**FIRST EMAIL**/FIRST Adds District Event Model Alternative to FRC Program [Archive]

View Full Version : **FIRST EMAIL**/FIRST Adds District Event Model Alternative to FRC Program

Mark McLeod

31-08-2009, 14:41

Greetings Teams:

FIRST® and the FIRST® Robotics Competition (FRC) wish to engage more youth, high schools, and communities in robotics programs to help students prepare for a world where careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) will be critical to sustaining future innovation.

In order to achieve this, the FIRST organization has recently worked on creative ways to make the FRC program more accessible and affordable to all by:

- Opening up more tournaments across the country; and
- Lowering the costs for FRC teams to participate (such as our recent price reduction for Veteran teams as well as grants to Rookie teams).
Thanks to the efforts of many dedicated volunteers, FIRST in Michigan successfully piloted a District Event Model format in the state of Michigan during the 2009 season.

Instead of the three traditional Regional events staged in 2008, seven lower cost, local District Events were held in 2009, each hosting 40 teams. Based on the points earned in participating in two of these District Events, approximately half of the Michigan FRC teams qualified for the Michigan State Championship event. Most teams realized time and cost efficiencies due to the closeness of the District Events. All teams had the opportunity for more “plays” at these District Events, and the same number of Michigan teams qualified for the FIRST Championship in 2009 in Atlanta as did in the 2008 season.
The results of a survey given to Michigan team members and volunteers who were involved in this pilot were overwhelmingly positive, and participants also made additional recommendations which could be incorporated into future FRC District Event Model seasons.
Survey Says…

The highlights of the recent Michigan District Event Model survey include:

- 94% of team leaders, mentors and team members rated their District Model experience as “good” or “excellent;”
- The District Event Model approach met its goal of providing more “plays” at a generally lower cost;
- 80% of prior participants rated their District Event Model experience as the same or better than their experience in 2008 on multiple measures;
- 94% of tournament volunteers reported it was “likely” or “very likely” that they would volunteer next year and were satisfied with the training and support they received; and
- The ability to reduce travel costs because of the expanded number of local events in the District Model was seen as a benefit.

The entire Michigan District Model survey can be viewed at: http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=46 (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=46)

FIRST Board Approves the District Event Model Alternative for Future FRC Seasons…

Subsequently, the FIRST Board of Directors assessed the entire Michigan District Event Model pilot including, but not limited to questions such as:

- Did the new model meet the goal of providing more opportunities to compete at a lower cost?
- Did the new model deliver high quality, engaging tournament experiences for teams, coaches, mentors, volunteers and others?
- Was the District Event Model pilot able to successfully recruit and train needed volunteers and tournaments officials? and
- Did the District Event Model exhibit a level of quality and excitement to meet FIRST standards?

In August, 2009 the FIRST Board of Directors voted to make the District Event Model an approved alternative competition format for future FRC seasons. The Board agreed that FIRST staff should support local efforts to expand the District Event Model into other regions -- when and where appropriate based on local circumstances. Among the essential elements for successful implementation of the District Event Model are a high density of FRC teams in a limited geographic area and an experienced and dedicated local volunteer base.

Will the District Event Model come to my area?

FIRST headquarters staff and Regional Directors will work with local volunteer committees to evaluate the potential interest and feasibility for applying the District Event Model in the 2011, or later, season. It took very careful planning and tremendous volunteer support for FIRST in Michigan to successfully execute the Pilot. With their cooperation, we will build on their experiences to make FRC even more accessible in the future.

Go Teams!

Jared Russell

31-08-2009, 15:41

Big and exciting news.

For many of us, FRC as we know it is about to change dramatically.

Zflash

31-08-2009, 15:41

I would rate the Michigan model favorably too if FIRST had reduced my costs by half! Hopefully we will be able to reap the benefits one day. The problem with spreading this that I see is that most of these teams were started and then got a break with the district model. Other areas will need the discounted district model to grow to start with, not after they have already grown. With our yearly budget we could fund two maybe three "district" teams however at the moment we could support ourselves and maybe one other at a much reduced experience.

EricH

31-08-2009, 15:43

I'm glad it's an alternative instead of required. I don't know if many areas can handle it at all, but those that can have the green light, which is good. I'm glad it's more of a local decision to execute.

To be frank, this is one of the best decisions that FRC has made in regards to the district model.

Jared Russell

31-08-2009, 15:45

Akash Rastogi

31-08-2009, 15:49

I agree 100% with this post. This was the outcome of the FIM Beta that I was hoping for - allowed but not required.

I'm told NJ will not be doing districts this year. :( I was looking forward to it.

Jared Russell

31-08-2009, 15:52

I'm told NJ will not be doing districts this year. :( I was looking forward to it.

If I had to guess, I'd say that not many new regions will go to this model in 2010 - but many likely will in 2011. There are many logistical decisions (booking venues, staffing, funding, etc.) made too far in advance for FIRST's August decision to affect many states this year.

Cory

31-08-2009, 15:58

Well, this probably almost assuredly means that CA will be moving to districts in 2011.

