one another, and travel out of state.

I think your point of view could benefit from some tweaking. The TechnoKats don't "get tired of fighting" our friends and look for fights elsewhere. We travel because we want to expand our experiences playing with new teams.

Do me a favor don't respond to this with "You should be spending your time improving you team and not complaining about others, that is a cop-out answer. You know who you are!!!:ahh: :ahh: :mad: :mad:

Sorry, too late. I won't unwrite my earlier response.

[sgreco]

I'm going to make a huge generalization, but...

A lot of the time older teams have an easier time finding a good strategy for playing the game. They gain experience because they have seen more game types and know what works. Older teams often have more resources than newer teams as well. (I don't mean for this to apply to all teams, there are many awesome newer teams)(I also don't mean to offend anyone by this).

It takes a while to build a good FIRST team. It takes an amazing team to be national competitor quality every year from the beginning. For some teams it can take a few years to get to a highly competitive level. It just takes a lot of dedication and hard work.

In my opinion: hats off to any team that can always be a legitimate threat at regionals and nationals.

Atlanta should consist of the best robots out there, regardless of how often they are there. Getting to Atlanta is a priviledge. If a team is good enough to build a highly competitive robot every year, then they deserve to go to Atlanta every year.

[Akash Rastogi]

I'm going to make a huge generalization, but...

A lot of the time older teams have an easier time finding a good strategy for playing the game. They gain experience because they have seen more game types and know what works. Older teams often have more resources than newer teams as well. (I don't mean for this to apply to all teams, there are many awesome newer teams)(I also don't mean to offend anyone by this).

It takes a while to build a good FIRST team. It takes an amazing team to be national competitor quality every year from the beginning. For some teams it can take a few years to get to a highly competitive level. It just takes a lot of dedication and hard work.

In my opinion: hats off to any team that can always be a legitimate threat at regionals and nationals.

Atlanta should consist of the best robots out there, regardless of how often they are there. Getting to Atlanta is a priviledge. If a team is good enough to build a highly competitive robot every year, then they deserve to go to Atlanta every year.

A perfect example of this is 2056..many teams could learn a lot from them.

[Kyle Love]

Well, life's not fair, as some of us have found out in many occasions.

I have found that attending multiple regionals, and playing teams such as Simbotics and the Chickens have improved the teams that I have been on. In my opinion, the best way to improve your team, is to take a good lickin' and learn how to improve next time. The teams I have been on have learned from loses to such "powerhouse" teams and went on to do better later in the season.

Likewise, I like to play the best of the best. You more then likely will not find a regional having a line up similar to IRI, with what most would call, the best teams in the world. You may have a few here and a few there. But, the teams I have been on want to play the best, every time.

I can see how you can be concerned with discouraging rookie teams, or teams who have a lot of rookies. Going along with the opening line of my post, I think its best to learn life lessons through FIRST along with Science and Technology. There are companies that have more R&D then others, and their final product (I would equate the Championship event to our final product) seems to be better because of their work. I know it costs a substantial amount to attend a second regional, but hey, its life.

This is all just my $0.02.

[Cory]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional. I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals. Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year.

First off, are you suggesting that the best teams at the event should pick the robots that don't give them the best chance to win? How is that a good strategy. That would be a form of throwing the competition, in my eyes. When you're on the field, you play to win. This would compromise the integrity of the competition.

Our team has been turned down at a regional because and I quote them "Sorry, but we only pick veteran teams for our alliance partners" Straight to our faces, that is rediculous, esspecialy after we had gotten the highest scoring match at that regional with them. I simply seen that not competeing at multipule regionals as an oppertunity to let less experianced teams get a chance to be in the playoffs. Yes I know that alot of powerhouse teams are in my area, but I'm not worried about my team. I'm more worried about the teams competing with the powerhouse teams when the powerhouse teams get tired of fighting one another, and travel out of state. :ahh:

I don't want to be mean, but there has to be a reason you weren't picked. The true powerhouse teams that you're talking about know what the heck they're doing. They aren't dumb, or jaded enough to pass over the team that would be their best partner, just because they have a number they'd never heard of before. If you perform on the field, people take notice, and you will get picked appropriately. If you didn't get picked by the top teams, then maybe they just didn't feel like your robot or strategy fit that well with theirs.

Your point that attending multiple regionals should be a tool for diversifying alliance partners, and allowing more unqualified teams to qualify to attend Atlanta is also questionable. Where does it say the goal is for everyone to go to the Championship? A championship implies that it is the best of the best. Everyone who attends should have done so on their own merits, and deserve the right to be competing there (be it robot performance, judged awards, etc). They shouldn't be there because someone felt sorry for them and decided to pick them. Were this to happen to me, I'd be insulted.


Do me a favor don't respond to this with "You should be spending your time improving you team and not complaining about others, that is a cop-out answer. You know who you are!!!

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. As humans in general we tend to blame others for our problems, when often they are of our own making. Certainly even if it is someone else's fault, blaming them will do no good to resolve your own problem.

If you don't like that your team isn't getting picked as high as you think, go out there and kick so much butt that you're either the one picking, or there's no way the top team won't want to pair with you.

Bringing down the teams at the top is not the answer. We need to bring everyone else up to their level.

[GaryVoshol]

Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going.Excuse me, but weren't you the #4 Alliance Captain at Detroit and at Great Lakes? And also were a picking team in 2007? Who did you pick? - veterans.

Our team has been turned down at a regional because and I quote them "Sorry, but we only pick veteran teams for our alliance partners" So you're obsessing about something that happened years ago?

I know your posts do not reflect the feelings of most of team 1718. This is a team that can compete with teams that have 2-3 times the experience.

[Triple B]

who are these teams you speak of?
mike d

[smurfgirl]

Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all are already going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in" every year.

Let me begin my response by letting you know that this is not meant to sound mean or harsh in any way. I know it can probably be read in more than one way, but I did not intend for it to sound as if it has a nasty or critical tone.

Your complaint of veteran teams picking other veteran teams doesn't seem completely legitimate to me. Every team has to work their way to the top. If a team, veteran or otherwise, is a top 8 seed, they have earned themselved the right to choose their alliance partners. It is their choice, and they reserve the right to choose who they want as their alliance partners, whether it is based on the merit of the team, or just a friendship. Usually, teams in the top 8 have come up with a strategy and choose other robots which complement their abilities to form a strong alliance, and are consistently effective and sturdy. Often, veteran teams may fit the bill. If you are a top 8 team and you would make the strongest alliance with a veteran team, is it not fair for you to select them as your partners, having earned this right?

Furthermore, veteran teams do not always pick each other. I can speak even just from my team's experience. Team 1124 has been around for six seasons of competition, 2003-2008. We seeded fairly high and were selected by veteran teams to be in the eliminations, both in our rookie year and our third year. In our fourth year, 2006, we were ranked last out of all teams at our regional. We were selected by a veteran team, who wanted to give us a chance, and we ended up winning the regional with them and securing a spot for ourselves at the Championship; it was the first time we had ever gone. Stuff like this happens all the time. Really, most alliance selections are based on how the robot/team complements the picking team and fits into their strategy.

[vivek16]

The reason for my post way back on page 6 is, I'm tired of seeing and hearing about the same teams in Atlanta, year after year, when I know for a fact that they didn't win a regional. I'm tired of the same teams getting to the playoffs at most regionals. Above all elese I'm tired of veteran powerhouses picking one another at regionals and not letting the teams not already qualified to get a chance at going. Why pick one another when all arealready going, pick the people that have never gone or don't "buy their way in every year. Our team has been turned down at a regional because and I quote them "Sorry, but we only pick veteran teams for our alliance partners" Straight to our faces, that is rediculous, esspecialy after we had gotten the highest scoring match at that regional with them. I simply seen that not competeing at multipule regionals as an oppertunity to let less experianced teams get a chance to be in the playoffs. Yes I know that alot of powerhouse teams are in my area, but I'm not worried about my team. I'm more worried about the teams competing with the powerhouse teams when the powerhouse teams get tired of fighting one another, and travel out of state. :ahh: If you notice my team only goes to regionals in our state, we don't go out of state, we have only gone to Atlanta when we qualified once, and we are striving to improve our team. We are not a veteran power house and never plan on acting like a few veteran powerhouses do, not all, but SOME. Do me a favor don't respond to this with "You should be spending your time improving you team and not complaining about others, that is a cop-out answer. You know who you are!!!:ahh: :ahh: :mad: :mad:

I most certainly do not have a problem with them going out of state. The MN regional this year was won by an alliance of two out of state veteran teams and another rookie team from MN. I would personally love getting the chance to compete with more power house teams. If getting to atlanta and winning is so high on your list of priorities that you would not want to compete with the best teams out there, maybe your list of priorities needs some reorganizing. Besides, it all helps get the kids inspired (you just need to keep the right attitude about it). The really good teams have put a lot of work in to get to where they are and they deserve to be there if they are willing to work hard enough for it.

-Vivek

[fuzzy1718]

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others. All you guys keep saying that I want to bring the veterans down, I don't want to. I simply want them to think of somthing other than a definate win and try to give other teams that same exsperiance. Take 217 abd 469 at the detroit regional this year, they could have taken a team that could play good defense, but they didn't, they picked a team that wasn't great(I mean no harm by this, if I affend someone sorry), didn't have much money, and was a 4 or 3 person team. Yeah they picked one another, but bringing in that third pick was beter than oblitterating everyone. I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????:confused: That is more what I'm talking about. I don't want teams to throw regionals, but pick teams that aren't going rather than those who are.
To answer other comments, i don't want FIRST to do a thing about this, I want teams to change their outlook and think of something other than winning.
I know that our team has picked veterans the past two years, but our team wasn't already qualified, and neither was our third pick; 2 out of 3 not going, how is that against what I'm saying. Besides last year we said yes to someone who pick us at detroit, 27; we were not going to Atlanta, they were; neither did our thid partner. I applaude them for breaking the mold of a few teams in the area.
As far as the insulted comment "They shouldn't be there because someone felt sorry for them and decided to pick them. Were this to happen to me, I'd be insulted." To be passed up when you are a good competitor, but don't make the cut to be on a STACKED allinace is insulting too. Also to be told that you won't be picked because you are a younger team is insulting and fustrating. I won't name names but this actually did happen to my team. We perfer not to talk about it, but it really did happen. Due to this there is definate hesitation when we come to there number when chosing our alliance list.
As far as my team we don't travel out of state because A we don't have the money and B we have no need we are competeing with some of the toughest teams already. What I don't like is when a team goes to 3 regionalsand one is just to demolish the competition. There is no need to go to that many regionals and I ahve always though that the accepted number is 2 regionals, no more, by most teams' merit standards. If you know your team is great then compete at great regionals, don't go to a regional were there are few veteran powerhouses.
As for buying your way to Atlanta, I mean the teams that choose to go there when everyone is picking their regionals.
You are correct I am by no means speakng for my team, these are my personal thoughts and wish that you not think of my team any differantly after reading any of my posts.
Whoever keeps saying the "Life isn't fair" bit, we know it has been said at least 50 times on this thread. If it is a reply to one of my posts, I understand life isn't fair, but we can try to make it as fair as possible. If you say life shouldn't be fair I would understand where you are comming from, but life isn't has no relevancy.
I have much more to say, but it is late and MARC is tommorow.

[Akash Rastogi]

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others.

This is probably because you gave a specific account which occurred with your team. It is also because of that specific quote you mentioned.

The only thing I hope is that nobody gives you negative reputation or anything..because others should also remember that they are your opinions to own.

[Cory]

I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????:confused: That is more what I'm talking about. I don't want teams to throw regionals, but pick teams that aren't going rather than those who are.

Like I said earlier, you play to win. Were a team to assume they were so good that they don't need to pick the next best robot at the event to take home the gold, it would be a very dumb strategy. You always pick the team that will give you the best chance to win. Always. Doesn't matter if they've got 4 people, 75 people, veterans, rookies, high team number, low team number. None of it matters. Doesn't matter if you're so good that you could win with JVN's fridge on the field (to quote John :)) The only thing that matters is that they are the best team to help you win the event. Doing anything less is a sellout.

Besides last year we said yes to someone who pick us at detroit, 27; we were not going to Atlanta, they were; neither did our thid partner. I applaude them for breaking the mold of a few teams in the area.

I'm sure they picked you both because they thought you represented their best chance at winning-not because you weren't qualified for Atlanta.

As a side note, do most teams even know what potential partners are qualified for Atlanta, and which aren't? It's not one of our criteria, so I've never even paid attention. I just look for the best robots, best drivers, and best strategists.

I'd hate to see the competitions turn into science fairs. I just heard that lots of little league teams don't keep score and don't have winners and losers for fear of hurting the kid's feelings. Sometimes it seems like this is the direction FIRST might be headed. I sure hope not. It's not about the competition, but the competition sure is an important part of what makes FIRST different than so many other activities.

[Akash Rastogi]

As a side note, do most teams even know what potential partners are qualified for Atlanta, and which aren't? It's not one of our criteria, so I've never even paid attention. I just look for the best robots, best drivers, and best strategists.

Hmm..I'm not sure if teams look that up, but I try to find out who's going where during pre-scouting before a regiona but only to see their standings at previous regionals and awards they won. But our selections aren't based on if a team is already qualified to go to Atlanta or not.

I kinda do see where fuzzy is coming from although I don't agree that teams should always pick other teams who aren't qualified for the Championships. If it was my team that was selected by a high seeded team merely because we didn't do well at the regional, I would be a little insulted as being a "pity" selection. Oh and fuzzy, you seem to forget that the best of the best do the best scouting. That is what selections should be based on. Scouting and faith in another team (be they rookie or veteran) can take a team very far into eliminations and possibly to a victory.

Sure there are teams who sympathize with teams who deserve a shot at Atlanta, but if that certain team is picked and they don't win with the strong alliance captain that picked them, it won't really make the selected team work as hard next year to improve on their team as it would if the team was not selected because they didn't deserve to be selected.

