View Full Version : New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
Read the announcement here (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Media_Center/Press_Releases_and_FIRST_News/FINAL_FIRSTRelease_MIRestructuring.pdf).
FIRST, an organization founded by noted inventor Dean Kamen to inspire young people's interest and participation in science and technology, today announced that, in cooperation with the volunteer leadership of FIRST in the state of Michigan, a new pilot district event model will be launched to provide increased robotics competitions statewide. The new model, which will offer a high-quality FIRST experience for all students, will subdivide the state into 16 districts to leverage local action plans for growth and make robotics events accessible and closer to home.
The district event model, piloted in the FIRST Robotics Competition 2009 playing season from January to April, will include seven district events and one state championship event. During the pilot year, only Michigan teams can compete with the state. Those same teams can register to compete at other traditional FRC Regional events outside of the state and also qualify for the FIRST Championship to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, in April 2009.
What do you think?
-dave
.
jessjank.
30-07-2008, 15:08
Also, an FAQ page is available. Direct link to the announcement on the FIRST homepage here (http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=9508).
...and make robotics events accessible and closer to home.
Good.
We have to cut down on some spending over the next few seasons, and one of those things is the amount of regionals that we can attend, keeping distance in mind. With events closer to home, we wouldn't have to worry about hotel fees and other costs associated with traveling to distant regionals.
This could be interesting... It's more like traditional sports. At the same time, you can have other events ("open" events, if the new Regional system works out) that any team can attend (the ones outside Michigan), kind of like how the National League plays the American League and NL West plays NL East or NL Central on a regular basis, to keep things interesting.
I think FIRST might have something there! Now if it works...
It's also going to make Fantasy FIRST extra fun.
I guess we won't be going to West Michigan this year like we thought.
Fantasy First would be cool, no more fantasy baseball.
Herodotus
30-07-2008, 15:27
I like the idea as it will hopefully allow for teams to attend more events, and as long as there are also at least some traditional regionals teams will still be able to travel around to meet teams from other regions of the country.
I would like to know the 7 competition sites. Kettering University, home of the rookie regional, will probably be a site. What is going to be the championship event, will it be housed in Eastern Michigan, where GLR takes place, or Grand Valley where WMR takes place? What will become of the other two regionals? I would love to hear what sites these are going to be held at. It is weird that these competitions will be for only Michigan teams, look at all of the teams that would not have been able to compete at Michigan regionals this year: 71, 2171, 888, 63, 291, and others. I am not completely sold on it yet, but we will see as more info comes out.
Fantasy First would be cool, no more fantasy baseball.The Season Long league is taking signups now. See the appropriate thread.
FAQ, Jack, FAQ. Detroit and WMR are district; GLR is the State Championship for this year. Kettering will be a district event. (Points 14 and 15 in the FAQ document linked to farther up the page.)
Richard Wallace
30-07-2008, 15:37
...What do you think?
-dave
.I think this is a good move for FIRST in Michigan.
Also, Michigan FIRSTers are undertaking an important and potentially difficult experiment, from which the whole FIRST community is likely to benefit in years beyond 2009.
I would like to know the 7 competition sites. Kettering University, home of the rookie regional, will probably be a site. What is going to be the championship event, will it be housed in Eastern Michigan, where GLR takes place, or Grand Valley where WMR takes place? What will become of the other two regionals?
FAQ said West and Detroit would be district events and Great Lakes the State Championships.
Why are there sixteen districts if there will be only seven competitions?
Edited: ...or is it that of the sixteen district events, seven are limited only to teams from Michigan? It reads, "the state will be divided into 16 districts that lead to an April 2009 Michigan State Championship. The Michigan pilot will also include seven district evens in which on Michigan teams can compete within the state." This is written poorly.
Alex Golec
30-07-2008, 15:41
Why are there sixteen districts if there will be only seven competitions?
The sixteen districts are geographic divisions to aid in planning team growth within the state.
From what I read they get to play in two events for one fee and only have to pay extra for the State Championship and whatever outside regionals they choose. Is this correct?
Alex Golec
30-07-2008, 15:44
From what I read they get to play in two events for one fee and only have to pay extra for the State Championship and whatever outside regionals they choose. Is this correct?
That is correct.
Ericgehrken
30-07-2008, 15:47
This seems like a huge step forward for FIRST, maybe other states will adapt this model in the future.
Travis Hoffman
30-07-2008, 15:52
Not spending much time thinking about it, I think this could be a boon for the quality of the regionals just outside of Michigan, as the lockout of non-Michigan teams from competing at the generally high-demand Michigan events might make those teams seek out the Buckeyes and Boilermakers and Pittsburghs (and Waterloos? and....) of the world.
Not to mention the Michigan teams are free to escape from their own state and still participate in these non-Michigan events themselves.
So....if FIRST chooses to have an open enrollment phase for Championship registration again this year, are Michigan teams eligible to sign up then, or must they only qualify via their new district guidelines or via earning their way in at a non-Michigan regional?
A thought -- are FIRST and NI prepared to troubleshoot a brand new control system at these additional events? It seems a weird time to implement two radical shifts in how the program operates in a single season.
Another thought -- knowing that practically nothing of a team's registration fee goes toward supporting a regional event, I'm having trouble reconciling how teams in Michigan can justifiably play more for their single registration fee. The FAQ seems to deftly ignore how much the registration fee for Michigan teams will be; I'm curious to learn if it'll be higher or lower than elsewhere and how the time spent playing matches for that fee compares with teams from other states paying a similar amount.
Not to be a stick in the mud but the Michigan teams getting two events for the price of one doesn't sit well with me. Also we don't know what the fee for the State Championship will be, I bet it won't be $4K.
So....if FIRST chooses to have an open enrollment phase for Championship registration again this year, are Michigan teams eligible to sign up then, or must they only qualify via their new district guidelines or via earning their way in at a non-Michigan regional?Your turn to be sent to the FAQ, Travis. The answer is yes, but they can also qualify outside of Michigan (normal methods, barring RCA) or at the Michigan championship. FAQ point 11.
Alan Anderson
30-07-2008, 16:07
I think something like this is a necessary step in the growth of FRC in particular. I'm not sure if it's the best way to do things, but I am sure I couldn't have suggested anything better. It does make me wonder how the "district" scheme might be expanded to other regions, especially those with sparsely-spread teams.
I'm glad we didn't already make firm plans to attend a Michigan regional next year. I'm also very happy not to be a Michigan team right now, and I offer any Karma I can spare to those teams who need it.
Another thought -- knowing that practically nothing of a team's registration fee goes toward supporting a regional event, I'm having trouble reconciling how teams in Michigan can justifiably play more for their single registration fee.
I suspect the district events won't have quite the level of audiovisual production staffing that we've come to expect from regional competitions.
I think the registration fee is the same, the big difference is that Michigan teams get 2 district events as opposed to 1 regional event. By the sounds of it the district events will be similar, but more economical versions of a regional event (more like Kettering Rookie event or off season events). These district events are not garuanteed trips to the Championship, but only the State Championship.
Overall it looks like a good trade-off to me, but I am glad that they are doing a trial run.
Not to be a stick in the mud but the Michigan teams getting two events for the price of one doesn't sit well with me. Also we don't know what the fee for the State Championship will be, I bet it won't be $4K.
I believe the State Championship fee will in fact be $4,000.
While for the 2009 season there is no doubt Michigan teams are being given more plays for less it is simply the first step in effecting that change for the entire country. So yes if things turn out well then there is, perhaps, an additional cost benefit to being a Michigan teams in the short term. But I think it's important to judge this change based on whether or not it is beneficial for FIRST across the country because if it is then everyone will have the same advantages in time. I'm not sure if the answer is yes, but that's why it's a pilot program.
Travis Hoffman
30-07-2008, 16:22
Your turn to be sent to the FAQ, Travis. The answer is yes, but they can also qualify outside of Michigan (normal methods, barring RCA) or at the Michigan championship. FAQ point 11.
Actually, I did read it, but I glanced past the blurb about the pre-registration. I must not have been as captivated by the enagaging writing style as others....:D
I believe the State Championship fee will in fact be $4,000.
Do you have inside information for that? The FAQ say's the teams will have to pay an "additional fee" for the State event while also stating in the same section that for out of state regionals they will pay "regular FRC registration fees." That seems like a pretty important distinction.
Look I'm not entirely against the pilot program. FIRST needs to change something for FRC to continue growing. I just want to know how much of a potential advantage MI teams may get.
Do you have inside information for that? The FAQ say's the teams will have to pay an "additional fee" for the State event while also stating in the same section that for out of state regionals they will pay "regular FRC registration fees." That seems like a pretty important distinction.
Yes I can confirm the cost is the same as any other additional event ($4,000).
I just going to poke into this thread for one moment. I'm curious to see what people have to think about this, and want to invoke a conversation about it.
I personally love the air of competitions. A huge set of bleachers/arena seating full of chanting and cheering team members while robots go at it under the field lighting is what defines a great event for me. Being a driver, I don't get to be up in the stands with my team, however I do get to stare into the masses while teams with students you've never met before cheer for your alliance to take the victory. That's definitely one thing that makes FIRST so different from any other organization in my opinion. With Michigan going from three regional events this year to an astounding eight will either stretch the wallet of FIRST, or they'll have to slightly dumb down the quality of the event. Now I've been in FIRST for only a year now, but I don't want to see other students miss what I've gotten to experience.
I don't have a clue how many teams the state of Michigan has, or even how many rookie teams it will have this coming season, but something tells me that each of those district events won't have the average fifty or so teams that current regionals have. Having that many teams adds depth, along with other things. I just wouldn't enjoy an event with fewer teams as I would one with fifty or more. I could bring up other points, but I'm going to stop and see what you all can take out of what I've written so far.
I just want to see what you all feel about the possible fact that these events may be less of an experience than that of current events. Again, I'm simply looking at it through the eyes of someone who doesn't want other students to miss out on what I've had. Is a drop in quality really worth bringing in more teams?
[Disclaimer: I've probably over-written this, thus making my point hard to understand. If you don't wish to try and figure out what I mean, by all means ignore this. :rolleyes: ]
JaneYoung
30-07-2008, 16:40
One way to look at this is that we have to start somewhere. It appears that Michigan has established/is establishing an infrastructure that can provide this opportunity as one possible solution to the growth/costs/concerns.
Any time there is change, concerns/risks arise and they should be addressed by the volunteer leadership. Hopefully, at the end of the 2009 season, we will all learn of the benefits that come from this 'experiment' and how the teams were impacted.
I personally love the air of competitions.
I went to the Kettering Rookie regional and it was pretty cool. As you guessed it was not the Rock Concert that GLR is, but it did feel more like a high school sporting event.
I think that to keep it affordable they will get rid of some of the spectacle. Also the district events are supposed to be 35-45 teams, so they will be smaller than many regionals.
Hopefully this gets made up for by an outstanding State Championship.
This will definitely be one of the questions we ask our kids at the end of next season.
P.S. I think MI has right around 120 teams. Next year should be about 130-140. 7 districts x 40 teams/event = 280 event slots = everybody gets 2 slots.
acdcfan259
30-07-2008, 16:52
I just going to poke into this thread for one moment. I'm curious to see what people have to think about this, and want to invoke a conversation about it.
I personally love the air of competitions. A huge set of bleachers/arena seating full of chanting and cheering team members while robots go at it under the field lighting is what defines a great event for me. Being a driver, I don't get to be up in the stands with my team, however I do get to stare into the masses while teams with students you've never met before cheer for your alliance to take the victory. That's definitely one thing that makes FIRST so different from any other organization in my opinion. With Michigan going from three regional events this year to an astounding eight will either stretch the wallet of FIRST, or they'll have to slightly dumb down the quality of the event. Now I've been in FIRST for only a year now, but I don't want to see other students miss what I've gotten to experience.
I don't have a clue how many teams the state of Michigan has, or even how many rookie teams it will have this coming season, but something tells me that each of those district events won't have the average fifty or so teams that current regionals have. Having that many teams adds depth, along with other things. I just wouldn't enjoy an event with fewer teams as I would one with fifty or more. I could bring up other points, but I'm going to stop and see what you all can take out of what I've written so far.
I just want to see what you all feel about the possible fact that these events may be less of an experience than that of current events. Again, I'm simply looking at it through the eyes of someone who doesn't want other students to miss out on what I've had. Is a drop in quality really worth bringing in more teams?
[Disclaimer: I've probably over-written this, thus making my point hard to understand. If you don't wish to try and figure out what I mean, by all means ignore this. :rolleyes: ]
I see what you're talking about. I imagine to hold this many events, they'll have to find some way to cut down costs. Where, we don't know yet. And like you said, the experience will be different. I'm very shaky on the whole idea, but let's see what happens.
Now for my question. If this were adapted for all of FIRST, the way I understand it teams would have to stay in state. Correct me if I'm wrong. One thing that I enjoy about our team is that we travel to a far away regional. Now traveling isn't the only reason I'm here, but it certainly is a big bonus. It's nice to get away from home and to see other places.
Hopefully, at the end of the 2009 season, we will all learn of the benefits that come from this 'experiment' and how the teams were impacted.
True. That makes me wonder...at the end of the season, I'll either be glad that I was part of the experiment if it works out excellently, or upset if it doesn't really work out so well.
Now, my question is, if this expands, will everyone be confined to their own state for regionals? If all states were to adopt this, then nobody would be able to travel out of state for a regional, correct?
Billfred
30-07-2008, 17:09
As a traveler to many more events, I've long known the benefits multiple events can offer a team. As a mentor to a one-regional team that lost its local regional to another university three hours off, I've long been frustrated by the astronomically high cost of going to a second event. Even with a relatively small traveling crew (I think we brought about 15 students and about eight teachers, mentors, and spouses), the costs related to getting to an event and staying overnight can double the $4,000 required to register for the second event. If this program can achieve its aims of bringing more chances to play closer to teams, I'd gladly trade some of the bright lights.
One way to look at this is that we have to start somewhere. It appears that Michigan has established/is establishing an infrastructure that can provide this opportunity as one possible solution to the growth/costs/concerns.
Any time there is change, concerns/risks arise and they should be addressed by the volunteer leadership. Hopefully, at the end of the 2009 season, we will all learn of the benefits that come from this 'experiment' and how the teams were impacted.
I expressed some concern about the quality of an event run with a smaller budget last year with respect to the Kettering Rookie event, another pilot program in Michigan.
While I can't speak for communication through other channels, there has been remarkably little discussion here about that event. There appear to be few photos from the event in CD-Media and what discussion I've found seems to focus heavily on the benefit of the program to rookie teams and not at all on the quality of the experience when compared to that provided by other regional events.
As a pilot, the implication is that this structure may be implemented elsewhere in the future. Why, then, has there been little information about the organization of this pilot -- and the success of last year's pilot -- presented to FIRST volunteers in other parts of the country? Again, maybe that information is available through other channels, but this is the first that many have heard of this.
A lot about this is being kept close to the vest and that makes me uneasy.
Ken Streeter
30-07-2008, 17:22
What do you think?
My initial impression upon reading the announcement is that this would be a great year to be a team in Michigan! The proposed structure scales much better to eventually having a FIRST team in every high school, lowers cost for the bulk of participants, and results in more playing time for Michigan teams.
Michigan teams, for a lower initial entry fee then teams in other states, will get to attend two district events, rather than one regional event. This is a big benefit, as not only do these Michigan teams get more playing time for less money, but they have the opportunity to think about, and then fix, the robot in between the two district events. In order for teams in other states to have that opportunity, they need to register for not only one regional, but two regionals, at a total cost of $10000 - ($6000 for initial event; $4000 for the subsequent event.)
Seems to me that this would be a great year to be a Michigan team, as a Michigan team that in 2009 attended 2 regionals for a total cost of $10000 will likely be able to attend possibly as many as 4 tournaments for the same price. (2 Michigan district events, the Michigan championship (assuming they qualify), and an out-of-state event.) The savings for low-budget teams will be even greater -- a one-regional attendee in 2008 ($6000 total) will now be able to attend two district events (twice as much play time!) for significantly less than $6000, plus have time to think about (and then fix) the robot in between those two district events.
Hopefully the Michigan FIRST program will be able to realize some significant growth in 2009, plus make it possible for continued scalable growth in 2010!
I'm also very glad that the regional we attend in NH isn't abutting Michigan -- I think Michigan teams venturing out of state to late-season regionals will enjoy a significant advantage with respect to increased playing experience as compared with the non-Michigan teams at those same regionals. (The same holds true for the Michigan teams attending the Championships.)
Pat McCarthy
30-07-2008, 17:30
To answer a few questions based on the info I have (not the official word, by any means):
There will be 7 district events and 1 state championship.
Each district event will have approximately 35-40 team capacity for 2009.
Each district event will have similar audio/visual set up to the 2008 Kettering Rookie event, which lowers the cost of each event.
$5000 covers FRC registration, KOP, and two district event entries.
$4000 for Michigan State Championship entry, which will be the regular FRC Regional Event A/V set up. The MI State Championship will be held at Eastern Michigan University in 2009.
Michigan teams wishing to attend out of state regionals will pay the usual fee for second regional attendance.
What do you think?
So much for doing the Dallas-Detroit "Home & Home" exchange with 217. :rolleyes:
-John
Don Wright
30-07-2008, 17:39
First of all, I would like to congratulate and thank the people in MI FIRST that put in all the time and effort generating this pilot and are taking the risk to try something new to try and advance FIRST. I'm sure there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of hours put into this and it's only to do one thing...make FIRST better.
Second...this wasn't done to give Michigan teams any advantage in awards, playing time, or chances in Atlanta. It is to try something that will hopefully help FIRST.
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves thinking about how this will roll out to the rest of FIRST... While we need to think about it, I think it's too early to focus on it.
As for some comments raised in this thread...
1. I think the NI control issue is irrelevant to this pilot. It is going to be a challenge regardless if it's at a district type event, or a traditional regional. I am sure the technical level of the volunteers at the district events will match a traditional regional. The district just might not be as flashy.
2. I would think that the experience for a team competing at two, lower cost, less flashy, district events would be better than the experience of only one big regional because that is all they can afford.
I also think that some of the more interesting points are being overlooked in this thread...
1. The MI teams being able to keep their robots instead of shipping them (BIG cost savings here!!!).
2. The 8 hour fix-it day before the district events
And last but not least, thanks to FIRST for considering and implementing this pilot. It's easy to keep doing what we've being doing since it's a success. Plus, I am sure there will be a lot of people complaining one way or another about this and I think their open mindedness is great!
People have been referencing this being a necessary step for FRC to continue growing.
I say why do we want FRC to keep growing?
It's an unrealistic goal for FRC to be in every school in the country. It's not happening; not now, not ever; not even if there's a regional event within 3 blocks of every high school in America.
Why do we want to continue to oversaturate local economies? Most teams are barely staying afloat year to year as it is. Many teams have to drop out after a few years.
It's been my opinion for a very long time that FIRST ought to spend all their effort making their FRC teams as strong as they possibly can, not worrying about being able to claim abc% of of schools in state xyz have FRC teams.
How is the program going to be better off having 3,000 teams, with most of them not having proper resources (mentors, teachers, corporate sponsors, etc), vs 1500 teams that have a strong base to work from.
Prior to dropping VEX, I saw FTC as the most viable platform for having a team in every school in the country. At this point I'd be perfectly happy to see a period of a few years where we see zero rookie teams, and no veteran teams dropping out.
That said, I don't like this idea at all. I don't like change in general, but I've got to say I'm glad it's not CA that's following this model.
I have a couple of main issues with this plan:
1) Regionals will feel more like high school sporting events. They will not be nearly as impressive as they currently are. Which is going to look better to sponsors, potential benefactors, etc: taking them to a high school gym, without all the A/V, and everything else that makes a FIRST event special, or taking them to a professional sporting venue filled with FIRST teams, professional A/V, etc? It'll be like a bunch of offseason events.
Now people may argue IRI, and yes, IRI is better than most regionals--but for a couple key reasons. At IRI you have 72 of the best teams in the country. It could literally be held in a cornfield in the middle of Indiana and nobody would care, because the competition is simply that good. IRI also has amazingly dedicated volunteers, who have been doing this for the better part of a decade. How many of these district events will have planners with this much experience? Not many.
2) Quality/variety of teams. This probably won't be noticed in MI, since MI is home to many of FIRST's best teams, but I can guarantee it will be elsewhere. In states without an abundance of top teams, the competitions will not be very exciting. It's boring watching FRC events without good robots,and without having non-local talent coming in to the historically weaker events, you end up with the same group of teams, and a not very exciting competition. Even if we disregard such situations, one of the best parts of a regional event is getting to meet and play with new teams from all over the country (and Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc).
Such a situation leaves me with 2 conclusions: either everyone stays home so they can maximize their number of events, or all the powerhouse teams don't play at home, so that they can see some variety, and play with the best of the best. I'm not a fan of either situation.
While the district events will not be identical copies of the regional events the intention is to make them look and feel as close as possible. The Kettering Rookie Regional from last year was a proof of concept and not the final plan for these district events. It is likely that it will be dressed up even more for the district version. I would expect the district events to come very close to a full regional in the look and feel department.
A lot of the cost reduction is not coming from cutting things out of the event, but instead from leveraging the support of venues and local sponsors to receive more things at reduced costs.
XaulZan11
30-07-2008, 17:56
Now, my question is, if this expands, will everyone be confined to their own state for regionals? If all states were to adopt this, then nobody would be able to travel out of state for a regional, correct?
I think this is such a good question. Based on the information we have now, I think it would mean that everyone has to compete in thier own state, untill the Championship. Meeting and working with new and different teams from accross the country is always fun and worthwhile and shouldn't only be for those team who qualify for the Championship. If this is the case, I would be very interested to see how the style of play differs from state to state and then how all the styles blend in Atlanta. Overall, I'm think this is a great idea and I'm excited to see how it works out, but this one part I'm not a fan of.
JaneYoung
30-07-2008, 18:03
Part of the bigger picture is the developing future/careers of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers - high schoolers graduating and moving on into those fields. Making the competitions more readily available in all the competitive areas of FIRST would help drive this.
There is life beyond FIRST. It is in the career choices that are being made and will continue to be made by its members and alumni. That is a short term and a long term goal that does and will impact our communities and our world.
Travis Hoffman
30-07-2008, 18:03
I'm also very glad that the regional we attend in NH isn't abutting Michigan -- I think Michigan teams venturing out of state to late-season regionals will enjoy a significant advantage with respect to increased playing experience as compared with the non-Michigan teams at those same regionals. (The same holds true for the Michigan teams attending the Championships.)
Question is, when will the district events and MI championship be scheduled relative to the adjoining out of state regionals?
The single largest reason why the district events are being limited to Michigan teams only for the 2009 season is logistics. The amount of work required to start up a single new event is enormous. For 2009 Michigan is going to go from three events to a total of eight. This number of events should just barely ensure two spots for every team in the state, depending on the number of rookies. It was simply not feasible to add enough events to have slots available for out of state teams. This, however, does not preclude that possibility from existing in the future.
Perhaps my biggest concern, which I forgot to even mention, is how will FIRST find enough volunteers?
They're already hard pressed to find enough qualified people for the key jobs each regional requires. Now Michigan will have 2.5 times the number of events they held in 2008, plus they will not have the volunteers that potentially came to the event with their out of state teams. Nor can they feasibly expect the same volunteers to volunteer twice as many times as last year. Where will all the new volunteers come from, and will there be enough qualified volunteers to fill crucial positions, without the event suffering?
I've read comparisons to organized high school sports and things like Little League, but it seems to me that these things would not be nearly as popular were it not for their professional counterparts. FIRST agrees, even, going so far as to teach us that a culture cultivates what it celebrates.
This feels to me like FIRST is creating Little League before it creates Major League Baseball.
ChristinaR
30-07-2008, 18:20
Something that hasn't (I think) been touched upon in this thread yet is the lack of the practice day. Instead, teams will have an 8 hour window to fix/build their robots in the week leading up to the event. This places a lot of trust into the hands of the teams, doesn't it? I'm not saying that teams would abuse the privilege of being able to access their robot prior to the competition, but it's unfortunately not a guarantee. The FAQ says robots will be stored at a local facility, so for the 8-hour window, they can pick it up and must return it on time? It's the only way I currently see that is feasible for monitoring this.
Also, with the lack of a practice day, what about things such as scouting? Of course you still get the first day of competition, but I've always viewed the practice day as an all-important resource to get some valuable scouting done. Rookie teams being tossed into the fray of the competition with possibly no experience in facing opponents at an event may suffer as well. The old adage "Practice, Practice, Practice" comes to mind.
Craig Roys
30-07-2008, 18:27
For those asking about cost structure:
$5000 intial fee (KOP and 2 district competitions)
$4000 State Championship
$4000 Out of state competition
$5000 FIRST Championship
I'm definitely intrigued by this. It does seem to be the way FIRST needs to head if they wish to continue to grow. Of course I'm a little biased being a MI team knowing we will get two competitions for our initial fee.
EricLeifermann
30-07-2008, 18:33
First question is this mandatory for all Michigan FIRST teams? If it is it should not be.
We are in almost the very most northern tip of the upper peninsula and even if they think it is cheaper to only have to pay for 1 comp to get to play in 2 the cost of busing down 10+ hours to lower Michigan twice is not going to save us any money, and we are a low budget team. In all reality unless they have a district competition in the UP this is not cost effective for any of the teams in the UP.
We go to the Wisconsin regional because its the nearest one and its the cheapest to travel to.
Also this, to me that is, is taking away one of the best things i liked about FIRST, the fact that i can compete and talk to people from around the world. This is just limiting it to teams is Michigan, and that is not as exciting. Yes Michigan has lots of good teams and interesting people but its not even close to talking to someone and competing with people from New Zealand or Israel or Brazil.
GaryVoshol
30-07-2008, 18:36
Michigan is in a great situation to try this as a pilot program. If it works in Michigan it can work in a lot of other areas - IL/IN/MO, CA, New England, NY/NJ/PA, maybe DE/MD/VA, etc. Pick any reasonably sized region with about 100 teams, and although you wouldn't be able to call it a State Championship, you could hold several districts advancing to Regional championships. Right now it would NOT work in a lot of other areas - the Northwest, Plains, most of the Southeast - because there isn't a high enough density of teams. Michigan will provide a little experience for teams from sparser regions of the country - even though there are two districts in the Upper Peninsula there are currently only 3 teams in the UP. (Two of the 16 geographical district, which I presume is to allow for eventual expansion - there will only be 7 district events the first year). Those teams plus a few more from the northern Lower Peninsula will be able to provide some input as to how this would work in an area where one district might be nearby, but the other would involve a bit of travel.
The Kettering Rookie District last year was a "real" event, tempered somewhat by the fact that all the teams were rookies and thus it didn't necessarily have the same amount of spirit and traditions that you might find at established regionals. There was a screen, there was sound and a DJ, an MC and announcer. There was a full referee crew, although about only about half were certified. There was a smallish panel of judges and, as a rookie-only event, an appropriate number of awards. There was a full-spec competition field (although that doesn't guarantee anything, the 3+ hour delay proves that!)
I think the biggest question in this is one that has been voiced, what about teams that like to travel to a distant regional? This year they can still do that, subject to time and money. It will be interesting to see what would happen if more regions adopt the district concept - would teams be able to "share" points earned at a district away from your region?
As I understand it, there are two primary goals to be met - lower cost and managing growth. Michigan has a very ambitious goal of having a FRC program in 50% of high schools - some schools would have joint programs. Even now, with 3 regular regionals, there was very little room for any expansion. Detroit Regional filled up within hours of registration opening. (And at only 33 teams capacity, it serves as the model for the district events. Many HS or community college fieldhouses would be at least as large as Wayne State's.) Lower cost comes about by being able to compete in two district competitions for the same cost as one regional, nearer to home than having to travel to an away regional. Plus the district events will be Friday-Saturday only, so teams that do have to travel won't have as high of lodging expenses and students will miss less school.
To address the lack of a practice day: At Kettering there was a block of practice Friday morning. I believe it was a first-come-first-served line. Given that the goal is to have about 12 rounds of play, the teams will get a lot of driving and will improve over the course of the event. And then they get 12 more games at their next event! Scouting will be different, I'm not sure to say more difficult or not, but there will be less teams overall to scout.
I am very excited to see how this concept will pan out.
acdcfan259
30-07-2008, 19:02
- I can't possibly see this working in some states. If you look, most (maybe not most, but a lot) states have less than the proposed 40 per district event. What are the teams in Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Alaska, etc. supposed to do. I honestly can't see this as a feasible competition format for all of FIRST.
- As Cory said, we should strengthen the existing teams. There's enough struggling teams that could use help. Quality not quantity.
- The way it seems is that FIRST wants a team in every school, which won't happen. Sponsorships are already hard enough to come by without trying to compete with 10-15 other teams in your area.
=Martin=Taylor=
30-07-2008, 19:06
What do you think?
I think that whatever I think I'll have to learn to deal with it...
I'm happy this isn't coming to CA next year...
Here are my thoughts:
-One major advantage I see from this is that more competitions will allow teams to improve their robots more over the course of the competition (particularly the rookies). For rookies that only attend one event, they do not get another chance to improve their robots.
-The state championship sounds very fun. I like the idea of regional championships. It would be cool if the top teams from each region got to compete before going to Atlanta. (I'm not sure this would work on the state-by-state basis since many states don't have enough teams).