After talking with Paul about MI's districts he's managed to convince me that they are a good thing. I just don't look forward to never playing with teams from outside CA/the surrounding states.

It would be nice if there was some way for any regions that are running district events and not regionals allow their teams to compete in other districts in other regions.

EricH

31-08-2009, 16:03

Well, this probably almost assuredly means that CA will be moving to districts in 2011.
I dunno, Cory. That's a lot of ground, and 3-4 separate volunteer groups to work with (coordinate), minimum. And with the travel... I'm not holding my breath for CA to get districts. There's a lot of logistical problems.

Mark McLeod

31-08-2009, 16:03

Only Michigan will use this District model again in 2010.
By 2011 more areas will be allowed to opt-in.
http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news.html

Karibou

31-08-2009, 16:03

As a Michigander, I ended up really liking the FiM system. I was originally dead set against it because it seemed confusing and unstable, and that we wouldn't get to compete with out-of-state teams (since it was decided early on that my team would not be travelling out of state; we would just do our two district events).

However, I did originally like the fact that we got two districts, with more plays than a regional, for the price of one, and that is still one of my favorite parts of the program. I know that in the past, some teams were unable to go to two regionals because of the cost, but the district setup allowed them to experience the thrill and fun of two districts, for the same amount they were paying in previous years. It also helped a lot of teams who were suffering from the economy. This past year, our team would most likely only be able to attend one event, since we lost our biggest sponsor (GM) and had to cut back on costs A LOT.

And despite the lack out out-of-state teams, there was still a lot of competition, and I ended up making a lot of new friends [:

The only thing that I still don't like is, while we get to play more matches, that also shortens the time we have between matches to make repairs. The time it now takes to load/configure (or whatever it's called) the code onto the robot almost made us miss a few matches at Kettering, because oftentimes we had both mechanical and software repairs to make.

Chris is me

31-08-2009, 16:41

Pretty sure the plan was going to be a "success" even before the 2009 season. I'm glad it's opt-in, though.

The apparent lack of changes to the points system is upsetting, since then the choice between districts and events also requires planners to factor in how much they want to shift the way awards are valued at events. It seems like what are extremely important issues to at least me (devaluing of Chairman's and EI awards with respect to qualifying, practically no reward for winning FIRST's most important awards, other issues that have been beaten to death) remain unchanged here, so I guess for the intents and purposes of state competition, the state events shift more toward "the best robots and oh here's this other award stuff too".

I was really hoping at least as many points as the winning alliance for Chairman's / EI, or culture changing awards not being completely irrelevant for qualifications. I mean you get what you celebrate, right?

Akash Rastogi

31-08-2009, 16:50

If I had to guess, I'd say that not many new regions will go to this model in 2010 - but many likely will in 2011. There are many logistical decisions (booking venues, staffing, funding, etc.) made too far in advance for FIRST's August decision to affect many states this year.

Yup there were issues with prepayed venues for 2010 events and contracts of the sort.

The 2011 hosts for districts in NJ will most likely be 25, 11, and 75+1403 I am told.

EricLeifermann

31-08-2009, 16:55

Jared Russell

31-08-2009, 17:09

The opt-in thing is cool i guess, but how about an opt-out? My team is located in the western side of the UP. The closest district last year was 8.5 hours away! We had to travel down state 2 times and it didn't save us any money.

I said it last year and I'm going to say it again, Nobody thinks about logistics! Yes we got 2 comps for the price of 1 but we had to travel farther than anybody else in MI. The farthest anybody in the LP had to travel was what 5 hours maybe? It takes us that long just to get to the bridge! And we have to do it 4 times(there and back 2 times)! Thats alot of miles and alot of money to spend on a bus and hotel's.

I'm all for the district events I just want them to change the lines and allow more than 1 state to be involved, I want to compete against more and different teams!

I see no reason why a system like FiM would have to be strictly confined to the borders of an actual state. Indeed, in many areas the only way that it would be feasible would be to aggregate the teams of different regions.

Establish district event locations and let each team choose the district that makes the most logistical sense for them. Everybody is happy.

EricVanWyk

31-08-2009, 17:38

The opt-in thing is cool i guess, but how about an opt-out? My team is located in the western side of the UP. The closest district last year was 8.5 hours away! We had to travel down state 2 times and it didn't save us any money.

I said it last year and I'm going to say it again, Nobody thinks about logistics! Yes we got 2 comps for the price of 1 but we had to travel farther than anybody else in MI. The farthest anybody in the LP had to travel was what 5 hours maybe? It takes us that long just to get to the bridge! And we have to do it 4 times(there and back 2 times)! Thats alot of miles and alot of money to spend on a bus and hotel's.

I'm all for the district events I just want them to change the lines and allow more than 1 state to be involved, I want to compete against more and different teams!

This sounds like you folk were a special case that could easily be handled with a tiny bit of flexibility. I'd bet that a polite and well written inquiry would make all the difference. The problem would be that FIRST may be afraid that opening the door for you would open the door for other teams' complaints and whining.