+$0.02

(hehe, good thing i don't have work tomorrow):P

[Koko Ed]

You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:
There are alot of things in life that you cannot control. The one thing you can is your attitude. You can choose to be hostile and defensive towards these teams and learn nothing and maintain your stagnant existence or you can close to actually learn from these people if you let them teach you.
First things first. It's not just about the robot or the money. Over the years of watching competition the one thing that stands out about upper echelon teams is their strategy and their scouting. The hit the field with a sense of purpose and an understanding of what has to be done to come out successful. It is astonishing how many teams show up to competition without any clue of what they are going to do or how they are going to do it. Every day is Thursday and they're just out there doing their own thing. It's like they just saw the game animation and just left it at that and never bothered ever reading the rules.
You know why veteran teams pick other veterans? Trust. They know what they are getting (consistency mainly), they know what to expect from them and they know they can count on them when the going gets tough.
In the three team alliance era it is possible for lesser teams to taste victory as well. You don't need to build the "killer ap" to succeed. You just need to fill a need. Think of the qualifying rounds as a job interview and you are selling your services to the other teams to the point where they are going to say "They need you!"

[Koko Ed]

Sure there are teams who sympathize with teams who deserve a shot at Atlanta, but if that certain team is picked and they don't win with the strong alliance captain that picked them, it won't really make the selected team work as hard next year to improve on their team as it would if the team was not selected because they didn't deserve to be selected.


If the criteria for picking teams were simply who has qualified to go to Atlanta or not then HOF teams and legacy teams (which we are both) shouldn't even bother showing up for competitions since they are already going. Sometimes competing is about getting better at what you do. When HOT came to FLR they're robot was in pieces and they didn't have much of a Hybrid mode. They made it to the semis. By the the time they got to GLR they won the event and they got to Einstein in Atlanta.
So for Fuzzy to say teams like HOT are wrong for what they did shows that he isn't looking at the big picture neither.

[GaryVoshol]

I simply want them to think of somthing other than a definate win and try to give other teams that same exsperiance. Take 217 abd 469 at the detroit regional this year, they could have taken a team that could play good defense, but they didn't, they picked a team that wasn't great(I mean no harm by this, if I affend someone sorry), didn't have much money, and was a 4 or 3 person team.So why was 440 still available for 469/217's last pick? Why didn't 1718 pick them earlier in the round, if you wanted to give them the experience of competing in the knockouts? BTW, the consensus from 469/217 was that they were lucky 440 was still available for their last pick.

[smurfgirl]

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others. All you guys keep saying that I want to bring the veterans down, I don't want to. I simply want them to think of somthing other than a definate win and try to give other teams that same exsperiance. I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????:confused: That is more what I'm talking about.

I think you're also failing to understand some of what we're trying to explain, too. Those top 8 teams, veterans or otherwise, have earned the right to choose their partners. They choose the partner that best completes their strategy: in 217's case, 469 complemented their robot so they picked them. Honestly, when I'm strategizing about who to pick, none of it relates to "are they going to Atlanta?" I don't think many teams look at that at all, it's really just "do they fit into our strategy?" Also, by playing both with and against super-alliances of veteran teams, you gain the experience you keep talking about. My first year in FIRST, our team wasn't doing so well, and watching all of the experienced teams go out their with amazing robots and win match after match inspired me, and many of my teammates, to do the same. We raised the bar, and last year and this year were significantly more successful. Let alliance captains pick who they want. If they form awesome alliances, don't think of it as a definite win, but a great learning experience, and there you go.

[artdutra04]

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others. All you guys keep saying that I want to bring the veterans down, I don't want to. I simply want them to think of somthing other than a definate win and try to give other teams that same exsperiance. Take 217 abd 469 at the detroit regional this year, they could have taken a team that could play good defense, but they didn't, they picked a team that wasn't great(I mean no harm by this, if I affend someone sorry), didn't have much money, and was a 4 or 3 person team. Yeah they picked one another, but bringing in that third pick was beter than oblitterating everyone. I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????:confused: That is more what I'm talking about. I don't want teams to throw regionals, but pick teams that aren't going rather than those who are.
To answer other comments, i don't want FIRST to do a thing about this, I want teams to change their outlook and think of something other than winning.
I know that our team has picked veterans the past two years, but our team wasn't already qualified, and neither was our third pick; 2 out of 3 not going, how is that against what I'm saying. Besides last year we said yes to someone who pick us at detroit, 27; we were not going to Atlanta, they were; neither did our thid partner. I applaude them for breaking the mold of a few teams in the area.
As far as the insulted comment "They shouldn't be there because someone felt sorry for them and decided to pick them. Were this to happen to me, I'd be insulted." To be passed up when you are a good competitor, but don't make the cut to be on a STACKED allinace is insulting too. Also to be told that you won't be picked because you are a younger team is insulting and fustrating. I won't name names but this actually did happen to my team. We perfer not to talk about it, but it really did happen. Due to this there is definate hesitation when we come to there number when chosing our alliance list.
As far as my team we don't travel out of state because A we don't have the money and B we have no need we are competeing with some of the toughest teams already. What I don't like is when a team goes to 3 regionalsand one is just to demolish the competition. There is no need to go to that many regionals and I ahve always though that the accepted number is 2 regionals, no more, by most teams' merit standards. If you know your team is great then compete at great regionals, don't go to a regional were there are few veteran powerhouses.
As for buying your way to Atlanta, I mean the teams that choose to go there when everyone is picking their regionals.
You are correct I am by no means speakng for my team, these are my personal thoughts and wish that you not think of my team any differantly after reading any of my posts.
Whoever keeps saying the "Life isn't fair" bit, we know it has been said at least 50 times on this thread. If it is a reply to one of my posts, I understand life isn't fair, but we can try to make it as fair as possible. If you say life shouldn't be fair I would understand where you are comming from, but life isn't has no relevancy.
I have much more to say, but it is late and MARC is tommorow.The bold highlight is mine.

Your whole argument falls apart because of that statement, because of its obvious bias against successful teams and for teams lacking in resources. You claim teams need to think of other things besides winning, but then you go on to say they should pick teams who somehow "deserve" to win but never do. Thus, your whole argument is about winning.

[Alan Anderson]

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others.

Then the resolution is simple: refocus on your team. You shouldn't spend so much energy on things that you can not affect, especially if they in turn do not affect you.

To answer other comments, i don't want FIRST to do a thing about this, I want teams to change their outlook and think of something other than winning.

It looks like you're asking stronger teams to slack off and let weaker teams have a chance to win. Can you rephrase what you want so it doesn't seem so unreasonable at first glance?

To be passed up when you are a good competitor, but don't make the cut to be on a STACKED allinace is insulting too.

Did you really just say you would feel insulted if your performance didn't earn you a spot in the elimination rounds? Exactly who would be insulting you in that case?

What I don't like is when a team goes to 3 regionalsand one is just to demolish the competition.

Can you give an example of this happening?

You've consistently phrased things in a way that makes it look like you don't see other teams as anything but enemies. I think you might be missing a large part of what goes on at a FRC competition.

As for buying your way to Atlanta, I mean the teams that choose to go there when everyone is picking their regionals.

This still doesn't make sense to me. Choosing to attend the Championship does not have anything to do with which regional competitions one picks. Can you explain why you call it "buying your way"? Can you explain how going to Atlanta is relevant to the number of regionals a team competes at?

[sgreco]

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

FIRST is based around engineering, but it isn't all engineering. Part of FIRST is fundraising. You don't need to be a high budget team to succeed. If you don't have enough money to do multiple regionals, then your off-season goal should be to raise enough money to be able to compete at multiple regionals.

My team was 5,000 dollars in dept going into the Boston regional last year. We built our entire frame from kit materials. The only things we used that weren't in the kit were a 2 inch wide, 24 inch long pneumatic cylinder, and a couple of small IFI wheels. Despite this we finished second in qualifying. We didn't win the regional but we were a highly competitive team even with an extremely low budget. This proves that low budget teams don't have a huge disadvantage. I always hear people saying simplicity wins, simplicity doesn't have to be expensive. After having a very low budget my team went out and raised a good amount of money in the off-season. After our hard work fundraising, we built our robot without worrying too much about expenses. We hardly used anything from the kit at all. We had this freedom because of the work we did fundraising. After we did this work we felt like we earned the right to go to two regionals.

From this it is obvious that a team can be highly competitive on a very low budget, but a team that is willing to put in the time to fundraise can have some freedom when spending and not be restricted. If teams put in the time to fundraise they have earned the right to attend as many regionals as they can afford.

[Dmentor]

Forgive me for rambling but this thread has me thinking in too many directions at once. It has made me think about the alliance optimization problem (selection of robots based on optimization of the alliance versus selecting optimal robots) and the trade-offs between flexibility in strategy versus optimization of a single strategy. It has made me think of the essentials of team building and how to streamline the process to fit into a 15 minute time block (because you can’t really predict your alliance ahead of time – unless you are Looking Forward). It has forced me to consider rejection and the disappointment we all feel when our team isn’t picked by the “best” team to join them. And I was struck by the myriad parallel analogies in the world of sports that shed insight on our debate… And while I could probably contribute something useful I learned from thinking about each of these topics, I would rather discuss this statement instead (at the risk of running even farther away from the thread topic):

If you say life shouldn't be fair I would understand where you are comming from, but life isn't has no relevancy.

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time) but I would say that life itself is perhaps the MOST relevant thing in all these issues. The stated goals of FIRST are to inspire a culture that values science and technology. Inspiration needs Motivation. What motivates people? Competition. Competition is the struggle for survival and I would argue that it is an inherent natural trait as well as a heavily indoctrinated concept (at least in western culture). This need is fundamental to our being (life) and hence why it is such a powerful source of inspiration.

The goal of competition is survival (as has been said many time in this thread already but in another way -- winning). If you aren’t trying to win then you aren’t really competing and most likely missing the key motivator behind the inspiration in FIRST. One byproduct of a competition process is that there is continual improvement in the competitors themselves. This means that every year the competition gets better. This may or may not be encouraging but it can be observed from similar competition structures from sports to economics to war. In nature, we find the consequences harsh: improve or die. In FIRST I would say it is more like: improve or be disappointed (I mean this only with respect to competitive results – you should never be disappointed in the process of stretching yourself personally, being part of a team, contributing to your community and just plain working hard).

In re-reading this before posting, it occurs to me that I really do need to discuss all my thoughts on those other subjects to tie everything together but it would be very long and this post is long enough already.

[Akash Rastogi]

"To be passed up when you are a good competitor, but don't make the cut to be on a STACKED allinace is insulting too."


Dude, teams have so many options sometimes they can be overwhelmed too. In Atlanta this year, we picked 71 because we trusted them and they are obviously one of the best performers in Atlanta. Our next choice-we took a risk. 2166 was not the best robot out there but we stuck by our decision in the end. We passed up good competitors there because we wanted to give them a chance. Now, do you think ANY of the other teams were insulted?? No, because they know what that team was scouting for what an they are looking for in that alliance. If you don't fit their alliance's criteria, then frankly IMHO you don't have a right to feel anything about that team's selection.

+0.02

Btw, how exactly can an alliance be STACKED as you say. There is never a stacked alliance because of serpentine selection (that's the whole point of it) Seeding of teams never stopped anyone from taking down the #1 alliance either. Trust me on that one. Just think of the 190 alliance from last year. 8th seed taking down the rest of Newton. Were the other alliances "STACKED?" maybe, but were they unbeatable? Clearly not. It all plays into strategy my friend.

[GaryVoshol]

This still doesn't make sense to me. Choosing to attend the Championship does not have anything to do with which regional competitions one picks. Can you explain why you call it "buying your way"? Can you explain how going to Atlanta is relevant to the number of regionals a team competes at?Alan, I think he's talking about teams that sign up for the Championship in the Fall, during the open registration period.

Since every team has equal opportunity to register and pay for the Championship at the same time, this is not a fairness issue. It may be a have/have-not issue, in that teams that don't have the money can't reserve one of the spots. But that is irrelevant to the argument that one of those teams shouldn't compete for a spot. If a team already registered wins a regional event, the spot that was being held for them is made available to teams on the waiting list. No one is harmed if a team pre-registered for Atlanta wins a regional.

[Karthik]

Take 217 abd 469 at the detroit regional this year, they could have taken a team that could play good defense, but they didn't, they picked a team that wasn't great(I mean no harm by this, if I affend someone sorry), didn't have much money, and was a 4 or 3 person team. Yeah they picked one another, but bringing in that third pick was beter than oblitterating everyone.

That team which you just insulted (despite your weak disclaimer and apology), Team 440, actually won two regionals this year. So they not as weak as you perceive them to be. From talking to members of Team 217, I know for a fact that this was not a pity pick. They had been scouting 440 all weekend long, and were hoping they would be available in the second round of the draft.

I am by no means speakng for my team, these are my personal thoughts and wish that you not think of my team any differantly after reading any of my posts.


Fuzzy1718,

You can lay out all the disclaimers that you want, but the bottom line is you are representing your team. Every action you make and every word you speak while your team number is attached to you will be perceived as a representation of your team. This is a lesson many individuals have learned the hard way over the years. You should keep that in mind. It may not be fair that people judge a team based on the actions of one squeaky wheel, but it is unfortunately what happens.

[Alivia]

I'm not sure, but somehow I feel like the true meaning of FIRST has been completely blindsighted here. FIRST is here, not for us to win regionals. Or go to the Championship competition. It's not a program based around bringing home trophies and medals. Rather, FIRST is about learning life experiences from mentors, coaches, teachers, and even friends. It's about finding a program that helps steer you in the right direction; a program that is there to guide your future. It's about meeting new people, expanding your horizons. And making memories that will last a lifetime in the process.

You don't need to go to the Championship for this kind of experience. You can find it during the regionals. You can find it during build season. You can even find it right here on CD, where FIRSTers all around the world come together and share their information with others, hoping what they say will help at least one other person.

FIRST is a competition, yes. But it so much more than that.

Competing at multiple regionals or Championship events has no bearing on the life lessons you will learn or the unbelievable memories you will have--for that is what FIRST is truly all about.