-I agree with what Cory said. Instead of starting new teams we should really work on improving the teams that are already established. There are plenty of teams here in the Bay Area that are over 8 years old and are still struggling. The experience for students will be better if money, mentors, students, and sponsors are concentrated rather than spread thin...
-I don't like high school sporting events. Actually I just don't like sports period... I'm thouroughly against FIRST becoming more sports-like, and less unique.
-If FIRST didn't take risks, we'd still be playing 1v1 on a feild covered in corn. Right?
dtengineering
30-07-2008, 19:28
Alright... I had a response written up that was far too wordy, so here's the point form version:
Good:
More plays for the $$ for Michigan teams.
Tiered events let low to mid level teams experience the playoffs sometimes.
Reduces shipping/drayage costs.
Bad:
Kinda tough if you're from Windsor (or other community bordering Michigan) and were planning to play in Detroit. Now you have to spend MORE and travel FURTHER.
"State only" model might be practical (except for above point) but undermines the broad-based international competition that is part of the great appeal of FIRST. Philosophically I like the fact that FRC is currently "blind" to political borders and would like to see it stay that way!
But how....?
Will they do a quality tech inspection without the practice day?
Will tech inspectors really keep a team from playing in their first match of the day for a minor rule infraction... say... the wrong colour of wires or incorrect length of pneumatic cylinder? These are all things that get identified by tech inspectors and fixed by a team on a practice day that are not likely to be noticed during an 8 hour fix-it window.
And on that note... will teams really get a better experience if they show up ten pounds overweight and miss their first five matches as they try to meet tech? How will that effect the experience of their alliance partners?
It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
Jason
P.S. There are some interesting parallels between this structure and the one announced for the VEX robotics competition earlier this year.
I also think that some of the more interesting points are being overlooked in this thread...
1. The MI teams being able to keep their robots instead of shipping them (BIG cost savings here!!!).
2. The 8 hour fix-it day before the district events
1. Yay cost savings! Cost savings might be one of the other reasons that the program is going to be piloted in MI. Our economy is completely horrible, since many families have parents working in the car industry, and LOTS of job cuts are happening so that the companies can stay alive. And this isn't just in the car industry; it's getting really hard for anyone to find jobs because of the same reasons. This is affecting sponsorships, too. Sponsorships give us money. I can't speak for anyone else, but 1189 has to stretch our budget over the next few years, because we can't guarantee our sponsorship from GM in upcoming years due to this. We're going to be saving every penny we get, and without shipping costs, we'll be able to save a good amount of money on it. [/long explanation that goes slightly off topic]
2. That's instead of the Thursday practice day. Think about it, we'd only get about 8 hours if we were at the event venue. Though I suppose that the advantage here is that we have access to our own shops, and don't have to rely on what we can bring into the pits.
Jim Zondag
30-07-2008, 19:44
To comment on a few items in this thread:
The goal of this initiative is to test a new model of FIRST Competition.
The purpose of this change is to increase the "Return on Investment" (ROI) for teams. All teams who compete in FIRST commit a certain amount of Investment in the areas of Time, Money and Effort in order to build a robot and manage the team. Their Return on this investment is how many times they get to play with this robot, and the experience of the competition events.
In today's system, the ROI for many teams is very low and many teams compete at only one event. Creating a system where teams can compete at 2 events for the price of one effectively doubles the ROI for many teams. The new district events will guarantee 12 qualifying rounds per event compared to many of today's events today which often only have 8 rounds/team. Thus in 2009, a team can get 24 qualifying rounds for the same price as 8 round cost in 2008, a 300% increase in ROI! Odds of advancing to eliminations increases for all teams at the new smaller events.
Other factors further increasing this are, reduced travel costs, no shipping costs, etc.
An earlier post spoke of sustainability of existing teams. This change will help everyone, new and veterans, because it reduces the amount of time, money and effort that all teams must commit while maintaining as much of the experience as possible.
2. That's instead of the Thursday practice day. Think about it, we'd only get about 8 hours if we were at the event venue. Though I suppose that the advantage here is that we have access to our own shops, and don't have to rely on what we can bring into the pits.
Actually, you'd get 12 hours at the event on Thursday, plus an opportunity to use a competition field, something very few teams have access to.
I hope it doesn't turn out badly, but I can see all kinds of unfortunate scenarios playing out due to eliminating Thursday.
Jonathan Norris
30-07-2008, 20:15
I agree with Cory on this one, FIRST Robotics Challenge is not for every high school... there I said it. I have seen too many situations where FRC just doesn't work at a high school, and I am now seeing it first hand trying to start a team in a city and region that hasn't ever heard of FIRST. Trying to convince a cash strapped school that you can run a $10,000+ robotics program when there are easier and cheaper alternatives available isn't easy.
It comes down to one simple fact: the cost of entry is too high. Yea I know FIRST does a great job getting sponsors to subsidize some of the cost, but $10,000 to run a basic team is still too much for a large number of schools. The major selling point of FIRST is that it really isn't just your average high school competition, it is an advanced robotics competition that is run more like a professional sporting event then a simple one day high school science competition.
By having these small regional events leading up to the normal sized state event, you are reducing the quality of the regionals, and by association will reduce the quality of the competition, robots, and ultimately the great learning experience that FIRST is.
FRC needs to continue to be what it is, the most advanced high school robotics competition in the world. Where students get a unique opportunity to work with engineers on an advanced very real world engineering problem. Lets not water-down what is a great competition and learning experience just so we can accommodate teams that don't have the resources to compete. Let FTC and VEX be the platform that gets the ideals and competition of FIRST into every high school. There is no reason why FTC and VEX can't be in every high school, but there are plenty of reasons why FRC can't and shouldn't try to be.
Jonathan Norris
30-07-2008, 20:19
Actually, you'd get 12 hours at the event on Thursday, plus an opportunity to use a competition field, something very few teams have access to.
I hope it doesn't turn out badly, but I can see all kinds of unfortunate scenarios playing out due to eliminating Thursday.
Again I'm agreeing with Cory on this one (seems to be turning into a trend...). Thursdays are boring for a reason, because 95% of the robots don't work properly yet (at the first regionals at least, but it isn't that much better at second regionals). Practice matches are a HUGE reason for why the competition gets interesting Friday afternoon. Without Thursday.... Friday is going to be ugly.
I'm almost inclined to agree with Cory and Jonathan. There are quite a few valid objections to the new structure. These have been raised already; therefore, I won't go into them.
There are also good reasons to make the change permanent and even more widespread. Again, these have been brought up already.
However, I would like to remind everyone that this is a PILOT. As such, it may fail. It will almost certainly lead to changes. It may succeed. We won't know until next April/May whether it worked; more importantly, whether it worked the way it was intended to. We can only observe how it goes and give FIRST feedback as spectators and participants. I'm going to give FIRST the benefit of the doubt on this one, because it's an experiment. But if it doesn't work out, then someone will need to figure up some other way of reducing costs and/or improving return; i.e. increasing the "value" (in this case, bang-for-the-buck) of FIRST.
smurfgirl
30-07-2008, 20:42
Wow this sounds really interesting, I can't wait to see how this turns out. Is this the key to the future of FIRST? I will definitely keep my eye on Michigan this year.
Chris Hibner
30-07-2008, 20:42
It comes down to one simple fact: the cost of entry is too high. Yea I know FIRST does a great job getting sponsors to subsidize some of the cost, but $10,000 to run a basic team is still too much for a large number of schools.
Your dissenting point actually just made the point as to why this pilot is a good idea. The reason for trying this change is due to the fact that the cost IS too high for a lot of schools. So what's the solution? Lower the cost per event. Obviously this isn't the end solution, but if everyone decides that they can enjoy a pared down competition just as much as one with all of the thrills, then maybe they can expand on this solution and find other ways to cut costs without ruining the inspiration.
What bothers me is everyone saying that they shouldn't try it because people won't have the great experience, etc. etc. Well that is why the SHOULD try it. How will anyone know what the experience will actually be like until they try it?
There is a great competition that everyone talks about that acts as a pared down version of a regional. It has scaled back audio-visuals, two day format, and many of the other things being proposed for this pilot. This competition is called the IRI. I'm sure many people agree that they have a pretty good competition experience there.
I guess my point is, let's see how it plays out before we condemn it to failure.
thefro526
30-07-2008, 20:55
I'm not a big fan of this idea as it sits on paper. It seems good but then in the same respect it doesn't. You're essentially dumbing down two regionals and letting the teams compete at these instead of one normal regional. At the same time the teams are competing against local teams so the diversity is lost. I love going to regionals and meeting people who live hours and states away, but here you'll meet the people in the town next to you. I think this has good intentions but may not fair as well as many seem. In reality, all FIRST is doing with this is trying to make more teams in a state and a time with struggling economies. Almost all of us here know how hard it can be to get sponsors when you're the only team for miles and times are good, now imagine if they're are 5 teams in the same 10mile radius competing for sponsors, how will that work?
First question is this mandatory for all Michigan FIRST teams? If it is it should not be.
We are in almost the very most northern tip of the upper peninsula and even if they think it is cheaper to only have to pay for 1 comp to get to play in 2 the cost of busing down 10+ hours to lower Michigan twice is not going to save us any money, and we are a low budget team. In all reality unless they have a district competition in the UP this is not cost effective for any of the teams in the UP.
We go to the Wisconsin regional because its the nearest one and its the cheapest to travel to.
Also this, to me that is, is taking away one of the best things i liked about FIRST, the fact that i can compete and talk to people from around the world. This is just limiting it to teams is Michigan, and that is not as exciting. Yes Michigan has lots of good teams and interesting people but its not even close to talking to someone and competing with people from New Zealand or Israel or Brazil.
I agree. And we enjoy having you guys at Wisconsin every year. That's something that makes regionals better than any state competition. It's awesome seeing a Canadian team coming down to Chicago. It's fun seeing a Michigan team go to Canada.
Another example:
This year at the Minnesota Regional, 44 of the 54 registered teams were above 2000 in number. 30 of them were rookies. The only veteran teams (5+ years in FRC) were 93, 525, 876, and 877. Not one of them is from Minnesota.
These 4 teams (in addition to 1816, the second oldest Minnesota team) held the regional together. They were in the pits helping other teams, they supplied loads of volunteers, they made up over a third of those in attendance. Without these four, I have no doubt that the regional wouldn't have gone as smoothly.
Minnesota will likely see a growth in 2009 equal to, if not larger, than its 2008 growth. How does ONE competition have a chance in hell to operate smoothly with the oldest team at the regional only 3 years old. Now lets figure out how a state like Minnesota could operate 5 or 6 competitions, most of them with no teams over 2 years old.
Don't get me wrong, the 2nd and 3rd year teams in Minnesota are some of the most mature 2nd and 3rd year teams in the country, but regardless, situations like this seem a little ridiculous.
FIRST thrives on veteran teams growing rookie teams into veteran teams. Look at what they are doing for testing the NI control system: just that.
What bothers me is everyone saying that they shouldn't try it because people won't have the great experience, etc. etc. Well that is why the SHOULD try it. How will anyone know what the experience will actually be like until they try it?
I guess my point is, let's see how it plays out before we condemn it to failure.
Excellent points Chris. I'd be happy to find out the pilot turns out to be awesome and have to eat my words.
I just hope the effort to give teams 2 regionals instead of one doesn't result in two watered down events instead of one good one. Without a practice day, most teams will probably get half a regional's worth of competition out of their first event.
You're right though. It is too early to condemn it to failure.
Minnesota will likely see a growth in 2009 equal to, if not larger, than its 2008 growth. How does ONE competition have a chance in hell to operate smoothly with the oldest team at the regional only 3 years old. Now lets figure out how a state like Minnesota could operate 5 or 6 competitions, most of them with no teams over 2 years old.
If this became widespread, certain regions would comprise more than one state, I'm sure
Herodotus
30-07-2008, 21:12
I think the best thing anyone who will be directly involved in the new system can do is employ some teamwork, some intelligence, and some creativity and just try to make 2009 the best year yet for FIRST in Michigan. If the new system doesn't work out, at least it won't be for a lack of effort.
Jonathan Norris
30-07-2008, 21:16
Your dissenting point actually just made the point as to why this pilot is a good idea. The reason for trying this change is due to the fact that the cost IS too high for a lot of schools. So what's the solution? Lower the cost per event. Obviously this isn't the end solution, but if everyone decides that they can enjoy a pared down competition just as much as one with all of the thrills, then maybe they can expand on this solution and find other ways to cut costs without ruining the inspiration.
What bothers me is everyone saying that they shouldn't try it because people won't have the great experience, etc. etc. Well that is why the SHOULD try it. How will anyone know what the experience will actually be like until they try it?
Yes the cost of entry is high, do I believe that should change? no. There is a reason the cost of entry is high, because FIRST is such a superior robotics program when compared to lower-cost alternatives. That is why FIRST is special, by focusing on making it more 'approachable' and cheaper you are reducing the qualities that make FIRST a special program. Yea its really hard to build a robot with a team of students and engineers in six weeks, and yea its really hard to find the money to fund a team, but that's the challenge: running a successful FIRST team is hard work. For me that's just how I like it, make it more challenging.
To lower the cost of entry, in this case allowing teams to enter two mini-regionals, too much would have to be taken away from the experience of FIRST. I'm not saying don't try it, I'll be watching Michigan just as closely as everyone else, I'm just worried about the direction here.
If this became widespread, certain regions would comprise more than one state, I'm sureDefinitely. I'd say that the Northeast/New England would probably be one region, while the area of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the rest of the northern Great Plains would be another. Then more regions could spin off. (Note: Regions are only meant to be examples...)
As for the "if it becomes more widespread, how do teams from different regions interact" question, we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.
Beth Sweet
30-07-2008, 21:26
I've attached the pdf I received in my email a few hours ago. It seems to detail more information which many have requested in this thread.
I'm still... composing... my personal opinion
Just to be clear there are not a large number of differences between the district format and a regional format. The biggest change is Thursday has been reduced to an optional 4 hours, with the other missing 8 hours allotted to teams to use off site.
The crew running the event, the tournament structure, the awards, the field, will all be within the within the normal bounds of regional events that are currently being run.
Low cost does not mean there are a ton of cut corners but merely finding ways to maximize the usage of the resources we have (local sponsors donating more of the items etc...). Even reducing the length of Thursday was not to cut costs but rather to allow for teams to attend more events while missing the same number of school days.
As many have mentioned there are some technical issues involved with the shortened format but aside from that I’m not sure where the idea of the district event being a stripped down regional is coming from. What parts of a regional are missing that so degrade the quality of the event?
As many have mentioned there are some technical issues involved with the shortened format but aside from that I’m not sure where the idea of the district event being a stripped down regional is coming from. What parts of a regional are missing that so degrade the quality of the event?
As I'm sure you're aware, the budget for a typical regional event is typically somewhere between a quarter- and half-million dollars. I'd like to believe that there's not much pork there and that regional planning committees are practicing due diligence in making sponsorship dollars go as far as possible.
You are now suggesting that Michigan will be able to support more than twice as many events as last season at the same level of quality of regional events. Whereas before, regional planning committees in Michigan might have to raise, say, $750,000, it follows that the 2009 season will require $2,000,000. I am skeptical that you'll be able to make up the difference -- $1.25M -- through donations and support from local businesses. Necessarily, and admittedly, you are using venues, high school gymnasiums included, that do not have the same cache as those used by many other events.
There is appreciable benefit in generating interest in our progam when I am able to tell people that our competition will take place in KeyArena, Seattle's basketball stadium. It is more challenging to get people to understand the scope and value of the program, I think, if I instead have to invite them to the Franklin High School gymnasium.
I don't see how you can possibly provide experiences that are of the same caliber as today's regional events without a comparable budget. If you are able to provide an experience that matches the event we have here -- held in a large stadium, lighting trusses, gobos, television cameras, DJ, projection screens, professional presentation, etc. -- for such a significantly smaller cost, well, what the Hell is my regional planning committee doing wrong?
JaneYoung
30-07-2008, 22:13
I think the best thing anyone who will be directly involved in the new system can do is employ some teamwork, some intelligence, and some creativity and just try to make 2009 the best year yet for FIRST in Michigan. If the new system doesn't work out, at least it won't be for a lack of effort.
I would guess that this has already occurred and is continuing. The news is hitting the wires now but there has had to be a lot of ground work, teamwork, intelligence, creativity, commitment, and courage to implement this type of change. It is a pilot program for one season and it is innovative. For an entire state to be involved on this level means FIRST is making an impact and like it or not, we have to heed that.
We can't hold back the tides of change, just like we can't stop time. A pilot program can try this out, test it, and then go from there. The FIRST community can rally around this state and these FIRSTers and support the effort, the initiative, the pluck, and the commitment of the volunteer leadership and all of the teams that will be a part of this.
Ian Curtis
30-07-2008, 22:23
24 matches for the same low cost of $6000? Sweet! If only they threw in a free bonus practice day, I wouldn't only be sold, I'd move to Michigan!
That said, the loss of the practice day makes me worried, especially if they plan on having a lot of rookies. In the five years I've been involved with FRC, the practice day has been instrumental every single time. That would set me on edge if I lived in Michigan. Using IRI as an example is pretty invalid in terms of practice, as all those robots have seen at least one full event, and I'd bet a pretty good portion of them have seen multiple events.
Also, the way I read it, Michigan teams pay the full fee and have no chance of qualifying for Atlanta unless they pay another $4000 to play at the State Championship, right? That seems to me like it could potentially be a pretty hard sell to a school, and cost some deserving teams on low budgets (especially rookies) a trip to Atlanta.
EricLeifermann
30-07-2008, 22:44
I want to know if they talked to all the teams in Michigan. I'm pretty sure they didn't, being the lead on my team i have not received anything from FIRST to see if my team would like to be involved in this new pilot program. But still I and i think lots of teams would like to know if anybody knows if this program is mandatory for Michigan teams to participate in. I certainly hope not as it is just going to be a bigger expense for my team to have to deal with.
a bigger expense for my team
How? $5000 for KOP and TWO regionals? Two regionals for the price of one? That doesn't sound more expensive to me.
How? $5000 for KOP and TWO regionals? Two regionals for the price of one? That doesn't sound more expensive to me.
They are located in a rural part of the state and it is easier for them to compete in Wisconsin than in Michigan. By requiring teams from Michigan to participate in the pilot, his team will now have to attend two events that are further away than the regional they've been attending and they will thus incur additional travel expenses.
Beth Sweet
30-07-2008, 22:56
I want to know if they talked to all the teams in Michigan. I'm pretty sure they didn't, being the lead on my team i have not received anything from FIRST to see if my team would like to be involved in this new pilot program. But still I and i think lots of teams would like to know if anybody knows if this program is mandatory for Michigan teams to participate in. I certainly hope not as it is just going to be a bigger expense for my team to have to deal with.
Eric,
If you check out the pdf I posted, it says that it is mandatory for all Michigan teams. Thus, your money will automatically go toward 2 Michigan district competitions and if you do want to go to Wisconsin (the cheaper one according to your posts), there will be an additional fee.
(all I know about this is what I read in that pdf and my interpretations from it...)
I am curious to see where the tech inspection fits into this format. Thursday usually isn't about installing upgrades to your robot, it's about having the official inspectors tell you if you need to change or fix something. If a team is 10 pounds overweight and has wiring issues, what makes us think they are going to figure it out by themselves in an 8 hour fix it window?
Herodotus
30-07-2008, 23:50
If there are seven district events in Michigan at least one of them is bound to be farther north, I would imagine. At least somewhat so. If not, that could be a major pain to any teams in the UP or towards Mackinac.
Wayne TenBrink
31-07-2008, 00:48
As a mentor of a small, county-wide team in rural West Michigan, I look forward to participationg in this pilot program.
We only had enough money for one event last season (like 75% of all FIRST teams). Our robot was badly damaged in the 2nd of our 8 matches and wasn't back to 100% until the 7th match. Our entire "functional" competition season consisted of 3 matches. I like anything that improves our "return on investment".
The new competition format doesn't change the real core of the learning process, which is the build season. The second regional also guarantees the opportunity to make mid-season improvements - another core learning event.
We will miss the practice day, but perhaps some good alternatives will develop in the course of the pilot program. Inspection logistics will be a challenge.
There seems to be simultaneous concern about diminishing the "experience" of the regionals while going to more of a high school "sports" model. I always thought that the noise, lights, & decoration were what made regionals like a sporting event (not that thats a bad thing).
There is a lot more to FIRST than the excitement of the competitions or the elegant designs and presence of the powerhouse teams. I believe that FIRST should follow a growth model that emphasizes opportunity for more students rather than protecting the quality of the experience for the few. Don't forget that FIRST isn't just about competing with robots - they are useless after the season is done. It is about inspiring students to pursue technical careers and turning them into gracious professionals.
I think this pilot program moves FIRST in the right direction by making the program more accessible to rookies and all of us in the great pool of cannon fodder for the powerhouses. We still may not win, but we will get to play longer on the same dime!
One thing that I'm puzzled about is: Michigan teams pay $5000 for 2 events. Does the rest of FIRST (as in, the other 1300 current teams and the rookies outside of MI) pay $6000 for one event or $5000 for one event? It seems that it's going to be easier to have one common price than to keep track of two different ones. (And then you also don't have to deal with border-jumpers, not that any FIRST team would even think of trying that!)
It's both a fairness issue and an organizational issue, and there isn't an easy answer. 200 or so teams pay less than the other 1300 or so and get more for their money. I understand this is a pilot, and designed to verify low-cost event/new tournament structure, but it's still not exactly fair. (I also know the world isn't fair. I've been on both sides of the divide in FRC.) Question is, do we all see lower entry fees, or just those teams? Because if it's only the teams in the pilot, EVERY team in FRC is going to want to be in Michigan or wherever it's expanded to next!
There seems to be simultaneous concern about diminishing the "experience" of the regionals while going to more of a high school "sports" model. I always thought that the noise, lights, & decoration were what made regionals like a sporting event (not that thats a bad thing).
The analogy I'd make is that our current regional events are our version of MLB/NFL/NBA games, etc.
The pilot will be more like a high school basketball game. Which one is more exciting?
I too would like to know where the money is coming from. Knowing the MI's economy is in shambles, I find it hard to believe that sponsors will cover the added cost that will be incurred.
artdutra04
31-07-2008, 02:29
FRC is not an easily [down] scalable competition model, down to local/district events. The nature of the competition makes it like the MLB/NBA kind of robotics competition, the crème de la crème of robotics competitions, the competitions everyone wants to aspire towards.
FIRST already has had* the perfect, scalable competition to get into every high school in the country: Vex. This is a system designed to be the "high school sports" model of robotics competitions. It is designed to inspire students all over, with the boundary of entering in terms of tools, resources, and money being very low while at the same time still providing for an exciting challenge.
What fun would high school sports be if there was nothing higher, no Division 1 College or Major Leage teams to aspire towards? FIRST is the engineering equivalent of sports, and we need the program that everyone wants to aspire towards (FRC), while still providing a great competition that everyone can be involved with quite easily (FTC/Vex).
And you can't make one competition model be able to suffice for both roles without loosing something along the way.
I want a robotics competition of some kind to be in every high school, to give every student an equal opportunity, but it's simple math and economics to determine that FRC is not the model to achieve that. It's too expensive, no matter how many corners are cut.
Once we get an FTC/Vex team in every school, then and only then would it be appropriate to look to "upgrade" them to FRC.
But the main reason why I oppose this, is that it screams of spreading sparse resources so thin that no one would ever really benefit from them, without concrete plans to increase the supply of money, resources, and volunteers. FIRST needs sustainable growth a lot more than we need more, more, MORE!!!1!! rookies, and yet they seem to be turning a blind eye to the best tool they have to achieve those goals (FTC/Vex).
And besides, it's kind of common sense that you don't go looking for millions and millions of dollars in new funding during economic hard times. Especially Michigan, which is certainly suffering the brunt of the downturn in the auto industry.
Overall, I'm going to keep an open mind about this until after the pilot season is over (and I'm staying keen to avoid conformation bias in the coming months...), but I'm just not liking it very much at this point in time.
* The new FTC still has potential, but I want to see how it plays out first.
waialua359
31-07-2008, 03:03
Traditional FIRST events are exciting from start to end.
Losing any part of its luster does have a negative effect.
Although FIRST isn't about the competition itself, but about inspiring young kids in STEM, the reality is that sponsors, businesses, students, etc. are drawn to it by the competition itself.
Dean Kamen said it himself. Americans pay more attention to pro-sports than they do in inspiring young people in being the problem solvers of tomorrow.
FIRST is reaching an ever-growing audience because it uses the same concept as they do in sports.
It isn't just the adults, volunteers, parents and teachers we are trying to convince, its also these businesses and sponsors that are vital in making FIRST a reality.
The whole luster of a competition shouldn't be compromised.
I'm all for this new pilot program, as long as while its addressing the demand of new FRC teams, it doesn't compromise that portion of the whole program.
I also believe that the new fee structure is a great thing. Once the pilot is conducted and evaluators assess everything, they may find a better way of structuring other events to make the price tag lower.
As some teams have pointed out, they spend all of their time and resources, only to play 7-8 matches the whole season. That really isn't cost effective at all and will further the cause for teams to fold.
Our team has been lucky enough to get great funding and support. But the majority still feel that spending $$$$$$$$$$ on 20+ kids is just not worth it, when there are other programs that cost much less and address the same issues.
Jon Jack
31-07-2008, 03:17
To be honest, FIRST has done a horrible job at making sure the rookies continue on to be sustainable teams.
It seems like there is a lot of pressure (from FIRST HQ) on regional support staff to recruit as many teams as possible as quickly as possible. Once a rookie team is created, they're left hung out to dry. They then have to learn how to survive on their own, or fold. While there are resources available for struggling veteran teams, there are many more resources available for starting a new team.
If FIRST put as much effort and resources towards sustaining teams as they did recruiting new teams, we would not have the attrition rate we have now. One statistic I think would be interesting to see is what percentage of teams return AFTER folding? I'm betting that is a very low number. If that is the case, shouldn't it be a priority to keep veteran teams around since the likelihood of bringing a school back after they've folded is slim to none?
I think that FIRST is trying to grow too much too fast. As a result the quality of FIRST is being sacrificed. As Cory said, Regional Planning Committees are having a tough enough time finding skilled and experienced volunteers for critical positions. What happens if this becomes the future competition structure and California has 20 district events? There's no way all those district events are going to be able to find experienced volunteers for critical positions. As a result, the quality of the program will suffer. Suffer for what? So we have the room to start X number of new teams?
Jim Zondag
31-07-2008, 03:44
To comment on a few more items:
A: The rookie pilot run at Kettering last year proved we can run a very high quality FIRST event for a fraction of the cost of typical regional event.
B: Item A is not exactly anything new, since very good off season events have been running for over a decade in many locations. Most of these events operate at 10% or less than the operating cost of a typcial FIRST Regional.
C: We have the money to run 8 events in Michigan next year if we do it this way. Financing will not be an issue.
D: We have the venues to for the events and we have many qualified volunteers and veterans to help get this going.
E: We have an estimated 120-130 teams in the State of Mich next year. This means if you compete at 2 events, there is probably no more overlap on team particapation than there was in 2008 if you did any two of GLR, WMR, DET, Cleveland, Chicago, Boiler, etc. The only reason overlay may increase is because now EVERYONE plays twice. If we enabled double plays for everyone thru any other means, the overlap issue would be the same as it will be in the new system.
F: If anyone want to go out of state, it costs the same as always. Now you get a 2 for 1 deal if you stay in state, but if you want to skip one and spend your money to go somewhere else, go for it. Your loss for throwing away a freebie, but it will not cost any more to do this than it ever did in the past.
G: Remember, Nothing will ever get better without making changes and taking some risks. We all want FIRST to get better. "Better" means lower cost, more sustainable, more accessable, more visible, etc. This change is a big enabler to all this things.
FRC today is profoundly different than FRC was in 1992. The league is over 60x its original size yet we are still using a competition structure designed when the league was small. Many have argued for a long time that we have outgrown this model. In 2009 we will finally test a new model and find out if this is true. We will never know if we do not try!
Daniel_LaFleur
31-07-2008, 07:24
Read the announcement here (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Media_Center/Press_Releases_and_FIRST_News/FINAL_FIRSTRelease_MIRestructuring.pdf).
What do you think?
-dave
.
For Michigan teams and the future of FIRST, this looks great.
But like all plans such as these, the devil is in the details and execution of such plans ... and we have yet to see either. Good luck to MI FIRST and to all the Michigan teams ... I believe it's going to be a wild ride.
Tom Line
31-07-2008, 07:28
The analogy I'd make is that our current regional events are our version of MLB/NFL/NBA games, etc.
The pilot will be more like a high school basketball game. Which one is more exciting?
I too would like to know where the money is coming from. Knowing the MI's economy is in shambles, I find it hard to believe that sponsors will cover the added cost that will be incurred.
I have to admit, I'm curious as well. On one hand, they say that this is required for FIRST to continue in Michigan. On the other hand, they state that there is no plan to extend this other states. Which is it? Why is Michigan the only place that needs a new structure to be viable? Why the "political" double speak on the real reasons behind the change?
I don't see this changing the overall experience for many teams. I do see the quality of teams being sent from Michigan increasing, however. Requiring an average score and after than having a championship will tend to shed more of the teams that aren't performing at a top level. I.e., I suspect this format will send fewer of the teams who squeak in through alliance selection, etc., and send more of the "top 8" teams.