Rick TYler

31-08-2009, 17:39

The problem would be that FIRST may be afraid that opening the door for you would open the door for other teams' complaints and whining.

FIRST is a company providing a service for a fee -- this is "customer feedback," not "whining." I think your point would be better made if you didn't take shots at other teams.

Aren_Hill

31-08-2009, 17:58

I know there was some idea's being thrown around talking at IRI wanting to get a midwest system setup for "districts" that involved a combo of Illinois ohio indiana and wisconsin (not all obviously)

EricVanWyk

31-08-2009, 18:10

FIRST is a company providing a service for a fee -- this is "customer feedback," not "whining." I think your point would be better made if you didn't take shots at other teams.

Sorry Rick, point taken.

I attempted to use the word "whining" as short hand for "insistence that no team have an unfair advantage over another team, even if this means reducing the benefit to all teams involved". From my limited point of view, I see many instances where fairness is over or under weighted, and this type of request has the definite potential to be one such instance. No particular team would be hurt if EricLeifermann's team played as if they were in Wisconsin, but a Detroit team could use it to insist that they be allowed to play as if they were in Ohio. Rather than tell the hypothetical team to suck it up, the uP team could be penalized with very expensive travel.

I do believe that there are entities in FIRST that are whiny, but I also believe that the hypothetical entities are "whinier" than the real ones.

Tetraman

31-08-2009, 19:22

Here is one thing I kinda wonder about: Would it be possible to just pick 8-12 regionals that are around each other and have them be "Districts"? All you'd have to do is set up a "Regional Championship".

Paul Copioli

31-08-2009, 19:35

The apparent lack of changes to the points system is upsetting, since then the choice between districts and events also requires planners to factor in how much they want to shift the way awards are valued at events. It seems like what are extremely important issues to at least me (devaluing of Chairman's and EI awards with respect to qualifying, practically no reward for winning FIRST's most important awards, other issues that have been beaten to death) remain unchanged here, so I guess for the intents and purposes of state competition, the state events shift more toward "the best robots and oh here's this other award stuff too".

I was really hoping at least as many points as the winning alliance for Chairman's / EI, or culture changing awards not being completely irrelevant for qualifications. I mean you get what you celebrate, right?

I will start this post with stating that I agree with you that I think the points for the culture changing awards should be 5, just like the tech awards.

However, it is a philosophical argument only. The fact is that 95% of chairman's award capable teams would have qualified under the FiM district point system anyway. In Michigan, all 7 teams easily qualified for the state championship.

In addition (this one will raise some eyebrows), we are trying to change the culture. In order to do that we need to get the random person's attention. Who is going to do that better? A Chairman's award winner like team 27, 33, or 1114 or some team who puts so much energy on the chairman's award that they forget that they have to compete with a robot? Seriously, a chairman's team is well rounded. Well rounded! To me, that means they should be an example in every aspect, not just the ones judged in the chairman's judging room.

Just like it is not all about the robots, it is not all about winning the Chairman's Award.

Paul

Katie_UPS

31-08-2009, 20:42

"My name is Paul Coplioli and I make good points"
:)

Akash Rastogi

31-08-2009, 21:17

Seriously, a chairman's team is well rounded. Well rounded! To me, that means they should be an example in every aspect, not just the ones judged in the chairman's judging room.

Just like it is not all about the robots, it is not all about winning the Chairman's Award.

Paul

Well said, Paul. Adam Heard and I were just discussing this yesterday actually. A true Chairmans winner should not only boast confidence & competitiveness off the field, but on the field as well.

GaryVoshol

31-08-2009, 21:58

I concur with Paul's opinion, that the number of points granted for awards doesn't have an effect. I did a study on FiM team rankings, adding in points for Chairmans, EI, Rookie AS, in proportion to the points given for Winners, Finalists, Semi-finalists, plus 5 points for all awards whether cultural or technical. While it juggled the positions somewhat, it did not substantially change who would be invited to the MI Championship. The last 3 teams that qualified would have been bumped lower in the order, replaced with teams that under the current structure ended up about 5 or 10 positions below. But because some teams that qualified declined their invitations, all these teams involved ended up at the MI Championship anyway. In fact all through districts, there were people who were looking for a team to serve as a "poster child" to argue the points should have been awarded: Look, here's a team that got XXX super award and couldn't go to the Championship. Didn't happen.

So the counterargument can be made, why not have a point structure that recognizes the importance of awards like Chairmans. It doesn't matter in the overall qualifications to the Championship. It just increases the point totals of some of the teams that qualify. So why not do it, only for symbolism?

Joe Ross

31-08-2009, 22:08

The opt-in thing is cool i guess, but how about an opt-out? My team is located in the western side of the UP. The closest district last year was 8.5 hours away! We had to travel down state 2 times and it didn't save us any money.

I said it last year and I'm going to say it again, Nobody thinks about logistics! Yes we got 2 comps for the price of 1 but we had to travel farther than anybody else in MI. The farthest anybody in the LP had to travel was what 5 hours maybe? It takes us that long just to get to the bridge! And we have to do it 4 times(there and back 2 times)! Thats alot of miles and alot of money to spend on a bus and hotel's.