[waialua359]

Fuzzy,
Your points has some merit if true......but should be directed in a PM or meeting instead of posting here on CD.
Some teams simply go to more than one regional to meet new teams and to get experiences that the host city/area has to offer. Are they trying to strategically win at all regionals?? Of course they are! Why would they attend a regional and not try to win at a competition?
As stated earlier, teams that dont have a sense of purpose/focus on strategies, scouting, and teamwork just there to "experience" something, IMO, is more unjust than teams that do, regardless if the end result is NOT giving more chances for a team to qualify to Atlanta.
Remember, every team still has to put a great deal of time, effort and $$$$ to participate in such a great learning experience.
The thing I hate the most are teams that are so unfocused (not strategizing, not show up for a match, make no effort to being prepared) because they screw up opportunities of the other 2 teams that may have tried hard to be successful. Again, that is extremely frustrating.
I know that you didn't mention this, however, perhaps this could be the reason why it seems that the same veteran teams MAY choose friends over another team. They choose their friends because of positive past relationships, there is trust between the teams, or they just simply complement each other well.
I think as a veteran team who has done FIRST the past 9 years, it is almost impossible to select and scout every team perfectly and deeply enough that you can choose the best alliance possible. Sometimes when it comes to that 3rd alliance partner, the criteria for choosing becomes less apparent and you have oh so little time to decide! i.e. 1 hour after the last round of regular competition play.
In the end, I know you understand what's being said here and you have some merit (simply because I wasn't there to experience what you heard). Teams who may feel what you are saying should take the necessary steps to overcome that with communication and a much more positive attitude.

I get more questions about our beaches than interests on what our robot can do every year. :)

[Andrew Schreiber]

First off, Fuzzy, I know your team, I know you guys build a solid robot every year. Second, I left 27 for a team that has only competed at the Championship twice in its history and bought its way in both times. Relevant because I know what it is like to be consistently passed over because you aren't one of the big name teams. There are a few ways you can fix this, you can moan and complain on Chief. You could also just accept it and realize that's how it is going to be. Or you could say, what do these teams have that I don't?

I wouldn't want to be picked because another team felt bad for us. That is more insulting to me than anything they could say. 440 was NOT a pity pick. They were among the best lapbots there.

As for teams not picking rookie teams, 2337 comes to mind as a rookie team that was consistently picked high at wherever it played. So the argument that teams only pick veterans really is wrong.

Also, FIRST is not about going to the Championship, its not about the robots, it is about inspiring kids. How can we expect to inspire if we are not allowed to perform at our best? I don't know about you but I am inspired to work harder so that someday I can stand down on Einstein and compete. I go to each competition and compete. I give everything I have because to keep anything back is an insult to your alliance, you opponents, your team, and yourself.

[fuzzy1718]

First off I never said a team with little money can't win, i simply said that the higher budget teams win more often.

An alliance can be stacked even without the 3rd pick, like what has happened at detroit the last few years. 2 or 3 great alliances, stacked is what I call them, and the rest can try as the may, but they are fighting an up hill battle in the rain, and often slip and fall. Usually these alliances consist of veteran power houses picking one another. A simple observation, taken the wrong way by quite a few people. I'm simply saying why pick one another, I understand that first isn't all about winning, in that what better way is there to learn that be picked by a veteran team, see how they operate in the playoffs. From the view point of the veteran it should, in my mind, be a win win situtation; they get to teach other teams and give them a taste of how to get better up close and personal, but they are going to atlanta already so there is no need to win the regional.

We didn't pick 440, because we weren't already going, therefore don't qualify as one of the teams I am talking about.

As far as all the disclaimers, I don't care that you think I'm talking for my team, but if I was then I would start every thing with "Team 1718 feels", and I didn't did I.

As far as the comment about 440, I by no means ment it in a harmful way if you take it that way after what I just repeated then you can hold your grudge, but if they (440) feel that I did them harm by that comment I'm sorry. If they are fine with it I really don't care what others think of the comment. I had no idea that they had won at other regionals, I simply had their performance at detroit to work with. By no means did I mean it was a "pity pick" that is your label, due to not percieving my comment the way I ment.

My posts, besides the first, probably don't belong on this thread, but where would you like me to put my thoughts, om a new thread that no one will respond to due to the subject?? I know what I'm talking about is a hot topic, because of its bias against powerhouse veterans, but something should be said. I have had parents that during there first year with frc thought that signing up for championships is wrong. I took what they say a step further. that is what got me thinking about the subject. signing-up for atlanta has a huge deal to do with how many regionals, if you sign-up for atlanta most teams who aren't high budget go to less regionals. I do think FIRST should get invovled and limit the number of events a team could go to. just like the have for the amount of $$ that you can spend on your robot.

I do understand what you guys are saying about the top 8 earning the right to pick who they choose. I simply want them to change the criteria of why they pick who they do. Do I agree with the top 8 picking amongst one another, no, but what are you going to do. That is one rule that will never be changed, so I'm trying to change teams views, and since in my area the powerhouse veterans do this, I aim it at them.

As far as legacy teams and hall of fame teams I didn't even know that this was a rule, now that I do I really think it should be changed. And no I don't think that they needed to go to Finger lakes, they have regionals here to compete in that are highly competitve, let the teams out there compete in their own regional. It is called a regional for a reason, so the best of a region can represent that region in the championships. I think people have lost sight in this. People always talk about what region is better than others well campionships are the way to sort that out. I understand that FIRST doesn't want the regions at one anothers throats, that is why they split them up in atlanta.

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

[JVN]

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

With an attitude like that, don't be surprised if no one thinks your opinion matters.

-John

[sgreco]

As far as legacy teams and hall of fame teams I didn't even know that this was a rule, now that I do I really think it should be changed. And no I don't think that they needed to go to Finger lakes, they have regionals here to compete in that are highly competitve, let the teams out there compete in their own regional. It is called a regional for a reason, so the best of a region can represent that region in the championships. I think people have lost sight in this. People always talk about what region is better than others well campionships are the way to sort that out. I understand that FIRST doesn't want the regions at one anothers throats, that is why they split them up in atlanta.

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

I'll start this post by saying that I am a freshman in high school.

Teams earn the right to compete at any regional they want. FIRST is a learning experience. You need to learn to work with many different people. If you went to the same local regional every year, you would end up making friends there, and being allied with them all the time (I don't have a problem with this, but it doesn't seem to be what you want).Traveling to different regionals mixes up fields and helps teams make friends from all around the country.

I'll tell you which region is best, it's the Midwest region (this is just based on my opinion, there are many great teams elsewhere).

Teams work hard to get to any level. 99.9 percent of the time they deserve everything they have. They get there through hard work and perserverence. It seems to me that you are trying to bring down teams that have worked so hard to get to where they are. Hard work deserves rewards. Being a legacy team or a hall of fame team takes a lot of work, going to Atlanta is a good reward for that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I do understand what you guys are saying about the top 8 earning the right to pick who they choose. I simply want them to change the criteria of why they pick who they do. Do I agree with the top 8 picking amongst one another, no, but what are you going to do. That is one rule that will never be changed, so I'm trying to change teams views, and since in my area the powerhouse veterans do this, I aim it at them.

Let me ask you a question, if you were number one seed are you going to pick a team with which you can win or a team which hasn't really done anything that would help you? I would say that the team that would help me win would be the best choice. Now if you want to choose the other fine, like you said, you earned that right to choose for yourself. Under no circumstances should another team ever feel pressured to pick a team if they do not want to. So you think we shouldn't pick a team that will help us win, fine, you made your point. I will choose to disagree.

I feel the "powerhouse veterans" are not the problem. I agree that there is an imbalance between the haves and the have nots but such is the way of the world. FIRST is idealized enough, I really doubt that GP exists in the work world. I think that having teams pick teams based on if they are qualified already or not could actually harm FIRST in that it could discourage teams from being all they can be.


Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

I have a few things to say about this:
1) I may not agree with everything you have said but it has all been your opinion up until this point so I have treated it with respect. This goes over the line. Please do not ever disregard someone's opinion. It is rude and often you will miss learning important lessons. I respect what you have to say and I ask that you do the same for me.
2) The line between Mentor and Student does not actually exist, at least in my opinion. A Mentor is merely one with experience, this does not mean one is not still a student, there is always someone who knows more so we should all be students.
3) I agree that students are what FIRST is about but it is also about connecting them with people who can teach them. FIRST is about building a bridge between Industry and Education so as to inspire the students.

[dlavery]

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

<sigh> Here we go again. Rather than repeat what been said before (but apparently, not quite often enough), I will simply refer you to this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=688857&postcount=23).

-dave

p.s. not to go off on too far of a tangent, but I am compelled to comment regarding the composition and grammar of the originating post. Please refer to this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=369308&postcount=3). A well-written, concise, carefully considered, and well-presented, discussion is one that deserves an appropriate response. Such discussions often generate worthy debate, and may occasionally result in real changes to the system in question. However, a diatribe chock-full of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, indecipherable shortcuts, and horrid sentence structure basically gives the message "I don't think enough of you to bother giving any real thought at all to my argument or how it is presented." In response, we can only reply, "if you care so little about the presentation of your position, then why should we care at all about providing a thoughtful response?"

Greg Ross, I, and several others, have brought up this concern more than once. We are not doing it just to be old grammar curmudgeons (as much fun as that may be). We do it to make a point. You are evaluated here primarily based on your ability to clearly communicate via the written word. At some point in the future your potential employers will evaluate you, in part, based on that same skill. I know of more than one case where someone has not been hired, or even lost a job, because they could not write clearly. The sooner that you understand that not just your reputation on the Chief Delphi forum, but potentially your future career choices, depend on cultivating that skill, the better prepared you will be for that career.


.

[Alan Anderson]

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

FIRST has a mission statement that you might find enlightening.

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Note especially the mentor-based part.

With that, I will stop short of applying a metaphorical two-by-four and stop trying to reach you, since you explicitly prefer not to be reached.

[Cory]

As far as legacy teams and hall of fame teams I didn't even know that this was a rule, now that I do I really think it should be changed. And no I don't think that they needed to go to Finger lakes, they have regionals here to compete in that are highly competitve, let the teams out there compete in their own regional. It is called a regional for a reason, so the best of a region can represent that region in the championships. I think people have lost sight in this. People always talk about what region is better than others well campionships are the way to sort that out. I understand that FIRST doesn't want the regions at one anothers throats, that is why they split them up in atlanta.

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

Where has FIRST ever said that the intent of the regionals is for the best team from that area to win and represent the area at the championship?

FIRST doesn't split up the regions on purpose for Atlanta to "keep them from each other's throats" They sort them at random.

FIRST clearly doesn't care that teams attend out of state regionals. If anything I would imagine they're happy to see it happen, as it's good for the program. Furthermore, they're not going to turn down thousands of extra dollars, which would be exactly what they would be doing by limiting teams to the number of events they attend.

You claim that FIRST is not all about winning, but really you're just saying that it shouldn't be about the good teams winning-it should be about the teams you feel are disadvantaged winning.

Those "big budget" teams (and you have no idea what the budget of any of them may be, since you're not a member of the team and privy to that information) work hard for everything they have. They worked hard to gain sponsors, resources, etc. They work hard to inspire their students, and work hard to make good robots.

There's a reason for their success-TONS of hard work. Nobody can really understand how many hours these teams put in, without having seen it first hand themselves. The reason that these "veteran powerhouses" are so good is because when other teams are taking Sundays off, or going home early, they're hard at work burning the midnight oil, doing everything they can to be the best they possibly can be.

That work entitles them to pick whoever they please. Trying to handicap them and guilt trip them for their own success, and ask them to pick a team that does not represent the best choice is not right. As I said before, if you do any less than your best, you are compromising the integrity of the event.

Let's face it. When you're at the event, it IS a competition, and the best teams deserve to win, regardless of whether or not they are already qualified for the Championship.

Every year any team who wanted to go to the Championship could do so if they wanted to. There's always an open sign up period, and every year there are teams who are able to go who would have no chance of winning an event to qualify. If you want to go, raise the money, and sign up.

Your last line is just ignorant. Without mentors, you wouldn't even be participating in FIRST. Your team wouldn't exist, and FIRST as a program wouldn't exist. If it did, it'd just be another form of a science fair.

[Koko Ed]

First off I never said a team with little money can't win, i simply said that the higher budget teams win more often.

An alliance can be stacked even without the 3rd pick, like what has happened at detroit the last few years. 2 or 3 great alliances, stacked is what I call them, and the rest can try as the may, but they are fighting an up hill battle in the rain, and often slip and fall. Usually these alliances consist of veteran power houses picking one another. A simple observation, taken the wrong way by quite a few people. I'm simply saying why pick one another, I understand that first isn't all about winning, in that what better way is there to learn that be picked by a veteran team, see how they operate in the playoffs. From the view point of the veteran it should, in my mind, be a win win situtation; they get to teach other teams and give them a taste of how to get better up close and personal, but they are going to atlanta already so there is no need to win the regional.

We didn't pick 440, because we weren't already going, therefore don't qualify as one of the teams I am talking about.

As far as all the disclaimers, I don't care that you think I'm talking for my team, but if I was then I would start every thing with "Team 1718 feels", and I didn't did I.

As far as the comment about 440, I by no means ment it in a harmful way if you take it that way after what I just repeated then you can hold your grudge, but if they (440) feel that I did them harm by that comment I'm sorry. If they are fine with it I really don't care what others think of the comment. I had no idea that they had won at other regionals, I simply had their performance at detroit to work with. By no means did I mean it was a "pity pick" that is your label, due to not percieving my comment the way I ment.

My posts, besides the first, probably don't belong on this thread, but where would you like me to put my thoughts, om a new thread that no one will respond to due to the subject?? I know what I'm talking about is a hot topic, because of its bias against powerhouse veterans, but something should be said. I have had parents that during there first year with frc thought that signing up for championships is wrong. I took what they say a step further. that is what got me thinking about the subject. signing-up for atlanta has a huge deal to do with how many regionals, if you sign-up for atlanta most teams who aren't high budget go to less regionals. I do think FIRST should get invovled and limit the number of events a team could go to. just like the have for the amount of $$ that you can spend on your robot.

I do understand what you guys are saying about the top 8 earning the right to pick who they choose. I simply want them to change the criteria of why they pick who they do. Do I agree with the top 8 picking amongst one another, no, but what are you going to do. That is one rule that will never be changed, so I'm trying to change teams views, and since in my area the powerhouse veterans do this, I aim it at them.

As far as legacy teams and hall of fame teams I didn't even know that this was a rule, now that I do I really think it should be changed. And no I don't think that they needed to go to Finger lakes, they have regionals here to compete in that are highly competitve, let the teams out there compete in their own regional. It is called a regional for a reason, so the best of a region can represent that region in the championships. I think people have lost sight in this. People always talk about what region is better than others well campionships are the way to sort that out. I understand that FIRST doesn't want the regions at one anothers throats, that is why they split them up in atlanta.