J@GMFlint
31-07-2008, 09:01
To comment on a few more items:
F: If anyone want to go out of state, it costs the same as always. Now you get a 2 for 1 deal if you stay in state, but if you want to skip one and spend your money to go somewhere else, go for it. Your loss for throwing away a freebie, but it will not cost any more to do this than it ever did in the past.
G: Remember, Nothing will ever get better without making changes and taking some risks. We all want FIRST to get better. "Better" means lower cost, more sustainable, more accessable, more visible, etc. This change is a big enabler to all this things.
In 2009 we will finally test a new model and find out if this is true. We will never know if we do not try!
Jim, as you know we've talked about this concept before and agree on most points.
What has caused some heart-burn among our folks though is that they LOVE going to the MWR in Chicago, and as it stands currently, we would not be able to elect going there until the 2nd or unrestricted round of event selection, IF the event is still open. Which means we could be shut-out or wait-listed for the event that the team most want to go to and we all know how much fun it is to make travel plans on "If's".
In effect it also means that all MI teams lose out on an event of choice if they want to go outside of the state for their first event selection, even though they still intend to play at 3 total regional/district events. We think our initial event selections should be left open and do not agree with this point. We understand that they want to push teams to do this in-state, but maybe if a team commits to 3 events (2 in-state 1 out of state) perhaps they could leave the initial event choice open like the other teams and not be confined to choosing in-state only events 1st round.
Also, if there are open spots at MI events, then out-of-state teams should be allowed to participate in MI as well, except of course for the State Regional/Championship.
I am personally a bit concerned about not having Thursday practice, we always learn a lot from them, but more so, what about the tech inspections? We have a lot of quality off-season events, but there are no official inspections based on the premise that everyone is still using previously FIRST officially inspected and approved robots. With minor latitude graciously provided for repairs.
At the Kettering Rookie Regional the Tech. inspections were a bit "liberal" because this was "practice" for the rookies. I'd like to see what the execution plan is for this. I'd sure hate to be the team that didn't have access to a good scale and had to try and lighten a robot once they were weighed in heavy at an event at 8AM Friday and were scheduled for the first round of qualifications. Will these events be as "liberal" as well? Will the non-conforming team have to sit out a match, play anyway? Something just doesn't sit right with that one right now...
Plus, by the Off-Season most teams have their robots pretty well in order, so between match time is not as critical. For a week #1 event not having the Thursday to make revisions/corrections could make for a very painful event for anyone scrambling to do so between matches Fri & Sat. Again, I'd like to see the details on how we are going to get the increased # of matches. Would it be through a 30-40 min. turn around time, or more play time through a longer day?
OK, one more parting thought and perhaps the biggest one. At the KRR-08 no question, it was a high quality event, but we also had a LOT of quality volunteers from veteran teams throughout the Midwest all working together to make it a successful event. Who is going to staff all of these Michigan district events? It's one thing for a single event, maybe two, but is there a sufficient volunteer resource base to cover all of that, plus run our own teams especially if there are two events the same weekend where many of the teams are also competing?
Details, details...
I participated in the Thursday portion of the Kettering Rookie Regional. I also saw the review of the Pilot event and heard a lot of comments.
As M. Krass keeps pointing out, there was not a lot of feedback on CD about the event. This is for a couple of reasons.
As a pilot event for Rookies only, there was not a lot published to vetran teams.
Since Rookies were the ones competing, they would be the normal traffic on CD, but most Rookies do not figure out CD until late in their first year.
As a team that attends multiple regionals, I really liked the thursday night check in format. With it a reasonable drive (1 hour), I didn't have to take time off of work (this is huge for me as a volunteer). Pits were open late that night and they got a lot of machines inspected and ready to go that night including machines that were 30+ pounds overweight. Last I heard only 1 machine out of the 30+ teams were non-functional at the end of the event (there are often that many at a traditional regional). With the MI FIRST format, this team would get 1 more chance to get their machine going. The traditional format has them packing up and likely folding up after their first year.
As far as quality of the event goes, it was really quite good. I will talk to the organizers to see if they can put the Rookie Regional Wrap Up on CD so people can judge for themselves. People should keep in mind that the difference in "quality" isn't as big as they might expect.
As far as Michigan not being able to fit in the current model, there were 3 regionals with 140 total slots for 120 michigan teams (and out of state teams). If every team went to 1 michigan event that meant there were only 20 slots open for a second event. That means a lot of teams had to go out of state for a second event. As people have pointed out travling out of state costs at least 2x as much as local events thus requiring a significantly larger budget and time off of work (or only the competition team getting to travel).
I like the quality vs. quantity debate, but lets attach some numbers. If 120 teams get to experience an event rated at a 9 (scale of 1-10), or for the same price they get to experience 2 events rated at a 7, isn't that better? Or for teams that do two events, 2*9 versus 2*7+9(The state championship will be a 9) 18<23.
EricLeifermann
31-07-2008, 09:23
How? $5000 for KOP and TWO regionals? Two regionals for the price of one? That doesn't sound more expensive to me.
We are in Houghton MI which is about as far north as you can get in MI. So the 2 buss trips we would have to take to lower michigan won't save us any money it will actually cost us more. The initial expense is cheaper but people have to consider transportation as well and that is not cheap at all.
Jim Zondag
31-07-2008, 09:47
A couple of more points inspection:
At Kettering, ALL the teams were rookies. Thus many of them had never been through inspection before. We needed more inspectors than normal at this event because of this fact. At the 2009 events we will not have so many rookies at any of the events. Over 90% of the teams will have experience and will have done this before. They should know what they are doing and be much closer to having a legal robot when they arrive.
One of the fundamental problems with Thursday in the current format is that for many, Thursday is not Practice Day, Thursday is Rework Day. Many teams show up and tear their machine apart. They do not go out to practice and instead they spend the whole day wrenching. Why do they do this?...because they can. Now, teams are going to have to put more priority being ready to play when they show up beacuse the whole idea of "we'll fix it on Thursday when we get there" will no longer be an easy choice. Teams will still have this same amount of time to rework if they want, but now they are doing it on their own time. In reality, this will likely make the inspection process easier, not harder.
maltz1881
31-07-2008, 09:56
I expressed some concern about the quality of an event run with a smaller budget last year with respect to the Kettering Rookie event, another pilot program in Michigan.
While I can't speak for communication through other channels, there has been remarkably little discussion here about that event. There appear to be few photos from the event in CD-Media and what discussion I've found seems to focus heavily on the benefit of the program to rookie teams and not at all on the quality of the experience when compared to that provided by other regional events.
As a pilot, the implication is that this structure may be implemented elsewhere in the future. Why, then, has there been little information about the organization of this pilot -- and the success of last year's pilot -- presented to FIRST volunteers in other parts of the country? Again, maybe that information is available through other channels, but this is the first that many have heard of this.
A lot about this is being kept close to the vest and that makes me uneasy.
There has been a lot of talk with other states about the Kettering Rookie Event. I was 1 of the many wonderful volunteers who helped to host this event.
It was an amazing 2 days. I can tell you that right now Arizona is trying to host an all rookie event and Canada's Event Coordinator's came to help out at Kettering. They came to see if it was viable for Canada to host something such as this as well. Trust me they loved it! We hosted the event for $500.00 a team, had them sleep in the dorms at Kettering for $14.00 a night for 2 people ( each person spent $7.00 per night). You won't find a hotel that cheap!
Sure we didn't provide all the bells and whistles that you would normally get but it was an extremely high quaility event. I never heard 1 bad comment other than the breakdown of the field. In actuallity that helped teams, it allowed them more time to work on the bots.
I am pretty excited about this. I am pretty sure Kettering will host the event in my area. If not Kettering than possibly Grand Blanc High school.
The email and package that was sent out to the Michigan teams did state in it, that the Michigan Championship will cost $4,000.00 However I was told at 1 point a few months ago Michigan teams won't be forced into participating in this event this 1st year if they wish to opt out. I am not sure if that has changed or not.
I would hope that the powers that be would see that a waiver of some kind needs to be in place for teams in the U.P. This is a test program and i see no need to make every team take part. However, if you take waiver you might not be able to play in states.
Also, Thursday is abit of a concern. One thought would be that a teams near the district, with good practice fields, would offer its use. Maybe with a small fee. That first friday could be ugly.
Alan Anderson
31-07-2008, 11:09
The analogy I'd make is that our current regional events are our version of MLB/NFL/NBA games, etc.
I'd maintain that FRC, even at the Championship or IRI level, is all strictly amateur. The FIRST equivalent of professional sports is no less than a career in science or technology. That is what we want (some of) the students to be aiming for.
I can imagine a future FRC season having only Michigan-style district and regional competitions, and a world championship event with participation based on merit alone. From a previous highly active thread, that would obviously make many people happy. But I can also see a use for a handful of official "invitationals" which teams can apply for regardless of region.
acdcfan259
31-07-2008, 12:18
One of the fundamental problems with Thursday in the current format is that for many, Thursday is not Practice Day, Thursday is Rework Day. Many teams show up and tear their machine apart. They do not go out to practice and instead they spend the whole day wrenching. Why do they do this?...because they can. Now, teams are going to have to put more priority being ready to play when they show up beacuse the whole idea of "we'll fix it on Thursday when we get there" will no longer be an easy choice. Teams will still have this same amount of time to rework if they want, but now they are doing it on their own time. In reality, this will likely make the inspection process easier, not harder.
I don't see this as a problem, but as a good thing. If teams want to re-work they should be able to. This is making the competition that much better.
I really see no reason to get rid of Thursday. FIRST has proven time and time again that they graduate some of the best and brightest in the country and the world. You're actually missing the same amount of time if you were to attend one regional like a lot of teams do.
I would hope that the powers that be would see that a waiver of some kind needs to be in place for teams in the U.P. This is a test program and i see no need to make every team take part. However, if you take waiver you might not be able to play in states.
Also, Thursday is abit of a concern. One thought would be that a teams near the district, with good practice fields, would offer its use. Maybe with a small fee. That first friday could be ugly.
I have to agree wholeheartedly. If teams don't want to participate, that should give us an idea as to whether or not this is the direction we should take. As some have said, this is a downgrade for some teams. Forcing them to participate doesn't seem right.
I participated in the Thursday portion of the Kettering Rookie Regional. I also saw the review of the Pilot event and heard a lot of comments.
As M. Krass keeps pointing out, there was not a lot of feedback on CD about the event. This is for a couple of reasons.
As a pilot event for Rookies only, there was not a lot published to vetran teams.
Since Rookies were the ones competing, they would be the normal traffic on CD, but most Rookies do not figure out CD until late in their first year.
As a team that attends multiple regionals, I really liked the thursday night check in format. With it a reasonable drive (1 hour), I didn't have to take time off of work (this is huge for me as a volunteer). Pits were open late that night and they got a lot of machines inspected and ready to go that night including machines that were 30+ pounds overweight. Last I heard only 1 machine out of the 30+ teams were non-functional at the end of the event (there are often that many at a traditional regional). With the MI FIRST format, this team would get 1 more chance to get their machine going. The traditional format has them packing up and likely folding up after their first year.
As far as quality of the event goes, it was really quite good. I will talk to the organizers to see if they can put the Rookie Regional Wrap Up on CD so people can judge for themselves. People should keep in mind that the difference in "quality" isn't as big as they might expect.
As far as Michigan not being able to fit in the current model, there were 3 regionals with 140 total slots for 120 michigan teams (and out of state teams). If every team went to 1 michigan event that meant there were only 20 slots open for a second event. That means a lot of teams had to go out of state for a second event. As people have pointed out travling out of state costs at least 2x as much as local events thus requiring a significantly larger budget and time off of work (or only the competition team getting to travel).
I like the quality vs. quantity debate, but lets attach some numbers. If 120 teams get to experience an event rated at a 9 (scale of 1-10), or for the same price they get to experience 2 events rated at a 7, isn't that better? Or for teams that do two events, 2*9 versus 2*7+9(The state championship will be a 9) 18<23.
I would love to see anything more about the rookie pilot from last season -- a wrap up by those that organized the event, photos, or video. I have been able to find three pictures of the event; only one of which offers a glimpse a the "stage," -- the field and seating. That picture did not impress me, reminding me more of an off-season competition than a world-class sporting event.
I would like to know more about media coverage of the rookie event. How were media guests and VIPs handled? Was there a catered reception, special seating or guided tours?
I think that, ultimately, if we're going to drive interest in science, technology, engineering and math on a national or global scale, we have to recognize that inspiration -- while enormously effective through direct mentoring -- can occur by other mechanisms. Interest by youth in becoming a professional athlete is disproportionately high compared to the number of youth that have met a professional athlete. Why can't the same be true of STEM heroes in the future?
Why does someone have to meet Paul or Andy or their local, homegrown equivalent to understand that what they do is cool and worthwhile? Why can't we put these guys up on ESPN (y'know, like we used to?) alongside their teams and drive interest that way?
dtengineering
31-07-2008, 13:33
I've been pondering the issue of tech inspection in this format for a bit and think there may be a solution. There is no technical reason that inspection MUST take place at an event... if tech inspectors are willing to volunteer their time in the evenings in the week leading up to an event, they could travel to a team's workshop, unseal the robot storage bag, complete a tech inspection and re-seal the bag. Then the team could use their 8 hour "fix it" window to make any neccesary changes and go through a quick re-inspection at the event. Yes, this would mean that tech inspectors would have to drive about the state, carrying a robot weigh scale with them, but in a state with a high density of teams and sufficient volunteers to handle 7 district events, this shouldn't be the same problem that would exist in other areas.
Alternatively there could be a district tech inspection on the Saturday... or a weekday evening... preceeding the event. The important part is that teams have a chance to correct any errors, and inspectors have sufficient time to complete a thorough, high quality inspection.
Jason
Josh Fox
31-07-2008, 13:46
One thing I haven't picked up out of the discussion here is how Michigan teams are going to qualify for Atlanta. Do you go for winning districts? States? How/Where will Chairman's be awarded? Etc. If anyone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
I have mixed feelings at this point. This could either be the future of FIRST, or... unsuccessful. But hey, that's why this is a pilot right? We're bound to learn something from it, so it can't be all bad. :D
maltz1881
31-07-2008, 14:00
http://www.flickr.com/gp/20629362@N05/C9J3FV
Here is a link to the Kettering Rookie Event pictures. You have to understand that Kettering is one of the top universities in the world for engineering. It is in a small setting but one of the most unique schools you will ever see. Look it up in the Princeton Review or at Time Magazine ranking of top colleges in the US. Kettering is always at the top. I have sat on the committee their for the past 8 years, they don't do things 1/2 way or even 99% of the way. It is the best. We bring in bleachers, we have pits, we have the loud music we have the awards etc. We even had the officals from FIRST there were blown away. Yes we had a catered reception, we just didnt throw pizza at people unless that is what you wanted!!!:D Kettering is willing to give tours at any time. They have a fuel cell development program that they love to show off. Including if somebody wanted to take a ride in a fuel cell car, they will take you. It is the same field you play on, the field we used had been at the Midwest the week before.
Here in Michigan we pride ourselves on helping each other including and esp. the rookies. We look after each other like you wouldn't believe. We hold phone sessions with them on a weekly basis during build. If a team has an issue we make sure we find somebody nearby to aid them. Of course this doesn't work so well in the UP but we as veterans make ourselves available either through email or phone to them.
Take a look at the Championship. What state sticks out? Michigan! It seems every year or close to it, the Champion comes from here. We look at not just the issue in front of us, but look for ways to make it better.
I'm I convinced this is the way to go? I'm not sure, but I am willing to give it a shot before I shoot it down. I do think there will be teams who hate it and others who will love it and embrace it.
Isn't this what engineering is all about? Design it and see if you can improve it? I am going to be open minded about it!:)
kramarczyk
31-07-2008, 14:35
I've been pondering the issue of tech inspection in this format for a bit and think there may be a solution. There is no technical reason that inspection MUST take place at an event... if tech inspectors are willing to volunteer their time in the evenings in the week leading up to an event, they could travel to a team's workshop, unseal the robot storage bag, complete a tech inspection and re-seal the bag. Then the team could use their 8 hour "fix it" window to make any neccesary changes and go through a quick re-inspection at the event. Yes, this would mean that tech inspectors would have to drive about the state, carrying a robot weigh scale with them, but in a state with a high density of teams and sufficient volunteers to handle 7 district events, this shouldn't be the same problem that would exist in other areas.
Alternatively there could be a district tech inspection on the Saturday... or a weekday evening... preceeding the event. The important part is that teams have a chance to correct any errors, and inspectors have sufficient time to complete a thorough, high quality inspection.
Jason
The "optional Thursday check-in" may be a way to accomplish this.
See page two of the pdf Beth posted (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=759453&postcount=67). Bullet 4 under 'District Events'.
Odd, the post is #67. How fitting for a post that good.
One thing I haven't picked up out of the discussion here is how Michigan teams are going to qualify for Atlanta. Do you go for winning districts? States? How/Where will Chairman's be awarded? Etc. If anyone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
From what I've read, your team must qualify for the MI State Championship, and around 18 teams from that competition will qualify for Atlanta. It actually puts the MI teams at a disadvantage for Atlanta financially. $5000 + $4000 if you make it to MI. That's one chance to make Atlanta. One chance to Atlanta for an outside-Mich team is $6000. Not to mention any fees going along with Atlanta if you make it there.
MI teams are saving money, yes...unless you merit Atlanta, compared to teams who qualify through one regional.
[Disclaimer2: My information could very well be incorrect. Please excuse me if it is. Simply trying to point something out I noticed. :rolleyes: ]
waialua359
31-07-2008, 14:49
To comment on a few more items:
A: The rookie pilot run at Kettering last year proved we can run a very high quality FIRST event for a fraction of the cost of typical regional event.
B: Item A is not exactly anything new, since very good off season events have been running for over a decade in many locations. Most of these events operate at 10% or less than the operating cost of a typcial FIRST Regional.
C: We have the money to run 8 events in Michigan next year if we do it this way. Financing will not be an issue.
D: We have the venues to for the events and we have many qualified volunteers and veterans to help get this going.
E: We have an estimated 120-130 teams in the State of Mich next year. This means if you compete at 2 events, there is probably no more overlap on team particapation than there was in 2008 if you did any two of GLR, WMR, DET, Cleveland, Chicago, Boiler, etc. The only reason overlay may increase is because now EVERYONE plays twice. If we enabled double plays for everyone thru any other means, the overlap issue would be the same as it will be in the new system.
F: If anyone want to go out of state, it costs the same as always. Now you get a 2 for 1 deal if you stay in state, but if you want to skip one and spend your money to go somewhere else, go for it. Your loss for throwing away a freebie, but it will not cost any more to do this than it ever did in the past.
G: Remember, Nothing will ever get better without making changes and taking some risks. We all want FIRST to get better. "Better" means lower cost, more sustainable, more accessable, more visible, etc. This change is a big enabler to all this things.
FRC today is profoundly different than FRC was in 1992. The league is over 60x its original size yet we are still using a competition structure designed when the league was small. Many have argued for a long time that we have outgrown this model. In 2009 we will finally test a new model and find out if this is true. We will never know if we do not try!
I have no doubt what you say is true. The thought that comes to mind is that I hope then, future FRC events can learn/follow these examples and bring the regional event costs much cheaper.
One example is the shipping of robots. We paid a lot more for shipping this past season following FIRST guidelines as opposed to some other teams that got them way cheaper, doing it themselves.
These are the kinds of things that should be brought to light and shared to bring the costs down. Its too bad after talking with other teams that we found this out.
Branden Ghena
31-07-2008, 14:52
Pros:
Multiple Events!!! - This would be a first for my team. We have never been able to raise the money to go to multiple events.
No Shipping - For those local teams who remember shipping was terrible this year, with our UPS (or Fedex I don't actually remember) calling us at the end of the last day of build season saying they wouldn't be able to pick up our robot on time.
Cons:
No Practice Day - For Team 240, and I'm sure many others, practice day is the first time our robot sets its wheels on the field. Without a practice day it will be very difficult to implement a good autonomous/hybrid mode.
Additional Cost for Michigan Championship - Even if our team made it to the Michigan Championship, I'm not sure we would be able to raise the funds to compete in it.
Overall:
I like the idea. I think its going to give us more time to compete with our robot while still keeping costs down. And as mentioned, its a pilot, if it doesn't work FIRST can kill it. If it does work, however, I can see this moving on to all of FIRST.
waialua359
31-07-2008, 14:58
Pros:
Multiple Events!!! - This would be a first for my team. We have never been able to raise the money to go to multiple events.
No Shipping - For those local teams who remember shipping was terrible this year, with our UPS (or Fedex I don't actually remember) calling us at the end of the last day of build season saying they wouldn't be able to pick up our robot on time.
Cons:
No Practice Day - For Team 240, and I'm sure many others, practice day is the first time our robot sets its wheels on the field. Without a practice day it will be very difficult to implement a good autonomous/hybrid mode.
Additional Cost for Michigan Championship - Even if our team made it to the Michigan Championship, I'm not sure we would be able to raise the funds to compete in it.
Overall:
I like the idea. I think its going to give us more time to compete with our robot while still keeping costs down. And as mentioned, its a pilot, if it doesn't work FIRST can kill it. If it does work, however, I can see this moving on to all of FIRST.
I think practice days should still be part of a regional competition.
Its not that I think teams need more time to fix any bugs that their robot has, its the other factors that we have no control over.
In 2006 and '07 when we tried to calibrate and get our CMU cam to work properly, different venues lighting were slightly different causing what we think is the reason for its malfunction at times. It also gives teams time to meet each other, check out other robots, and scout.
GaryVoshol
31-07-2008, 15:00
One thing I haven't picked up out of the discussion here is how Michigan teams are going to qualify for Atlanta. Do you go for winning districts? States? How/Where will Chairman's be awarded? Etc. If anyone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
I have mixed feelings at this point. This could either be the future of FIRST, or... unsuccessful. But hey, that's why this is a pilot right? We're bound to learn something from it, so it can't be all bad. :DAdvancement is covered well in the documents linked on the FIRST homepage announcement and Beth's post. 18 teams will qualify for Atlanta from the Michigan Championship event. There will be two ways to advance - the awards won at the championship (Chairmans, EI, winners, etc) plus the points earned through the entire season.
Jim Zondag
31-07-2008, 15:09
[QUOTE=francistexas;759567]
MI teams are saving money, yes...unless you merit Atlanta, compared to teams who qualify through one regional.
[QUOTE]
I guess what you say could possibly be true, but did not actually happen last year. From the 118 teams in Michigan, only 4 went to one regional and Atlanta. None of these 4 earned their way in to Atlanta, they purchased open slots and did not qualify thru competition. So I guess if you want to do one event and try to get lucky, you can go out of state. Here in Michigan we are going to try to reduce randomness as much as possible and implement a system in which all competing teams get enough matches to more definitively determine who is the best. If you want to depend on luck, go to the casino. FIRST is about Math and Science. Statistic 101 says, if you take more samples, you can sort more robustly. The new system will definitely be much better at promoting the best robots.
Obviously cannot be proved until we execute, but I would be willing to bet that the level of competition at the 2009 MI championship will be better than at any other regional event in the world.
GaryVoshol
31-07-2008, 15:49
... only 4 went to one regional and Atlanta.I found a dozen such teams.
5 Melvindale – Detroit
322 Flint – GLR
468 Flushing (Flint) – Midwest
858 Wyoming – W Mich
894 Flint – GLR
1023 Bedford (Temperance) – GLR
1025 Ferndale – Detroit
1254 Lawrence – W Mich
1528 Monroe – Detroit
2474 Niles – Boilermaker – Rookie All Star
2591 Detroit – GLR – Rookie All Star
2604 Capac –W Mich – Winner and Rookie All Star
The 3 rookies were all at Kettering, so it's debatable to say whether they went to 1 regional or 2.
Jim is correct, all the other teams that were in one regional got to Atlanta on the "pay the way in" method, not by direct qualification.
Branden Ghena
31-07-2008, 15:54
Does anyone know where the 7 events will be located? Hopefully, they will be spread out as to be easy for all teams to get to.
Also, what is the purpose of the 16 regions?
Herodotus
31-07-2008, 16:06
Does anyone know where the 7 events will be located? Hopefully, they will be spread out as to be easy for all teams to get to.
Also, what is the purpose of the 16 regions?
As far as I can gather the 16 regions are for the purpose of easing growth within the state and don't actually have anything to do with competition sites. As for the 7 events, the only ones I can find are that West Michigan and Detroit are going to be sites of district events, along with one at Kettering. Great Lakes is going to be the site of the State Championship.
Hopefully there will be at least one district competition a little farther north for our friends in the UP.
Clinton Bolinger
31-07-2008, 16:23
I think that we all can agree that we need to try to increase the Return On Investment for teams.
In 2001 I was on a rookie team (688) as a senior in high school, the following year I was a mentor on the same team. But the team folded because we did not see the cost and time justification to go to only one event a year.
As for the the Kettering Rookie Regional, our team (2337) attend and thought that the event covered 90-95% of what a typical regional consist of. Granted there wasn't a big black curtain or large flashy lights, but it was still as exciting as any of the other regionals we attended (KRR, DET, WMI, and Championship). I think that you can still keep the excitement and flash in a High School Gym by having the correct "mood" lighting, by turning off certain lights (dim the stands and light the field).
Jason Monroe took a bunch of great pictures from the Kettering Rookie Regional last year and can be found on his website. (KRR-Pictures (http://jasonjmonroe.com/TWMM/photos/2008/Bees/KTU030808/))
Also there are a lot of High Schools (Grand Blanc) in the state of Michigan that can handle more teams and have better layouts then the current regionals (DET). Grand Blanc's gym can seat twice as many people as the Detroit regional and also has an adjacent gym that can be used as the pits. But then again I might be bias.
I like the idea of bagging your robot and getting certification that it was bagged and sealed on the appropriate day, rather then spending the extra cost to ship the robot just <30 miles away.
Finally I can not agree more with Jim Z. during the practice day there are way to many people upgrading or changing their robot. I have seen people bring totally different manipulators and spend the whole day modifying their robot. If people are going to do this wouldn't you want to do it at your own facility? With the new pilot program teams will have an 8 hour period to do so, after each event.
I am looking forward to the 2009 season.
-Oris-
acdcfan259
31-07-2008, 16:30
Finally I can not agree more with Jim Z. during the practice day there are way to many people upgrading or changing their robot. I have seen people bring totally different manipulators and spend the whole day modifying their robot. If people are going to do this wouldn't you want to do it at your own facility? With the new pilot program teams will have an 8 hour period to do so, after each event.
I still don't see what's wrong with upgrading/changing the robot design.
One thing I haven't picked up out of the discussion here is how Michigan teams are going to qualify for Atlanta. Do you go for winning districts? States? How/Where will Chairman's be awarded? Etc.
Also, if awards like Chairmans or Engineering Inspiration are awarded only at the state championships, will only one Michigan team be able to represent the state at the championships? (right now three teams from Michigan-or who attend Michigan regionals- are able to present their Chairmans presentation to judges)
I think this will be good for rookies or struggling teams or teams with very limited supplies and members but I still have mixed feelings about this, although maybe because the competitions will be closer more people (parents, friends, family members, teachers) will attend? That could ultimately increase the interest and knowledge of FIRST helping the program grow and gaining more school support. I guess we will all see how it works out. :)
techtiger1
31-07-2008, 16:39
While I can sit here and post about 1,000 whats ifs on the subjuct and pros and cons here is the bottom line. Kudos to Michigan teams for trying something like this its probablly one of the only states that could pull something like this off currently. Also remember this is a "pilot" a experiement no more, no less if it turns into a diasaster FIRST can and will stop it. I will agree that there are many details that need to be worked out to implement this all over the country, but as someone stated previously in this thread FIRST has been using essentially the same regional system since 1992. So I do think it's time we've at least tried something. As a Florida firster I can sympathize with many of the struggling and rookie teams in MI as Florida has plenty of extint teams and teams that need major support to keep going. Finally, we should try to increase the return on the invesmesnt for everyone isn't that a good thing, last time I checked it was in my book.
Thats what I think Mr.Lavery :] ,
Drew
Clinton Bolinger
31-07-2008, 16:40
I guess I have more problems with people that do a complete redesign at the beginning of their first event.
-Oris-
Also, if awards like Chairmans or Engineering Inspiration are awarded only at the state championships, will only one Michigan team be able to represent the state at the championships? (right now three teams from Michigan-or who attend Michigan regionals- are able to present their Chairmans presentation to judges)
The top 3 Chairman's and Woodie Flowers award submissions from the state championship will move on to the championship pool. So there will be the same number of Michigan submissions as last year.
Craig Roys
31-07-2008, 23:10
Please keep in mind (as a couple of other posts have stated) that this is a PILOT program. There seems to be a lot of jumping on the negatives - instead of giving a negative, how about adding a possible solution? I did notice one post do this with a possibility for inspection process. I realize that many of the possible negatives being brought up are done so with the intent of helping to point any potential pitfalls, but I think we need to try to be a little more positive and open-minded about this. Change is not always bad - it's okay to get out of your comfort zone a little bit once in a while. Otherwise, how would you ever learn anything new??? I'm sure there will be some difficulties, but at the same time I'm sure they will be corrected as we go and the events will go on without anyone being seriously maimed or worse (at least not because of this change). At the end of the season we can step back and look at how things went and see if this is something worth pursuing. What worked well, what needs to be changed, etc. Individual teams do this with their robot when implementing changes throughout the season - now FIRST is doing the same with the overall competition.