I'm all for the district events I just want them to change the lines and allow more than 1 state to be involved, I want to compete against more and different teams!

One thing to consider was that last year was special. Many people are resistant to change. If teams were given the option of participating or not participating, less teams would have participated. If enough teams didn't participate, it would have doomed the system because there wouldn't have been the required density of teams. This wouldn't have been because the system wasn't good, but because people were resistant to change.

Now that a vast majority of Michigan has said they like the system, letting a few teams like yours opt-out wouldn't hurt anything. You might get a different response if you bring your objections up to the right people this year.

Madison

31-08-2009, 22:58

FIRST is requiring that a registered non-profit organize district-model events in 2011 and beyond. Can someone involved with FiM describe what liability such an organization takes on if they should organize such events and how that compares to current arrangements?

Mark McLeod

31-08-2009, 23:07

Can't comment on FiM, but that's how SBPLI and the Long Island Regional has always operated.

Akash Rastogi

31-08-2009, 23:38

Can't comment on FiM, but that's how SBPLI and the Long Island Regional has always operated.

I believe its also a requirement for those who host FLL and FTC events. IIRC

BrianT103

01-09-2009, 00:41

I really like the idea of having district event structures, but I also see the need within the FIRST community to get away from the idea that district events have to be limited within a state boundary.

Having a Mid-Atlantic District Event Structure with Eastern PA, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and Long Island is perhaps THE most feasible area in the nation to have a district event structure. With less then a 4 hour drive time from the furthest ends of the district boundaries and with a max 2.5 hour drive time to the proposed site of the District Championship (NYC Javits Center), this would be the perfect location to test drive the district event structure. This area already has an extremely strong volunteer base and a very experienced technical crew. The proposed geographical area also would not "leave out" any teams, as the western PA teams still have the Pittsburgh Regional and Upstate New York teams have FLR.

The Mid-Atlantic District would have a multitude of venue locations to chose from, with off-season events already occuring at 25, 222, 341, 365, 75+1403 team's schools.

The only reason why I would not see the Mid-Atlantic district not coming to fruitition would be a lack of communication and/or collaboartion between regional directors. Other then that, the Mid-Atlantic district has everything in order to become a great success.:cool:

IndySam

01-09-2009, 01:09

dtengineering

01-09-2009, 01:09

I do like the fact that regions that choose to opt in to the new model will have the ability to do so taking regional factors in to account.

I purposely use the term region, rather than state, because as has been pointed out a state's boundaries sometimes don't make for the best geographic options for FIRST teams.

For instance, here in BC (just a few teams), it is much more cost-effective to compete with the teams in the Pacific Northwest than it is to compete with other Canadian teams. (As much as we love the GTR, it is a five hour flight away, as opposed to a three hour drive to the also incredibly awesome MS Seattle Regional.)

I hope it works well for regions that choose to implement the new model, it sounds like it has been great for most teams in Michigan.

Jason

Akash Rastogi

01-09-2009, 01:16

Michigan teams are going to get more plays per team, more bang for their buck while the rest of the country is still shelling out full price. Happy for my MI friends but quite frankly that sucks for the rest of us.

I asked about why regionals would not be ready to transition over yet and the biggest point made was the contracts which were arranged for different venues already. The only way there was a chance of being able to set up well run districts (according to my info) for 2010 would be to calculate if the savings from district events would be significant enough to break even with the cost of the already contracted venues for 2010. When calculated, the savings/profit from district events and championship events would not be able to break even with the cost of, in this case, the NJ regional and also bring in profit for FIRST.

Its just something to live with for another season, but I do see and understand your point. I too would have loved to pay a fraction of the cost and play a substantially greater number of matches.

This area already has an extremely strong volunteer base and a very experienced technical crew.

This is very true, the NYC Regional alone has a volunteer base of nearly 300 people....that is incredible if you think about it.

One thing that I HOPE somehow changes...is the whole situation about not having practice matches...teams have been screwed over too many times when others are unprepared.

I hate being in qualification match #1 (http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2007ny_qm1)

GaryVoshol

01-09-2009, 07:01

Beside having the volunteer base* and exiting the pre-existing contracts with venues, you have to consider the planning time. FiM had the whole concept down and ready to run by this time last year; it only required approval by FIRST. I don't know how many months of preparation went into getting to that stage. Certainly part of that time was spent coming up with the concept; now that that is done, other areas can work off of it. But it still takes a lot of time and commitments being made, and being made early. Unless some other areas were already working on going to districts and were waiting for this approval to announce it, there isn't time to organize it.

* - You need more than the normal volunteers like pit, queue, refs, field setup, etc. You also have to supply (or find ways to pay for) positions that would normally be FRC-supplied (e.g. FTA) and to replace Show Ready Events people.

Karibou

01-09-2009, 07:16

Michigan teams are going to get more plays per team, more bang for their buck while the rest of the country is still shelling out full price. Happy for my MI friends but quite frankly that sucks for the rest of us.