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

Wow. Just wow.
You obviously have some sort of issue with teams that have had success because you just about stomped on each and every single one of them.And insulting the multiple senior FIRST mentors (many who are Woodie Flowers nominees) and blowing off their advice is a really nice touch.
Congratulations.
I'm sure you are very proud.

[JaneYoung]

A couple of thoughts -

1. Flexibility. To participate in FRC and to be successful as a team requires a respect for flexibility. If we narrow our views, our opinions, and our perspectives, then we begin to set limits. Those limits can develop rigid side effects. That seems counter productive in the areas of science and technology. To continue to develop the programs of FIRST and to continue to inspire students, mentors, sponsors, and the global community in science and technology, we have to remain flexible. That applies to discussions like these regarding teams competing and where they compete.

2. The importance of veteran teams. With new regionals cropping up globally, it is important for veteran teams to reach out and support those regionals during their inaugural year and perhaps longer. Veteran teams that have the resources to compete in more than one regional do hone their skills, as do the younger teams, that is true. What they are also doing in these competitions is sharing their experience, their knowledge, and the way in which they compete, on and off the field. If we are going to talk about elite teams or powerhouse teams, then we have to look at the whole picture and how these teams impact the FIRST community, not just a specific competition. If we only talk about a specific competition, then we are missing a lot, becoming rigid, limiting our own abilities and opportunities to improve.

[Mr. Freeman]

Wow. Just wow.
You obviously have some sort of issue with teams that have had success because you just about stomped on each and every single one of them.And insulting the multiple senior FIRST mentors (many who are Woodie Flowers nominees) and blowing off their advice is a really nice touch.
Congratulations.
I'm sure you are very proud.

He has some valid points, and I understand where he's coming from. I don't necessarily agree, but sarcastic, insulting comments like this aren't helping anything.

As for FIRST being about the students, I have to agree, with conditions. Yes, mentors are a critical part of the process, but why on earth would we need a program like FIRST to inspire engineers already working in the industry? The entire purpose is to inspire students to pursue science/engineering-based fields of study, mentors help make that happen.

Anyway, it seems as though his opinions center around attempting to get as many people to nationals as possible. I'm not actually sure this is possible without teams throwing matches to lower their rank if they're already qualified.

As I understand it now, if a team that is already qualified for nationals wins at two separate regionals, then a space opens up at nationals for any team to register. These registrations are based on who has been waiting the longest amount of time to attend nationals.
This might actually be the best system. It attempts to get everyone to nationals as soon as possible.

The problem with powerhouse teams not picking one another is that in the end, only one alliance goes on to nationals. So some of those deserving teams still loose and still don't move on. Changing every team's selection strategy isn't going to help much. If the current system isn't acceptable then the entire thing is going to need reworking, not just the powerhouse teams' strategy.

[Karthik]

As far as all the disclaimers, I don't care that you think I'm talking for my team, but if I was then I would start every thing with "Team 1718 feels", and I didn't did I.

Despite the fact that you don't care about what I have to say (since I'm a mentor), I'm going to offer you some advice. I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm in a giving mood today.

You say that you're trying to change the views of teams. It's a noble goal. Unfortunately, all you have done is make yourself look like a jerk. By coming on a forum, with Team 1718 in your username, you have now made Team 1718 look like a bunch of jerks. You complain about your team being overlooked in the past. Have you ever considered that it might be because of actions like these? If this is the attitude you bring forward at a competition, our team would most definitely ignore you. I mean, would you pick a team who had a member come up to you and say "I don't care about your opinion, you're just a <Insert noun here>". Each individual is a representation of a team, and a team is only as strong as it's weakest link. The attitude you have shown in your posts in this thread are what I would classify as weak.

Traits such as tact, courtesy and politeness go a long way in this world. A first impression isn't something you can make twice. Taking heed of this will serve you well in the future.

[fuzzy1718]

My reason for the mentor comment was to the ones that keep repeating the same thing. I ment nothing by it, other than to deter them from posting again. I get what they say, but mostly what they say takes what I said out of context. If you have something new, say it. Otherwise there is no point in repeating what has already been said.

I just don't like seeing so many mentor posts and so few student ones. I understand you want to help, and it is good that you are. I simply want to see more opinions on the matter, from a larger demographic.

I try to spell things right but I am a high school student who is terrible at grammar and spelling. I honestly don't know how I pass english class every year. I try and spell stuff correct, I try to use good grammar, but I have a limit. My computer is too slow to open another window, this also causes "typoes". I'm sorry for that.

[Cory]

My reason for the mentor comment was to the ones that keep repeating the same thing. I ment nothing by it, other than to deter them from posting again. I get what they say, but mostly what they say takes what I said out of context. If you have something new, say it. Otherwise there is no point in repeating what has already been said.

I just don't like seeing so many mentor posts and so few student ones. I understand you want to help, and it is good that you are. I simply want to see more opinions on the matter, from a larger demographic.

I try to spell things right but I am a high school student who is terrible at grammar and spelling. I honestly don't know how I pass english class every year. I try and spell stuff correct, I try to use good grammar, but I have a limit. My computer is too slow to open another window, this also causes "typoes". I'm sorry for that.

If you're using Firefox, it's actually really easy to spell check anything you type. It'll underline it in red, like MS word, and all you have to do is right click and it'll give you options to change it to.

[fuzzy1718]

Sorry internet explorer. Tried firefox, but it slowed the internet down way to much. Dial-up, what can you exspect.

[AdamHeard]

A lot of these mentors posting have been students on teams once;Karthik, Cory, Brandon Hollyey,Kyle, etc... So, they shouldn't be discounted for being mentors (well, no one should be discounted for being a mentor)

Also many have been involved in FIRST for a very long time ;Koko Ed, Dave Lavery, Cory, Karthik, etc... So They're opinion really should be respected.

Even if you are 100% certain your views are right, when so many well respected people in FIRST are disagreeing with you, it may be a good idea to take a time out and see why.

[Akash Rastogi]

The only thing I hope is that nobody gives you negative reputation or anything..because others should also remember that they are your opinions to own.

Wow...so much for that.

And yes, I know they're just dots...:rolleyes: hehe

[artdutra04]

My reason for the mentor comment was to the ones that keep repeating the same thing. I ment nothing by it, other than to deter them from posting again. I get what they say, but mostly what they say takes what I said out of context. If you have something new, say it. Otherwise there is no point in repeating what has already been said.I'm not sure why you have so much of a bias against the mentors, or their thoughts and opinions.

Some of the mentors here once were students on FIRST teams, and many more have been involved with FIRST for years and years.

Others first got involved when you may have still been in elementary school (or earlier).

Many spend their vacation days from work with a bunch of high school kids and robots.

Some travel thousands of miles every year at their own expense, just so they can volunteer at FIRST events, with the only compensation being a few free meals and a tee shirt.

Some get their employers to donate money or resources to local teams.

Others drive around their state, enticing new schools to start their own teams, despite the price of gas.


But all of them are dedicated - without these mentors there would be no FIRST. Don't be so quick to shrug off their judgment.

[JaneYoung]

If I may, I think Josh would like more students to add their thoughts to the topic. It was how he phrased it that caused the firestorm.
There have been discussions that address the have and have-not aspects of FRC teams. There have been discussions regarding different aspects of this thread and probably a great way to search would be to use the word, fair. In those threads there has been a lot of input from students, mentors, parents, alumni. It's a nice mix to have.

Also, Josh, my typos are horrible. I use the edit button multiple times in almost every post. It's handy. Sometimes I write out my thoughts in Word first and then copy/paste into the thread. That has helped as well.

[Joe G.]

On attending multiple regionals:

-Going to Atlanta is not necessary for inspiration.
-Winning a regional is not necessary for inspiration.
-Taking part in a FIRST team is a path to inspiration.

Watch my team on TBA. You will see a signifigantly less than great robot. Am I still inspired? Heck Yes!

If a team needs to do extremely well to feel inspired, then there is something wrong.



On mentors:

They are our mentors because they know more than us in their areas of expertise. They have experience. They are not the focus of FIRST, but without them, it wouldn't happen. We all have different opinions on how they should perform their role, or what that role should be. But to shun their opinions because they are probably more informed than ours is quite ridiculous. If you had never encountered a teacher in your life, where would you be now?


EDIT, to post below:

Point taken. The second half of my post wasn't specifically aimed at Josh, or any other one person. The topic has just been on my mind lately, for reasons other than this thread, and it kind of slipped out here. I apologize for any offense caused to anyone.

Now, back to the topic, instead of a "Bash fuzzy1718-fest"

[Akash Rastogi]

On mentors:

They are our mentors because they know more than us in their areas of expertise. They have experience. They are not the focus of FIRST, but without them, it wouldn't happen. We all have different opinions on how they should perform their role, or what that role should be. But to shun their opinions because they are probably more informed than ours is quite ridiculous. If you had never encountered a teacher in your life, where would you be now?

Sigh, in the real world we have sexism, anti semitism, and racism, in FIRST we have anti Engineeringdegreeism
Please read Jane's post above. I think its what Josh actually meant. Plus, I think that's a topic for a different thread.

[Andrew Schreiber]

But to shun someone's opinions because they are different than ours is quite ridiculous. If you had never encountered a person in your life, where would you be now?


Corrected.:p

By the way, Josh, try out IE7Pro (www.ie7pro.com) it will add the spell checking to ie7. Although I might add that everyone should have a Preview Post button right next to Submit Reply. I would suggest using that and proof reading what you have to say. Just take a step back and say, "Am I really saying what I want to say and am I saying it in a professional manner?"

That being said, Dave, some of us just don't have your grasp on the English language. And the school systems do not teach most of it anymore (least not where I am)

[blaxbb]

I really hate to try to break up this kind and sincere debate, but...

This question was asked in the survey from FIRST (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68025) about future regional setups, so FIRST is definitely thinking about changing things up.

fuzzy1718 brings up some valid points and the people arguing against him also have some valid points.

In my opinion FIRST needs to maintain the open community that it has now, but in order to draw in more schools should make the competitions more local. (similar to highschool sports, state champs )

What if FIRST created both regional competitions and open competitions.

Regional competitions would be locked as per the name "Regional." This would be the event you would be placed in when you register. The winning alliance (along with chairmans, EI, etc.) would qualify for Championships. This event will crown a specific regional title for the country/ region / state / city / whatever the division may be.

Open Events would be more like regionals today. Open Registration keeps the community of FIRST, and possibly creating more competitive events that many crave before championships.

Within 10 years FIRST won't be able to maintain the structure of the regional events. With 3 - 4 thousand teams, many teams will be forced away from local events which would put off someone looking to start a team.

I'm curious what the others think about this. ( new teams, old teams, red teams, blue teams, long standing mentors, new students)

[Cory]

I really hate to try to break up this kind and sincere debate, but...

This question was asked in the survey from FIRST (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68025) about future regional setups, so FIRST is definitely thinking about changing things up.

fuzzy1718 brings up some valid points and the people arguing against him also have some valid points.

In my opinion FIRST needs to maintain the open community that it has now, but in order to draw in more schools should make the competitions more local. (similar to highschool sports, state champs )

What if FIRST created both regional competitions and open competitions.

Regional competitions would be locked as per the name "Regional." This would be the event you would be placed in when you register. The winning alliance (along with chairmans, EI, etc.) would qualify for Championships. This event will crown a specific regional title for the country/ region / state / city / whatever the division may be.

Open Events would be more like regionals today. Open Registration keeps the community of FIRST, and possibly creating more competitive events that many crave before championships.

Within 10 years FIRST won't be able to maintain the structure of the regional events. With 3 - 4 thousand teams, many teams will be forced away from local events which would put off someone looking to start a team.

I'm curious what the others think about this. ( new teams, old teams, red teams, blue teams, long standing mentors, new students)

I don't see FIRST ever getting to the 3-4,000 team level. The economy won't support that many teams. It's already a major struggle for most teams to gather funding.

I think FIRST should stop focusing on expanding FRC, and focus on making FRC it's crown jewel. FTC should be the avenue for expansion. It's simply not realistic for FIRST to expect every school to have a FRC team. Nor could their current infrastructure handle 4,000 teams. They would need 4 times the current amount of events (or 2 fields per event and 2x the events). Either way, you need 4x the volunteers, plus more paid FIRST staff.

At some point they will probably have to either introduce super regionals, or start giving only the winning alliance captain, and the first pick automatic bids to champs (similar to FTC, currently). Or get rid of FLL and FTC at the Championship, and have a FRC only event.

FIRST also has to decide if they want the Championship to be a showcase of their most competitive teams, or a social gathering. To a large extent, this will determine what their possible choices are.

To be honest, I think the odds are better that FIRST will be a shell of it's former self in 10 years, than having 4,000 teams.

[Koko Ed]

Some travel thousands of miles every year at their own expense, just so they can volunteer at FIRST events, with the only compensation being a few free meals and a tee shirt.



I traveled hundreds of miles last weekend to volunteer at an event that this young man's team was participating in. Filling a need that had no volunteer to fill it. I was basically the only person doing the queing (except for this nice young lady whom I never got her name who helped me for a while til she was reassigned).
My thoughts on FIRST being just about the students. The intent may be to serve the students but much like a food kitchen while serving the needy may be the goal to treat the volunteers like they do not matter is a one way ticket to guarantee you won't be getting many more volunteers in the future. FIRST may not be about the mentors but I'll bet you a box of Krispy Kremes it would die a quick brutal death without them. They deserve your respect and admiration for taking time to do something when there are other things clamoring for their time (like families and friends).
You'd do best to remember that.

[Alan Anderson]

You claim that FIRST is not all about winning, but really you're just saying that it shouldn't be about the good teams winning-it should be about the teams you feel are disadvantaged winning.

Fuzzy1718, Cory is absolutely correct. You might not be thinking it, but you're definitely saying it. Try not to get defensive and respond with something like "don't put words in my mouth". His statement here is a straightforward interpretation of the words which you wrote. Regardless of the intent behind them, it's the words themselves which we read.

So if that's not what you meant, rephrase it so that it says more clearly what you want us to read. (If it is what you meant, never mind.)