I, for one, am excited to try this and will maintain a positive attitude throughout. MI teams have a chance to possible steer the direction of FIRST (hopefully for the better), but it will only work if everyone goes out with their best effort to make this work or figure out what needs to happen to make it work (if it will work at all). Again, we will never know unless we try. Let's try to keep this a positive thing.
Just my $0.02
neoshaakti
31-07-2008, 23:24
Sounds like a really good idea
:)
hopefully this can be enacted elsewhere eventually, though, this would stiffle meeting teams from other states
hopefully this will help reduce the cost of events allowing teams with smaller budgets to spend more money on the robot and training material.
JaneYoung
31-07-2008, 23:44
hopefully this can be enacted elsewhere eventually, though, this would stiffle meeting teams from other states
The neat thing about change is that we never know what initiatives will develop or come from the change, be they small or large in concept. Teams will continue meeting teams from around the world but this could also be a possibility for helping countries and large states develop ways of coping with their size and distances while expanding the program.
Teams are full of surprises and innovative ideas and many are willing to share what they've experienced and learned. The off-season could become a wonderful time for travel, training, sharing knowledge, and fun. I often think where one door closes, a window opens. That goes along with the glass 1/2 full approach to things and could be applied to this pilot program.
Possible upside- no longer will our bots be tucked inside some truck,moving from regional to regional. Time to buy that trailer you wanted. Paint it up with sponsors and watch the roads fill-up for acouple of weekends. Maybe buy one of those suvs people are giving away and put it away till next season. Wonder if you can buy trailer stock?:)
Possible upside- no longer will our bots be tucked inside some truck,moving from regional to regional. Time to buy that trailer you wanted. Paint it up with sponsors and watch the roads fill-up for acouple of weekends. Maybe buy one of those suvs people are giving away and put it away till next season. Wonder if you can buy trailer stock?:)
Ooo, I like that. We've been debating about buying a trailer...I guess we need to now.
Another upside- no longer worrying if your crate will be overweight... We came just a few pounds shy overweight at GLR, and THAT gave us a scare.
Craig Roys
01-08-2008, 09:02
Possible upside- no longer will our bots be tucked inside some truck,moving from regional to regional. Time to buy that trailer you wanted. Paint it up with sponsors and watch the roads fill-up for acouple of weekends. Maybe buy one of those suvs people are giving away and put it away till next season. Wonder if you can buy trailer stock?:)
Not to mention the those crate gremlins won't be able to get at your 'bot. I wonder if the bag gremlins and trailer gremlins are just as bad?
Not to mention the those crate gremlins won't be able to get at your 'bot. I wonder if the bag gremlins and trailer gremlins are just as bad?
Trailer gremlins... cringe. I here trailer gremlins love to mess with dry rotted tires and poorly kept wheel bearings.
Ian Curtis
01-08-2008, 10:30
Finally I can not agree more with Jim Z. during the practice day there are way to many people upgrading or changing their robot. I have seen people bring totally different manipulators and spend the whole day modifying their robot. If people are going to do this wouldn't you want to do it at your own facility?
We don't have access to a full size playing field during the season. We NEED Thursday to test and modify our robot so that it performs competitively, both mechanically and in software. Maybe Michigan has more full playing fields floating around for testing during the build season, but other areas don't.
Possible upside- no longer will our bots be tucked inside some truck,moving from regional to regional. Time to buy that trailer you wanted. Paint it up with sponsors and watch the roads fill-up for acouple of weekends. Maybe buy one of those suvs people are giving away and put it away till next season. Wonder if you can buy trailer stock?:)
Downside?-parking will fill-up fast.
You know, in michigan teams are pretty helpful. We have been invited to use practice fields every year. We just seem to need that first regional to get the bot up to speed.I guess we will have to suck it up and work alittle harder to get to one of those pre-ship events.
Downside?-parking will fill-up fast.
You know, in michigan teams are pretty helpful. We have been invited to use practice fields every year. We just seem to need that first regional to get the bot up to speed.I guess we will have to suck it up and work alittle harder to get to one of those pre-ship events.
The first regional is always a steep learning curve. On the Bright Side, now you get a second event to shine at with a "fully" tuned machine.
JaneYoung
01-08-2008, 12:32
The first regional is always a steep learning curve. On the Bright Side, now you get a second event to shine at with a "fully" tuned machine.
This may be a dumb question but if there are more matches to play/participate in at the events, won't that help with the process?
This may be a dumb question but if there are more matches to play/participate in at the events, won't that help with the process? But of course, there's no such thing as a dumb question...
With more matches, it will probably help most teams get their robot almost completely tuned up before the second day. But if we had a Thursday...we could use that time to do the tuning up, and as a result would play better in the matches on Friday. Oftentimes, there's not a huge gap between matches, and that doesn't provide a lot of time to have a failing aspect of the robot completely changed. With the practice day, we have a field to test features on, and if they don't work, we have an almost unlimited amount of time to fix them.
So yes, it would help, but it's not as good as a Thursday.
Katie_UPS
01-08-2008, 14:24
I'm going to admit, I've only read the first 5 pages, and I'm sure what I'm saying has been said numerous times.
But to voice my opinion anyways;
Now for my question. If this were adapted for all of FIRST, the way I understand it teams would have to stay in state. Correct me if I'm wrong. One thing that I enjoy about our team is that we travel to a far away regional. Now traveling isn't the only reason I'm here, but it certainly is a big bonus. It's nice to get away from home and to see other places.
This was my first thought when a mentor told us about the change.
I'm prolly preaching to the choir but;
Benefits from being Away From Home;
Team Bonding
Everyone is togeather for the three/four day span (therefor no unexpected absenses, no accidental lateness, etc)
Seeing Teams you wouldn't see otherwise...
And I'm sure you can fill in other reasons.
I have a couple of main issues with this plan:
1) Regionals will feel more like high school sporting events. They will not be nearly as impressive as they currently are. Which is going to look better to sponsors, potential benefactors, etc: taking them to a high school gym, without all the A/V, and everything else that makes a FIRST event special, or taking them to a professional sporting venue filled with FIRST teams, professional A/V, etc? It'll be like a bunch of offseason events.
2) Quality/variety of teams. This probably won't be noticed in MI, since MI is home to many of FIRST's best teams, but I can guarantee it will be elsewhere. In states without an abundance of top teams, the competitions will not be very exciting. It's boring watching FRC events without good robots,and without having non-local talent coming in to the historically weaker events, you end up with the same group of teams, and a not very exciting competition. Even if we disregard such situations, one of the best parts of a regional event is getting to meet and play with new teams from all over the country (and Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc).
Everyone is mentioning the lack of quality that the new events will have, which will make it harder to impress sponsors.
And although the new system will hopefully make things cheaper, its still hard to get sponsors. Which also mentioned periodically throughout the thread.
-One major advantage I see from this is that more competitions will allow teams to improve their robots more over the course of the competition (particularly the rookies). For rookies that only attend one event, they do not get another chance to improve their robots.
Michigan teams, for a lower initial entry fee then teams in other states, will get to attend two district events, rather than one regional event. This is a big benefit, as not only do these Michigan teams get more playing time for less money, but they have the opportunity to think about, and then fix, the robot in between the two district events. In order for teams in other states to have that opportunity, they need to register for not only one regional, but two regionals, at a total cost of $10000 - ($6000 for initial event; $4000 for the subsequent event.)
Yes, there will be an advantage, but if this works out and makes FIRST that much better, then we can handle it. And if it doesn't work out? Now we know. I don't think this should really be an issue. Its unfair to us, but its also unfair to Michigan teams. I'm sure some of them aren't happy about this, and we might think they're lucky, but I'm sure they're thinking we're lucky.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
-If FIRST didn't take risks, we'd still be playing 1v1 on a feild covered in corn. Right?
True that.
Sot sum up my veiws;
If this becomes the future, I'll miss out-of-state events
The smaller regionals won't be as much fun
It'll be cheaper for some teams (but maybe not for others)
It might discourage sponsors
Michigan team advantage shouldn't be a concern right now.
FIRST encourages us innovate, we need to encourage them innovate.
commodoredl
01-08-2008, 14:36
I'm feeling a little apprehensive about this. Obviously the growth of FIRST is always a great thing, but as has been said, locking teams into this system was not welcome by everyone. I also feel that making FIRST into more of a varsity sport than a professional one is anticlimactic, since there is nothing higher in the hierarchy than FRC and it should be treated as the best of the best. If people want to encourage growth in FIRST, IMHO, they should have continued with FRC being in its current regional-championship structure and made the smaller FTC into a varsity-type sport which could lead up to FRC teams.
XaulZan11
01-08-2008, 16:07
I also feel that making FIRST into more of a varsity sport than a professional one is anticlimactic, since there is nothing higher in the hierarchy than FRC and it should be treated as the best of the best.
Several people have used this agruement against this new system, and I don't really understand it. How is this new system making FRC less 'professional'?
As a fan, I'm really excited and hope this new system works out. By forcing teams to do well in the district competitions to qualify for the state competition will only increase the stakes and increase the competition. Then, the state competitions should be very competitive as only the better teams are there. I would think that if this new system gets implemented in all states, the only way to get to Atlanta would be to qualify in the state competitions (as opposed to signing up early), which would mean that the Championship event would (for the first time) have the best 300 or so robots, resulting an a very competitive and exciting two days.
GaryVoshol
01-08-2008, 18:35
Several people have used this agruement against this new system, and I don't really understand it. How is this new system making FRC less 'professional'?Bingo! Repped.
As a fan, I'm really excited and hope this new system works out. By forcing teams to do well in the district competitions to qualify for the state competition will only increase the stakes and increase the competition.So do I, but for other reasons. Michigan had a choice to make. They could either try out this new district/state system, or try to create another full regional somewhere in the state. That, or be faced with the prospect of either limiting growth of FIRST in Michigan, or telling teams that there wasn't enough space in the regionals so they would be forced to travel. If Michigan got as few as 20 more teams in the next year or two, there wouldn't be enough spots in the existing regionals for all of them to play, let alone trying to go to a second regional.
If this works out, other areas that already have multiple regionals a close distance apart (such as NY/LI) would have another model as those regionals begin to fill. In any event, FRC in general has to face their growing pains. They can't continue to add 200-300 teams per year, and expect there to be regionals added on to meet the demand. Eventually there will have to be another model of competition format. Michigan is trying one out - one that happens to be lower cost for the teams. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Maybe it won't translate to situations everywhere. It remains to be seen.
FLL faced up to their growth pains by not inviting every state champion to the World Festival. FTC invited only the captains of the winning alliances to Atlanta. I'm sure that these wouldn't be acceptable alternatives for FRC.
commodoredl
01-08-2008, 20:56
While the venues for district events will change and range from college arenas to convention centers to high school gymnasiums, the competition structure will remain the same.
...
Local district events are more like varsity sports where families, schools, local government, media, and businesses come to cheer and become involved.
That's where I've been getting the "less professional" vibe from. Admittedly it doesn't sound like the end of FIRST as we know it. And if Kettering was pretty good, as people are saying, then I guess I don't have to worry just yet. :o
On another note, are teams going to be shoehorned into district events by location or will they be allowed to sign up like any other regional?
acdcfan259
01-08-2008, 21:52
Several people have used this agruement against this new system, and I don't really understand it. How is this new system making FRC less 'professional'?
Let's see what's more professional, a high school gymnasium with 30-40 teams or a stadium full of anywhere from 40-70 teams?
Let's see what's more professional, a high school gymnasium with 30-40 teams or a stadium full of anywhere from 40-70 teams?
What's more professional, NFL teams playing in their normal stadiums or playing in the Coliseum (home to USC's Trojans)?
Answer that, and I'll answer your question.
artdutra04
01-08-2008, 22:21
Several people have used this agruement against this new system, and I don't really understand it. How is this new system making FRC less 'professional'?I wouldn't use professional, but I would use 'less worthy of potentially [tens of] thousands of dollars our money for sponsorship'. Or less 'Wow, that's really unique!' and more 'oh, you have one of those teams too? That's um... nice. Now can you let me get back to work?'.
Look at your local high school sports teams. Chances are if they have team sponsors, it's places like Joe's Service Station or Hometown Bank for amounts like $250 or $500. You don't see Nike or Adidas or Reebok sponsoring high school sports teams for $5k, $10k or $20k+ each. Why? Because there are just so many of them - it wouldn't be economically feasible.
FRC teams as they currently stand can enjoy a lot higher corporate sponsorships than high school sports teams largely because they aren't in every high school, and because they can have a positive effect for the sponsoring company.
And my greatest concern is that it is impossible to cut so much "excess costs" from FRC that it becomes cheap enough to get into every high school without sacrificing the core strengths of FRC from the program. If they do manage to get it cheap enough, you'll end up with a program that more or less is exactly the same as FTC or IFI Vex.
So why kill your "crown jewel" competition model, the one that is great for getting large name sponsors [and their sponsorship donations] and for exciting and inspiring everyone with something that is "over the top" of all the rest of the robotics competitions, just to turn it into a low-cost program that already exists?
It all comes down to economics. I don't think it is economically possible to get FRC into every high school in the country. And this is coming from someone who lives in what is often cited as the "richest state" in the country. There's a reason why the number of new FRC teams in Connecticut hasn't drastically changed for years - and that's all the major sources of funding (corporate and government) have already been been tapped.
And in these economic hard times, with many town and state governments running in the red and pushing severe budget cuts to get into the black, and companies looking to shed excess costs anywhere they can to stay afloat, this isn't the time to look to press for huge expansion of the program. Rather, this is the time to hunker down, shore up the existing resources, and wait until the economy improves to begin a large growth of the program. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure when you can't get the necessary funding in place to properly do a district-level competition, and that's not fair for the teams who are "locked-in" to that format.
I'm not opposed to growing FIRST by any measure, but I am opposed to doing it unsustainably. I'm tired of constantly pushing to get new teams started, just to watch them fade after a year or two because there isn't enough companies in the area to provide the sponsorship to keep them afloat. There are much better, cheaper methods (FTC and Vex) that are a lot more sustainable for immediate large growth of the program.
XaulZan11
01-08-2008, 22:26
Let's see what's more professional, a high school gymnasium with 30-40 teams or a stadium full of anywhere from 40-70 teams?
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that the stadiums are not full or even close to full. I've only been to the Wisconsin (3 years) and Midwest (2 years) regionals, but even on Saturday afternoon those stadiums is at best 25% full. While I did enjoy being on the field looking up at all the seats, it was a little depressing looking at all the empty seats. It also could not have been cost effective to rent out those stadiums for three days, either.
I think that if you do the distict competitions properly--good lighting and sound, the full gymnasium may provide a better atmosphere than the mostly empty stadiums. (A class of 25 students in a room that has 50 desks looks a lot smaller than a class of 25 students in a room with 25 desks). And, you would save a lot of money.
If I remember reading it correctly, the Michigan State competition will be held at GLR, so I would assume it would have the same atmosphere everyone is used to at the Regionals.
maltz1881
02-08-2008, 00:04
One thing you have to take into account, a regional here in Mi. cost approx $250,000.00 to put on, that takes a ton of sponsors.
We put the Kettering Rookie Event on for under $15,000.00. If my memory serves me correctly it was closer to $13,000.00.
If you take that $15,000.00 and x by 7 you are still under 1/2 of what a regional costs here.
It would be mucher easier going to a sponsor to say for that $15,000.00 you can be the sole sponsor ( yes I know FIRST wants as many as possible) than it would be to raise that 1/4 million dollars.
We could take that $125-130,000.00 and help struggling teams.
Each year a generous donor gives approx $50,000.00 for new teams to start up. They each get the $6,000.00 if needed. We have a great infastructure here in Michigan.
Remember it is Dean's dream for every school to have a team !!
One thing you have to take into account, a regional here in Mi. cost approx $250,000.00 to put on, that takes a ton of sponsors.
We put the Kettering Rookie Event on for under $15,000.00. If my memory serves me correctly it was closer to $13,000.00.
If you take that $15,000.00 and x by 7 you are still under 1/2 of what a regional costs here.
It would be mucher easier going to a sponsor to say for that $15,000.00 you can be the sole sponsor ( yes I know FIRST wants as many as possible) than it would be to raise that 1/4 million dollars.
We could take that $125-130,000.00 and help struggling teams.
Each year a generous donor gives approx $50,000.00 for new teams to start up. They each get the $6,000.00 if needed. We have a great infastructure here in Michigan.
Remember it is Dean's dream for every school to have a team !!
I refuse to believe that you can put on an event not named IRI equivalent in stature and atmosphere to a normal regional with only $15,000. I'd love to see proof otherwise.
Furthermore, if it's *that* easy to cut $235,000 off the price of a regional, why hasn't it happened before now?
Something doesn't add up.
And to the point that you could take the other $130,000 and spread it to the teams--if you tell a sponsor that an event costs 15 times less than it used to, they will probably either cut their donation by a corresponding amount, or wonder what the heck their money has been going to previously, for it to be that much more expensive.
GaryVoshol
02-08-2008, 07:35
I wouldn't use professional, but I would use 'less worthy of potentially [tens of] thousands of dollars our money for sponsorship'. Or less 'Wow, that's really unique!' and more 'oh, you have one of those teams too? That's um... nice. Now can you let me get back to work?'.
Look at your local high school sports teams. Chances are if they have team sponsors, it's places like Joe's Service Station or Hometown Bank for amounts like $250 or $500. You don't see Nike or Adidas or Reebok sponsoring high school sports teams for $5k, $10k or $20k+ each. Why? Because there are just so many of them - it wouldn't be economically feasible.
FRC teams as they currently stand can enjoy a lot higher corporate sponsorships than high school sports teams largely because they aren't in every high school, and because they can have a positive effect for the sponsoring company.
And my greatest concern is that it is impossible to cut so much "excess costs" from FRC that it becomes cheap enough to get into every high school without sacrificing the core strengths of FRC from the program. If they do manage to get it cheap enough, you'll end up with a program that more or less is exactly the same as FTC or IFI Vex.
So why kill your "crown jewel" competition model, the one that is great for getting large name sponsors [and their sponsorship donations] and for exciting and inspiring everyone with something that is "over the top" of all the rest of the robotics competitions, just to turn it into a low-cost program that already exists?
It all comes down to economics. I don't think it is economically possible to get FRC into every high school in the country. And this is coming from someone who lives in what is often cited as the "richest state" in the country. There's a reason why the number of new FRC teams in Connecticut hasn't drastically changed for years - and that's all the major sources of funding (corporate and government) have already been been tapped.
And in these economic hard times, with many town and state governments running in the red and pushing severe budget cuts to get into the black, and companies looking to shed excess costs anywhere they can to stay afloat, this isn't the time to look to press for huge expansion of the program. Rather, this is the time to hunker down, shore up the existing resources, and wait until the economy improves to begin a large growth of the program. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure when you can't get the necessary funding in place to properly do a district-level competition, and that's not fair for the teams who are "locked-in" to that format.
I'm not opposed to growing FIRST by any measure, but I am opposed to doing it unsustainably. I'm tired of constantly pushing to get new teams started, just to watch them fade after a year or two because there isn't enough companies in the area to provide the sponsorship to keep them afloat. There are much better, cheaper methods (FTC and Vex) that are a lot more sustainable for immediate large growth of the program.
So you're saying that FIRST should be more elite, that we should not seek to give other students the opportunities that are there for existing teams today. And that without all the bells and whistles at a competition, no one would be inspired by the 6 weeks of work in build season - which, I might point out, in most cases is done in a non-professional high school shop!
I refuse to believe that you can put on an event not named IRI equivalent in stature and atmosphere to a normal regional with only $15,000. I'd love to see proof otherwise.
Furthermore, if it's *that* easy to cut $235,000 off the price of a regional, why hasn't it happened before now?
Something doesn't add up.
And to the point that you could take the other $130,000 and spread it to the teams--if you tell a sponsor that an event costs 15 times less than it used to, they will probably either cut their donation by a corresponding amount, or wonder what the heck their money has been going to previously, for it to be that much more expensive.What's so special about IRI except for the teams that show up? Granted, the school is huge and the space is more than ample. But it's the people that are putting on the event that make it work. That's what happened at the Kettering Rookie event.
I am not privy to the figures, but I imagine there are two tremendous sources of cost savings. First, the cost of the arena itself. And second, the professional event management. At IRI and at Kettering you didn't see coordinators running around with headsets. Queuers used sneaker communications, not radio. Volunteers served meals, not a catering service. Do those little things make the competition any less?
I will admit that, with smaller district competitions, the powerhouse teams won't all be at the same events. So maybe a rookie team won't be able to be quite so inspired by being able to play with (or against!) 47, 217, 27, 503, 469 and 67 at one event. But they might see 4 out of the 6 of them at their 2 events - and if they make it to the state championships they will likely see all of them.
The choice had to be made. Either FRC changes, or FRC becomes inaccessable for new teams. Or maybe in order to allow new rookie teams in, some veteran teams would have to be given a year off in a rotating schedule. Or we'd have to limit teams to only one regional each. Wouldn't that be met with wailing and gnashing of teeth!
maltz1881
02-08-2008, 07:53
Well I do have the info. I was the volunteer coordinator. We did do the event for the price I stated earlier. Kettering donated the space, we didn't have to pay the $100,000.00 for an arena.
We didn't have to rent the automation equipment, we were able to borrow it from on of our committee members who is a top engineer at Delphi.
Why is that you think that because you don't spend a ton of money it can't be top notch? Trust me, it was incredible. Something that I am proud to say I helped put on. :D
Well I do have the info. I was the volunteer coordinator. We did do the event for the price I stated earlier. Kettering donated the space, we didn't have to pay the $100,000.00 for an arena.
We didn't have to rent the automation equipment, we were able to borrow it from on of our committee members who is a top engineer at Delphi.
Why is that you think that because you don't spend a ton of money it can't be top notch? Trust me, it was incredible. Something that I am proud to say I helped put on. :D
Relying on donations immediately calls into question the sustainability and extensibility of this pilot, as far as I'm concerned. While it's fantastic that Kettering was willing to donate space to hold the competition, we can't forget that there are schools with teams that charge them for use of their own facilities!
I've looked at the photos of the Kettering Event and I'm not impressed. It obviously lacked the polish and sophistication of a regional event -- and it wasn't because the volunteers did not have radios. My apologies to those involved, but it appeared amateurish -- from its lack of pipe and drape to the projected images bleeding off the edge of the screen. I've never gone to Major League Baseball game to find out that somebody didn't know how to turn on the jumbotron.
Greg Marra
02-08-2008, 11:50
I don't understand why so many people are upset that FIRST might be moving from a shiny-fancy model to a more-competitions model. The State Championship and the World Championship still exist, and they're going to be just as big and shiny as ever.
It seems people are getting in a huff because their FIRST experience is going to get "watered down" being in a high school gymnasium instead of a hockey arena. How many other people are going to get an experience with FIRST that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten because we are saturating regionals and unable to reduce the economic barriers to running competitions?
Relying on donations immediately calls into question the sustainability and extensibility of this pilot, as far as I'm concerned.
Where do you think money for Regional competitions comes from? Boston University (graciously!) allows the Boston Regional to use their facility, and many more local corporations and schools donate the significant amounts of money it takes to orchestrate an event of that scale. In that regard, Boston is potentially unsustainable as well.
I wouldn't use professional, but I would use 'less worthy of potentially [tens of] thousands of dollars our money for sponsorship'. Or less 'Wow, that's really unique!' and more 'oh, you have one of those teams too? That's um... nice. Now can you let me get back to work?'.
If FIRST gets to the point where it's "Oh, you have a robotics team too?" then we've accomplished our mission. The goal isn't to have "special" high schools that are able to have robotics teams, the goal is to inspire people to be interested in science, technology, engineering, and math and to incite cultural change. Robotics teams being dime a dozen sounds like cultural change to me. If you can get Robotics on the same model as Football then you don't need $10,000 sponsors.
I think people need to stop thinking about how this change would personally affect them, and consider the effects that it will have on FIRST as a whole. There are a lot of people who you've never met and might not even know FIRST exists right now who would immensely benefit from the experience this new program could offer them.
Where do you think money for Regional competitions comes from? Boston University (graciously!) allows the Boston Regional to use their facility, and many more local corporations and schools donate the significant amounts of money it takes to orchestrate an event of that scale. In that regard, Boston is potentially unsustainable as well.
The point is that the money is used to pay professionals in their respective fields to organize these events. The donors themselves -- whether they be colleges and universities or large corporations -- do not have the expertise or capacity to manage a show. In fact, the donors frequently hire the very same people that FIRST does and others like them to handle events like our regional events.
I think something will be lost -- consistency, for one -- when we excise the professionals from the process and instead rely on a friend's uncle somewhere that has an amp leftover from his garage band days for the event's A/V setup. It seems unlikely that these committees will be able to get the many companies that are currently contracted for things like A/V to donate their services -- and do so many times over. It's not as if nobody ever thought to ask, "Hey, will you all do this for free?"
We're paying these people for their services because it's ensured a consistent level of quality at all events -- and I can't imagine how, if services of their caliber are available for free and many times over -- why regional planning committees still decide to pay for this stuff. It just doesn't make sense.
waialua359
02-08-2008, 13:15
FIRST events should not be watered down.
Teachers, mentors, students, know better that its the learning experience that counts. But, do the stakeholders that help support teams know better?
Why do people have huge banners of their sponsors? Many of them are a business first, and anything to help put them in the spotlight in a high quality event with lots of news coverage is important to them.
Its the harsh reality of it all.
Bells and whistles on your robot and the event, puts an audience in awe. At our regional, guess who was on the front page, in the news, and in all other media coverage. The PINK team! Why, because they had an awesome eye-candy robot in addition to looking cool with their pink shirts and having a spirited attitude.
The Hawaii Regional planning committee spent nearly 30,000.00 for a Friday social event near the beach. It was THE best social even for me who has lived here all my life.
If instead to save cost, we did some watered down version in a much less scenic area with low-budget food, sure.......we could say we saved money, and it isn't the point of FIRST. But, the comments by everyone was that it was an event they would never forget. Heck, one team said it made up for the frustrating day they had earlier.
Having a fabulous experience can only help when teams look to sacrifice year after year in spreading the word of FIRST. We all know that anyone that does FIRST makes huge sacrifices in time, money, and personal life.
artdutra04
02-08-2008, 16:03
So you're saying that FIRST should be more elite, that we should not seek to give other students the opportunities that are there for existing teams today. And that without all the bells and whistles at a competition, no one would be inspired by the 6 weeks of work in build season - which, I might point out, in most cases is done in a non-professional high school shop!I'm not saying that at all, in fact, quite the opposite. I one-hundred percent believe FIRST should get into every school in the country, but I don't think FRC is the perfect vehicle for that widespread expansion.
FRC != FIRST. FIRST is about much more than FRC; it's also about FTC, FLL, and JFLL. It is a lot easier to get one (or two, or three, or four) FTC or Vex team(s) in every high school in the country than is is to get an FRC team into every high school in the country.
As such, I would rather see every high school get a FTC or Vex team first. Not only is it a lot more economically feasible, but the entire competition model of FTC/Vex is much better suited for a large scale competition with tens of thousands of teams. (Everything about FTC or Vex costs but a fraction of even the cheapest FRC off-season competitions).
Once FTC or Vex gets into 60-80% or more of all high schools, then come back to talk about looking to get as many of those expanded to FRC, as by then the necessary support infrastructure is already in place, and over the very short term goals, we have expanded the scope of FIRST much more than a [cheaper] FRC could ever have.
That is not elitism, that is looking to get the opportunity and inspiration of FIRST, as far reaching as quickly and cheaply as possible. That's like anti-elitism.
I have no qualms about FRC expanding to district-level competitions, I just believe that FIRST isn't pursuing the most cost- and resource-efficient methods for expanding the scope of their outreach.
Akash Rastogi
02-08-2008, 16:43
i really wanted to go to a Michigan regional this year. :(
Best of luck FIRST Michigan with your pilot program!
I for one am excited that FIRST is stepping out of their comfort zone to try something different. Will the next year be problem free? Probably not. Should that stop FIRST from trying at all? I hope not, because that is the same determination that is needed to survive in today's world, the same persistence that FIRST instills in the students it inspires, the willingness to take a risk and try something that many say can't or shouldn't be done.
I'm also excited that there will be even more opportunities to volunteer at FIRST events. That is one of our team's mentors goals this year - to go to other areas and volunteer - and this initiative will give us so many more choices and chances.
I guess I never knew that FIRST was about the regional events being all polished and pretty. I thought it was about the team building, robot designing, robot building, solving problems, getting the future excited about science and technology and engineering. And yes, the regional competitions are key to building that enthusiasm, but I've been to regionals in several venues and know that the enthusiasm and excitement comes from much more that curtains and audio-visual equipment.
FIRST events should not be watered down.
Teachers, mentors, students, know better that its the learning experience that counts. But, do the stakeholders that help support teams know better?
Why do people have huge banners of their sponsors? Many of them are a business first, and anything to help put them in the spotlight in a high quality event with lots of news coverage is important to them.
Its the harsh reality of it all.