I always saw that as a problem. And while I would like to say "Hey. Our economy sucks, we deserve it," I realize that other states are having the same problem. However, it seems that we're losing A LOT of our support from businesses, which is a result of the auto industry crashing down around our ears. My team is losing a huge GM grant this upcoming year, which has historically been our main source of money, and I know the same is happing for teams all over. Thousands of job cuts have also been cutting adult support - Parents and mentors lose jobs, they have to spend more time looking for and working new ones to support their family, and have less time to support the team, down to transporting their kids to meetings and work sessions.

I don't mean to make Michigan seem like it's a poor state that needs pity, or anything like that. I'm sure that the same thing is happening everywhere around the world. It just seems like we're being hit harder, so it makes a lot of sense for us to get a break (though not necessarily such a large one). Michigan also has a very high concentration of teams, which magnifies the effect of the economy.

GeorgeTheEng

01-09-2009, 07:36

Beside having the volunteer base* and exiting the pre-existing contracts with venues, you have to consider the planning time.

Agreed. These events are going need a fair amount of planning. FIRST also needs some time to put in place thier own process and standards for these district events. The MI events were watched closely by FIRST and were supported by a FIRST Bod member. As a number of other states take on this model, FIRST has to document and institutionalize thier requirements and standards. They may even end up needing more staff to help manage that process. On both the local and the national side, it's not worth FIRST jumping
in without spending the required time to get ready for the full deployment of the district model.

On a separate line of thinking, while contracts may be the legal and financial barrier, that what will truely make or break a region is the volunteer base. I know a number of areas have large volunteer bases, multipling the number of events stretches those people. Look at the Mid Atlantic region... From DC up to NYC and you've got 5 regionals. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I am 100% sure that you do not have 5 regionals worth of volunteers. There is a large overlap in that area of volunteers that travel from event to event. If you add districts in 3 or three of those states you've double or tripled the volunteer need but not the volunteer base. There is a burn out factor that needs to be considered.

Look at FTC. The 1st year or two the events drew volunteers mostly from FRC and FLL with little of thier own base. That started to wear on volunteers and makes scheduling very hard. They had to establish thier own volunteer base. The same is going to have to be true of the district model.

Hopefully those of us that fall into the semi-pro volunteer category (i.e. you can go from January to April with less then 3 or so free weekends... in other words most of Chief Delphi's adult, many college, and a number of student readers) will be help create that base. Otherwise, that might be what stretches this system to the max.

Taylor

01-09-2009, 08:18

Wow I hate to bring up the fairness thing but I can't help myself.

Michigan teams are going to get more plays per team, more bang for their buck while the rest of the country is still shelling out full price. Happy for my MI friends but quite frankly that sucks for the rest of us.

The Boilermaker regional once again will bear the brunt of the burden without the Michigan teams that have supported that regional in the past.

Not only that, but the teams that do attend regionals such as BMR will miss out on the opportunity to play with/against these top-flight MI teams (IRI notwithstanding). Not to say that the BMR attracts lower-level teams (there were several regional winners and the eventual world champs), but taking MI out of the equation drops not only the number of participating teams, but the average level of competition as well.

Something else that has been missed in this discussion is the experience of traveling to extra regionals. I'm sure many students would agree that the highlight of the season (if not year) is traveling to a "distant" site to play with/against "distant" teams. When we went to WMR in '06, I know of at least 6 students on the team for which it was their first time out of the state of Indiana.

That being said, whatever system FIRST goes to, I will most likely support. I realize the people up there are much smarter than I, and I'm sure they'll do the due diligence to come up with the best possible solution for all.

JohnBoucher

01-09-2009, 08:41

What did this do to a teams freight costs in Michigan?

Paul Copioli

01-09-2009, 08:48

What did this do to a teams freight costs in Michigan?

John,

Basically, team 217 had no freight costs for the district events or the Michigan State Championship. We took the robot (the two other teams' robots) in our team trailer to the events. The two district events were 10 min (Troy) and 30 min (Cass Tech) from our home facility. The MSC was about 50 minutes from our home facility (Eastern Michigan University).

Many teams were in the same situation as us, but some others (like the teams in northern Michigan, including the Upper Peninsula) had much further travel.

Paul

JohnBoucher

01-09-2009, 09:12

John,

Basically, team 217 had no freight costs for the district events or the Michigan State Championship. We took the robot (the two other teams' robots) in our team trailer to the events. The two district events were 10 min (Troy) and 30 min (Cass Tech) from our home facility. The MSC was about 50 minutes from our home facility (Eastern Michigan University).

Many teams were in the same situation as us, but some others (like the teams in northern Michigan, including the Upper Peninsula) had much further travel.

Paul

Paul,
Thanks for the info. I did not follow the fine points of how the Michigan model worked. A few more points:

No ship date. (GP rules apply)
No crate needed
No freight if you bring it. Were you required to bring it or was shipping an option?
Were you required to ship to state event? Atlanta?