[Arefin Bari]

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

Josh, other mentors who have replied to your comments have been very nice about the topic and tried to make you understand, but I am going to be very blunt. I have never imagined that I would hear this phrase from any student in my involvement of FIRST. You bring up valid points in your posts but this sentence just threw me off. I am very insulted and I have no pity for you or your team for that matter. The interest I would have to walk into your pit and check your robot and team out has been demolished by your comment. I hope one of your mentors/teachers check your posts out in this thread and help you understand where all the other mentors are coming from.

Now about your concerns, The teams that feel that they aren't doing "too well," and "not getting picked;" ask them to build a robot that will be dominant on the field. I am sure they will get picked.

Teams who are low on funding should look up to veteran powerhouses who travel to quite a few regionals every year and earn their golds. The reason they are able to accomplish such things is because of their sponsors, mentors, parents and their students who spend countless hours making their team what they are. They don't only strive for new corporate sponsors, they know how to keep their relationship with them.

If you ever get a chance, stick around with a "veteran powerhouse" for a regional competition and see how they function throughout the event. I am very sure that your opinion on many things will change.

Below are two things I would like to share with you.

There has been one mentor who has been posting in this thread. Their robot is gorgeous and it's functionality blew everyones' mind away this past season. I have spoken to him throughout the build season and I know that he spent at least 10 hours everyday in the machine shop with his students machining parts for the robot. Without him, the team probably wouldn't perform as well as they did. It's the mentors who show you the right path and show you the path of solution when you are stuck.

Last week, I was up in NJ at the J&J headquarter with all the FIRST teams that are sponsored by J&J. There were teams from Brazil and Puerto Rico who attended this 6 hours event to show their appreciation to all their mentors and their sponsor. During that event, I was talking to a team leader (student) of a local team from Florida. He is great and a smart kid. He wants his team to be a student ran team. I had a conversation with him about how mentors can help him. At first, he was hesitating on mentors helping with the robot or the team for that matter, but after an explanation of how students and mentors can work together to build a dominating machine; he put his hand out to shake my hand and invited me to join his team and asked me to find him local mentors who would be able to help them.

You are nothing without a mentor/teacher. I thought I knew everything when I was a sophomore in high school and I thought I could design a better gearbox and a robot than the mentors could. Heck, half the designs I have done were revised by some of the mentors who posted in this thread. There have been times when I got mad because my mentors didn't listen to me. As I grew up, I saw where they were coming from and how right they were. I wouldn't be able to be a mentor if I didn't idolize them and follow certain things that they have done.

[fuzzy1718]

What I mean by that is something that FIRST has obviously thought about in qualifying by adding match points. A regional isn't all about going out there and blowing other teams out of the water; it is about going out there and seeing who has the better robot. All I'm saying by that is I would like to see teams pair up to make the playoffs more of an unknown. The fact that right after alliance selection, at the regionals that we have attended, I could tell you who was in the finals and be right 2/3 times, tells you something. I have only been around FRC for 2 years, so it isn't like I have watched these teams a ton.

Is it better to go in knowing that you are going to win or being evenly match with your oponent?

[Molten]

Okay, quick message to all who think it isn't fair:
Who cares? FIRST is about preparing us for life in the future. In all honesty, life isn't fair. I believe that it is more accurate and better preparation, if FIRST isn't fair. If you have to work even harder to have a chance at winning, that is a good thing. Anyone who wants it, can have the easy life. I want the life worth living.

Quick message to all who think it is fair:
Who cares? It doesn't matter if someone believes that it isn't fair. All that matters is that you are learning from FIRST. If a company does extremely well, people look into it for foul play. Some will dislike a company just because it is doing well and because it is putting other companies out of business.(Think Wal-mart) This is exactly what is happening in FIRST. You (or other teams) are doing well, and are getting questioned for it. It happens, as long as there isn't any foul play to find (as I'm sure there isn't) then there is no reason to worry or debate.

Overall summary to all:
Who cares? It doesn't matter whether it is fair or not for whatever reason.

[EricH]

What I mean by that is something that FIRST has obviously thought about in qualifying by adding match points. A regional isn't all about going out there and blowing other teams out of the water; it is about going out there and seeing who has the better robot. All I'm saying by that is I would like to see teams pair up to make the playoffs more of an unknown. The fact that right after alliance selection, at the regionals that we have attended, I could tell you who was in the finals and be right 2/3 times, tells you something. I have only been around FRC for 2 years, so it isn't like I have watched these teams a ton.

Is it better to go in knowing that you are going to win or being evenly match with your oponent?So, would you rather have random partners for eliminations? Or go back to the old days, where, as I understand it, your first partner was chosen for you? How about unlimited declines? Or how about 2003, where if you won the first elimination match by enough, you didn't have to win the second, because you had victory in the bag?

If the "better robot" blows "other teams out of the water", then what are you going to do about it? "Go build a better robot!" is my answer. Yours seems to be "Break up any chance for them to do well."

And remember, anything can happen in eliminations. A chain breaks, a robot tips, penalties... Anything could knock the best team/alliance out of contention.

Incidentally, I've been in/around FIRST for about 10 years now, and I can tell you two or three teams that will be in the L.A. regional eliminations next year if they go, right now, and most likely be right. Does that mean anything? No. All it means is that I know which teams are dominant in my area. Which teams are looked up to...copied...imitated...asked to pick team xyz that's having a bad weekend...all that sort of thing. These teams are also some of the most helpful in the area, sharing know-how, shops, and abilities with other teams. Funny that the dominant teams are apparently trying to lose their dominance, don't you think? Yet somehow, they never do.

[Akash Rastogi]

One thing I might add please:

It is also up to the lesser performing robot's team to show the higher seeded and dominant team how they would be an asset to an alliance. The robots aren't always they greatest thing out on the field, but a lot of teams get picked because of their ability to cooperate with other teams and strategize in order to win. A lot of teams I know don't know how to showcase those specific abilities, which, in my mind, is also a huge component in making a winning alliance. Take 177 on Archimedes and 1124 for example. 1124 trusted 177 even though their robot wasn't the best out on the field because 177 knows how to work with other teams and how to communicate as a highly competitive alliance. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that its not just up to the top 8 seeds to select their partners, it is also up to the lower seeded teams to "sell" and market their team to those certain top 8 teams. Just something to think about...

+$0.02

[Brandon Holley]

It seems to me like this thread has turned toward the 'you say' 'I say' kind of debate so I am not going to further that, however I will offer fuzzy some advice.

Fuzzy,
I am in my 8th year of "FIRST". My first 4 years were in high school, and the latest 4 have been through college as a mentor. I have been looking on these forums from sophomore year of high school on. There are some people on here who I have more respect for than anyone else in this world. I "grew up" reading the wise things these people had to say and the advice they offered to younglings like myself. Some of these very people are the ones you have been arguing with, and the ones opinions whom you have been dismissing. Try not and take these arguments personally (some of these great people can argue like its their job) and just stick to the facts. It is great to see you have so much passion for FIRST, but I really think you need to step back and analyze what is really angering you. As cory stated before, you are using what you are arguing against as support for what you are arguing for.


Hope it helps,
Brando

[Alan Anderson]

The fact that right after alliance selection, at the regionals that we have attended, I could tell you who was in the finals and be right 2/3 times, tells you something.

The fact that you can't be right 100% of the time tells me two things. First, the seeding rounds are not adequate to guarantee that the best robots are ranked highest. Second, there is more to winning elimination rounds than sheer robot goodness (teamwork, strategy, and luck all play a large part).

What it does not tell me is that high-ranked teams ought to be handicapped to make the outcome of the competition less predictable. I don't want every team at a regional to have a good chance of winning. I want that chance to go only to those teams who put forth the necessary effort. Winning an FRC tournament is something you must work at, not something you deserve.

[dlavery]

The fact that right after alliance selection, at the regionals that we have attended, I could tell you who was in the finals and be right 2/3 times, tells you something.
...
Is it better to go in knowing that you are going to win or [by] being evenly match[ed] with your oponent?

That sounds suspiciously like an argument for a serpentine draft during alliance selections.

I will let you argue that one out with Paul Copioli. I will just sit back and watch.

And sell tickets. :)

-dave


.

[Dan Petrovic]

Mentors let me her wha the students have to say I don't care of your opionions, your not the focus of FIRST, your students are.

Mentors may not be the direct focus of FIRST, but they are just as involved as students are. They play a pivotal role in the success of FIRST and of the success of every team. They are just as important as the students, so their thoughts, comments, opinions, suggestions, and words of infinite wisdom are just as important as the students' thoughts, comments, opinions, suggests, and words of infinite wisdom.

I hope you see the importance of the mentors in FIRST. Just take a moment to look back on this past year and think about where you would have been without your mentors.

Yes, the main focus of FIRST is to teach students about the fields of science and engineering. But, if there are no mentors or engineers, where does that leave the divine "Focus"?

Mentors have just a right to let their opinion be known and have it be heard and acknowledged just like you do. Unfortunately for you, a poor sentence caused a lot of people to look at you in a bad light.

When you post here, remember that you are representing your team. Disclaimers wont save your team's reputation if you post something people get upset about.

I hope you take the time to realize that mentors are essential for the continued and growing success of FIRST.

You could have even said that sentence with a bit more grace. Rather than bashing the mentors, kindly ask for student opinions. It's not that hard to look back at your post to make sure it wont offend anyone.

Now to comment on your actual topic. Here is a student opinion:

Of course it's better to be evenly matched. It makes for more exciting finals. It might be more nerve-racking for the finalists, but the winners feel a better sense of accomplishment. However, finals that are evenly matched are very rare. Boston 2007 is an example of evenly matched finals where the outcome was determined, literally, at the buzzer. It's much more exciting.

The problem is that there is no way to insure that there are evenly matched alliances facing each other in the finals at every competition. It doesn't even happen on Einstein. It doesn't happen at IRI.

So... I don't know what else to say.

[JaneYoung]

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that its not just up to the top 8 seeds to select their partners, it is also up to the lower seeded teams to "sell" and market their team to those certain top 8 teams.

There's a lot of truth in this statement. The interactions between teams, the exchanges of information, the honest marketing of the teams can generate interest and potential partnerships/alliances.

Jane

*goes off to find Andy Baker to tell a little marketing story from the OKC Regional*

[IKE]

From my earlier post I still say that the question should be "Is competing in 1 regional REALLY fair to the students?" Our team is blessed to have a solid sponsor that gives us enough support to do some extra events. This helps immensely in improving. Experience makes your team better.

If you only have enough money to do 1 regional, try to get into as many off season events as possible. They are relatively cheap (usually 10% the registration price of FRC regionals), and the events are usually great experiences. The entry fee can be raised for the price of a "carwash", and most places have campgrounds nearby.
Some post season events are invite only. This is where GP plays a big part. Nobody wants to deal with a poor sport, so upsetting persons that make those events is a bad idea.
If you can't compete at one of these events, go be a volunteer. This is a little known secret, but Powerhouse teams often volunteer at regionals. This gives you an up close personal veiw of what works and what doesn't. Doing field set-up, you can often listen in on strategy and see how teams work together. If I hadn't volunteered at the Rookie regional I would have underestimated Das Boot from the Enginerds 2337.
I said it before on page 6, but I think it bears repeating. 1718 has produced a couple of top notch machines the last two years. Next step is figuring out how to turn Good into Great. As frustrated as you are in that position imagine some of the teams that are still working on producing a good machine. Your team has figured out how to get past that step and that is not a small hurdle. Many vetran teams are still working on that. Some vetran teams were great, but as teams got better they stayed the same.

One demographic that FIRST really inspires is the "Do More" kind of people. Many of these same people find it insulting when you ask them to "Do Less". A couple of our kids figured out how to do a post season event on their own as all the mentors were busy. Seeing them succeed (yes making it to the semi's is a big success) without us (mentors) is one of the highlights of my season. It tells me that we (mentors) did a good job during the regular season preparing them.
Go Bees!

[chessking132]

I don't have the answer to this subject but i personally I enjoy going to two regionals. I feel that this it is a greater award for all our hard work. It also gives me a chance to visit places that I haven't been before. Finial i feel that there is nothing better then being at FIRST regional event so if you can afford it why not compete twice.

Matthew Simpson
Team 75 Driver

[GaryVoshol]

I have only been around FRC for 2 years
Meaning in every regional event you have been competing in (2 each year), your team has been an alliance captain. OK, I'm done with you now.

[Andy Baker]

It is also up to the lesser performing robot's team to show the higher seeded and dominant team how they would be an asset to an alliance. The robots aren't always they greatest thing out on the field, but a lot of teams get picked because of their ability to cooperate with other teams and strategize in order to win.

There's a lot of truth in this statement. The interactions between teams, the exchanges of information, the honest marketing of the teams can generate interest and potential partnerships/alliances.

Jane

*goes off to find Andy Baker to tell a little marketing story from the OKC Regional*

The 2008 FRC season had many great experiences and stories. For me, one sticks out from Oklahoma City. Jane and I reffed together there, so she got to experience this with me. Here's the story:

Friday was a rough day for team 2369. Actually, it was a difficult day for many teams, as 27 of the 38 competing teams were rookies to FRC. Penalties were frequent, but diminished as the teams gained experience.

Team 2369 is one of those teams with a handful of students and one lead teacher, Modar Abuljebain. This team worked hard with little resources to create a herding robot, aiming to be the best at what they did. Each qualification match introduced another round of bad luck for 2369. They ended the day 0-6. As head ref, I noticed that their robot would do well each time, but their alliance lost each match. Every time, they would have a working hybrid mode, and they did their job. One match, they even got 4 lines in hybrid.

After the award ceremony on Friday, a few of us were hanging out around the field. Modar from 2369 and the lead students asked to talk to me. They were very discouraged by their last-place standing. They did not like depending on other robots who did not perform as well as theirs. All of them were very frustrated.

Remembering that they had a good hybrid mode, I encouraged them to market themselves and tell teams about their assets. I also kept track of penalties per team (on a tally sheet) and pointed out that they only had one penalty over their 0-6 day. This was one of their points of contention, since their partners got many penalties during their matches.

They never thought about the marketing aspect and alliance selection, and wondered how to do that. I gave them examples of what other teams do, by creating summary sheets, team buttons, and give-aways to advertise their teams. Instantly, I saw light bulbs appear above the team members' heads as hope re-appeared to their faces. They thanked me for the insight and went on their way.