Bells and whistles on your robot and the event, puts an audience in awe. At our regional, guess who was on the front page, in the news, and in all other media coverage. The PINK team! Why, because they had an awesome eye-candy robot in addition to looking cool with their pink shirts and having a spirited attitude.See! It is about the teams, not the venues! Until we hear where the district competitions are going to be, why should we expect that they are going to feel any less like a regional?
And audiences in awe! Is it better to have a packed gymnasium or a massive but sparsely filled stadium? Especially stadiums where you are not allowed to hang those banners where you have proudly printed your sponsor's names?
The Hawaii Regional planning committee spent nearly 30,000.00 for a Friday social event near the beach. It was THE best social even for me who has lived here all my life.
If instead to save cost, we did some watered down version in a much less scenic area with low-budget food, sure.......we could say we saved money, and it isn't the point of FIRST. But, the comments by everyone was that it was an event they would never forget. Heck, one team said it made up for the frustrating day they had earlier.And based on the attendance of the Hawaii regional, that came out to $10-15 a person. That is not too extravagant, nor is that in indicator of quality of a regional over a district event. Some regionals offer pizza and games for their social, some host them in interesting places, and some don't have one at all. Most charge extra, so while I'm glad that Hawaii's social was awesome, it neither adds to nor subtracts from the events in Michigan.
Having a fabulous experience can only help when teams look to sacrifice year after year in spreading the word of FIRST. We all know that anyone that does FIRST makes huge sacrifices in time, money, and personal life.You all make the experience fabulous! And honestly I have to say that I’ve had fabulous experiences at tiny off-seasons, big off-seasons, pre-ship rallies, small regionals and big regionals and at the championship event. I really hope that you all aren't sacrificing all of your time, money, and personal life just to go to a super-de-duper regional event. Because FIRST is way more than that. And I’m hoping that this pilot program can bring that FIRST experience to many more students and schools in Michigan.
nikeairmancurry
02-08-2008, 17:39
Well I do like the idea of the cost effective district regionals and then holding a big one for the state. What I feel could be an issue for some people/teams is the way the points system is gonig to be deault with. I lookd throught the way the points would be awarded and the problems i see could come more or less what distrcit regional you go to. Living in Southeast Michigan were the supply of high quality teams is the greatest, it could prevent a problem to smaller teams also in the area. The agurement is if there are only two district regionals in this area and they might as weel be regualr FRC regionals based on team competiveness.
The elite teams will take alot of the points away from the smaller teams preventing them from being able to go on to the State Regional and have a shot at Atlanta. But that is just my small problem, yet it could be possible that this issue really never comes up. But like eeryone else i'll have to wait until march to see.:ahh:
GaryVoshol
02-08-2008, 20:07
I'm not saying that at all, in fact, quite the opposite. I one-hundred percent believe FIRST should get into every school in the country, but I don't think FRC is the perfect vehicle for that widespread expansion.
FRC != FIRST. FIRST is about much more than FRC; it's also about FTC, FLL, and JFLL. It is a lot easier to get one (or two, or three, or four) FTC or Vex team(s) in every high school in the country than is is to get an FRC team into every high school in the country.
As such, I would rather see every high school get a FTC or Vex team first. Not only is it a lot more economically feasible, but the entire competition model of FTC/Vex is much better suited for a large scale competition with tens of thousands of teams. (Everything about FTC or Vex costs but a fraction of even the cheapest FRC off-season competitions).
Once FTC or Vex gets into 60-80% or more of all high schools, then come back to talk about looking to get as many of those expanded to FRC, as by then the necessary support infrastructure is already in place, and over the very short term goals, we have expanded the scope of FIRST much more than a [cheaper] FRC could ever have.
That is not elitism, that is looking to get the opportunity and inspiration of FIRST, as far reaching as quickly and cheaply as possible. That's like anti-elitism.
I have no qualms about FRC expanding to district-level competitions, I just believe that FIRST isn't pursuing the most cost- and resource-efficient methods for expanding the scope of their outreach.
And taken to the ridiculous extreme, the counter-argument to that position is that we should cancel FRC entirely until FTC or Vex gets near saturation. After all, that's most cost effective, right?
Either you make a form of FRC available for all-comers, or you are acting in an elite fashion - someone is kept out because they aren't deserving of it yet. Who will make the determination of who can enter?
I don't agree with everything FIRST in Michigan is doing. I have reservations about some aspects of this proposal. But I recognize that we can't stick with business as normal because costs and resources are being stretched to the limits.
Even if these districts can't all be run with a budget of $15,000, they can surely be done much cheaper than regionals. If $500,000 is saved by not holding Detroit and West Michigan as traditional regionals, and 7 districts are run on an average of $20,000 or $40,000 - well, as Mark is wont to say, "That's why we do the math!"
artdutra04
03-08-2008, 00:56
And taken to the ridiculous extreme, the counter-argument to that position is that we should cancel FRC entirely until FTC or Vex gets near saturation. After all, that's most cost effective, right?
Either you make a form of FRC available for all-comers, or you are acting in an elite fashion - someone is kept out because they aren't deserving of it yet. Who will make the determination of who can enter?
I don't agree with everything FIRST in Michigan is doing. I have reservations about some aspects of this proposal. But I recognize that we can't stick with business as normal because costs and resources are being stretched to the limits.
Even if these districts can't all be run with a budget of $15,000, they can surely be done much cheaper than regionals. If $500,000 is saved by not holding Detroit and West Michigan as traditional regionals, and 7 districts are run on an average of $20,000 or $40,000 - well, as Mark is wont to say, "That's why we do the math!"I am really quite saddened that my entire argument about the economics and financial feasibility of getting FRC into every high school has been essentially reduced deteriorated into practically a personal "you-are-with-us-or-you-are-against-us" attack of my supposed "elitism".
All I am doing is presenting an opposing view, highlighting any possible glitches that may be on the path forward to expanding FIRST. If no one ever stepped forward in life when they saw a potential flaw in anything, nothing in life would ever succeed. So rather than chime along with an endless series of "Yes! Great Plan! I'm with you 100%! Carry on full steam!", I am pressing issues which I see with this plan to make everyone on the whole think a lot more deeply about this and any potential implications and complications this idea would constitute. Consider it a well-crafted disguise of reverse psychology*.
If I was financially successful in life and had the means, I would give $6k to every high school in the country to start an FRC team, along with a few other charities, like Make a Wish. Without hesitation. But I'm not [yet, hopefully :)] at that kind of a position in life, so I give what I can - time and experience - to two FRC teams, several Vex teams, and various times volunteering at FIRST events all over. I estimate that among all of those, I probably spend several hundred hours per year donating my time and efforts to FIRST-related teams and events.
If I didn't care about the program - the mission of FIRST - then I (along with everyone else here) wouldn't do all that, and I certainly wouldn't be here right now.
* But don't take that statement to mean that I will cease to stand by many of my original criticisms of their plan. Things never improve through rubber stamping. And if you don't believe me, I think you and I would see eye to eye on this issue if this quote "Either you make a form of FRC available for all-comers, or you are acting in an elite fashion" was instead worded like this "Either you make a form of FIRST available for all-comers, or you are acting in an elite fashion". It's a bit presumptuous if we (or FIRST) should determine which program a school should participate in; that should be the school's decision based upon the available space, time, resource, faculty, and financial conditions of their school. No one knows what they are capable of more than themselves. The only thing that really matters is that they are involved in some way, and inspiring students.
GaryVoshol
03-08-2008, 07:19
Art, I'm not trying to make this personal with you or anyone else. But I think that what several people are missing in this conversation is that something had to change, or teams would not be able to enter FRC, no matter how many resources they had. FRC is reaching capacity in Michigan. In order to allow additional teams to join in the near future, something had to change. Sure new teams could do VEX*. But then the same arguments come back - "It's not the same thing." "It's not as exciting." "Those little robots on a 12-foot arena in a gym aren't as inspiring as the big bots in an arena."
The other thing this pilot hopes to do is address a major concern that has been raised by many teams over the years - the cost. It appears that it lowers the initial cost from $6000 to $5000, and then gives teams more for that money - two competitions instead of one. Plus with more competition sites, less travel expenses.
I'm not rubber-stamping anything. I had no hand in putting any of this together, and if I had there would be aspects that I would be questioning. I think though that I can trust the crew that had a hand in it, that they are acting in good faith. I also think that I can trust that if this doesn't work out, it will be modified to make it work or given up and something else will be found. Something had to change. Let's see if this is a good solution or not.
Gary
* Don't even get me started on why they can't do FTC in "certain states like Michigan".
waialua359
03-08-2008, 07:37
Best of luck FIRST Michigan with your pilot program!
I for one am excited that FIRST is stepping out of their comfort zone to try something different. Will the next year be problem free? Probably not. Should that stop FIRST from trying at all? I hope not, because that is the same determination that is needed to survive in today's world, the same persistence that FIRST instills in the students it inspires, the willingness to take a risk and try something that many say can't or shouldn't be done.
I'm also excited that there will be even more opportunities to volunteer at FIRST events. That is one of our team's mentors goals this year - to go to other areas and volunteer - and this initiative will give us so many more choices and chances.
I guess I never knew that FIRST was about the regional events being all polished and pretty. I thought it was about the team building, robot designing, robot building, solving problems, getting the future excited about science and technology and engineering. And yes, the regional competitions are key to building that enthusiasm, but I've been to regionals in several venues and know that the enthusiasm and excitement comes from much more that curtains and audio-visual equipment.
See! It is about the teams, not the venues! Until we hear where the district competitions are going to be, why should we expect that they are going to feel any less like a regional?
And audiences in awe! Is it better to have a packed gymnasium or a massive but sparsely filled stadium? Especially stadiums where you are not allowed to hang those banners where you have proudly printed your sponsor's names?
And based on the attendance of the Hawaii regional, that came out to $10-15 a person. That is not too extravagant, nor is that in indicator of quality of a regional over a district event. Some regionals offer pizza and games for their social, some host them in interesting places, and some don't have one at all. Most charge extra, so while I'm glad that Hawaii's social was awesome, it neither adds to nor subtracts from the events in Michigan.
You all make the experience fabulous! And honestly I have to say that I’ve had fabulous experiences at tiny off-seasons, big off-seasons, pre-ship rallies, small regionals and big regionals and at the championship event. I really hope that you all aren't sacrificing all of your time, money, and personal life just to go to a super-de-duper regional event. Because FIRST is way more than that. And I’m hoping that this pilot program can bring that FIRST experience to many more students and schools in Michigan.
I was speaking in a general manner. I do hope the Michigan events with its cost effective plan delivers the same punch as everyone will hope and work towards. If it does, that spells some optimistic hope for other regionals to look at their own costs and seeing where they can be more efficient.
Again, that lustre, however it is defined, should not be lost.
Daniel_LaFleur
03-08-2008, 10:47
Art, I'm not trying to make this personal with you or anyone else. But I think that what several people are missing in this conversation is that something had to change, or teams would not be able to enter FRC, no matter how many resources they had. FRC is reaching capacity in Michigan. In order to allow additional teams to join in the near future, something had to change. Sure new teams could do VEX*. But then the same arguments come back - "It's not the same thing." "It's not as exciting." "Those little robots on a 12-foot arena in a gym aren't as inspiring as the big bots in an arena."
I think you are missing Art's point, that maybe FRC is not the correct vehicle for all schools.
Personally, I hope this pilot works out well for all in Michigan, but this may be a case of trying to do too much with FRC rather than working to create a tiered system and fitting the school into what they can afford/accomplish/support.
i really wanted to go to a Michigan regional this year.:mad: but more :(
This makes me want to go see a Michigan event (are they still considered regionals ?) even more just to see what the new format looks like.
One thing about volunteering.
I have a limited amount of vacation time that I can spend on FIRST (for some reason my wife expects me to spend some with her.)
Eliminating the Thursday will give me an extra day to volunteer at another event. I'm pretty excited about that.
One thing about volunteering.
I have a limited amount of vacation time that I can spend on FIRST (for some reason my wife expects me to spend some with her.)
Eliminating the Thursday will give me an extra day to volunteer at another event. I'm pretty excited about that.
All my vacation time is basically used to volunteer at FIRST events.
< has no life.
GaryVoshol
03-08-2008, 14:20
I think you are missing Art's point, that maybe FRC is not the correct vehicle for all schools.No, I'm not missing that point. I'm looking beyond that point. What do we do when no schools, no matter what their resources, can join FRC because there is no place for them to compete?
Personally, I hope this pilot works out well for all in Michigan, but this may be a case of trying to do too much with FRC rather than working to create a tiered system and fitting the school into what they can afford/accomplish/support.Thus my disagreement with "certain states like Michigan" which do not have FTC. But that still doesn't address the concern of how to allow FRC for schools that can afford it.
maltz1881
03-08-2008, 14:43
FIRST doesn't want VEX or Tech in Michigan. Plain and simple. They have told us this. VEX or Tech is more for states like N. Dakota, Kansas, etc. We tried to get an "offical" VEX Tourney here. They told us no. We did hold a tourney anyways but it wasn't with the blessings from FIRST. I will say the 1 1st year it was held they allowed a few teams to go to the championship. They won't allow that anymore though.
By the way I take great offense to calling the Kettering Rookie Event amateurish. You just insulted about 1000 people including the teams that attended. BTW I have 2 things to say about your comment. 1 of those rookies took 3rd place at the Championship. 2. Paul Godonus (?) was there (in case you didn't recognize him in the picture) along with Fracois Castaing and other top officals who attended TOTALLY disagreed with you. They told all of us during a luncheon that he was shocked by how well it ran. He also told us that we gave 95% of everything that a regular regional gives for 1/15 of the cost.
Please don't put words into my mouth by saying we "borrowed a used amp from an uncle's garage". We used top notch material. Kettering has professional video cameras etc.. I really don't understand such negativity. It is a good thing to step out of your comfort zone and see the rest of the world. :D
It is a good thing to step out of your comfort zone and see the rest of the world. :D
Isn't that exactly what this is preventing though? I'd never been to St. Louis, New Orleans, or Atlanta until this past year when I joined FRC. I want to be able to go to places out of state. I want to see my country and meet people from all different regions who are interested in the same thing as I. Many of my newest friends are from Michigan, and they want to be able to see their out of state friends again at regionals, but this is preventing that. I've been nearly every where in my state, and I'm sure that's a common thing for many FRC students in their own states. I want to go see the places and people I haven't ever been around before. I've said it before...that's just what makes FRC so unique.
I know there are a lot of I's in this post, but I have many friends in Michigan, as I've said, who are very upset with having to do this.
[My last post here.]
$5000 intial fee (KOP and 2 district competitions)
$4000 State Championship
$4000 Out of state competition
$5000 FIRST Championship
This payment structure may suggest that the entry fee for all teams may have gone down $1,000. Is this true or is it just wishfull thinking for the rest of us. Also I have my own thoughts on why they are allowing 18 or so teams to advance to the world championships from the MI State championships however I was wondering what others thought of this?
GaryVoshol
03-08-2008, 20:13
The 18 teams advancing to the Championship reflects the 18 teams that previously advanced from Great Lakes, West Michigan and Detroit Regionals. Granted, two teams from Indiana qualified from West Michigan this year. But teams from Michigan qualified from other regionals, which will be still be possible but less likely in the future.
joeweber
03-08-2008, 20:44
Isn't that exactly what this is preventing though? I'd never been to St. Louis, New Orleans, or Atlanta until this past year when I joined FRC. I want to be able to go to places out of state. I want to see my country and meet people from all different regions who are interested in the same thing as I. Many of my newest friends are from Michigan, and they want to be able to see their out of state friends again at regionals, but this is preventing that. I've been nearly every where in my state, and I'm sure that's a common thing for many FRC students in their own states. I want to go see the places and people I haven't ever been around before. I've said it before...that's just what makes FRC so unique.
[My last post here.]
It is wonderful that you were part of a team that could travel to many states and compete in multiple events. Unfortunately there are many teams that have never traveled or been to more than one event. The past four years we have only been to Great Lakes Regional and as soon as we get our robot working perfectly the event and our season is over. We now will finally have a chance to compete more than once. I will take the loose of Thursday to get a chance at a second event any time. We will now know ahead of time to make sure our robot is working better when we bag it up after build. If you have a committed team there is no reason not to complete your robot build on time.
I will take the loose of Thursday to get a chance at a second event any time. We will now know ahead of time to make sure our robot is working better when we bag it up after build. If you have a committed team there is no reason not to complete your robot build on time.
254 and 968 would beg to differ, as would many other excellent teams.
You can't just choose to make sure the robot will be working better than normal. Not once has our team ever slacked off because we knew we would have Thursday to finish the bot. Every year for the last 3 years we have slept in our lab from Thursday night to Tuesday morning, in an effort to finish our robot. There was nothing in any of those years we could have done to be more prepared for Thursday of the event.
Stuff happens, and Thursday is invaluable for many teams. Eliminating Thursday won't hurt teams like 254, because we would be able to accomplish more in our own shop than at the event, but it will hurt the teams that need the help the most-those that show up, with all kinds of work to do, with a 30 lb overweight robot that isn't totally put together.
With the current setup, other teams at the event will take notice of said team struggling, and help them to be ready come Friday morning.
Now those teams will be forced to do it all themselves in 8 hours, instead of 12, with no other teams around for help.
joeweber
03-08-2008, 21:36
Don’t get me wrong, I hate to loose Thursday too but if it’s a choice between having Thursday or having two events I will take the two events and make the adjustment during build weather we like it or not. If all the other teams are in the same boat than the difficulty will be equal. I do not believe for one minute that any team slacks off during build but I do believe in the ability of the teams to adjust. If we were given four weeks to build we would find a way.
Josh Murphy
03-08-2008, 22:02
The ONLY DOWNSIDE I see to losing thursday is getting all of the inspections done before playtime. The last 5 years and maybe beyond( Iwasn't around yet) our machines have been put in the crate, competition ready and are ready to roll on thursday morning. I would pick the 8 hours at school in our machine shop over 12 hours in a smoking hot gym/arena anyways. I look at cutting the thursdays as a cost savings. Just remember that this is just an EXPERIMENT it won't be perfect, but anything that you do for the first time in most cases isn't perfect anyways. Everything can be improved upon, nothing is perfect. Everyone has thier own ways to do things and Michigan is just trying to improve FIRST in our own way. If the experiment doesn't work then everything will most likely go back to normal in 2010. And for the economy in Michigan: it sucks, sponsors are hard to come by these days here in Michigan. The banners at the top of this page are only $250.00 and most of the students struggle to find anyone interested and it's not about selling the program because most of them would have me convinced, even if I was not involved with FIRST. I was a student also when we first started the ads and it was tough finding a taker for only $250.00 and I can sell the program pretty well to most people. If the economy was rolling and doing pretty well and it wasn't so costly to do FIRST this probably would have never came up. I loved things the way they were and it will still take some convincing for me to be sold on the new direction, but I am willing to step back and give it a chance and everyone else should do the same instead of being critics.
waialua359
03-08-2008, 23:59
One thing to consider is not only about being able to complete your robot on time, its also about putting it together after you unpack your crate.
Teams who travel by ground have the luxury of carrying a greater no. of tools and accessories they need to bring to an event. Teams often roll their carts into the pit, whereas other teams are forced to put as much in their crate in order to alleviate what they have to carry on an airplane. This has caused us this season to take our arm apart. As much as it was a hastle this past season, we had no other choice. Our morning practice rounds were all shot because of it all of our events.
Daniel_LaFleur
04-08-2008, 09:16
No, I'm not missing that point. I'm looking beyond that point. What do we do when no schools, no matter what their resources, can join FRC because there is no place for them to compete?
Thus my disagreement with "certain states like Michigan" which do not have FTC. But that still doesn't address the concern of how to allow FRC for schools that can afford it.
There is no FTC events in New Hampshire either ... that being said, that does not preclude having a FTC team in New Hampshire.
I guess the question I have is:
With such great support for FRC, why can't Michigan have FTC for those that cannot afford FRC.
Again, create a tiered structure so that those that can afford/have support will have an FRC team while those who cannot afford/don't have support for an FRC team could have an FTC team.
I mean, Is there a law or ordinance against FTC in Michigan? or is it just that they all want to play in the big leagues even if they cannot afford it?
Again, I wish 'FIRST in Michigan' all the success and I hope the orgainizers have done their homework because the devil is always in the details.
Look at your local high school sports teams. Chances are if they have team sponsors, it's places like Joe's Service Station or Hometown Bank for amounts like $250 or $500. You don't see Nike or Adidas or Reebok sponsoring high school sports teams for $5k, $10k or $20k+ each. Why? Because there are just so many of them - it wouldn't be economically feasible.
Actually if you talk with a lot of schools the way they fund their sports programs is through ticket sales at their more popular sports (basketball and football typically). The budget is way bigger than most FRC teams. Think about the local football game. I was at a small school and tickets were $2 but there were at least 2000 people in the stands Friday night. They would get 5 home football games a season to rake in about $20k in tickets sales and this is for a school that only graduates 100 people a year. The $250-$500 donations are typically more in line with Little League where I am from (and I am from small town/small budget America). At some of these big HS, they must make a mint at a Friday Night game.
In the past 5 years we have done a lot of local regionals (GLR and Detroit are within 1 hour drive). The great thing about those are that the parents are able to come and support their kids at those events. When we go 2.5 to 4 hours away, only a dedicated few are able to arrive and support their children. These regionals have between 30 and 60 teams that I have been too. While the 60 team GLR is a sight to behold. Our students usually prefer West Michigan beacues it is slightly smaller, but electric with a full crowd.
================================================== ==
We will see how this turns out. My hope this that this works out well and that FIRST will end up adopting a structure that has district events and then 35 "Regionals Championships", and the state lines dissappear again. Since this is a pilot, it is like any other Pilot. Some rules and formatting are for testing, some rules and formatting are there to limit the possible negative effects should it go bad. The "State" limitation I hope is only to limit the pilot to a specific subset of FIRST. This allows for a large enough sample to see how it will work out with out risking FRC for the Majority.
================================================== =====
M.Krass, thank you for noting specific examples of quality differences. To be honest I noticed something was a little different, but couldn't put my finger on it. Overall though it was a really cool event (Malt1881-Thank you and the rest of the crew for a great event). I think this may be one of those examples of the 80/20 development rule that for 50% of the time an resource, you can have an 80% solution. You have to at least double your efforts (time, money, people...) in order to achieve that high level of polish. This rule holds true to many systems throughout the world. The question comes down to whether or not 80% is the best solution. Kelly Johnson of Lockeed Martin stressed this aspect in many of their development projects. Being in the auto-industry, and 80% car will get you at the bottom of every Consumer Report.
I have only been to a few off season events. I have enjoyed every one I have been to, but some more than others. I for one am very excited to give this a try.
People are going on about the cost of the events. A lot of these costs are dictated by FIRST. We must use certain suppliers and meet certain requirements. I have suggested using other A/V companies to save money but we were told no. In other words, these events will not be the same as "official FRC" qualifying events. There are a lot of ways to save money but hands are tied. I have no issue with trying something new but why not let the regional events try and lower their costs. That said this has nothing to do with registration.
If Michigan teams get their first registration for $5,000.00 then the rest of FIRST should have the same benefit of lower costs. Everyone is talking about the high cost of events yet we will be subsidizing Michigan teams for their first event. Again the down side for Michigan teams is the increase for teams that want to go to Championships. They now have to pay extra to go to the State Championship, increasing their cost to $9,000.00 from the previous $6,000.00 but there is a greater chance of getting a "ticket" to allow them to pay for their Championship experience.
If there are all of these sponsors willing to donate to these extra events, what is stopping Michigan from having 1 or 2 more "Official Qualifying" regional events? There is no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a big part in this as you would think that VEX/FTC would have made a large impact in Michigan yet were barred.
Good luck Michigan, I hope for the best. I pray that this is not the beginning of the end to a great program in such a great State as Michigan.
vince2171
04-08-2008, 14:08
Our team from Indiana, Team 2171, will miss coming to Michigan for the Regional next year. We loved competing at the West Michigan Regional and were fortunate enough to win it with Team 71 from Hammond Indiana and Team 2604 from Capac Michigan. We loved competing against the Michigan teams and really liked the University it was held at. We won a hard fought Championship Round against the Bees, the Semifinals against the More Martians who beat us in a match, and remembered the Foley Freeze as a great team.
When our team was picking an alliance at IRI, my daughter ended up choosing the Killer Bees, Foley Freeze, and More Martians as alliance partners.
My daughter is going to be a Senior this year. Michigan left such an impression on her that we are attending an open house this Saturday at Kettering University for future potential Freshman. She would like to consider this Michigan University.
She would not have been exposed to Kettering University if it had not been for our First experience in Michigan. Keeping out of state teams from competing in Michigan regionals will unfortunately limit the exposure to other potential college students.
maltz1881
04-08-2008, 14:30
Our team from Indiana, Team 2171, will miss coming to Michigan for the Regional next year. We loved competing at the West Michigan Regional and were fortunate enough to win it with Team 71 from Hammond Indiana and Team 2604 from Capac Michigan. We loved competing against the Michigan teams and really liked the University it was held at. We won a hard fought Championship Round against the Bees, the Semifinals against the More Martians who beat us in a match, and remembered the Foley Freeze as a great team.
When our team was picking an alliance at IRI, my daughter ended up choosing the Killer Bees, Foley Freeze, and More Martians as alliance partners.
My daughter is going to be a Senior this year. Michigan left such an impression on her that we are attending an open house this Saturday at Kettering University for future potential Freshman. She would like to consider this Michigan University.
She would not have been exposed to Kettering University if it had not been for our First experience in Michigan. Keeping out of state teams from competing in Michigan regionals will unfortunately limit the exposure to other potential college students.
You have a smart daughter! My son attends Kettering and the atomosphere their is incredible for the kids. One of the biggest selling points is they have a dorm room to themselves or if they like they can open the doors between rooms for a suite.
Check out the Fuel Cell Development Program, The Wind Tunnel and The Crash Test Lab. It is a small but amazing school.
Have fun!!! :D
It seems people are getting in a huff because their FIRST experience is going to get "watered down" being in a high school gymnasium instead of a hockey arena.
Greg, you're right. High school gymnasiums is where FIRST started its competition structure. We didn't start out 'bright and shiny', but look where we are now. Maybe this step in a different direction is exactly what's needed to scale FRC the right way.
As my mom's always told me, 'you can't knock it 'til you try it.'
I'm going to see how this season goes before I start forming my opinon.
waialua359
04-08-2008, 23:16
People are going on about the cost of the events. A lot of these costs are dictated by FIRST. We must use certain suppliers and meet certain requirements. I have suggested using other A/V companies to save money but we were told no. In other words, these events will not be the same as "official FRC" qualifying events. There are a lot of ways to save money but hands are tied. I have no issue with trying something new but why not let the regional events try and lower their costs. That said this has nothing to do with registration.
If Michigan teams get their first registration for $5,000.00 then the rest of FIRST should have the same benefit of lower costs. Everyone is talking about the high cost of events yet we will be subsidizing Michigan teams for their first event. Again the down side for Michigan teams is the increase for teams that want to go to Championships. They now have to pay extra to go to the State Championship, increasing their cost to $9,000.00 from the previous $6,000.00 but there is a greater chance of getting a "ticket" to allow them to pay for their Championship experience.
If there are all of these sponsors willing to donate to these extra events, what is stopping Michigan from having 1 or 2 more "Official Qualifying" regional events? There is no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a big part in this as you would think that VEX/FTC would have made a large impact in Michigan yet were barred.
Good luck Michigan, I hope for the best. I pray that this is not the beginning of the end to a great program in such a great State as Michigan.
I wonder if the cost structure will backfire now that they must pay to attend a State championship AND the world Championship? Will schools allow their students to miss so much school? Can mentors and volunteers do that much more competitions just to get to Championship?
Since teams can pay their way to championship, wouldn't the ones that wanted to go in the past, just do so anyway?
Kyle Love
04-08-2008, 23:49
Well, to me this is a sad thing to see. No more MI regional open to IN teams. This pretty much leaves WI, MN, CHI, and Cleveland relatively close, and St. Louis not too far. IMHO the GLR was the best regional this past year in the midwest and its sad to see it not be open to all again.
Just my $0.02
Jim Zondag
05-08-2008, 10:51
To comment on finances:
Many of the details of the financing of this project are not open for public discussion but I can tell you this:
A: The rest of FRC is NOT subsidising Michigan. The money we have from our sponsors and our teams will easily fund all of the Michigan Events in 2009.
B: Our events will be professional and plenty of resources are guaranteed to ensure this. The only major change is that Michigan now has the ability to do our own sourcing for venues and production support instead of having FIRST do all this.
C: Why would depending upon donations for venues and support make FRC less sustainable? Today, we must recruit major sponsors to pay for the high cost venues we are renting. This amounts to the same thing, i.e. someone needs to give us something. Now we are just asking for less cash per event. This is much MORE sustainable.
D: Most of the comments on this thread and CD in general come from generally successful teams. You represent a strong vocal minority. Many people love to travel and meet teams from other areas, etc. This is great, However, the fact remains that MOST teams only can afford a single FRC event per season, and MOST teams never leave their home region. This change will have a major impact on such teams and they are the majority. In the future, travel will still be possible, but choices will be limited. Today, FIRST already limits your choices when they schedule the events (If Denver and Phoenix are the same weekend, you can't do both!). 10 years ago, we used to get teams from the East and West coasts coming to Michigan. This almost never happens anymore. Why not? Cause it's cheaper to stay home and now there are more events closer to everyone's home. Essentially, creating more events means teams will less travel.