Joe Ross

01-09-2009, 09:59

You can read all of the special Michigan rules here: http://www.firstinmichigan.org/filemgmt_data/files/UPDATE%201%20-%20MI%20Rules_Supplement.pdf

JaneYoung

01-09-2009, 10:40

It would take a while for this program to work in states like Texas. There just aren't enough teams.

It is interesting that we have begun to develop new regionals in states like Texas - yet the districts are the up and coming thing for the areas that have many teams. The haves and have nots in areas filled with and lacking teams for the district program - makes for interesting thought. For example, those areas that begin having district tournaments may have that in place for more than one season before other states or countries 'catch up'.

Typically, in Chief Delphi, when the talk begins about the haves/have nots - the powerhouse teams, the teams that have had many more opportunities to compete will be added to that list that separates rather than unifies.

It also puts added pressure on states/areas/countries to quickly get FRC teams formed and competing so that they can 'catch up' with the amount of opportunities that the district programs will provide.

It's going to take a few years for this to find a balance, if there ever will be. New territory to explore while advancing the goals of FIRST. Also, when thinking and talking about this, please keep in mind the amount of effort, forethought, and work that went into Michigan's planning and implementation. That was no small thing and I would guess that they are continuing their work in improving upon last year's efforts.

This is going to be fun to watch unfold, that's for sure. I can see this having a huge impact on Hawaii and in Brazil, just to name a couple of places where costs are astronomical to travel and compete.

Beth Sweet

01-09-2009, 11:24

What did this do to a teams freight costs in Michigan?

In short, for those teams with significant resources, it was beneficial. For teams without access to trucks and trailers, it was somewhat nightmare-ish. I know of teams who had to rent a U-Haul for every competition they attended. There are, contrary to seeming popular belief, teams who benefit from the Fed-Ex shipping.

I wanted to make 1 point in this thread that seems to be overlooked. For those teams interested in having the district system in their area, please be aware that you are required to provide volunteers (kinda takes away the meaning of volunteer doesn't it...) to every competition you attend. Whether you are a team with 100 people, or a team with 5, you must provide "volunteers" if you wish to participate in this system.

In general, I am very disappointed that the BoD has made this decision. I think that it is a big step away from FIRST's values, its mission, and its spoken intentions of the purpose of the program. Many statisticians have quoted you numbers above supporting their invalidations of what I say, I'll leave statistical interpretations up to the individual reading them. The district system invalidates many non-robotic contributions and truly turns this organization into a robotics competition. For many, that's all it has ever been. On a personal note, my contributions in the district system, and what I am able to bring to the table in it are so limited, I will have to seriously consider if I will continue to participate in FIRST.

I wish FIRST the best of luck in its undertaking of this program.

Pjohn1959

01-09-2009, 12:07

Well, this probably almost assuredly means that CA will be moving to districts in 2011.

I just don't look forward to never playing with teams from outside CA/the surrounding states.

It would be nice if there was some way for any regions that are running district events and not regionals allow their teams to compete in other districts in other regions.

I agree. I don't like the idea of being 'limited' to teams in a certain area that would be allow to compete at a given regional.

For the past 3 years, we have traveled to New Orleans, Kansas City, and Oklahoma City so that we can experience the diversity of different regionals.

It would take a while for this program to work in states like Texas. There just aren't enough teams.

I would think that the if this were to be put into place, that this would include teams local to a specific region, not just a state.

Jared Russell

01-09-2009, 12:35

In short, for those teams with significant resources, it was beneficial. For teams without access to trucks and trailers, it was somewhat nightmare-ish. I know of teams who had to rent a U-Haul for every competition they attended. There are, contrary to seeming popular belief, teams who benefit from the Fed-Ex shipping.

In most parts of the country you can rent a U-Haul or similar truck for less than $50 a day. Even if you need to do that four times a season (to and from two competitions), $200 is a whole heck of a lot less than the true cost of shipping a robot-sized crate with Fed Ex (and remember, you only get one free ship and back). Or, find a nearby team who has a crate and ask them to take your robot too. 217 did this for their neighbors; likewise we brought 365's robot to IRI in our trailer.

I wanted to make 1 point in this thread that seems to be overlooked. For those teams interested in having the district system in their area, please be aware that you are required to provide volunteers (kinda takes away the meaning of volunteer doesn't it...) to every competition you attend. Whether you are a team with 100 people, or a team with 5, you must provide "volunteers" if you wish to participate in this system.

If this is one of the compromises that lets us get twice the plays for less money, then so be it. As it is, most of the volunteers at regionals have/had some affiliation with a local team. Moreover, for larger teams, it is often challenging to find a competition-day job for many students (what should our CAD team and animators do? There is a limit to the useful number of scouts). Event volunteer jobs give these students a meaningful task for the day. As for teams of 5 having to give up a volunteer, I believe that exceptions for these situations could probably be made. Larger teams can more than make up the difference. Just because FIRST accepted the district system doesn't mean that every single rule must never change from the pilot season.