The next morning, I was checking on some things in the pits and the students and Modar from team 2369 stopped me. They handed me a card, showing a picture of their robot on it and some key assets for their robot performance: "4-line hybrid mode", "only 1 penalty in 6 matches", and a couple other simple truths. They said that they were going from team to team in the pits, telling others why their team can help an alliance be better. One highly-seeded team even told them to be quiet about it. This team wanted to pick 2369 and didn't want other teams to learn about their hybrid mode.

2369 ended the qualification rounds by going 2-1 on Saturday morning. They were a 1st round pick in the elimination rounds. They lost in the 1st round of the finals, but they competed very well. On Saturday, they held their heads high as they realized that they were one of the top teams in Oklahoma.

I caught up with Modar and the guys after the competition was over, and asked them to autograph their marketing card. Their quick action and response to a difficult situation was an inspiration to me, and a great experience I will not forget.

Instead of giving up, MTC Robotics realized their accomplishments and worked hard at putting a marketing plan into action in a short amount of time (they didn't sleep much Friday night). This helped their team turn a frustrating season into a very successful rookie year.

Thanks to 2369 for being an inspiration to many.

Sincerely,
Andy B.

[Paul Copioli]

I usually do not reply to these sorts of threads (I try to stay in the technical or strategy forums as much as possible), but since my team was specifically mentioned I think I should clear things up.

First and foremost: team 217 always picks teams based on the ranking we give them Friday night and Saturday morning ... always. We use a numerical based system that counts their scoring ability and defensive ability.

Second, we were not the pickers, 469 picked us. We probably would have picked them or 27 if we were the number 1 seed (we were 3).

Third, team 440 was number 16 on our list ... number 16! They should have been long gone before we had a chance to pick them. We should have only been able to get the 23rd or 24th ranked team. We considered them a gift. They consistently did 10 laps in the eliminations and did 11 twice. We didn't want them to play defense because we wanted their points. They were in no way a pity pick. They were picked based on their ranking alone.

As for comments regarding team 1718 I can only say this: I know many of the mentors and some of the students on this team. I have even personally given them a tour of FANUC Robotics. I have a great deal of respect for this team and the mentors and students I know. The attitudes of fuzzy1718 are, to my knowledge, not the prevailing attitude on 1718. Anyway, I just thought I should clear things up.

[Liz Smith]

So, ignoring the other controversy... The topic, and original controversial idea is that teams shouldn't come to competitions and "blow other teams out of the water". Additionally, it would be generally "better" if alliances were more evenly matched, teams didn't pick the same top teams every year, and the elimination rounds weren't so predictable.

Over the past few years I've gone to competition with teams all over the spectrum. I've been around a team that has won regionals since they were formed. I've also been on a team who's season consisted of only the few qualification matches they were scheduled for (some of which they missed because they had a broken robot). If you've been with a teams that has always been lucky enough to attend multiple events, it's important to appreciate the disappointment of having your whole competition season end in 7 short matches.

When on a team that isn't picked for eliminations it's easy to blame the teams that didn't pick you. It's also easy to blame the out of state teams that seemingly have endless amounts of money to travel and "squash" the little local teams. I think it's good having teams that are powerhouses at competitions, it sets the bar high and give other teams something to strive for.

I've seen a team that grew up from not being strong enough to be consistently picked in elimination rounds, if at all. They have been consistently improving their reputation for having competitive robots. By doing what? By building better robots. They have worked their way up from having mediocre robots to having better robots that make them a consistent first round pick alliance partners, if not alliance captains themselves. They have built stronger, more effective robots and have managed to be "that team" that gets picked despite very low rankings after qualifying matches.

My point? I don't think teams that don't make the elimination rounds need to have higher ranked teams step aside to let them win. Team's grow up from year to year. Teams A, B, and C may be strong powerhouses this year but there's nothing saying that teams X, Y, and Z won't be proving that they are forces to be reckoned with in the years to come. There are plenty of teams who have stepped up their game over the span of a couple years and it's not because other teams felt sorry for them and picked them as alliance partners. Saying that teams need to improve themselves isn't a copout, it's the way things work. It is really less inspiring in giving weaker robots a handicap and "free ticket" to Atlanta than it is to give teams with weaker robots something to strive for in years to come.

[pafwl]

Our team has been around for 11 years. Since 2000 when we finally had enough money to go to 2 regionals a season we have attended an away regional and our home regional in Philadelphia. We did go to Nationals twice but we did not get picked up because our robots were not that good. We have won 3 regionals, 2 away and once in Philly. We are now on a roll winning two away regionals in 2006, 2007, and a were finalist in Philly last year. We never go to the same away regional twice so we have been to a lot of places, at great regionals, met great teams, and got to see many different solutions to the same problem. No one ever said please don't come to our regional. In fact they were all gracious and helpful.

We are not a public school so our students pay tuition. We get some sponsors but our students work hard to help raise the money to do this. If we go to an away regional the students pay for just their food, that is it.

What can anyone suggest is unfair?

[fuzzy1718]

1st off sorry 217 for the mix-up. I racked my brain for who picked who and eeven tried going to TBA to see, but my computer disconnected just as I got to TBA (dial-up:( ) so I said to myself "I'll pick 217 they won another regional, and were on fire that weekend". I ment no harm by it, if it seemed like I was I'm sorry. It is hard for me to use examples and not sound negative, it is simply my personality; always finding what is wrong and never what is right, ask anyone on my team they will agree. If I could change I would.

For those keep who commenting about what I said about mentors, read my post after the first comment, I wasn't talking about me not respecting all that they have done. I didn't want their answers to be the same that they have been, that is all. I am very grateful for everything that they have done, all their information and help. Koko ed, at MARC after the competition, I wanted to shake your hand and thank you, but you weren't at the door anymore. I seen the X-cats' name on the back of your board, did a double take and thought, "Wow, he came a long way." By no means was my comment ment to be direspectful, if it sounded that way sorry; I just wanted more than the same few mentors responding.
I am a mentor of an FLL team, I donate my time at the county ISD to put on a lego robotics camp, I know what it feels like. If some one on an FLL team said "I don't care for your opinoin" I wouldn't react like you guys have. I would walk away and think "one of many", not yell at the kid to make him feel bad.

Those of you who keep saying the words "pity pick", those by no means are mine, and not what I ment. I also never said that I want the veteran powerhouses to make themselves lose, just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta. All I can say is read what I said and jude that alone, a lot of what others have said is not what I ment, if it sounds like it is to you then, well I don't mean it that way.

If people think that I'm a sophmore in high school, who think he knows it all, I'm not that way and I don't mean to sound that way. I just wanted to stir up some thoughts of the veteran teams, while they are making their alliance selection list. If the mentor comment makes you think that way, I have told you my resoning behind that many times, but some still comment like they haven't read what I have said.

Yes, I have only been here when my team has had the opertunity (I think that is how you spell it) to pick during alliance selection, but I wish that my team would put themselves in others shoes while picking. You are right this is by no means the majority view of my team and I'm suprised that no one on my team has asked me to remove these posts.

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another. i don't know what happened any where else in the country, but that had to be the most interesting and most fun regional we have attened, that is the majority of my team talking.

The reason for the 2/3 comment was because everything I say is what happens the majority of the time, not always. I know that there have been examples that don't follow what I have said, but I can only go on what I have seen and experianced.

Most of what I say, yeah could apply to my team, but that is not why I am posting it. I am the kind of person who doesn't think of just himself, our team in this case. If it sounds like I do I don't mean to.

Now you can start the "bash fuzzy1718fest" again, but how you can take offense to what I just said, I don't know.

[Andrew Schreiber]

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another. i don't know what happened any where else in the country, but that had to be the most interesting and most fun regional we have attened, that is the majority of my team talking.

While I can see how it was fun and interesting I found it just as interesting as any of the other 3 competitions I went to/worked at. I prefer to see a team that works well together and has the best possible partnerships as opposed to one that picked whoever they were "allowed to". I also thought this caused teams that were the best there not to win which is wrong regardless of how many times they are qualified for Championships. The team put the time and effort to build a dominant machine and to raise money to compete, they deserve to win.

Please talk to Craig about this, he has been involved in FRC for years and is very knowledgeable. I think maybe he can help explain why things are done the way they are. Baring that, if I know Craig (or almost any FRC mentor) he will be willing to discuss it with you. I really hope we can get some of your concerns addressed and I hope you can look past FIRST's faults (perceived or real) and see that overall it is a good program.

[Cory]

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another.

For those who were present, did this really happen? I don't recall discussion about it during the season.

If so, how was such a gross perversion of the rules allowed to take place?

[sgreco]

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another. i don't know what happened any where else in the country, but that had to be the most interesting and most fun regional we have attened, that is the majority of my team talking.

Another problem I can see with this is that if a team wants to be picked by the #1 seed, then they could intentionally lose to fall out of the top 8. If a team intentionally loses they can hurt a team on their alliance that wants to win.

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

[Andrew Schreiber]

For those who were present, did this really happen? I don't recall discussion about it during the season.

If so, how was such a gross perversion of the rules allowed to take place?

Yes, 66 was #1 and they picked teams that didn't accept pushing them out of being picked by others. Perfectly legit actually. And quite dumb on the part of the other teams 66 was actually quite a good robot.

[Cory]

Yes, 66 was #1 and they picked teams that wouldn't accept in order to push them out of being picked by others. Perfectly legit actually. And quite dumb on the part of the other teams 66 was actually quite a good robot.

Oh. So it was an intentional strategy by a team, not FIRST disallowing it.

Gotcha.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Oh. So it was an intentional strategy by a team, not FIRST disallowing it.

Gotcha.

I wouldn't necessarily say intentional strategy because I can't say they did it with that intent. I misspoke earlier when I said wouldn't I should of said didn't.

[IKE]

For those who were present, did this really happen? I don't recall discussion about it during the season.

If so, how was such a gross perversion of the rules allowed to take place?

It wasn't a gross perversion of the rules, but just some very strategic play. We saw the same thing at Midwest this year. This was already covered to a great extent in the GLR thread from this year. This specific reference starts around page 10. Please do not include any further comments in this thread as it already has one heated debate going.

EDIT: WOW 4 others were replying while I wrote this. No offense Cory, just poor timing on my response. I am sure you guys have seen this before.

[Cory]

It wasn't a gross perversion of the rules, but just some very strategic play. We saw the same thing at Midwest this year. This was already covered to a great extent in the GLR thread from this year. This specific reference starts around page 10. Please do not include any further comments in this thread as it already has one heated debate going.

Trust me, I'm all for the use of this strategy. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear in multiple threads having to do with said strategy.

My comment was a reference to FIRST staff changing the rules and not allowing teams to pick in the top 8-I didn't realize a team forced the situation to occur, rather than everyone being limited in the first place.

[fuzzy1718]

cory no rules were broken, the 1st place seeded team was turned down by the top 6 or 5 (don't quite remember) teams. It was the rules that caused it and it made things less predictable.

I don't doubt at other regionals are fun just the way they are, that is why I don't want FIRST to do anything, just leave it up to the teams. The current system work great some of the time, so why change it on paper. I simply want teams to view the situation differantly.

[Akash Rastogi]

cory no rules were broken, the 1st place seeded team was turned down by the top 6 or 5 (don't quite remember) teams. It was the rules that caused it and it made things less predictable.

I actually love it when that happens. It does make the matches so much more exciting to watch. One reason that many teams do this is because they may have been picked by the selecting team before at a previous regional that season and may want to work with some others. And that's why teams choose to go to more than one regional.

[tennispro9911]

1st off sorry 217 for the mix-up. I racked my brain for who picked who and eeven tried going to TBA to see, but my computer disconnected just as I got to TBA (dial-up:( ) so I said to myself "I'll pick 217 they won another regional, and were on fire that weekend". I ment no harm by it, if it seemed like I was I'm sorry. It is hard for me to use examples and not sound negative, it is simply my personality; always finding what is wrong and never what is right, ask anyone on my team they will agree. If I could change I would.

For those keep who commenting about what I said about mentors, read my post after the first comment, I wasn't talking about me not respecting all that they have done. I didn't want their answers to be the same that they have been, that is all. I am very grateful for everything that they have done, all their information and help. Koko ed, at MARC after the competition, I wanted to shake your hand and thank you, but you weren't at the door anymore. I seen the X-cats' name on the back of your board, did a double take and thought, "Wow, he came a long way." By no means was my comment ment to be direspectful, if it sounded that way sorry; I just wanted more than the same few mentors responding.
I am a mentor of an FLL team, I donate my time at the county ISD to put on a lego robotics camp, I know what it feels like. If some one on an FLL team said "I don't care for your opinoin" I wouldn't react like you guys have. I would walk away and think "one of many", not yell at the kid to make him feel bad.

Those of you who keep saying the words "pity pick", those by no means are mine, and not what I ment. I also never said that I want the veteran powerhouses to make themselves lose, just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta. All I can say is read what I said and jude that alone, a lot of what others have said is not what I ment, if it sounds like it is to you then, well I don't mean it that way.

If people think that I'm a sophmore in high school, who think he knows it all, I'm not that way and I don't mean to sound that way. I just wanted to stir up some thoughts of the veteran teams, while they are making their alliance selection list. If the mentor comment makes you think that way, I have told you my resoning behind that many times, but some still comment like they haven't read what I have said.

Yes, I have only been here when my team has had the opertunity (I think that is how you spell it) to pick during alliance selection, but I wish that my team would put themselves in others shoes while picking. You are right this is by no means the majority view of my team and I'm suprised that no one on my team has asked me to remove these posts.

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another. i don't know what happened any where else in the country, but that had to be the most interesting and most fun regional we have attened, that is the majority of my team talking.

The reason for the 2/3 comment was because everything I say is what happens the majority of the time, not always. I know that there have been examples that don't follow what I have said, but I can only go on what I have seen and experianced.

Most of what I say, yeah could apply to my team, but that is not why I am posting it. I am the kind of person who doesn't think of just himself, our team in this case. If it sounds like I do I don't mean to.

Now you can start the "bash fuzzy1718fest" again, but how you can take offense to what I just said, I don't know.

"just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta." I understand your opinion. I just graduated from a team that was only a part of eliminations once in the four competitions we were in. We have been lucky enough to make Championships both years we competed, but because of the Rookie All-Star Award, and winning the single regional we were in the eliminations for. I was estatic that team 20, the 4th alliance captain, picked us with their 2nd round pick.