I will be interested in the lessons learned from the Michigan structure re: volunteers for events. I’ve helped with events in Maryland the past 5 years (FRC/FLL/Vex/the off-season) and have been fortunate to work with !hundreds! of event volunteers. The recruitment, placement, training, and recognition are a lot of work, and I am always looking for ways to make this better for all.
Travis Hoffman
05-08-2008, 11:57
To comment on finances:
Many of the details of the financing of this project are not open for public discussion but I can tell you this:
A: The rest of FRC is NOT subsidising Michigan. The money we have from our sponsors and our teams will easily fund all of the Michigan Events in 2009.
Is it true, then, that team fees from Michigan teams in 2009 will go directly toward paying for Michigan events? If true, does that diverge from what I understand is the "norm" (and correct me if I am wrong) - that FRC team event fees do not directly support regionals, that instead they are used to pay for FIRST HQ "overhead"?
And if it is true that next year, Michigan team fees will be diverted toward the funding of Michigan team events, and given that there are well over a hundred Michigan FRC teams, would that not reduce by quite a bit the amount of money flowing to FIRST from Michigan to fund FIRST's "overhead"?
If all that I have asked to this point is true, then the last question I have is, will other FRC teams be asked/required to make up the difference via increased event fees, or will FIRST absorb this loss of "overhead" income such that other FRC teams aren't affected financially?
Just the facts, man. I'm just looking for the facts. If any or all of what I ask above is not the case, I gladly ask that someone who has definitive knowledge of the reality of this new system please communicate it to those of us who are not yet enlightened.
Jim Zondag
05-08-2008, 13:07
Repeat:
"Michigan is not being funded by the rest of the FIRST communitee."
Cash from Registration Fees will still go back to New Hampshire.
Fee structure for the State Championship is just like any other regional.
All that's really been done is figure out a way to turn 2 events into 7 for the same price.
Ken Patton
05-08-2008, 17:11
Repeat: "Michigan is not being funded by the rest of the FIRST communitee."
Cash from Registration Fees will still go back to New Hampshire.
Fee structure for the State Championship is just like any other regional.
All that's really been done is figure out a way to turn 2 events into 7 for the same price.
Jim, I think what follows might be the math that people might be looking at, and why we might think that FIRST is going to get less revenue from Michigan teams. Maybe there is something I am missing, if so please feel free to correct it:
Scenario A (a "national" team):
2008: 2 Regionals plus Championship
2009: 2 districts plus State plus Championship
2008 Team Cost: 6000 + 4000 + 5000 = 15000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 + 4000 + 5000 = 14000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000 + 4000 + 5000 = 15000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 + 4000 + 5000 = 13000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
Scenario B (a "state" team):
2008: 2 Regionals
2009: 2 districts plus State
2008 Team Cost: 6000 + 4000 = 10000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 + 4000 = 9000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000 + 4000 = 10000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 + 4000 = 8000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
Scenario C (a "local" team):
2008: 1 Regional
2009: 2 districts
2008 Team Cost: 6000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 = 5000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
nikeairmancurry
05-08-2008, 17:21
Jim, I think what follows might be the math that people might be looking at, and why we might think that FIRST is going to get less revenue from Michigan teams. Maybe there is something I am missing, if so please feel free to correct it:
Scenario A (a "national" team):
2008: 2 Regionals plus Championship
2009: 2 districts plus State plus Championship
2008 Team Cost: 6000 + 4000 + 5000 = 15000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 + 4000 + 5000 = 14000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000 + 4000 + 5000 = 15000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 + 4000 + 5000 = 13000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
Scenario B (a "state" team):
2008: 2 Regionals
2009: 2 districts plus State
2008 Team Cost: 6000 + 4000 = 10000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 + 4000 = 9000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000 + 4000 = 10000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 + 4000 = 8000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
Scenario C (a "local" team):
2008: 1 Regional
2009: 2 districts
2008 Team Cost: 6000
2009 Team Cost: 4000+1000 = 5000 (team saves $1k)
2008 $ to FIRST: 6000
2009 $ to FIRST: 4000 (FIRST loses $2k)
2008 $ to Michigan: 0
2008 $ to Michigan: 1000 (Michigan gains $1k)
Ken when you did these was KOP taking into consideration for 2008 money? I only say this because it is money you pay to first.
Ken Patton
05-08-2008, 17:28
Ken when you did these was KOP taking into consideration for 2008 money? I only say this because it is money you pay to first.
Yes, this is simply taking the numbers that were quoted in the Michigan tournament proposal and calculating what some example teams would pay. It includes the payment for KOP for both '08 and '09.
Ken
NEMentor470
06-08-2008, 00:07
What do you think?
-dave
.
First, I think that the announcement should have been made much earlier, like last year, or the changes should be put off until 2010. Plans have been made. Grants have been written. We are going to have to scramble to accommodate the changes.
Second, although FIRST is knocking $1,000 off of the registration fees, this could end up costing our team a bit more than the traditional system. Our team is struggling financially. We will not be able to pay the fee to attend the State Championship which will be in our own back yard, but we will (apparently) have to travel to two other cities for district competitions.
No one on our team owns a vehicle that can carry a crated robot, so we are going to incur expense to either ship it or rent something to carry it or pay someone to drive it.
We will have to pay for a school bus to transport the team to and from events or parents will have to drive. (our school system does not give us free use of buses) The bus ride to Kettering Kick-off in 2007 cost us over $400 for one day.
We definitely can't afford to stay overnight in whatever city it is, so we will have to drive back at night and return in the morning.
Two weekends of this will more than eat up the $1000 break in the entry fee.
I think the idea of smaller localized competitions has merit, but needs more work.
The idea of a team in every school is great too, if there are resources: There are now three FRC teams in Ypsilanti. I can't speak for the other two, but my team (on the eve of it's 10th season) is in totally desperate need of mentors and money. We have not had a major corporate sponsor since 2004 (not for lack of trying) and are only surviving by our own fundraising efforts and the kindness of ITT Tech and more recently Hyundai America, and mentoring by talented parents of former members. As others have said, it would be good if FIRST could help to strengthen the teams that exist.
Akash Rastogi
06-08-2008, 00:56
Our team is struggling financially.
Although I do agree with your statements about how this system may hurt some teams, and not to be rude, but have you actually asked the other teams in your area for help is attaining sponsors? I know for a fact that The Flyers (66) are in your area and that they are one of the kindest teams around. Give them a call if you haven't already and just ask. Take a stretch and even give a call to some other Michigan teams. They will help.
Take a look at all these teams...just hit ctrl F and search "MI"
http://usfirst.org/whatsgoingon.aspx
And please, let us know if you need help. Its what we're all here for. Do not take that quality of FIRST for granted.
AdamHeard
06-08-2008, 04:18
I am really quite saddened that my entire argument about the economics and financial feasibility of getting FRC into every high school has been essentially reduced deteriorated into practically a personal "you-are-with-us-or-you-are-against-us" attack of my supposed "elitism".
I'd like to say, I entirely agree with you, and thank you for posting your thoughts so eloquently (as you certainly can state it better than I can).
As much as it'd be nice to have a FRC team in every highschool, I don't see it ever happening. According to google (I'm getting several different figures) there are 15,000-20,000 High Schools in America. I'd love to see the day where we have that many FIRST teams in the us alone, along with the district/state/world champion structure. But I just can't imagine the economy supporting that many teams.
Jim Zondag
06-08-2008, 08:30
Growth and sustainablity is all about controlling costs and increasing ROI. If you had asked someone back in 1992 if FIRST could expand into a league of 1600 teams by 2009, Most people would have said this would be impossible. However one person, Dean Kamen, would have insisted that it could be done. Through his vision, FIRST now has a foothold in about 10% of our schools. This is quite an achievement and we can do more. If you want to give up on this vision, fine, but many of us believe that it can be done. This pilot is simply a logic next step in the process.
Ken, All I can say on the numbers is "We're not going to discuss the details of the finances on ChiefDelphi." This deal was worked out over several months of negotiation between the Board of Directors of FIRST and the new Board of Directors of FIRSTinMichigan. Everyone involved is satisfied with the final deal. No one will be penalized by this initiative and no money from elsewhere will be used to fund any of the Michigan events or teams.
NEMentor470
06-08-2008, 10:27
Take a stretch and even give a call to some other Michigan teams. They will help.
We have good relationships with several other Michigan teams including The Flyers. We host many of the teams at the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival FIRST Demo every summer. Funding and the need for professional mentors are frequent topics of discussion whenever we are together, and no one from any team has ever given me the impression that they had either mentors or sponsors to spare. Team 470 has "loaned" mentors to another team to help them over a "hump" once, but not on a permanent basis. All the teams help each other as they can.
It would make sense for the Ypsilanti teams to combine transportation to wherever the district competitions are this year. That would reduce the cost to each team, and I'm certainly going to suggest it. Knowing where the district competitions will be and if we have a choice or will be assigned to certain ones would be very helpful. I hope the information is released soon.
Ken Patton
06-08-2008, 11:24
Jim-
People will do the rough math - it does not matter what the details of the arrangement are, one can calculate what the range of revenues going to the different groups and get a similar conclusion each time. Its probably not realistic to expect that FRC people wont want to do a little math.
In the end this is an experiment that, regardless of outcome, will hopefully benefit all the teams, not just the Michigan teams. So people who don't agree with where/how the money is going may be willing to tolerate it.
It would have been great to have this discussion over the last several months. However, that did not happen and we are now in the situation where a "done deal" is presented to us. However, as you can read, its not quite "done," there are many details that need to be worked out, and the clock has been ticking. This communication medium and the people who live here are going to be a powerful force in making this successful. Its time to identify the issues, and ask for their ideas, participation, and help.
Ken
P.S. I use the word "live" figuratively - I KNOW people really don't live here, they are just visiting. From home. Where they live. Anyway, we need their ideas. :)
The 18 teams advancing to the Championship reflects the 18 teams that previously advanced from Great Lakes, West Michigan and Detroit Regionals. Granted, two teams from Indiana qualified from West Michigan this year. But teams from Michigan qualified from other regionals, which will be still be possible but less likely in the future.
The only difference here is that the Great Lakes, West Michigan and Detroit regionals were all open for attendance by anyone not just Michigan teams. This is my opinon and not that of my entire team not fair at all. I realize that life is not fair however if my team enters an event we have a 1 in something like 5 chance in advancing to the championships this is far less then the opportunity for Michigan Teams. I also believe that if a Michigan Team pays $5,000 for the kit and two events, then a Non-Michigan team should pay $no more than $5,000 for the kit and one event, possibly less. I am still forming my opinion on this whole matter. However I do congratulate the Michigan teams for pulling off such a great accomplishment and truly changing the face of FIRST as we know it.
As a past but not current mentor, I find this pilot very unfair. To everyone, teams in and out of Michigan.
No one can really debate that Michigan teams will have an incredible competitive advantage anytime they play at events outside of Michigan against the other 95% of all FIRST teams. If I am reading this thread right (lots of information, forigve me if I am off here), then
1. Michigan teams will be able to play 2 or 3 different weekends/events for $4 or $5 thousand dollars less than all other teams
2. Michigan teams will have more time to work on their robots because they will not have to ship them (at least on my old team, we could not really work on the ship day as we had to get everything crated and ready for Fedex to show up at any time).
3. Michigan teams get to keep their robots between events, on an honor system
I do not get # 3 - why is this needed for the pilot? There seem to be events on back to back weekends all over the country? If Michigan teams can pilot a keep your robot \\\\\\\"honor\\\\\\\" system, then why cant all teams. Are the rest of the teams not trustworthy enough?
# 1 bothers me the most. Why do Michigan teams need to get any discount? The gives them an extra $5,000 to enter another event, to build a practice robot, to buy a second control system, and so on - how does this lead to anything even close to an even playing field if they get to play against teams at other events and the championship who do not get those advantages?
Hasn\'t it been pointed out that registration fees don\'t even go to pay for the cost of local events? If so, then 95% of the teams are paying more this year to subsidize a discount for kits and events for 5% of the teams. How is this a good or fair thing?
Last, as I said, this is unfair to all teams, including Michigan teams. They are not asking for this advantage or different playing field, but they will not get full credit for anything they accomplish outside of Michigan because everyone will wonder if they would have done as well without the huge advantages. I do not get this at all - arent there lots of off season events around the country that do this sort of pilot every year? Why not do it in other states - why should only Michigan teams get to save THOUSANDS of dollars, not have to ship robots and get a competitive advantage? I know how hard all teams, students and mentors work to get to fundraise and get to events and I do not get why FIRST would put such an unfair and unbalanced pilot into the regular season. Either test it for everyone or do it in the off season.
Mary, everything you bring up has been gone over already.
I agree on the discount. However, it is only a $1000 discount from last year, and we don't know that all teams don't get it. They pay more if they make their state event.
Michigan teams have to put their robots in a bag and have a third party seal it. The bag can then only be unsealed at an event or during a single 8-hour window the week before a particular event.
Please read the thread and the attachments/links. FIRST has thought of most things and weighed risks and benefits by now. If there is an issue that isn't addressed here, in one of the attachments, or in one of the other threads, then it should probably be taken up with FIRST or FIRSTinMichigan.
Then I must have read something wrong - I thought it said they pay $1,000 less and get to play in TWO different events, tournaments, regionals, whatever you want to call them. Based on that, if a Michigan team plays in 2 Michigan discounted events and 1 regional somewhere else in weeks 1, 2 and 4 - then they would only have to pay around $9k. All other teams from Colorado, NY, CA, and so on, if they want to play weeks 1,2 and 4 - then they have to pay $14,000. Or if you just say 2 events in Michigan vs 2 regionals for other teams, it would be $5,000 versus $10,000.
That is why I said it is a huge financial savings to play in multiple events (not one). If I read that wrong and the $1,000 discount only gets them a kit and 1 single event entry, then thank you for correcting me, it is not as big an advantage. But if I read it right, then it is totally unfair for 95% of the teams to have to pay $5,000 more than other teams for a kit and two weekends of play. That is what I was all upset about, hopefully I was wrong.
Jack Jones
08-08-2008, 02:11
I also believe that if a Michigan Team pays $5,000 for the kit and two events, then a Non-Michigan team should pay $no more than $5,000 for the kit and one event, possibly less.
# 1 bothers me the most. Why do Michigan teams need to get any discount?
I agree on the discount. However, it is only a $1000 discount from last year, and we don't know that all teams don't get it. They pay more if they make their state event.
What you may not realize is that there is no discount. The registration for Michigan teams is being subsidized by FIRST in Michigan, with the help of their participating sponsors, venues, and volunteers. No, they are not making up the difference in cash for the registration fees, but rather they are assuming ALMOST ALL of costs and ALL the responsibilities that FIRST national would normally have to run the events. FIRST can thus afford to reduce the initial registration fee without it costing the rest of the nation/world one red cent. In fact, the rest of the teams will benefit because it frees up the FIRST national personnel and resources to grow and sustain the program in their areas.
Consider that Michigan events have never been propped up; we have always turned a profit; we have never relied on NASA grants to pay out of state teams to come here and fill our events; we’ve never had NASA grants go toward enabling our rookies to play here. But you’ve probably never heard us complain about our entry fees subsidizing new regionals in places where there weren’t enough teams to fill their events, and/or were way beyond practical places for most teams to go. We’ve been willing to sacrifice until now.
But now that they’ve had their beginning, it’s time for us to have our new begining. I don’t have the numbers for ’08, but in ’07 we fielded 105 teams. Of those 105 teams, 35 attended only one event. As you may have read here, their season ended just about the time they got up to speed. That is no longer acceptable!
There are many involved with FiM, and apparently many of you, who see the new structure leading to our sending the cream of the crop from our State Championship to The Championship in Atlanta. I warn them and you not to expect to see many new faces from Michigan in Atlanta. We send the cream of the crop every year as it is, as evidenced by our disproportionate share of Champions. In ’07 we sent 43 teams, which is way more than the 18 that will qualify this year, and way more, I expect, even when you add in the ones who qualify out of state. So, once again many will get there the old fashioned way. They will buy their way in. The same goes for our State Championship. It will need to draw about ½ of our teams, with 1/3 unable to afford more than the initial registration and maybe 1/6 deciding to go to Atlanta instead. IMO, the Cumulative Point System for Ranking and Advancement you see in the PDF has little meaning, all but a few (if not all) of the ones with the cash will get in.
This competition structure is not the beginning of the end that many are making it out to be. Not much will change. The out of state teams will still have all the places they can afford to play. Our UP teams will still have a drive ahead of them. We still won’t have the luster and professionalism they apparently enjoy elsewhere. Our rich and powerful will still dominate. What really matters for many of us is that dozens of our teams will finally be getting an ample return on the investment they put into the program. We wish the same for the entire community, and expect that our pilot will show them a way to make that happen.
But it will not happen for you, unless you make it happen, which won’t be by trying to rain on our parade. Ask not what FIRST in Michigan is getting that you are not; ask instead what you can do to earn the same for yourselves.
SusanMeyer
08-08-2008, 04:25
Consider that Michigan events have never been propped up; we have always turned a profit; we have never relied on NASA grants to pay out of state teams to come here and fill our events; we’ve never had NASA grants go toward enabling our rookies to play here. But you’ve probably never heard us complain about our entry fees subsidizing new regionals in places where there weren’t enough teams to fill their events, and/or were way beyond practical places for most teams to go. We’ve been willing to sacrifice until now.
Of those 105 teams, 35 attended only one event. As you may have read here, their season ended just about the time they got up to speed. That is no longer acceptable!
Our rich and powerful will still dominate. What really matters for many of us is that dozens of our teams will finally be getting an ample return on the investment they put into the program. We wish the same for the entire community, and expect that our pilot will show them a way to make that happen.
But it will not happen for you, unless you make it happen, which won’t be by trying to rain on our parade. Ask not what FIRST in Michigan is getting that you are not; ask instead what you can do to earn the same for yourselves.
Jack, I've never posted here before, but you really pushed a button, so here goes.
Are you kidding? I didn't have a strong opinion on this either way, but now I do, it's unfair and wrong. Let me get this straight, according to you:
You have a problem with areas helped sponsorship and team grants from NASA, but not areas getting help from GM, Delphi and Board Members? Regions with help from NASA, BAE, Raytheon and others have it made, they don't deserve discounts or support? But somehow your state with years of support from big sponsors has it tougher and deserves special attention?
According to you Michigan teams deserve to finally get ample return for the high prices they pay in FIRST, but before the rest of the the teams around the country get a better return? Michigan teams already have the cream of the crop and dominate in FIRST, as you say, but at the same time you say Michigan teams need a better return on their $ than all other teams?
You say don't rain on your parade? What gives you and Michigan teams the right to have a parade that the rest of the community paying MORE to participate doesn't get to have? Seems it's all the teams OUTSIDE of Michigan that deserve a better return on their investment. You think 1/3 of your teams only getting to play once is unacceptable? How do you think that's any different for hundreds of teams around the country in other states? Why is it unacceptable for your teams but not everyone else?
My daughter does FLL here in St.Louis and my nephew is on an FRC team. The reason I think so highly of FIRST is because of our local volunteers and supporters, and all they do. They show us all that it's truly a community. But you say we shouldn't worry about one state getting a better deal than everyone else, that we should just do what you do, splinter off and only worry about our own? I hope most states don't feel the message of FIRST is to worry about themselves first and the good of community later. I hope most states want to find a solution for everyone at the same time instead of a "better return", "more plays" and an advantage for one state first.
I think FIRST is better than that, and I think this pilot is exactly what you have exposed it to be: a quest for one group to get a better return on their investment than all other areas, because according to you it's about time and you deserve it - as you clearly state. If this is to help teams who need a better return, then do this pilot in Alaska or Montana or somewhere that didn't have 3 events already.
I find your post to be hypocritical, arrogant and ignorant about what all teams around the country are facing (yours are no different and don't have it any tougher). Sorry to disagree with you so much, but I don't think you have a healthy respect for what all teams and regions in the country experience, all the hard work they dedicate and the better return on investment that they ALL deserve. Special treatment, huge discounts or experiments like this should be for all teams or no teams, other wise they shouldn't be on the same playing field.
I have been talking off line with some of the other posters here from Michigan. I will tell those reading that there has been a lot of background work done by Michigan teams. I applaud their efforts and wish them well at this venture BUT I would like to see one change made in the arrangements. I would like to see a provision in place that states that any Michigan team that competes at the State Championship be not eligible to qualify at any out of state regional. The reasoning behind this is that in previous years all teams could compete and qualify at any regional that they paid to attend. Now that there are 3 regionals that other teams are excluded from because of the elite nature of the Michigan trial, that limits the places teams can compete. As there are so many spots available at the Michigan Championship (same as 3 previous regionals last year) BUT no other teams are eligible to earn, I believe that to make things fair then the Michigan teams should not be able to qualify at any of the other regionals. This would only be fair if the Michigan team went to the Michigan Championship. If they skipped that event then they would be treated the same as any other team at any other event.
GaryVoshol
08-08-2008, 08:30
People seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a pilot. Of course you don't launch it everywhere at once. You have to see if it will work.
Mary mentioned that her child is in FLL. Perhaps you don't know that FLL got its start as a pilot program, in Michigan, 11 years ago. And that the FLL World Festival started as a pilot program the last year the championships were held at Disney. Look where it has evolved now.
And yes, the point of it is to get more competitions for less or the same money.
Maybe this will work, maybe it won't. But we won't know unless we try, will we?
[QUOTE=Jack Jones;760790]What you may not realize is that there is no discount. The registration for Michigan teams is being subsidized by FIRST in Michigan, with the help of their participating sponsors, venues, and volunteers.QUOTE]
Thank you for answering my question, I somewhat expected that answer. With so many teams in one area, people are bound to have an impact on the area to make this happen for them. I congratulate FIRST Michigan on this accomplishment. However I still do not believe that it is right for a team to have a 1 in 18 chance to advance to the World Champinoships at 1 event, when all other teams only have a 1 in roughly 5 chance to advance at each event they go to.
However I still do not believe that it is right for a team to have a 1 in 18 chance to advance to the World Champinoships at 1 event, when all other teams only have a 1 in roughly 5 chance to advance at each event they go to.
Let me see if I can help with the 1:whatever numbers. At a traditional regional there are 6 slots that qualify for the Championship (3 winners, 1 Chairmans, 1 Engineering Inspriation?, and the Rookie Allstar). This means that at a 30 team regional you have a 1:5 (although rookies are the only ones able to get the Rookie slot). At a 60 team regional you have a 1:10. Even if you go 2 60 team regionals, your chances would be 1:10 + 1:10 = 1:5. In Michigan There will be 18 slots for 105-120 teams, or slightly less than 1:5. These slots are for the 6 slots x the 3 previous regionals. In order to qualify for the Championship in MI, you either need to go through the State championship (paying essentially the same price as 2 traditional events), or do your district and then go pay and win at an out-of state event.
For 2009, I would be willing to bet that 18 teams from Michigan will earn a slot, and another 20 or so will buy open slots for the Championship. Most of the Michigan teams that go to the Championship already do 2-3 events. The extra time on field is not a big benefit them (but it is a benefit). The extra time on field is a big benefit to the teams that usually only do 1 regional, then pack up and maybe get to do an off-season, maybe they decide the $6k, 6 weeks of tortue for 20 minutes of competition isn't worth it. In this system they should at a minimum have an opportunity for 60minutes of competition.
As Gary said: remember folks it is only a PILOT. Regardless of the outcome it will be an excellent learning experience to help figure out whether certain theoretical "improvements" are are worth making a permanent change.
If it goes bad only a small subset of FIRST has a bad experience, and everyone goes back to the regular system.
If it goes good, only a small subset gets and advantage for one year, but everyone will have learned important lessons for the future, and may see benefits if the overall structure changes for the positive.
If it is somewhere in between, everyone will have learned important lessons for the future.
Why only 1 state: In any Pilot you need a big enough effort to make sure that you have a realistic test model, but you need a small enough effort not to accidentally take down the whole thing.
I guess my point did not come out correctly let me try again. The three regionals that were previously in Michigan that had 15 combined awards were open to all teams in attendance. Now those 15 awards are only for MI teams.
"your chances would be 1:10 + 1:10 = 1:5. In Michigan There will be 18 slots for 105-120 teams, or slightly less than 1:5."
This statement is only true if MI teams stay in MI and do not compete in other regional events. Which I am sure will not be the case.
By the way I have no problem with MI teams GO B.O.B.
I guess my point did not come out correctly let me try again. The three regionals that were previously in Michigan that had 15 combined awards were open to all teams in attendance. Now those 15 awards are only for MI teams.
"your chances would be 1:10 + 1:10 = 1:5. In Michigan There will be 18 slots for 105-120 teams, or slightly less than 1:5."
This statement is only true if MI teams stay in MI and do not compete in other regional events. Which I am sure will not be the case.
By the way I have no problem with MI teams GO B.O.B.
I appreciate this concern. This would be in line with the point that Steve W was making.
If a team wants to qualify in state they will need to do well at 1 or both districts and then do well at State. With 3 weekends taken up, I have a hard time believing that many teams that would not qualify through those means would then also head out of State to take one of those slots. (not impossible, but not probable in my opinion).
There are 2 more probable scenarios:
#1 likely scenario would be an outskirts MI team doing 1 district and the paying to do a second regional. Since the district alone won't qualify them for the Championship, then their odds would be back to the 1:5-1:10 of attending a regional (30 - 60 teams).
#2 likely scenario would be a team does the 2 districts, qualifies for State, does the State Championship, but does not qualify for the Championship. This team has the money for another event and decides to buy one of the open Championship slots. I know that if I had the money to do 3-4 events I would buy a Championship slot rather than doing an additional regional.
I can't speak for all teams, but those seem to be the logical choices. As long as there are plenty of available slots to "purchase" for the Championship, I don't think teams will try for 5 events in a single season. Last season there were several teams that did 3 events (2 reg. 1 champ), and few that did 4 (3 reg. 1 champ.). I don't think I have ever heard of a team doing 5 (4 reg. and 1 champ.). While technically not impossible, it would be very tough.
If I were a MI team and we have our teams usual budget of 10k for two entry fees, I would register for two district events and The Championship and not go to the state championship.
In fact I wish I had that option. Two events and The Championship for 10k would be a lot more bang for my buck than what I get for 10k as a non-Michigan team.
Paul Copioli
08-08-2008, 18:06
I have read most of this thread, but skimmed a lot too. I have had many conversations with some of you on this subject. I told myself I wasn't going to post, but I just can't help it.
I see a lot of you are complaining that it is not fair. Well, I have a proposal that may satisfy you. If it doesn't satisfy you, then it will at least shut you up. Please do not get me wrong, those of you giving constructive criticism are doing what most people who care about FIRST do, but the rest of you simply complaining that it is not fair? C'mon, let the thing play out one year and see if it goes somewhere.
Anyway, here is my proposal and I will propose it in more detail to the powers that be:
1. Any non-Michigan team that wants to participate in this pilot can do so if they declare that they are a Michigan team for 2009.
2. What this means is that you must follow all of the same rules as Michigan teams.
3. During initial registration you must register at a Michigan district event, just like other Michigan teams. You must follow all the other rules as laid out in the Michigan Pilot Plan.
There it is. Now, how many of you would actually ask to participate if it was open to you?
Paul
There it is. Now, how many of you would actually ask to participate if it was open to you?
Paul
For our school, yes, we would participate. We tried to talk our school into starting a FRC team this year and they were close to letting us start a team, but the vice principal told us no because 6-10,000 dollars was too expensive to justify for a single event on one weekend - he told us to look into cheaper competitions where we could play more. If we could have two events to play in for half the price, then I think they would let us play. So yes, we'd love to have the option the Michigan schools have this year and would take your offer. Seems like only Michigan schools get to save all the money this year, which doesn't do a lot of my friends any good who are seniors and wanted to play this year.
I don't think people are whining who think this seems unfair. I'm sure many Michigan teams would be saying this is unfair if the schools in Florida or California were getting such a discount and advantage. If it helped schools in Florida even it was unfair to all others, I'm sure I'd be supporting it and saying its a great idea or "just give it a try, it's a just a pilot". Guess it all depends on what state you go to school in.
There it is. Now, how many of you would actually ask to participate if it was open to you?
Well while I do not speak for my entire team, and would have to talk it over with them. I personally would take you up on the offer if it was actually worked out and given to us. Even the traveling to MI from SC and back x2 maybe x3 could save us money and be worth while I would have to crunch some numbers to be sure.
There it is. Now, how many of you would actually ask to participate if it was open to you?
Paul
Paul,
I think your question is somewhat unreasonable, and will result in a flawed outcome. I know that IF we (148) wanted to participate in this program it would result in another layer of costs for us. Whereas many teams local to MI can participate without any significant expense.
In my mind, a better pair of questions are:
1. Do you believe participation in this program gives a team an advantage (competitive, financial or otherwise) over teams who play using the traditional cost/event structure?
2. If this program were piloted in your state, would you participate?
Answering these two questions helps put the "fairness" of the issue in perspective (for me). I won't editorialize, everyone can form their own opinions.
A new set of questions to further frame the discussion (in my mind):
3. If this program were rolled out nation-wide in 2010, would it provide ALL teams an advantage (financial, or otherwise)?
4. Do I care that MI teams could potentially receive an advantage this year, if it helps proof a model which would provide an advantage to ALL teams in 2010?