In general, I am very disappointed that the BoD has made this decision. I think that it is a big step away from FIRST's values, its mission, and its spoken intentions of the purpose of the program. Many statisticians have quoted you numbers above supporting their invalidations of what I say, I'll leave statistical interpretations up to the individual reading them. The district system invalidates many non-robotic contributions and truly turns this organization into a robotics competition. For many, that's all it has ever been. On a personal note, my contributions in the district system, and what I am able to bring to the table in it are so limited, I will have to seriously consider if I will continue to participate in FIRST.

I wish FIRST the best of luck in its undertaking of this program.

I, and many other FIRSTers, also agree that culture changing awards deserve fair recognition. Again, who is to say that 2009's point structure is the only way that this will work?

johnr

01-09-2009, 13:21

EricH

01-09-2009, 13:42

Winning a cultural award at a traditional regional doesn't give you a right to play in that regionals finals or the next one you attend. Why should winning one at a district count for more or am i missing something?
Winning a cultural award at a traditional regional gives you the right to play at the Championship. Why shouldn't winning one at a district give you an automatic qualification to play at the State championship ?

Chris is me

01-09-2009, 14:00

I, and many other FIRSTers, also agree that culture changing awards deserve fair recognition. Again, who is to say that 2009's point structure is the only way that this will work?

Well, seeing as the BoD didn't change it, I'm pretty sure that the district model will be using the points system.

Winning a cultural award at a traditional regional doesn't give you a right to play in that regionals finals or the next one you attend. Why should winning one at a district count for more or am i missing something?

Winning a technical award at a regional doesn't make you more likely to participate in the Championship either. Granted, the actual Championship doesn't have a points system (and I like it better with the prepay option), so you can't really compare the two. Winning Chairman's gets you to compete in Atlanta, rather than just watching Atlanta and talking to judges, and I don't really know who would prefer it that way...

Akash Rastogi

01-09-2009, 14:04

Winning a cultural award at a traditional regional gives you the right to play at the Championship. Why shouldn't winning one at a district give you an automatic qualification to play at the State championship ?

I would still counter with what Paul said:

it is a philosophical argument only. The fact is that 95% of chairman's award capable teams would have qualified under the FiM district point system anyway. In Michigan, all 7 teams easily qualified for the state championship.

Emphasis mine.

Chris is me

01-09-2009, 14:11

It's not a philosophical-only argument for many regions of the country, in my opinion. Just because it was a moot point last year doesn't mean it will be a moot point every year (catastrophic technical failure, strategy misjudge, etc. that don't factor into Chairman's could eliminate a team from the State Championships, and just the possibility of that is something that really bothers me. Perhaps it's motivated by selfishness (being that my team has won RCAs with non-competitive robots before), but all excluding the culture change winners would do is turn FIRST that much more into a robotics competition. What harm would come from including them "for sure"?

johnr

01-09-2009, 14:43

Francis-134

01-09-2009, 14:48

The highlights of the recent Michigan District Event Model survey include:

- 94% of team leaders, mentors and team members rated their District Model experience as “good” or “excellent;”

...

- 80% of prior participants rated their District Event Model experience as the same or better than their experience in 2008 on multiple measures;
- 94% of tournament volunteers reported it was “likely” or “very likely” that they would volunteer next year and were satisfied with the training and support they received;

The statistician in me wants to know if these numbers are at all significant. Was this survey also given out a regional events? If so, are the numbers presented better, worse or about the same as a regional experience?

Just a thought.

With regards to the district system, I am a huge fan of being able to travel to distant regionals. If the district system does not allow for this, I will be greatly disappointed.

Wayne C.

01-09-2009, 15:26

With regards to the district system, I am a huge fan of being able to travel to distant regionals. If the district system does not allow for this, I will be greatly disappointed.

This past spring we at the NJ regional team have been working hard on a model similar to the Michigan model but with our events on weekends at the very start of the competition season window. It might allow travel to distant Regionals in the later weeks. We wanted to implement in 2010 but it looks now like that will not happen.

It is true that teams who normally stay close to home would benefit from the large increase in the playing times and get a bigger bang for their buck from the robot. This appeals to many. FIRST would also see a reduction in Fedex usage- something that overpowered them this year.

I however agree with you that I would find it hard to support a model that took up the entire competition season and disallowed for travel to other regions. Frankly for us it is the travel and playing with new friends in other parts of the country that makes FIRST enjoyable. I would hate to think of being restricted to playing the same teams over and over again because of a restrictive model. No offense to the local teams but we see each other all the time and we do have an extensive off season calendar here in the NE.

The Championships might offer a travel op but I do not have much faith in what I am hearing about locations for the future. Sorry.

Of course the proper way to do all this is to have a much more extensive competition season with a local tier followed by a tier series of regionals and the championship. I cant see that big a change occurring any time soon since it would cost $$$ and lots of time for the volunteer base.

Travel to new regions, especially warm ones after a cold hard build season, can be a great incentive for the team and a goal to work for. And if I wanted to play the locals continuously I would go back to coaching sports.

OK - off the soap box

WC :cool:

Chris is me

01-09-2009, 16:49

Wow, i never knew that you could actually win the most pretigious award in FIRST and not open the kop. After thinking about it, why not give the dca winners a bid. Most of those invites would be given back and used by the next team done the line.