That said, teams need to deserve to go to championships. I've been there. It is great, but teams shouldn't get picked in eliminations for any other reason than the attributes they bring to an alliance. Usually that is purely their robot and drivers, and sometimes it includes a proven track record of their repair teams. At times, it includes how well two teams have worked together. This competition gives a huge advantage to veteran teams. There is a reason that I've never seen a rookie on Einstein. It is hard as a rookie, but new knowledge, and experience can help a team improve over the years. There are teams that consistantly build amazing robots. 217, 1114, 103, to name a few, but that doesn't mean any team can't join the ranks of those teams. I hope that in 5 or 10 years, if someone lauds, or complains about powerhouse teams, they will be talking about 2053 in the same breath as 254 and others.

In our regional this year, we had numerous teams that had already punched their ticket to the Championships without winning a single match. Team 20 and 191 were original teams from 1992. Team 191 won the Championships Chairman's award ... twice. 365 and 67 were chairman's award winners. There were numerous teams at our regional that also went on to win additional regionals. We had a stacked regional. We had only 1 rookie team, and 2 second year teams including us. However, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. We learned a ton from the powerhouses, and loved competing against them.

[kramarczyk]

I wouldn't necessarily say intentional strategy because I can't say they did it with that intent. I misspoke earlier when I said wouldn't I should of said didn't.

I think we can safely say that it was an intentional strategy.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=727994#post727994

[Arefin Bari]

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

We can have a whole discussion about what you pointed out here. And I am sure that not all of us will agree with each other, simply because we are all different. All the regionals that I have watched/been to, the 3rd alliance partner was a great asset to the alliance. I understand that the 3rd alliance partner was usually a lap runner who gained the alliance an extran 20 points or so, but at the same time some teams changed their strategy to play defense throughout the game. At florida regional, team 342 was a third pick by team 179 and team 69. They kept team 103 away from the ball which crippled the alliance of 108, 103, and 395. Also team 148 played defense at championship. Maybe we all didn't notice them enough because of other robots hurdling and enough actions going on around the field, but Robowranglers kept opponents from capping/knocking the ball off/kept the ball away from their opponent. From all the games I have seen in FIRST, each alliance partners played important role. It was based upon teams' strategy to either put up more points for the alliance or play defense.

[sgreco]

We can have a whole discussion about what you pointed out here. And I am sure that not all of us will agree with each other, simply because we are all different. All the regionals that I have watched/been to, the 3rd alliance partner was a great asset to the alliance. I understand that the 3rd alliance partner was usually a lap runner who gained the alliance an extran 20 points or so, but at the same time some teams changed their strategy to play defense throughout the game. At florida regional, team 342 was a third pick by team 179 and team 69. They kept team 103 away from the ball which crippled the alliance of 108, 103, and 395. Also team 148 played defense at championship. Maybe we all didn't notice them enough because of other robots hurdling and enough actions going on around the field, but Robowranglers kept opponents from capping/knocking the ball off/kept the ball away from their opponent. From all the games I have seen in FIRST, each alliance partners played important role. It was based upon teams' strategy to either put up more points for the alliance or play defense.


I definitely agree with what you are saying. The 3rd alliance partner is always a necessary part of any successful alliance. I just think that this year the first two teams on an alliance could win without a third partner a lot easier than they could in previous years.

I think that the amount of points that two good hurdlers with decent hybrid modes collected in a match was too much for most lapbots to compete with. Some of the really good hurdlers were just as fast as some of the lapbots. I also found that some of the really good hurdlers could get around the track and hurdle just as fast as some lapbots could do a lap.(I don't mean to say anything bad about lapbots, as many times they were important to an a alliance).

[=Martin=Taylor=]

[Another problem I can see with this is that if a team wants to be picked by the #1 seed, then they could intentionally lose to fall out of the top 8. If a team intentionally loses they can hurt a team on their alliance that wants to win.

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

Maybe not at the regional level, but at the championship the 3rd partner is always EXTREMELY important.

On our Curie alliance all three teams hurdled and traded off defense. In this method we were able to outmaneuver defensive robots. If one robot was slowed down by defenders another took the ball.

The alliance that won Curie (67, 16, 348) won largely due to the their third robot. 348 was a ruthless defender, that could get in front of other teams and dramatically slow them down. There was just no outmaneuvering them...

The entire front end of our robot got bent in during the finals on Curie :ahh:

[EricH]

I also never said that I want the veteran powerhouses to make themselves lose, just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta.I'm just going to say this-- While the above is a noble goal, it's often hard to both win and choose teams who aren't going to Atlanta. If you can do both parts, great. If not, then you'll have to choose. How you make the choice is up to your team, and your team alone. I'm not going to criticize either choice. Sometimes, you can do both. Then, is there a choice?

[tennispro9911]

Sometimes you can do both, but there are a lot of teams that aren't going to atlanta. I would say that if you want to go to Atlanta you should deserve to go to Atlanta and deserve to get picked for eliminations. Teams shouldn't pick old friends just because, but they also shouldn't pick rookies just because they are rookies, or worse teams just because they are worse. In a tough regional, every match is close, and the third alliance partner matters a great deal. That was the case at our regional, and it especially showed at Championships.

[Tom Line]

Fuzzy is one of the most laid-back, nicest guys on the team and I can assure you he only wants what's best for FIRST. Unfortunately, the internet is not a perfect communication tool, and sometimes the ideas you want to convey are not clear after being translated into type. He said he didn't intend to insult anyone - please take that at face value.

We have these same conversations internally. There is a huge learning curve and a huge financial curve in FIRST. I think we're all looking for ways to level the playing field and become more competitive.

I have to agree that having a situation where the top 8 teams could not pick each other improved our regional experience. It prevented the creation of a "super" team of the top 2 hurdlers, and really made everyone feel that they had more than a long shot chance at making it. I would fully support a change to the system where the top 8 teams cannot pick each other.

We need a way to help more of the newer teams get up to speed. The chassis kitbot is one incredible example of a way that worked. Perhaps giving breaks on entry fees to teams that mentor a rookie team is another way. (Do they already do this?)

Perhaps we could allow second year teams to reuse custom-made parts to help budget issues and the learning curve.

I'd like to also see more socials at regional events. Mixers (cards etc) with random seating and partners have worked very well at the off-season events. Having these Thursday night would help you get to know the folks you're about to compete against.

Anyway, just remember we're all here posting for the same reason - we want to improve FIRST.

[JaneYoung]

Anyway, just remember we're all here posting for the same reason - we want to improve FIRST.
How many powerhouse teams are there in FRC? What is their impact, overall, affecting all of the robot competitions, including the regionals and Atlanta? It would be my guess that the powerhouse teams are the minority and will remain so as more and more teams form to compete in FRC.

In your post, it seems several topics are being touched on. The merits of bringing newer teams up to speed more quickly probably deserves its own thread discussion: being more competitive at the events therefore improving the odds of being selected, building/developing teams, identifying resources/factors that can help all of this, and creating opportunities for more social interactions among the teams.

Just some thoughts.

[commodoredl]

I've been watching this thread for a while and I think I'd like to share a bit about my team's experience at multiple regionals.
578 is one of those teams who have been around a while, shows up, takes home one of the minor awards each year or sometimes none at all, and goes home. We haven't won a Regional since 2001, and we haven't been finalists since 2004 (Long enough that no one on our team remembers those robots). We attend 2 regionals, a home regional and an away regional. Unfortunately, we never have enough funds for two regionals and Atlanta, so it's either away regional or Atlanta. It has always been a great experience getting to attend a second regional. Even if we do poorly at the first regional, we know our experience will be able to carry us further at the second regional in the matches. This year we were 4-6 at our first regional, our second we were 6-3 which was enough to make us alliance captains for the first time in 2 years. A second regional can give a team who isn't a "powerhouse" a second chance at showing the other teams that they mean business.
You've been asking how "powerhouse teams" attending multiple regionals can be a bad thing. But from the point of view of "just another FIRST team," attending a second regional even if we miss out on Atlanta or a Championship is the best part of our season. Our drivers get a chance to learn the game, and our team gets a second chance at winning an award. The people we meet and places we see more than make up for a dominant #1 alliance who can still make the playoffs entertaining most of the time anyways.

[Akash Rastogi]

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

[Andrew Schreiber]

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

Couldn't agree with you more, coming from a team that many would consider good (27) I can tell you that those kids put in a ton of work. Find one of them at competition and ask for their schedule. Yes, their hours are scheduled. Some of them are never allowed to leave the pits or the stands. Being good requires hard work and dedication. There is a quote from Bill Gates about this:

You will NOT make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with car phone, until you earn both.

You have to work for success so stop complaining about teams that are dedicated and reap the rewards.

[tim_reiher]

"There is no substitute for hard work." Thomas A. Edison

Simply and perfectly put.

This may have been said before, but bears repeating.

If you are unsatisfied with your end product, or performance, grumbling and venting on these forums is not what you should do. What this should be, instead, is an opportunity. Work hard, and improve. One of the goals of FIRST is to inspire, and the feeling of personal accomplishment, pride, and confidence from having improved yourself and your team is a great source of inspiration. You may not be as successful as Wildstang, or Hammond. But this inspiration, and character gained from such a learning experience as FIRST, is plenty a reward unto itself.

[IKE]

I would like to add that it takes more than just hard work, it takes smart work. What I mean by this is that you have to work hard at smart things.

In college all too often I saw people spend hours and hours working on a homework problem only to turn in an incomplete problem. While hardwork is admirable, that was not smart work. The students that get the good grades either worked in groups, or talked with a TA/prof when they ran into roadblocks.

This is one of the beautiful things about FIRST. Teams are more than happy to explain their methods for success. Having a few years of bad runs. Talk to a team doing well. Philosophically opposed to their way of doing things then talk to another team whose accomplishments you respect. If you repeat this enough times you will either learn from a team with a similar philosophy that has success, or you may learn you have a loosing philosophy that needs to be refreshed in order to be more competitive.

One philosophy that all the good teams do is find a way to compete in more than one regional, and if they can go to the Championship. Reason being is that they get more exposure to great ideas that way and can find out what is working for others.

Having competed in a lot of other high school and Collegiate design series, FIRST is one of the only programs I have seen that will literally give you all of their best secrets just by asking. Pretty amazing really.

[smurfgirl]

[

Maybe not at the regional level, but at the championship the 3rd partner is always EXTREMELY important.

On our Curie alliance all three teams hurdled and traded off defense. In this method we were able to outmaneuver defensive robots. If one robot was slowed down by defenders another took the ball.

The alliance that won Curie (67, 16, 348) won largely due to the their third robot. 348 was a ruthless defender, that could get in front of other teams and dramatically slow them down. There was just no outmaneuvering them...

The entire front end of our robot got bent in during the finals on Curie :ahh:


I have to agree with this.

Our alliance was three hurdling robots. When we were tied 1-1 in the finals on Archimedes, and had been decimated in the second match, we put a new strategy in play. Everyone was expecting us to play offense, since we had been a strong offensive player all season, so we started our robot as defense and put 1024 and 177 on offense. When the other alliance caught on that 177 was scoring, they went over to play defense on them, so we started scoring instead, and let the other robots pile up in the corner. It was a little messier than that on the field, but that's the concept that allowed our alliance to win the final Archimedes match and make it to Einstein.

On Einstein, however, the winning Curie alliance destroyed us with their defense. During the second semifinals match, I think all three of our robots were so tangled they were immobile. It was pretty frustrating standing in the alliance station, unable to do anything about the situation.

This shows that while the third alliance partner choice was great against one alliance (on Archimedes), it didn't hold up as well against another (on Einstein). Curie's alliance's third partner was also important in their strategy against our alliance. It's not all about the offensive "powerhouses", strategy is key.

[Mike Schreiber]

Note: this is thread has gone way off topic from multiple regionals and I will continue that trend.

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

Although I do like the quote I don't completely agree with how applicable it is. Hypothetically, I can work at a mill for 2 hours making a part from a drawing that I worked equally hard on. Yes I am successful and the part works, but I spent 2 hours more than a team with a CNC mill that doesn't need to work as hard or as long to achieve the same thing. Or they could order the part and get in machined professionally...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.

I am not saying by any means that the 'power house' teams don't deserve to repeat their victories and that they shoulded be rewarded for their achievements, but I think rookie teams need more of a fighting chance. The rookie regional was a great example of teams with a near (not perfectly) even playing field competing.

On the comment of GLR and the no ultimate alliance I didn't like what happened at all. No, not because we denied 66 and as the third seed could not take 67, 217 or join with 47 in the second seed but because it stopped the competing alliances from doing the best they could do, possibly setting a new national highscore or a teams personal record. Yes, they can do their personal best with anyone in their alliance provided their alliance partners don't impede their abilities or rack up penalties, but it's a different scenario.

I know I'm arguing both to even the playing field and allow the veterans to gang up, but I'm just trying to point out that it's a flawed system. No matter what we change and how we do things we can not perfect the system. Short of specifying exactly what can be used as a resource and how much can be spent and providing those resources to every team therefore partially stunting creativity and innovation in teams that want to go beyond that there is no way to even the playing field perfectly. Even then there is a matter of prior knowledge and man power some teams have more people who are more educated or experienced.

Flawed as it may be, FIRST is still a great program with great people and certainly a great community. Nothing is perfect and competitions can't leave everyone happy. There can only be one winning alliance, but instead of complaining about how good they are we should learn from them, and even if we can't beat them in FIRST strive to use what they teach us to better to world.

+0.02 and a corny ending

[Akash Rastogi]

...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.

But my point is that it takes hard work to get those sponsors to in turn get the money to provide for a CNC mill or to pay for some machining. But yea, I do see what you are saying. My point is to just not complain about the teams that do work hard and are successful. Like you said, you could hand machine all your parts and still be successful like 27, but to others who would like to view it in a negative way, they may complain of your success not knowing that you hand machine things like many of my other favorite successful teams. *that makes sense right? but idk haha:P *

[Steve W]

..., but to others who would like to view it in a negative way, they may complain of your success not knowing that you hand machine things like many of my other favorite successful teams.

I know that Team 188 is known as a rich team up here in the Great White North. The fact is that we don't have the machinery that others do. There is an old mill that one of our sponsors has that can be used but the school frowns on us going there. We do have a mentor that goes an usually takes 1 student with him. We have also, in the last 3 years, found a good deal on laser cutting of our drive base. We still have to earn the money to pay for it.