Hmm... yep, that made me think some more.
Then again... my big questions are still:
5. Will this new model work at all (even in MI)?
6. Can this model be applied beyond the (great) state of Michigan successfully?
I imagine the answer to #5 will be answered emphatically "yes" this season. I have the utmost faith in the incredible teams and volunteers from the Michigan area. As many of you know, I have a lot of friends up there; you big dogs will definitely pull this off, and make it look good.
However, that still doesn't really make me feel any good about #6. I don't think proving that this model works in Michigan will really help us apply it down here in Texas.
I am not an "event" person by any means; my experience is primarily limited to team support. However, I've been around the block enough times to know that Michigan may be the "perfect storm" which allows this cool new model to function successfully. I question how making this work under ideal conditions is going to help us change the face of the program under NON-ideal conditions. I wonder how the powers that be will implement this elsewhere.
Some food for thought.
-John
fuzzy1718
10-08-2008, 15:11
One thing that I'm still not quite understanding is how so many people think this is an advantage???? I agree the point system is a good idea and allows for "fair" competetion (useing fair very loosely). Look at it from another perspective. A team that only goes to michigan events has to win twice to go to Atlanta, or come rather close to it. A team has to spend more money to get there; $14,000 compared to the regular fees, and although the new system benefits growth and stability, as far as leveling the playing field... we now play in the alps instead of the forest of Michigan. I agree this is a brilliant idea, but there seems to be a few ideas that were not taken into account when the structure was made. Now who will be the first to try and tell me off.....any takers.
MI Team
Entrance Fee and two events $5,000
Regional Event $4,000
State Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Shipping ~$500
Total $18,500
Non-MI Team
Entrance Fee and one event $6,000
Regional Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Shipping ~$1,000
Total $20,000
This does not include travel for either team. If your goal is to compete with your robot as many times as possible for as little money as possible, then MI teams accomplished that. An MI team will have one extra comp under thier belt by the time they reach the WCs. Obviously this is just one scenario that could be played out. I see it as an advantage, however as many have said before it may be a necessary route to take for the advancement of FIRST in our great nation.
fuzzy1718
10-08-2008, 22:14
I understand that Michigan teams get to play more for less money, I was just saying that a direct shot to atlanta is more money, meaning one regular regional and Championships. I am all for the new system, I'm simply point out its flaw to quiet down the "Michigan teams have an advantage" side of the argument.
MI teams straight to Atlanta:
KOP + 2 Districts $5,000
State Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $14,000
Non-MI teams straight to Atlanta:
KOP + Regional $6,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $11,000
All I was saying is it is just the way you look at it. What is an advantage to some is a disadvantage to others.
You could also look at it in a way that a few of the power houses most likely are.
KOP + 2 Districts $5,000
State Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $18,000
Compared to last year:
KOP + Regional $6,000
Regional Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $19,000
It is just the way you look at it... the grass is always greener when it isn't yours.
Matter of fact, fuzzy, a MI team can sign up for Atlanta during open registration and doesn't have to attend the state championship.
The numbers for that are:
KOP+2 events: $5,000
Atlanta: $5,000
Total: $10,000
I think what people are annoyed about, mainly, is the decreased registration fee (which appears to be only for MI teams) and then MI teams get 2 events. If we all get decreased registration (even if it only includes one event), there will be a lot fewer people annoyed.
It is just the way you look at it... the grass is always greener when it isn't yours.
The grass is plenty green on this side:D
-I am meerly stating a possible advantage for MI teams if a teams goal is to be better prepared for the World Championships. One definite advantage that an MI team has that I can see at the moment unless something changes is the shipping aspect. On the last build day our team and many others are putting the robot in the crate ready or not because FEDex is going to show up between 11:00 and 5:00. Mi teams will be able to work later untill a FIRST MI rep shows up to watch them put it in a bag and seal it.
Disclaimer: I realize that this is a pilot and things can change.
The grass is plenty green on this side:D
-I am meerly stating a possible advantage for MI teams if a teams goal is to be better prepared for the World Championships. One definite advantage that an MI team has that I can see at the moment unless something changes is the shipping aspect. On the last build day our team and many others are putting the robot in the crate ready or not because FEDex is going to show up between 11:00 and 5:00. Mi teams will be able to work later untill a FIRST MI rep shows up to watch them put it in a bag and seal it.
Disclaimer: I realize that this is a pilot and things can change.
I think the point of trying something new is to make it "better" overall. If it was perfectly equitable in all aspects, then why go through the work and risk/chaos of making a change. Overall the hope is that this will be a net positive that it will have some sort of national (and/or international) scalability.
The FEDex advantage for MI teams is intentional in that they are trying something new. Ever since shipping started, there were inherent in-equalities and additional hassles towards shipping. (For instance California is 3 hours behind EST and therefore has 3 more hours from the launch of the game than any EST team). My estimates have over 100 tons of excess freight going around the country. My team is persnoally responsible for 250 pounds of crate weight shipped over 1000 miles during a season.
Recognizing these "advantages" is a good thing as these are the positive aspects that will hopefully outweigh the negatives of the system they are piloting.
Recognizing the "disadvantages" is a good thing as these are either areas for improvement or items that will have to be thrown into the equation of whether or not this system is a net positive worth the efforts associated with change.
One really big disadvantage for MI teams that I haven't seen in this thread is a lot of key mentors applying a ton of personal time trying to figure out a better system for FIRST instead of trying to figure out how to build a better Chassis, manipulator, Chairman's award submission....
So will MI teams have an net advantage in 2009? I certainly hope so. Will these advantages be applicable to others in th future? That's the goal. FIRST is a really really good thing. Some feel that it can be great. Calculated experimentation with improvements is one route to greatness. What can everyone do? Stop worrying about the "fairness" of 2009 and continue working on making FIRST the best it can be. For those of you outside of MI, but near a district event check it out and provide constructive criticism or better yet help out. If you are reasonably close, come check out the State Championship. It should have the quality of play that we all can be proud of.
EDIT/Apology: It was brought to my attention that my comments may be veiwed differently than I intended. I will leave the body as is as an example. My intentions were to keep a constructive (positive and negative) dialogue coninuing as opposed to destructive comments. After re-reading Dave's original post and some help from others I repect, I realize that negative comments are of value because they are what some may think about this situation (which is what this thread is about).
GaryVoshol
11-08-2008, 09:01
Is there an advantage to this competition structure? One hopes so, else why would we be trying something that is worse than what is already in place? But even so, it will have positive and negative impacts for individual teams. The question the pilot will attempt to answer is whether the positives outweigh the negatives for FIRST in Michigan, and then whether that can be scaled up to FIRST overall and remain positive.
One thing I would note in the +/- figures given above, is that you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Or maybe valencias to navels. There is not a direct comparison of costs. If your only concern is getting to Atlanta in the least expensive manner, then Michigan teams come out ahead by $1000 (although they may have to pay shipping to get the robot to Atlanta, I forget how that works). MI teams pay $5000 entry for two district competitions plus pre-pay $5000 for the Championship; other teams pay $6000 entry for one regional competition and pre-pay $5000 for the Championship. If you want to get to Atlanta by the cheapest method of qualifying, the MI teams would have to pay the additional $4000 for the State Championship and gamble on qualifying, while the non-MI team would have to gamble on qualifying from their sole competition.
The real difference is what happens to teams along the way to Atlanta, and especially what happens to teams that don't advance anywhere. Teams that would have spent $6000 to enter one regional now pay $1000 less to get two districts.
Let me begin by saying I believe this pilot program is a necessary step for FIRST and I also believe MI is a great proving ground for it. I am just voicing some concerns so that when it possibly does go national I won't have any complaints. It is sort of like not voting and then complaining about who is in office. With that said I would like to point out one more difference that I see. It is both advantageous and a disadvantage to both sides I will let you all form your own opinions on the matter.
Practice Day:
•Michigan teams get 8 hours of their at home shop work possibly full or half practice field to themselves or nothing at all (team dependent).
•Non-Michigan teams get 8 hours of a shared shop if regional provides and a shared field and possibly a shared practice field if regional provides.
As I have stated there are advantages in this structure for MI teams and disadvantages for them as well.
Jim Zondag
11-08-2008, 10:13
To quote Dean Kamen:
"Over the years FIRST has aggressively taken steps to invent new programs and reinvent existing programs to find new ways to take our message to ever more participants. The district event pilot in Michigan is an important opportunity to help reinvent FRC, our flagship program. It holds the promise of making FRC more accessible, thereby moving us closer to the day when every high school student has an opportunity to participate. Team members should be able to play more and play closer to home, all at a lower cost."
Practice Day:
•Michigan teams get 8 hours of their at home shop work possibly full or half practice field to themselves or nothing at all (team dependent).
•Non-Michigan teams get 8 hours of a shared shop if regional provides and a shared field and possibly a shared practice field if regional provides.
As I have stated there are advantages in this structure for MI teams and disadvantages for them as well.Disadvantages there... Non-MI teams get MORE than 8 hours of shared shop/field/venue time. Practice day starts before 9:00 AM and ends at 8:00 PM.
The advantage could go either way in that case.
I forgot practice day was that long it is actually 11.5 hours our team just never had to use it.(knocks on wood) Thanks for the correction. I know that if our team had the choice to skip practice day and stay at home my vote would be we would.
Pros: Everyone on team can work on robot or parts and programming. Often when we travel not all team members come along. We could be more productive because of this.
Cons: We can not practice with or against other teams before qualifications on a full size field. We don't have a full size field ourselves so we will be missing out on that as well.
To each his own I guess. If your team had a full size or even a half size field or knew a team that could share then staying home on practice day may be benificial to you.
Disadvantages there... Non-MI teams get MORE than 8 hours of shared shop/field/venue time. Practice day starts before 9:00 AM and ends at 8:00 PM.
The advantage could go either way in that case.
It's an advantage and a disadvantage.
It's going to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
254 would gladly take 8 hours at home vs 12 at the event. We are fortunate enough to have access to mills, lathes, a CNC, etc. We could do WAY more at home than at the event.
The inverse is true of the teams that need the practice day the most-they don't have a huge shop to work at. They're lucky to even get a broom closet at their school. At the event they would have 12 hours to work with other teams who can help them, as well as the regional's machine shop.
At home they'll have nothing, plus nobody to help prep them for inspection throughout the day. That's what concerns me.
People seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a pilot. Of course you don't launch it everywhere at once. You have to see if it will work.
OK, nobody should be fooling themselves here. This is a "pilot" program in the same way that the first flight of the Airbus 300 was a "pilot" test flight. The real, full deployment is going to happen after this "pilot" program and there is not a lot that will be allowed to stand in its way. This model is going to be continued, whether this first year works or not. It is going to be spread across the rest of the country, whether the other states want it or not.
Why do I say this? One simple reason: no one is actually interested in the "success" or "failure" of the pilot program. It appears that it has been pre-ordained that the pilot program will be a "success."
If this were a legitimate pilot program, a well thought out set of goals to be achieved by the pilot program would exist, and be readily apparent. The criteria for a successful experience would be carefully spelled out in a set of thoughtful, objective, and complete, test conditions that would determine whether those goals were achieved or not. Those test conditions would be well-rooted in a legitimate business model that looked at the appropriate areas of impact on the teams, the region, the state, and the national organization. The FIRST board of directors would know those criteria, and approve them. And the criteria would NOT be written by the people charged with executing the pilot, but by objective third parties who have no stake in the outcome.
However, those success criteria do not exist. And they don't exist because no one wants them to. Because if there is no standard against which you determine success, then you can never fail. Instead, history will be re-written retroactively when the pilot program is over, with the success criteria suitably defined at that time to correspond to the actual events.
Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.
To quote Dean Kamen:
"Over the years FIRST has aggressively taken steps to invent new programs and reinvent existing programs to find new ways to take our message to ever more participants. The district event pilot in Michigan is an important opportunity to help reinvent FRC, our flagship program. It holds the promise of making FRC more accessible, thereby moving us closer to the day when every high school student has an opportunity to participate. Team members should be able to play more and play closer to home, all at a lower cost."
Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.
-dave
.
Rich Kressly
11-08-2008, 17:00
There's a good point Dave makes about this being called a "pilot". While the new structure has possible merits and I'm thrilled for the MI teams that will get to play an additional event and most likely more matches in each for a little less money, I'm not so sure what "success" will be measured against either.
I'm also concerned that no matter how successful in MI this might be that the infrastructure required to make this system scalable might not exist at all. How many volunteers will this require over a local "season"? How many fields, FTAs, robot storage facilities? How will this work in regions where the nearest "rival school" is already 3 hours away? Will this solution really change much for them? MI may be able to clear these hurdles, but look at the FRC strength that already exists there.
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, I think this is an idea born in MI that may work for MI. Even with events and a slightly less expensive entry, I still don't know how many folks nationwide and globally are able to jump right into starting an FRC team and build a big robot. As an advocate for intermediate-sized programs, to me this plan is missing an integral piece that could get teams and communities interested in a way that initially costs far less in human capital and expertise.
Unless we can see a real "plan" with proposed goals and desired outcomes, I'm sure we'll be having much the same conversation after these events with little more than anecdotal information about who liked what and what some people thought worked, etc...
...just my little log for the fire
namaste
Richard Wallace
11-08-2008, 17:12
... this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.
-dave
.You are right.
I applaud what FIRST in Michigan is attempting. As John said earlier (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760928&postcount=203), there are great people in Michigan who will move heaven and earth to make this approach work -- in Michigan.
Whether it can work elsewhere is a proper subject for discussion by everyone who cares enough to commit time and treasure to the mission of FIRST. I hope the discussion will stay active, and gracious.
Pat Major
11-08-2008, 17:54
Top ten reasons FIRST in Michigan system with events being held at high schools is an improvement over the current FIRST model:
1) Expose more students to FIRST.
2) Expose more teachers to FIRST.
3) Allow your sponsors to “stop by a competition after work”.
4) Allow student’s parents to more easily attend an event.
5) Reduce the cost of participating in FIRST.
6) Increase teams ROI.
7) Reduce the time mentors have to be away from work.
8) Reduce the time students have to miss school.
9) Reduce expensive time consuming travel.
10) Money that was paid to event planners can now be used to sponsor more teams.
Jason Morrella
11-08-2008, 18:34
Top ten reasons FIRST in Michigan system with events being held at high schools is an improvement over the current FIRST model:
1) Expose more students to FIRST.
2) Expose more teachers to FIRST.
3) Allow your sponsors to “stop by a competition after work”.
4) Allow student’s parents to more easily attend an event.
5) Reduce the cost of participating in FIRST.
6) Increase teams ROI.
7) Reduce the time mentors have to be away from work.
8) Reduce the time students have to miss school.
9) Reduce expensive time consuming travel.
10) Money that was paid to event planners can now be used to sponsor more teams.
And that list (which is even missing some big pros/advantages) is precisely why so many regions and teams will be at a disadvantage and consider this upcoming season to have two separate values and sets of rules.
I don't post much anymore, but I don't have a high pain tolerance and I want to stop biting my lip.
As someone said earlier, the entire point of this "pilot" is to provide a better value and return for the cost. And it does that, there is no doubt:
- no one can debate that two events for $5,000 is a substantially better value than one event for $6,000 or two events for $10,000
- no can debate that having 6 or 7 events in a state makes it easier and cheaper for more schools to participate in
- no one can debate that saving $5,000 gives teams a huge advantage in either time/energy/stress saved in fundraising or in the ability to build a practice robot, buy a new control system or attend an extra regional
- no one can debate having your robot in your hands during the fix it window, being able to drive it, being able to add parts to it and so on is much more advantageous than just working on parts and bringing them to an event
IRI and many other great off season events have already proven teams will have a great time and great experience at lower cost events, done in 1 or 2 days, that they get to bring their robots to. There's no question that it's a better deal and a better value, and there certainly isn't any "pilot" needed to prove it. It's all been proven already - which leads to the questions/concerns many have as to why this pilot is needed if it gives some teams these benefits but not others.
The problem is, this pilot effectively sets up two different competitions this year. One set of rules and a substantially better value for teams from one state, and a different set of rules and a lesser value for teams from the rest of the country/world. This has nothing to do with "which teams" or "which state" is getting the advantage - this same issue would exist no matter where it was happening. If this was happening in Florida, California or New York - the issues would be no different, so I don't have any issue with Michigan teams wanting to save money or get a better return for their efforts. The price/value needs to get better for all teams in all areas - and anyone who has participated on an FRC team knows that.
The issue is that for the first time ever, there will be one set of teams getting a substantial discount over others, that's the part that makes little sense (especially since registration fees don't go towards paying for the cost of any FIRST regional events anyway). If this pilot was truly designed to give teams more plays at a better value, then it seems it should be done in states that don't have multiple regionals already (Hawaii, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc...), those are the states it could truly make the biggest impact and help the most teams who can't compete twice in the existing system IMHO.
One of the great things about FIRST is that is has always been one great community - my fear and concern for this pilot is that this upcoming season will now have a fractured community: FIRST in Michigan at one price/value, and FIRST everywhere else at a different price/value. Any pilot that can in any way potentially fracture the great community everyone has built in FIRST needs to be handled very carefully and in a way that is fair to all.
My 3 cents.
Hope everyone's having a great summer!
Rich Kressly
11-08-2008, 20:49
Alright, when I posted earlier I hadn't read Beth's pdf about the shipping situation. Is this verified as true? Even without the pilot structure in my state is there any good reason for my team to have to ship its robot? It seems to me we could save a whole lot of money (not to mention the colossal headaches) for teams and FedEx, if the free FedEx shipping was just ued in situations where teams couldn't drive the bot to a regional. Santa, what I want for Xmas is the same cost (money and human) savings as MI teams, even if the pilot structure doesn't exist in my state. :)
One criteria that our team uses when deciding to compete out of state is whether an event is being held at a university. We do this because we like the opportunity to show our students out of state options. Our team has traveled to Purdue twice for this reason and to the Florida regional as well. On other teams we have traveled to VCU. Traveling long distances is justified to the parents by pointing this out to them. My question is do other teams do this and how do you think it will affect MI?
By the way MI has always been on our list.
Jim Zondag
12-08-2008, 17:10
If this pilot was truly designed to give teams more plays at a better value, then it seems it should be done in states that don't have multiple regionals already (Hawaii, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc
Jason,
I can't speak for any other states. I agree this may provide more benefit elsewhere. This proposal came from the from the regional coordinators here in Michigan to FIRST in New Hampshire. No one here made any attempt to represent any region outside of Michigan. I have no idea if any other regiona has every tried to implement any kind of similar initiative. I think FIRST was wise in terms of how to proceed with this idea and properly manage risk. Some think this will be an improvement, others disagree. The only way to know is to test it. FIRST agreed to implement this in this region and partially isolate it from the rest of the league in order to properly test the concept.
Dave,
I think it is too soon to assume that this will be universally rolled out everywhere in the future. I'm not sure anyone other than the FIRST board of directors can comment on that. Many of the goals of this change are financially motivated and a fairly detailed proposal was approved by the FIRST board of directors. A "successful" pilot event based on the new event model was conducted last March at Kettering U. How can we claim it was a success?... A: We surveyed all the teams who attended and had universally positive responses, B: Event was conducted with all costs meeting targets far below a traditional regional, C: Delegates from the FIRST board of directors were in attendance and were very satisfied with the event quality.
So, if we please the participants, please the management, and can do it for under the projected budget, is it a success? I'm not sure what other measures to use. On the flip side, how exactly can anyone claim that the current system is entirely "successful". ROI is low, team attrition rates are high, and many Regional events lose money every year with no end in sight. Is this "successful?"
Who will decide if this pilot is a success in 2009? Internally, the FIRSTinMichigan project has financial goals, expectations on how the events will be conducted and how many teams we can help to fund. These will be our internal measures of success. On the outside, how will FIRST NH determine if it is a success? I'm really not sure. I agree with you that there must be some standards by which FIRST will measure our "success" in 2009, but I do not know how or if this will be done.
artdutra04
12-08-2008, 18:25
Who will decide if this pilot is a success in 2009? Internally, the FIRSTinMichigan project has financial goals, expectations on how the events will be conducted and how many teams we can help to fund. These will be our internal measures of success. On the outside, how will FIRST NH determine if it is a success? I'm really not sure. I agree with you that there must be some standards by which FIRST will measure our "success" in 2009, but I do not know how or if this will be done.That's the problem.
"Internal" goals are subject to change without anyone in the community ever knowing. Internal goals can be moved lower after everything is said and done, and success can be [wrongfully] claimed. This is more or less exactly what Winston Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Smith) did for a living.
This is a non-profit organization were are all a part of. This is not a business that has to protect its property, products, and ideas. There should be no secrets or private internal goals. What is there to hide? It should all be publicly available with complete transparency about why they are doing everything, for exactly what reasons, and exactly what they want to accomplish.
As such, this "pilot" in Michigan should have a very rigid set of goals released to the public well before the season kicks off about what they attempt to accomplish. And these goals cannot just be unquantifiable goals, like asking everyone if they had a happy time. They need to be hard numbers.
For example, this would be the start of what quantifiable goals for this program can be:
Currently, A% of schools in Michigan have strong STEM-related curriculum or FIRST teams. And due to B, C, and D reasons, we believe the current growth strategy will not work for expanding this presence. As such, we are currently looking at this district-level pilot program for meeting the above goals.
The new pilot program in Michigan is being pursued to increase the number of teams in the state by a rate 30% higher than the average growth in Michigan over the past ten years, as well as increase the team retention rate by an average of 50%. The average growth in the number of teams in Michigan over the past ten years has been an average of E new teams per year, and the average retention rate has been F%.
In order to successfully execute this plan, we currently will need to grow the infrastructure of the existing FRC program in G, H, and I areas. We currently have J number of volunteers in the state; five years ago we have K, and ten years ago we had L. Though measures M and N, we are looking to increase the number of volunteers available for these competitions, and to successfully train them to fulfill these positions as well as current volunteers.
Also needed to grow this new program are large sources of new capital to fund these improvements. Over the past ten years, the average growth of capital to fund teams and competitions and the state has been O%. In order to successfully carry out this new district model, we will need to increase that by P%. This will require an aggressive campaign to bring in funds through measures Q, R, and S.
In the case that these conditions cannot be accomplished by T date, our fallback plan details are U, V and W. In light of such happening, any new models of competition listed above will be put on hold until the conditions listed above can be satisfied.
As such, I also want an objective assessment of this new district-level competition as opposed to other avenues of growing the message of FIRST, and why they feel (and can prove) this new program is better, especially in regards to quantifiable goals, such as the cost per person to participate, average time necessary to have a competitive robot, etc.
FIRST is inspiring us to careers in STEM. So now it's time to use these skills to make decisions based on numbers and not on bellyfeel.
Jason Morrella
13-08-2008, 00:13
Jason, The only way to know is to test it. FIRST agreed to implement this in this region and partially isolate it from the rest of the league in order to properly test the concept.
Hi Jim,
I understand what you're saying, and I applaud the people in Michigan trying to make this happen. The cost of FRC is WAY too high, there is no doubt about that. It should be cheaper to run an event and registration fees should certainly be cheaper (or at least some of the apx $200,000 in registration fees teams pay for each local event should actually go to paying the costs of that local event).
One point I was trying to make however is that "isolating" this as a "pilot" has already been done - in multiple cities by multiple groups for a number of years and it works. We all know the answers to the test: A lower cost structure for events is better for local volunteers/committees/sponsors, a lower entry fee is better for teams, getting to play twice for less than the cost of playing once is better for teams, getting to keep your robot and being able to make repairs & practice driving with it before events is better for teams, having more events in a region saves teams travel time/money and allows them to play more. This pilot isn't going to help prove any of those things - they are already proven. If the test is going to be given, it sounds like most everyone would like the opportunity to try it.
I can't speak for any other states. I agree this may provide more benefit elsewhere. This proposal came from the from the regional coordinators here in Michigan to FIRST in New Hampshire. No one here made any attempt to represent any region outside of Michigan. I have no idea if any other regiona has every tried to implement any kind of similar initiative.
Michigan is certainly not the first, and it won't be the last, to propose models to lower costs for events and teams (most are just never made public). I've worked with regional committees in California, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii and other states who have wanted to cut regional costs, lower fees for teams and try different models in their area for many years - but they were always told those tests should be in the off season and that they wouldn't be allowed to deviate in a major way from the model all events had during the official season, that the FRC season had to have the same guidelines and requirements for all events and teams to be fair. Many off season event organizers, like IRI, have pitched their models to FIRST and had FIRST people come observe them - and they have proven the results of those "pilots".
But these groups were never told there had been a shift and that they could run regionals in their states differently during the upcoming official season. I've heard from a number of committee members from different areas that they were stunned to see FIRST allow such a different model in one state without ever telling them they could offer those opportunities to the teams in their area. Trust me, if that was known, many states would be happy to do such a model this year.
Again, let me repeat, I applaud the efforts of the volunteers in Michigan to get a better return on the investment for schools and teams. It's the right thing to strive and work for. FRC will only be accessible to the majority of schools and students if the cost is lower. I just wish the same savings and opportunities were being offered to all teams - or at least to all teams with only one event in their state or region.
There's no doubt the FRC cost structure will change in the coming years, I (cough) agree (cough) with Dave - it will happen - with or without what is being done in Michigan this year. As IRI, Kettering and many others have already proven - a reduced event and team cost model works and is a good thing for teams, if made available to all teams.
Jim Zondag
13-08-2008, 08:59
Jason,
I didn't know that other areas had made any serious attempts to implement low-cost strategies before. As I said before, none of the planning for this was deliberately done in secret, but until the idea got approved by FIRST, there was nothing to talk about publicly. Any other similar past proposals are catagorically the same, no news until it becomes news.
Perhaps the difference here is timing; after multiple attempts from various areas, combined with the current state of the US economy, FIRST finally agrees that the time is right to try something new. One thing I will say, this was not easy, and it took a long time to convince FIRST that this pilot should be allowed to proceed. We have the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as our leaders.
The local situation here is as follows: in 2008 we had 3 regional events. All of these are at capacity and cannot be increased in size. We have recruiting and growth targets for adding new teams which cannot be met without adding another regional. Our Regional Event planners already have diffiiculty finding the funding to run the exisiting events on the traditionaly cost model and it looked very unlikely that we would be able to properly fund a 4th event. Hence the pilot: for the same event support costs from our sponsor base as our current 3 events, we are now going to do 8! Ambitious? Yes...Risk Free? NO!....More Sustainable in the long run? Absolutely!
"A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not why ships are built."
J@GMFlint
13-08-2008, 13:18
Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.
Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.
-dave
.
More discussion questions in response to Dave's suggestion to talk MORE.
Please do not take these as a slam on the pilot, these are serious questions.
Questions, that would probably have been addressed had there been some level of communication in the planning phases of this venture. As a Michigan team leader, I must object to a "no news until it becomes news", (translated "need to know basis") position. We are supposed to be a community, and secrecy, deliberate or not, only serves to undermine that sense of community and creates a greater potential for friction.
It was posted that "The new system will definitely be much better at promoting the best robots"
Does this mean we are moving to where the "robot" and the "robot competition" is what will matter and count most for teams to "advance" to the championship? One of our Founding Father's once said "it's not just about building robots... that we get the best of what we celebrate..." where are we now headed and what will we be celebrating?
Look at the proposed points system for ranking and advancement to see what appears to be the FiM Vision.
The proposed points system for State qualification ranking is ALL about ROBOT FIELD PERFORMANCE. Why not consider total package scoring something like FLL, or FTC does while we reinvent here and demphasize the machines?
Here are a couple eye brow raisers:
#1 Alliance Captain = 16 points
#1 DRAFT PICK = 16 points (Why is this = to #1 Seed? Other than the assumption that a strong team, yet still not the #1 seeded team, will get picked first from wherever they are in the standings and benefit equally even though they had lesser points, by talent or luck?).
It even assigns points based off of the Elimination Rounds, with adjustments made to individual teams points by WHEN they were picked. Should draft pick even count for points as it is a decision solely made by teams and subject to, potential manipulation for points?
While Judged FIRST awards.... earn a whopping 5 points for a technical award, and 2 points (equal to a match win) for other Judged Awards!! Something looks amiss on the values. Do we as a FIRST Community concur with this, esp. if this indeed our future?
We can argue that it's essentially the same today, but look at the outward message this point system presents. Success in FiM is about building the best robots. Granted, that has always been implied, but now there's no redeeming gracious option in the system.
What about the team that bombs their first event, then Win's the 2nd- but doesn't have the points to go to State? Or the team who never Wins, but gets the points? (I haven't done any of the math, but I'm sure analysis would be worthwhile and interesting) Maybe FiM has something they can share? Or if that team that bombed the first, Wins the 2nd, then actually qualifies for State, but realizes they have no shot at the CMP, and/or has no $$$ to go. When do the tallies come out? So that the next in line might go. Who keeps track and issues the lists?
I'm assuming that a serpentine draft will help balance some of this point distribution though, right? Or, are they planning top-down each round? It really does begin to matter more for State Quals now, and it's not just an impact on a winning alliance.
What is the plan for current Chairman's Award teams? Will they still get the automatic qualification to the Championship? How do they impact the 18 teams from the State if they Win an event and get a ton of points? Or are the final point values going to be calculated after taking the CA teams out? What about the teams they won, or lost with?