Our team works hard for the funds. They wanted to do a summer project but didn't have the money so they started selling Freezies after school. They earned almost $1000.00 and now have the money for the off season project. Nothing comes easy. Hard work does not mean success. If you work hard and smart, use your resources well (engineers are great resources), then your odds of being successful are much higher

Remember that the so called rich teams may not have the funds that you believe them to have. They are sometimes able to maximize their money because of experience and good job planning (measure twice, cut once). learn from other teams, do not be afraid to ask for help or ideas. Our team has had a great drive train thanks to help from team 25. Our off season project involves working with 2 other teams ideas to improve our team. We always make sure that we contact teams that we get ideas from and give them credit when we get a final product. As of yet we have not found any teams that were not willing to share.

[artdutra04]

Although I do like the quote I don't completely agree with how applicable it is. Hypothetically, I can work at a mill for 2 hours making a part from a drawing that I worked equally hard on. Yes I am successful and the part works, but I spent 2 hours more than a team with a CNC mill that doesn't need to work as hard or as long to achieve the same thing. Or they could order the part and get in machined professionally...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.Just because a team fabricates a part on a CNC milling machine does not mean it was faster than it could have been created on a manual milling machine.

There are a lot of "extra steps" involved with CNC work that add a lot of time onto the procedure, such as creating the NC program and testing/simulating it. The only time it becomes faster to make parts on a CNC mill is when the complexity of the part goes through the roof or when you have a large production run (dozens, hundreds, or even thousands) to make.

For the vast majority of the time, these situations are not the norm during the FRC build season. There isn't much one can't make between a lathe and a milling machine with rotary table and DROs. Sure, you may not get fancy triangulated lightening pockets (although square ones are very easy to make, especially with DROs), but you can have fully functional parts.

I've seen a lot of teams get so worked up on "OMG, we have a CNC machine!!1!" that they spend so much time and energy making pretty wheel rims or milling their team logo into a sheet of aluminum or Lexan (or in other words, parts which have no bearing on the success of the robot) that they kind of "forget" about designing/fabricating a smart mechanism, and end up with some plywood last minute creation that only works halfway as well as it could have.

[Cory]

Note: this is thread has gone way off topic from multiple regionals and I will continue that trend.



Although I do like the quote I don't completely agree with how applicable it is. Hypothetically, I can work at a mill for 2 hours making a part from a drawing that I worked equally hard on. Yes I am successful and the part works, but I spent 2 hours more than a team with a CNC mill that doesn't need to work as hard or as long to achieve the same thing. Or they could order the part and get in machined professionally...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.

Very true, but those teams work hard to get those things- to have access to a CNC mill, to get machine shops to donate time to make their parts. These are things anyone can do.

For example, machining resources. Get out the yellow pages and start calling every machine shop within 25 miles of you. I guarantee you will find more than one who is willing to help you out. We have found 3 or 4 locally who have helped us at one point or another in the last 3 years (with a significant amount of work), and 968 has done the same with many more shops.

Another thing to look for is community colleges with machine tool technology programs. You can often take the intro class, and then sign up for an open lab class to make personal projects (ie: robot parts)

[fuzzy1718]

A great example of how a team with a mill is at more of an advantage than those without: Our team this year spent 3 or 4 hrs drilling holes in our lift with a hole saw. How longer would that have taken on a mill, an hour maybe two?

Practicly our entire robot this year was made from hand tools, a drill press welder, and hand drills. We had only 1 or 2 parts in a machine shop, one was to get the gears off our fisher price motors.

Tell me who has the advantage, the team that can do it themselves in an hour or the team who has to send it to a machine shop and wait a day or two?

[=Martin=Taylor=]

A great example of how a team with a mill is at more of an advantage than those without: Our team this year spent 3 or 4 hrs drilling holes in our lift with a hole saw. How longer would that have taken on a mill, an hour maybe two?

Practicly our entire robot this year was made from hand tools, a drill press welder, and hand drills. We had only 1 or 2 parts in a machine shop, one was to get the gears off our fisher price motors.

Tell me who has the advantage, the team that can do it themselves in an hour or the team who has to send it to a machine shop and wait a day or two?

A limited budget will force you to think more creatively, and come up with more simple and elegant solutions.

Just look at team 121. You could have built that robot with the tools you just described (as many other teams did :) ).

Yeah, our team can't make things as fast or as complex as the Cheesy Poofs... And that's why we've never copied the Cheesy Poofs...

There's always an easier/simpler way to do something. You just have to look.

[sgreco]

A great example of how a team with a mill is at more of an advantage than those without: Our team this year spent 3 or 4 hrs drilling holes in our lift with a hole saw. How longer would that have taken on a mill, an hour maybe two?

Practicly our entire robot this year was made from hand tools, a drill press welder, and hand drills. We had only 1 or 2 parts in a machine shop, one was to get the gears off our fisher price motors.

Tell me who has the advantage, the team that can do it themselves in an hour or the team who has to send it to a machine shop and wait a day or two?

I sort of see what you're saying but...

Cory is right, if you need access to machinery, go to local machine shops and ask if they'll let you use there machines. I'm sure they'll let you.

My team went our first year without access to much machinery. This year we went to a local machine shop. We literally walked in and said "we are a local robotics team, and if you would be so kind as to let us use your shop a little bit in the next 6 weeks it would be greatly appreciated." We had no previous connections with the shop and the guy who owned it basically let us use it whenever we wanted.

Another story: After this build season my team decided we wanted a mill for the lab. We went to a local company to see if they would be interested in sponsoring us. After introducing the owner to FIRST and telling him our needs, he offered to give us a Bridgeport mill.

All I'm trying to say is if you put in the effort to get machinery or access to machinery, most of the time you are going to be successful.

It's not a matter of a team being at a disadvantage due to circumstance, it's a matter of teams being at an advantage because they took the time to work to give themselves an advantage.

[Molten]

go to local machine shops and ask if they'll let you use there machines. I'm sure they'll let you.


As long as they don't worry about safety issues. The shop we went to would make parts for us, but we had to be escorted throughout the building and they had to be the ones to use the machines. Something to do with company policy and insurance reasons.

[JVN]

Tell me who has the advantage, the team that can do it themselves in an hour or the team who has to send it to a machine shop and wait a day or two?

In my mind the students who get to learn how to spec a part for the professional shop definitely have the advantage over the students who get to learn how to use the hole-saw.

But then again, my opinion doesn't matter, right?
-John

[Akash Rastogi]

Another thing to look for is community colleges with machine tool technology programs. You can often take the intro class, and then sign up for an open lab class to make personal projects (ie: robot parts)


Btw: yes, we went off topic lol but w/e


Cory has a very good point here. We've been so lucky to have the engineering profs. work with us to not only help build the robots but to also use their machine shop and a presentation center to host our kickoff event. County College of Morris is apparently one of the top community colleges so we are pretty lucky to have them help us and I suggest other teams do the same for a machining resource.

[EricH]

Another thing to look for is community colleges with machine tool technology programs. You can often take the intro class, and then sign up for an open lab class to make personal projects (ie: robot parts)I'm with you there, Cory. Couple years ago, someone found out that El Camino College (Torrance, CA) has a shop that is open to any registered student if they've got the training. Teams 330 and 294 had some members take classes, and it didn't cost a whole lot. Got one of the instructors involved...

I don't know how many teams have actually used that shop, but I distinctly remember taking a class there during one of another team's FIX-IT windows, as they brought their arm in to work on it.

[IKE]

Can this be changed to the:
"Is life REALLY fair?" thread since there are so many tangents.:D

In college I watched two guys compete on which was the fastest way to turn out an axle with very precise bearing lands. One used a CNC lathe, the other a WW2 monarch (a nice peice of machinery as long as the vacuum tubes worked). End result they finished at the same time with the same quality of part. The CNC guy did have 4 scrap axles though.
If the task was to make 2 perfect axles the CNC guy would have won.

Be grateful for what you have (there is always someone who has less). Work hard to earn more, but remember someone will always have more. Very skilled people have helped rookies buid nice robots on Thursdays will little more than hacksaws and hand drills.

As my fifth grade math teach used to sing:
"I once had the blues cause I got no shoes
'til I happened to meet a man with no feet."

[Josh Fox]

*****Off Topic Section*****

Nothing in life is free. The team that has a full machine shop and every luxury that money can afford had to work to get that money, while the team with next to nothing but a hard working group of people have to work to in different ways to get the same results. Both groups have put in different kinds of work, and it's not really something that is on a measurable scale. It's like comparing apples to oranges, it just doesn't work.

Let's face it, in the real world, some people truly do have advantages, but that doesn't mean that hard work can't prevail. For example, I've had classmates who can ace everything without any effort, while others have to work incredibly hard to get the same results.



*****My attempt at an on topic comment*****
Though I am strongly for competing at multiple regionals, mostly because they are tons of fun, I can see the other side of this debate, and as a driver I can see where it would give the teams that do compete at multiple regionals an advantage over those who don't/can't.

In my experience, no matter how many hours of drive practice you put in, there's no real substitute for actually competing. This is the best way I can put this to have it make sense (maybe). Let's say two teams (A and B) have completely identical robots, drivers, skills, etc. If Team A and Team B put in exactly the same amount of practice prior to a competition, but Team A has already competed at one regional, I would give them an advantage if Teams A and B were to compete. That said, I'm eliminating all the variables here like strategy and such, but I think people need to accept that there are two valid sides to this debate, and neither of them is the absolutely correct one.

Hopefully this has made enough sense for people to be able to interpret it as a semi-intelligent comment.

[Molten]

Hopefully this has made enough sense for people to be able to interpret it as a semi-intelligent comment.

Sorry, It's not semi-intelligent. It is completely intelligent. Hopefully, people will let this thread die as it should have long ago.

[Josh Fox]

Sorry, It's not semi-intelligent. It is completely intelligent.

I'm glad that people were able to understand my thoughts, and I appreciate the compliment sincerely.

Hopefully, people will let this thread die as it should have long ago.


I do respectfully disagree that this thread should be dead, because I feel that if it gets back on track, people voice their opinions respectfully, and come into this debate with an open mind, then maybe it will provoke some thoughts from other people. Let's face it, we could use some more original, against the grain thoughts in this world. However, I will agree that if this thread stays the way it has been, which I see as one where people are taking others opinions as attacks against their beliefs or themselves, then nothing productive will come out of the discussion and it should be closed.

So lets try and get back to intelligent, productive, non-offensive, open-minded discussions. :)

[tennispro9911]

Sometimes its fun to argue. I don't mean pointless arguments but discussions that provoke your thoughts. There isn't one right answer to many questions. As a community it is good for us to discuss our beliefs and opinions.

All teams are not created equal nor do all have equal opportunities. Teams can work hard to overcome obstacles, but some teams have inherit advantages. Our team for example has a mill at our school. That is an advantage over some teams that we did not have to work for. We also have numerous other advantages and disadvantages over some teams. That's life. That's reality. FIRST does a great job of leveling the playing field with the KOP, but the playing field is never completely level. For example, a team from a very rural area with no CNC mills within 100 miles of them would have a disadvantage compared to a team that can walk up to a community college, take a course, and use their equipment. Hard work does not completely level the playing field either. Hard work makes it more level, but the team with more resources will use their hard work to expand them to a level that might be impossible for some other teams.

However, we are forgetting the purpose of FIRST. Even though we are in FIRST because its fun, and I know that everyone would love to win a championship or, in some cases, a regional, we are really in FIRST to develop a love and appreciation for Math, Science, and Technology. This is our goal. Every team can do this effectively regardless of how well they do in competitions.

[Tom Line]

I sort of see what you're saying but...
All I'm trying to say is if you put in the effort to get machinery or access to machinery, most of the time you are going to be successful.


*chuckle* Actually, we did just that. We now have a semi-local (40 minute drive, but hey we're not picky!) prototyping some new dewalt style transmissions for us and they've promised to work with us down the road too.

Let's keep steering this back onto the road of improving first. What if FIRST made a directory of machine shops that help out other teams (with their permission of course) so that in a pinch, rookie or "new" teams could get something done if they really needed it?

[s_forbes]

Practicly our entire robot this year was made from hand tools, a drill press welder, and hand drills.

Hey, us too! Our robot was designed in a way so that it could be built with a hacksaw and a hand drill. We actually had access to a nice mill; we walked by it every single day in the shop! But we never used it. I guess we don't build our robots correctly... (as an interesting side note, we haven't had to put a single speedhole in a robot since our rookie year in 2006!)


As for the competing in multiple regionals: The rulebook allows it, therefore it is fair in the FIRST competition. I'm personally very happy that it is allowed, otherwise we would have been non-functional in a majority of our matches this season. (we had some defective wiring to the distribution block through the entire Arizona regional, didn't figure it out until we went to L.A.)

[Akash Rastogi]

Let's keep steering this back onto the road of improving first. What if FIRST made a directory of machine shops that help out other teams (with their permission of course) so that in a pinch, rookie or "new" teams could get something done if they really needed it?

That would be a hard task, but I'd be up to helping you out. But let's open another thread for that please. :)

[waialua359]

Sometimes its fun to argue. I don't mean pointless arguments but discussions that provoke your thoughts. There isn't one right answer to many questions. As a community it is good for us to discuss our beliefs and opinions.

All teams are not created equal nor do all have equal opportunities. Teams can work hard to overcome obstacles, but some teams have inherit advantages. Our team for example has a mill at our school. That is an advantage over some teams that we did not have to work for. We also have numerous other advantages and disadvantages over some teams. That's life. That's reality. FIRST does a great job of leveling the playing field with the KOP, but the playing field is never completely level. For example, a team from a very rural area with no CNC mills within 100 miles of them would have a disadvantage compared to a team that can walk up to a community college, take a course, and use their equipment. Hard work does not completely level the playing field either. Hard work makes it more level, but the team with more resources will use their hard work to expand them to a level that might be impossible for some other teams.

However, we are forgetting the purpose of FIRST. Even though we are in FIRST because its fun, and I know that everyone would love to win a championship or, in some cases, a regional, we are really in FIRST to develop a love and appreciation for Math, Science, and Technology. This is our goal. Every team can do this effectively regardless of how well they do in competitions.
excellent, excellent points made here.
:D