How about the State Championship events? Should they (Past Chairman's, or Winner's) be able to go to State and diminish the chances of others qualifying for the Championship if they are already going to Atlanta?
Perhaps FiM should "pilot" them not getting the automatic qualification as well? Or if they do have an automatic qualification, does FiM plan to bar them from competing in the state championship and "suggest" their teams provide the "volunteers" for the State event?
Is there going to be financial assistance made for teams that need to cough up $4000 in a few days if they qualify in week #5 for State? Remember, everyone's budget is expected to drop dramatically.
What if the same team earns a spot at the CMP? That's $9000 in a short time, and two trips back to sponsors and almost 2X of what the initial cost was. I don't know about all this... esp. in tighter times and for smaller teams.
Why only 2 Rookie All-Stars to the CMP, when the State used to send 3? This opportunity can significantly boost a new team, the kinds of teams we are supposed to be helping with all this
Only one Eng. Insp?
We're still planning to send 3 Chairman's...
3 Winners...
9 Top points/field performers...
I highly advise ALL teams to look this pilot over very carefully and critically. Don't let anyone else do your thinking for you.
No one questions the need to improve. Are we sure we have the right vehicle to get there and are keeping to the objectives of developing people along with robots? If we can work through some of the questions and questionable aspects now together, why wait a full season to test & see?
Perhaps FiM will host some official discussion soon. I think it would be well worth the time.
fuzzy1718
14-08-2008, 00:00
Now knowing that the initial idea came from michigan teams ALOT is explained. I guarantee (I don't know anything for sure just my thoughts) that the planning was mostly done by FIRST's "Elite" members (if you don't know what I'm talking about then email me, my rep can't take another huge hit) and had lttle to no imput from "newbie" FIRSTers.
As far as the comments about everything being public and little done in side deals, all I can say is get used to it. Everyone builds up FIRST so much that many think that it is the utopia that we all dream of, the fact is most of the stuff that gets done happens through smoke and mirrors. The same is true in the real world of every day life.
There was a post earlier that made a comment about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) I think the new system's designers' hearts were in the right place, but not everything was thought through or is this the smoke and mirror effect again? If everything is a strict need to know basis and a "small" group put this idea together, Then FIRST is no different the the current government. (I know that a lot of people won't like that comment, but hey not many like me and in my eyes it is the truth)
I guess what many want to know (especially me) is who put the idea out there and was the mastermind of it. often who puts something together shows in how it works and for who it works. Those who did put it together probably don't want to come forwards due to all the heat, but would you rather like people to draw their own conclusions? That can turn ugly very fast.
I know that my rep will probly go down after this, but it needed to be said. I admit I don't want the new structure to go away, I even like some of it's ideas, I just think it needs to be revaulated and the whole community needs to have a say and know what is going on at all times. No more of the smoke and mirrors B.S. that FIRST pulls and now FiM is trying to pull.
Now you can bash what i have said here, since everyone is so good at it, or put yourselves in someone eleses shoes and view it with a new light, although half of you probly stopped reading after the government bit. Let's see... if you read the whole thing put robot in size 5 font at the top of your post.
let the bashing begin,
Fuzzy
SusanMeyer
14-08-2008, 01:30
I'm not going to bash you Fuzzy. I agree with most (not all) of what you said, though you could say it in a less confrontational tone. I don't know what the rep thing is, but don't feel bad for questioning things that don't look right. I agree with those that think challenging things that don't seem right and asking questions and having open discussion is good (when done respectfully). You should not be afraid to post views that question and challenge decisions made by FIRST or any other organization, that's the only way mistakes can be fixed. The point that "Michigan has the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as leaders"(including a board member) who can get things pushed through that benefit their teams and not the rest bothers me very much. That doesn't sound like something the FIRST I've been a fan of would allow and is what disappoints me most. School hasn't started yet, so don't they still have time to fix this and make sure all teams get the same benefits for the same price?
Jim Zondag
14-08-2008, 09:45
"rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) Fuzzy
Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy" :)
I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.
Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!
Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy" :)
I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". ..... There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!
Jim I will have to disagree. The fact that you can pocket more money is a plus. The fact that you (with all of the experience) have more time with your robot is a plus. The fact that the elite are not helping the less fortunate at events on practice day is another plus for the elite. The better (elite but not necessarily) robots get a better chance at qualifying for Championship is a plus.
I am not saying that it was designed for this purpose (knowing some of those involved I believe it not to be the case) but it seems to outsiders to have the illusion of elitism.
I will have to agree with a few of the people who have put thoughtful posts in this thread. WHY were many of the Michigan teams not informed and or consulted and why must they follow the few who left them out? Why is FIRST allowing Michigan teams to have benefits that others do not have and if they are going to give some to us why have they not released this info to us.
FIRST does read these threads. FIRST chooses not to respond. FIRST does not care what you or I think. FIRST has come to think of themselves as untouchable. FIRST counts on their volunteers to make things work yet keeps them all in the dark as long as they can. The problem is that volunteers have the choice to continue or not. When they leave you do not get them back because they find other causes to help at. Volunteers include teachers and mentors. How many teams have left FIRST and returned? Very few.
I do get a little tired with the whats fair and teams having advantages discussion.
I learned a long time ago that FIRST isn't fair and never will be. There will always be teams with huge advantages over others. Some will always have more money, more experience, more mentors, and ..........
The only way to make it fair would be to make all teams play to the lowest common denominator and nobody wants that.
I think what we need to concentrate on is will be new system better than the current way FIRST does things. It would be nice to have some definable metrics to go with.
The other thing is will this be portable to other parts of the country or if it works well does it need to be how everyone does it?
If the leaders in Michigan can raise the money to make it cheaper for teams to compete then good for them. Other states or groups should seek to do the same thing not put MI down for what they accomplished.
AdamHeard
14-08-2008, 13:30
Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy" :)
I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.
Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!
Don't worry Jim, no one with even a small amount of intelligence would believe you would orchestrate such a massive overhaul just for personal gain.... And this is coming from someone who doesn't exactly agree with this pilot program (well, not the program, but it's lack of publicly stated measures of success).
J@GMFlint
14-08-2008, 13:34
FIRST does read these threads. FIRST chooses not to respond. FIRST does not care what you or I think. FIRST has come to think of themselves as untouchable. FIRST counts on their volunteers to make things work yet keeps them all in the dark as long as they can. The problem is that volunteers have the choice to continue or not. When they leave you do not get them back because they find other causes to help at. Volunteers include teachers and mentors. How many teams have left FIRST and returned? Very few.
This is of GREAT concern. You make a valid point Steve. FIRST, at least in appearance, seems to gradually be taking the outstanding volunteer, corporate and collegiate support for granted to where the support has become more of an expectation. (There were some VERY disappointed schools and scholarship winners at the 2008 CMP!)
Some of this is probably because of how large FIRST has become so fast. I know we used to get bored at some of the old speeches at events, but they at least showed that they cared and openly recognized the importance of the volunteer base. At least we could feel good before we dozed off... :) As Volunteers, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the folks involved are also involved in other organizations outside of FIRST and after the good-byes are done, would be full bore into another worthy cause with FIRST being but a chapter.
FIRST as a whole cannot afford to lose, alienate, or ostracize any of its quality people or even start down that path, because you are right, once a team folds, they're pretty much done. However, Volunteers can and often do move on and pop up somewhere else, often starting new teams. I wonder how many new teams came from off-shoots or folded teams with an experienced volunteer or two at the helm? I can think of more than a few in my local area, 1243 included.
HOPEFULLY FIRST IS PAYING ATTENTION!! :mad:
Back to Michigan...
This announcement has been out for about 15 days now, and given the concerns being raised, I would think someone at FIRST or FiM would at least organize a call before people begin to develop more, or deeper resentments to this plan, (or toward one another) based on what could be partial facts, speculation or just simple misunderstandings.
Do "They" merit a thousand lashes with a wet pool noodle? Well... probably at least a few for this whole silent approach and for the appearance thus far of not having a representative cross-section involved in the planning. But, we don't know any of this for sure- because of their silence. Hopefully they will soon present a decent reason, or at least their logic (flawed or not in our opinions) and we can move into the next phase of change.
What we DO know is that a group of very well-intentioned FIRST Volunteers put a whole lot of time into developing a competition structure to help elevate FIRST. How they arrived at this... I'm sure we'll find out - IF FIRST or FiM steps up, realizes that the approach/roll out was miscalculated, removes the gag order, and facilitates open discussion I'm thinking the hot-button things will work out, or at least that anything totally unbearable can be worked out... afterall isn't this kind of problem-solving part of what we are supposed to be teaching and learning?
The genie is already out of the bottle, time to deal with what we've got before it starts to get out of hand.
FIRST ARE YOU LISTENING?? :confused:
JaneYoung
14-08-2008, 14:47
I've worked with different FIRST staff members over the past couple of years and they care. Very much.
Bashing FIRST or making demands for FIRST staff to respond in the CD fora is not a great way to expect a response.
There are fora set up in the FIRST website. That might be a place for consideration when addressing FIRST concerns/questions in general.
Or create a different thread to address FIRST concerns, separate from this Michigan initiative, for discussion among the CD members. It doesn't make any sense to me for Michigan to be drug through needless mud or fire when folks can air or vent their general views regarding FIRST somewhere else without causing harm or hurt feelings with the folks of Michigan.
As to this thread, Michigan has created a process and a plan. They apparently have a strong basis/foundation of support in order to implement this plan. It is not perfected but it has a solid beginning or these community leaders would not be moving forth with it.
Maybe/perhaps other regional areas/states/countries are ready today, August 14, 2008, to implement a similar plan. My bet would be it takes some time to make something like this happen, getting organized and ready to move forward.
fuzzy1718
15-08-2008, 08:00
Jim I wasn't talking about the teams, I ment the leaders and mentors of the old teams and those who have just been invovled with FIRST for a long time. On a side note when someone says something don't jump to a conclusion based on previous posts. I also didn't mean to come across as blameing them for deliberately creating a structure for pesonal gain. I know that MOST people involved wouldn't do that. Just the fact that it was such a small group involved and knowing how things in FIRST seem to get done (although nothing is ever made public so I can only guess) it was most likley the same old group of people. By having the same group of people not everyone was represented. By not having everyone represented it appears in my mind to be unintentionaly made to favor certain teams, once again NOT ON PURPOSE, BUT BY ACCIDENT due to a common point of view. After reading an e-mail from a friend of yours some of that isn't true, but regardless everyone still needs to have a say in fixing the problems not just a select few.
As far as the rich getting richer comment, those are not my words they are someone eleses a few pages back, neither he (I think) nor I ment it in terms of money but rather who qualifies for states and who wins districts. The advantages are there, you just have to look at it from the flip side.
That being said, the "tone" of my last post was without a doubt deliberate, due to the fact that it is easier to understand what a person is saying when they are angry with you. Am I against the new system no, it just needs to be tweaked. If you ask for more than you actually want/need then you will get what you actually wanted/needed.
fuzzy
P.S. If anything Jim I'm the leftist radical in most minds and I'm fine with that.:D
Just the fact that it was such a small group involved and knowing how things in FIRST seem to get done (although nothing is ever made public so I can only guess) it was most likley the same old group of people. By having the same group of people not everyone was represented.
I agree 100%. Everyone should have a voice in how this program is run, not just the people with the most experience and the greatest insight on how to run a program. After all, everyone has an opinion.
If I had to choose a group to determine programmatic direction, I would certainly select a balanced group of people who have lots of experience, and people who do not -- to ensure everyone gets the chance to put their stink on things. Every opinion carries equal weight. Right?
-John
Rich Kressly
15-08-2008, 10:10
In the interest of clarity and in taking Jane's point to heart, let me start by saying that this announcement basically sparks two conversations - and rightfully so.
Conversation 1 - How this affects Michigan teams, FIRST in MI this year, FIRST in MI in the future.
I stated earlier that it appears that this kind of structure fits a place like MI fairly well because of the number of teams and the strong volunteer base of committed people like you, Jim. However, it would appear from reading here (and from looking at a map) that in places like Western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, the new structure may actually cost teams more money and headaches than what they are used to. Is there any way to come up with a mileage/travel formula to help these teams out? Is there any way to grant exclusions on a geographic case-by-case basis? Does MI have grant funds to subsidize travel for those most affected by this "mandatory" change?
Conversation 2 - How it affects people and teams in all of FIRST now and in the future.
Personally, I'm having a real hard time swallowing a few things every time I read the pdf announcement Dave linked to as well as the FAQ. It has nothing to do with teams and volunteers like you, Jim. I applaud all of your heroic efforts to make a new FRC system work in your area. As you stated, some things get done at a "board level" that none of us get to know about. We're all just the poor schleps that need to turn our lives upside down to make it all work.
A. This announcement assumes that the way to help solve the STEM crisis in the country is by creating as many FRC teams and events as possible. While this can be part of the equation, it's a little disingenuous for anyone to state that there is a determination "...to assist the national goal by establishing FIRST high-school robotics programs in 15% of the public schools in the US by 2012." ... and in the same statement purposefully ignore Michigan FTC team numbers. If I'm a Michigan FTC team I'm part of FIRST but I can't compete in MI, nor am I recognized by this wonderful new entity that supposedly wants to solve the STEM crisis in my state and nationally. Come on! This sends a very uneasy message all across the country IMHO. When I think about STEM and the need in our nation and I think about how this pilot might roll out to the rest of us in the future, I shudder at the thought of exhausting energies solely in one direction when smaller robotics platforms achieve the exact same goal in oh so many ways.
B. Which brings me to my next thought. I've spent a little time "working" for FIRST as a senior mentor, so I put on my "FIRST hat" just to think about how I might apply this kind of system to my own state in the future. The only answer I can honestly come up with is, "I can't and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to discuss it with my RD." PA doesn't have nearly enough FRC teams and has a huge black hole in the middle of the state (Harrisburg is barely an FRC infant). Simply put, there's just no way to make this work well in my state at any time in the foreseeable future and if my state is ever asked to implement such a structure for FRC, we'd almost be forced to abandon that "other high school program that's already growing" to try and get it done as key volunteers can only do so much in a year. So I thought, "If not in PA, where else could this work?" California? New England if you combine states? NY/NJ with REALLY small events? In no way do I see this FRC system being "scalable" as the announcement alludes to and I shudder to think what might happen if this Michigan model gets rolled out to the rest of the country after it's a success - because I know it will be in some ways just because of the Jim Zondag's of the world.
C. Does creating more FRC teams and more importantly, more plays per team, necessarily translate into more students pursuing STEM careers? No, not necessarily. We all have had times with our FRC teams where some students who would have been great to have on board, but they just wouldn't commit the time to the huge FRC animal or maybe they were intimidated by it. Personally, I currently have four students in my robotics program all of whom got themselves into summer engineering camps at universities on their own. They now want to be engineers more than ever (two weren't even considering it before Dawgma came into their lives) and none of them would have ever been involved if it weren't for FVC/FTC.
D. How about the shipping and other rules differences? Can these be applied to all teams regardless of competition structure? If not, why not?
Moving forward, I think it's especially critical that we all keep our eyes on the real ball here - the individual student and truly working at that critical STEM need in the most efficient way possible. Many of them might not even give a crap how many "official" events they go to, who knows? I'm especially concerned that given no publicly stated goals or "success measurement criteria" for the pilot that this is a system that could be forced upon the rest of us by those "board decisions" someday.
Namaste, Michigan FRC teams, mentors, and volunteers. Keep going to make this experiment the best it can be in Michigan. There are positives to learn about for the rest of the FRC world - like streamlining inspections, lowering shipping costs/hassles, lowering registration costs (even by $1,000 as Ken's numbers show). However, let's be cautionary as to how we think about this for the entire FIRST community and why we really do what we do.
If we concentrate too much on the competitions, the league, the number of plays, and which robot wins and how they qualify I bet we'll be the next great American experiment gone wrong - just like the majority of high school sports programs and their "fans". Weren't these programs at one time in our culture's history supposed to help teach everyone about "life" much the same way FIRST does now?
I feel better having put all of that out in the open, please take no personal offense. I'm as passionate about achieving FIRST's real mission and promoting its ideals as everyone else here. Rest assured I get up every day with those ideals in mind and I try to live my life accordingly, just like so many of you who have done this way longer than I have.
-Rich
Travis Hoffman
15-08-2008, 13:24
I agree 100%. Everyone should have a voice in how this program is run, not just the people with the most experience and the greatest insight on how to run a program. After all, everyone has an opinion.
If I had to choose a group to determine programmatic direction, I would certainly select a balanced group of people who have lots of experience, and people who do not -- to ensure everyone gets the chance to put their stink on things. Every opinion carries equal weight. Right?
-John
I believe Fuzzy might be more concerned not with granting spots on the planning committee to the "proletariat" commoner teams unfamilar with such dealings, but instead in seeing that those "in the know" teams and officials sought out sufficient input from numerous teams across the Michigan landscape who were not a part of the planning. Perhaps he is suggesting there should have been/should still be a series of "town hall meetings" that might have led to realizations such as "Oh fudge, we never thought that this plan as it is constructed might be problematic for Upper Peninsula teams," for example?
If such input was not openly sought from "the masses" during the development process, then I feel some of his concerns (and those of others) have merit, regardless of the abrupt way in which they were publicly communicated.
But I'm just a *lowly* Ohio State Buckeye fan....who am I to suggest what people from Michigan think? ;)
fuzzy1718
17-08-2008, 17:47
You nailed what I ment right on the nose. I don't think that there was much info sought out from the masses, some but not much. Hey I wasn't invovled with the planning, no one in my area was invovled, so I can't be considered a creaditable source. From the sound of things very few were asked for input though. It would be nice if someone who was involved would come forward and say who was a part of the planning.
As far as the way I said things, it got all you guys to read it didn't it.:cool:
Best way to deal with a politician, make them mad enough to trip over there own words, so you can actualy find out what they are saying. Since everyone I have talked to about the subject has acted like a politician and side stepped my questions. Why not use the same tactics.
Fuzzy
Sorry not everyone side stepped, one person said he helped with the point system, and I thank him for answering fully and not dancing around.
Jim Zondag
19-08-2008, 11:08
Best way to deal with a politician, make them mad enough to trip over there own words, so you can actualy find out what they are saying. Since everyone I have talked to about the subject has acted like a politician and side stepped my questions. Why not use the same tactics.
Wow, Now we are being compared to politicians....when do we get the perks? Where is my private jet and my limo? When do I get to go to Camp David? :)
Try to remember all this is being done by volunteers, not paid politicians.
For anyone who bothered to listen there was information about this presented at an earlier time. There was an open discussion on this concept at the South East Michigan Feedback forum I attended on May 14th, 2008. It seems that some of the teams who chose to skip this meeting are the ones who are voicing surpirse.
Again, As soon as the details of this proposal were appoved by FIRST, it was made public. This was not done in October, December, or even January, as with other past FIRST changes.....this was done in JULY. It was very deliberate to get this out as soon as humanly possible.
Prior to some of the preliminary approvals, there was not much to discuss in public. As Jason Morella revealed earlier in this thread, other cost reduction proposals have been made in other areas in the past, and these ideas never went forward. Who knew about these? Probably only the originators since the ideas died on the table.
If someone had called a state-wide meeting in May to discuss this (OH Wait, someone did!), who would have come? I'll tell you that the teams who would have come were the teams that were there. Anyone who complains about not being included needs to remember that there is a big difference between having an opnion and being involved. Everyone has an opnion, and many opinions oppose one another. The group who worked on this plan attempted gather data and opnion from many teams and many sources. I assure you that this is not a single idea simply pushed through. It is the output of the results of evalutating HUNDREDS of ideas and many, many hours of discussion and data analysis. Many of the decisions behind this were very data-driven. To quote Jim Licinski of Google - "Data beats opnion every time".
Anyone who thinks that the status quo is fine, and that nothing needs to be changed; you are wrong. The current situation is that the Michigan Region does not have enough regional capacity to support our current volume of teams. There is not enough sponsor money to fund the events we currently have, let alone to add more if the traditional regional cost model is used. Lst time I checked our state economy was 49th out of 50, so finding a big pile of new sponsor money is unlikely, and believe me, people are trying. Many teams in our state want to expand their involvement to more than one event and they cannot without prohibitive travel costs since there is not enough local capacity. All of this is a problem even with zero growth. No one from FIRST had a solution, so some very dedicated people here devised one.
GaryVoshol
19-08-2008, 12:43
In addition to what Jim said, Michigan had the experience of the Kettering Rookie event. This proved that a dedicated band of volunteers could put on a quality event. Maybe not all the bells and whistles that you get at a full-blown high-cost regional. But a quality experience.
I was not involved in any of the planning, but heard of it a few weeks before it was announced. It was not a state secret; I was not sworn to secrecy by those who I was talking to; no one said "If I tell you, I'll have to kill you." You just use your normal discretion, not blabbing it to the whole world until all the details have been finalized.
Because I was not part of the planning, I don't know this for sure: but those who took part in making this happen surely would not be so remiss to have not asked the Kettering participants what they thought. In fact, the mentors of at least two of those rookie teams have posted here. It wasn't done in a smoke-filled back room, by only the elite of the elite.
Also, if anyone paid attention, many of the aspects of this program were included in the survey that went out to all teams. Every team had an opportunity to put in some form of input.
Also, if anyone paid attention, many of the aspects of this program were included in the survey that went out to all teams. Every team had an opportunity to put in some form of input.
I know when we answered the questions we didn't think that the answers would only be applied to one state. If we had I'm sure us and many others would have answered a bit differently. I for one would love to see the rest of the non MI teams get a break on no shipping. I know that not everyone can implement the district events in thier state like MI can but why exclude the rest of the nation from taking part in the "pilot" program. I am sure this is a question for FIRST but does anyone have any ideas?
A bunch questions that someone, somewhere might be able to answer:
Is this a "pilot" for an ongoing change that affects only Michigan, or is there some plan or expectation by FIRST to roll these changes out into other parts of the country or world?
If these changes will in the future be effected outside of Michigan, which teams and volunteers outside of Michigan provided input into the model that you are planning to use? When and how was this input solicited?
If these changes will not affect teams outside of Michigan in 2010 or beyond, what plan is in place or being formed that will provide teams elsewhere with comparable return on investment? Who is responsible for developing that plan and what resources are available to aid in its development?
Do you have criteria by which success of this "pilot" will be judged? What is that criteria? What data was collected from the Kettering Rookie Event in 2008 to determine its success and how does that data measure up to data collected at other, more typical events? Who was sampled to collect that data -- teams alone, sponsors, friends, family, strangers? What level of exposure did they have to FIRST before their experience at Kettering?
J@GMFlint
19-08-2008, 14:44
For anyone who bothered to listen there was information about this presented at an earlier time. There was an open discussion on this concept at the South East Michigan Feedback forum I attended on May 14th, 2008. It seems that some of the teams who chose to skip this meeting are the ones who are voicing surpirse.
These meetings were typically feedback forums on the regional events. Not all teams have the resources to send people to these, besides the option to provide feedback via E-mail was provided for and did not require attendance.
If someone had called a state-wide meeting in May to discuss this (OH Wait, someone did!), who would have come?
To the South East Michigan Feedback forum?? What indicates a state-wide meeting here?
Also, did anyone mention that this meeting would include discussion on concepts for a future district tournamment structure in MI? I'm sure THAT would have raised more interest. It's possible I missed something, but the magnitutude of such a proposition would merit at least some follow-up, perhaps you were right in your suggestion that I am among those who didn't "bother to pay attention..." but how can you speak so of others?
How about once it got started? Why not say X-committee has now been formed and we are planning to meet on Y-day to have more detailed discussion on a district tournament structure? Why... because you said "the Board" didn't want you to talk about it among the teams in the early stages... SO, which way is it? :confused:
Anyone who complains about not being included needs to remember that there is a big difference between having an opnion and being involved.
WHAT are you trying to say to those who did/do not feel they even had the OPTION to be involved in this?
The group who worked on this plan attempted gather data and opnion from many teams and many sources.
Since this appears to be opening up... how about a list of these teams and sources? Maybe folks will begin to feel better about this once they know who their unelected representatives were/are... or is there a fear that they will not? Why does this just not FEEL like its on the up & up??
Data means a lot, and will probably hold some water. Remember though, especially when dealing with a diverse group of people, Perception IS Reality, and based on some of your recent comments I'm now really leaning to the side that perceives this as a matter of the "elite" few making decisions for everyone else from a "WE know what's best for YOU" perspective.
Why not, you seem to think you know who's paying attention, how meeting travel decisions are based and who's capable of interpreting South East Michigan to mean MICHIGAN, etc... :mad:
No one from FIRST had a solution, so some very dedicated people here devised one.
Your efforts are applauded, but that does not mean you are justified in defending your groups actions by suggesting that other teams were not involved because they CHOSE to be inactive on this discussion and at the same time acknowledge that the few were issued a gag-order. Sorry, but I really don't agree with you on this point and personally think the roll-out of the structure was simply lousy.
Someone once told me, if you go off and do something all on your own when there are people willing to help, you forefit the rights to gripe later for not having their help, or to complain if/when those people raise flags against you.
Comments in Red.
joeweber
19-08-2008, 14:48
A problem exists. A solution was needed. You can make committees, do studies, talk about it and discuss it. Eventually a decision needs to be made. Does this sound familiar? We do this every year when we build robots. Not every body’s Idea can be used and not all ideas are the best but you eventually have to decide and move forward. These plans were not taken lightly and no matter what plan you make somebody will not be happy. I have not seen a better detailed plan out there yet and this plan may not be the best but I think we all can live with it and trudge though. As with any Idea you must try it to see if it works and fix what don’t. How can you make it work for every team? How can you be fair to every body? How can you make this program work? The answers are not easy!!
artdutra04
19-08-2008, 15:38
A problem exists. A solution was needed. You can make committees, do studies, talk about it and discuss it. Eventually a decision needs to be made. Does this sound familiar? We do this every year when we build robots. Not every body’s Idea can be used and not all ideas are the best but you eventually have to decide and move forward. These plans were not taken lightly and no matter what plan you make somebody will not be happy. I have not seen a better detailed plan out there yet and this plan may not be the best but I think we all can live with it and trudge though. As with any Idea you must try it to see if it works and fix what don’t. How can you make it work for every team? How can you be fair to every body? How can you make this program work? The answers are not easy!!The problem is, that at least for the majority of the constituents in the FIRST community, there was no knowledge of "doing studies, talking about it and discussing it". One day an email blast showed up saying this was what they are going to to do, and it caught the majority of people in the FIRST community off guard. Catching people off guard with "surprise" radical changes to a program - even if they may have the best intentions in mind - is never a good public relations strategy.
I don't think anyone here is questioning the need to try to reduce the cost of FRC. The main problem here is that people do not like the lack of openness and transparency of the process used to arrive at this idea.
If there truly was an open and transparent process, there would have been announcements made for everyone in the FIRST community that they were seeking alternative ideas for growing the program, including possible radical changes to the competition structure. Then hold a series of open "town hall" meetings across the country explicitly for this idea, open up a special forum on the FIRST website for those who cannot commute (whether due to work, price of gas, etc), and for all of the "behind-the-scenes" meetings post minutes (including the topics of discussion, the general points of those for and against the ideas, and how the board voted on such measures). Then, take several competing ideas, refine them into workable competition models, and put these ideas on a ballet for every FRC and FTC team from the 2007/08 season to cast a vote.
You know, the stuff that a democracy is supposed to do - listening to all the people with complete transparency of the process, and letting them decide on the ultimate outcome.
On a somewhat related note, a previous post mentioned how the economy in Michigan is not doing that well, and trying to increase sponsorship is difficult. From a mathematical point of view, if you get $50k in new sponsorship money, you can either give $10k to 5 FRC teams of about 20-30 students each, and reach a total of 100-150 students. Or you can give $1k to 50 FTC/Vex teams of 10 students each and reach a total of 500 students.
While in no way am I saying that any existing FRC teams should stop FRC and go to FTC/VRC, what I am saying is that if the ultimate goal is to get a STEM presence in as many new schools as possible, there are cheaper methods than FRC. At this point, we must ask ourselves what is more important? Spreading the "branding" of FRC or spreading STEM in general?
artdutra04:
Comments on communications.
Redirected to proper communications thread.
On a somewhat related note, a previous post mentioned how the economy in Michigan is not doing that well, and trying to increase sponsorship is difficult. From a mathematical point of view, if you get $50k in new sponsorship money, you can either give $10k to 5 FRC teams of about 20-30 students each, and reach a total of 100-150 students. Or you can give $1k to 50 FTC/Vex teams of 10 students each and reach a total of 500 students.
Great idea. Too bad MI isn't allowed to participate in FTC :rolleyes:
Rich Kressly
20-08-2008, 00:34
Great idea. Too bad MI isn't allowed to participate in FTC :rolleyes:
Well, since there are MI FTC teams I'm guessing they are "allowed" to participate. However, since there are no official MI FTC events and since the newly formed non-profit in Michigan is concentrated on FRC and since the press release flat out ignores the existence of any FTC teams in MI, I'm guessing these efforts, no matter how cost effective at achieving the mission they may be, will go entirely unsupported. I suppose all of this is somehow connected to the larger FTC announcement made last year that was discussed here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=637530&postcount=26
The link to the FIRST announcement is now only a blank page, but perhaps someone here still has the verbiage.
Again I don't begrudge MI FRC efforts here, but it is puzzling why one of FIRST's programs is just left out of such an important statewide endeavor.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.