If it took just opening the KoP to qualify for the State Championship, then there would be no need for a points system. Your last line illustrates my thoughts on the matter as contradictory as it seems; it would have little actual effect in most areas but it would just ensure that Chairman's doesn't get excluded.

Jared Russell

01-09-2009, 17:33

Well, seeing as the BoD didn't change it, I'm pretty sure that the district model will be using the points system.

I should have been more specific. I believe that the point system is here to stay, but the actual points awarded for each accomplishment are not necessarily fixed to their 2008 values.

Fe_Will

01-09-2009, 19:26

Travel to new regions, especially warm ones after a cold hard build season, can be a great incentive for the team and a goal to work for. And if I wanted to play the locals continuously I would go back to coaching sports.

We feel the same way... March is always a good time to get away from the wet:D

IKE

01-09-2009, 21:40

I hope that FIRST never stops changing things. For almost 2 decades they have been trying and experimenting with different ways of doing things. If you ever get a chance to read some of the old manuals, go check them out. There has been a lot of change, and most of it has been for the better.

One of my favorite stories that the old timers on the team (I personally am a young pup with only 5 years under my belt) is one of the first years our team was involved with FIRST, they had a material mandate. They wanted a net to hold a bunch of balls, and you were only allowed to use certain materials. One poor student spent the entire build season unraveling some rope (allowed) and then re-weaving it into a net (you could not purchase netting).:eek:

I am glad that things have changed from those days. I hope things continue to change, and I hope I have the flexibility to adapt to those changes.

Paul Copioli

01-09-2009, 22:22

That sounds like 1999. We did the same thing!

kmcclary

02-09-2009, 02:59

On a personal note, my contributions in the district system, and what I am able to bring to the table in it are so limited, I will have to seriously consider if I will continue to participate in FIRST. Don't be in a rush to sell yourself short... The whole point of having a large cadre of volunteers is that any one person's task become simpler.

I'm a multi-year volunteer at GLR in MI, at what this year become the State Championship. (I am not an organizer though, so I can't speak for them. I am only a lowly volunteer there.)

I was curious as to how this year's MI Volunteer Rules would affect the volunteer system. During the build some people expressed grave concern with the new MI rules because we knew that to fulfill the volunteer requirements many smaller teams with limited mentors would have to turn to random relatives and others with no FIRST robotics experience whatsoever. We knew they couldn't spare their current adult force from team tasks.

In fact, AFAICD a large number of my area's teams did exactly that, and filled their slots with random people. Many teams had different people cover their teams at different venues, limiting their 'prior experience' even further.

At first glance, one fears a flood of "volunteer newbies" may be a potential formula for disaster... I feared we could very well end up with a lot of "Event Volunteer Virgins" at even the State Championship level.

But to my pleasant surprise, the organizers handled it very well. The tasks were divided up and organized SO well in MI by FiM that most of the new-to-FIRST volunteers I talked to said it was a breeze, they had a fantastic experience, and are looking forward doing it again next year! <wow>

Bear in mind that given ENOUGH volunteers to spread the work over, you actually end up with a HUGE number of Basic Tasks that require very little training needed to do (eg traffic flow control, man a booth with a checklist, shuffling random paperwork, etc...)

But even more important - with proper formatting and ENOUGH people, it CAN allow each person to complete their tasks easily with only a small percentage of the multi-day event requiring their attention. (IOW, you have bursts of activity here and there, interspersed with long stretches of available time).

This allows the volunteers the time to actually ENJOY the event. (Wow... What a concept!) ;) It isn't true for ALL volunteers, but many did say they had some free time and did get to enjoy the show...

Bottom line: You can't minimize that effect of having sufficient people, organization, and the definitions set up front, such that any one person's task becomes easy. THAT IMHO is the -toughest- job of all (and I tip my hat to those hard working people that envision and organize the Volunteers!). But IF done right a large chunk of that work too CAN be done Up Front.

Looking back, I feel that is why we were all required to provide a certain number of workers. IMO it was actually a stroke of genius. Guaranteeing a large worker base up front allowed organizers a lot of flexibility in task definitions and planning, without fear.

So don't fear volunteering. It is actually a blast. After all, finding friendly people that CARE about the kids and the quality of the event is actually the best qualification for a volunteer one can ever hope to find.

- Keith

GaryVoshol

02-09-2009, 07:19

... excluding the culture change winners would do is turn FIRST that much more into a robotics competition. What harm would come from including them "for sure"?While MI had 7 district events last year, they identified 16 geographical areas which might support regions in the future. Giving "for sure" bids to award winners, even biggie awards like Cmn and EI, would have created so many pre-allocated slots that there wouldn't be room at the State Championship for all robot winners. Thus the point system was devised, based on another "scholarship as sports"-type event competition model. In addition, the culture changing awards had special provision that if you won at a district but did not qualify on points, you still would present at State (but without bringing your robot). I had several serious reservations pre-season regarding the fairness of the point schedule, but they all worked out correctly. The only problem I still have is the philosophical discussion regarding the culture changing awards. If awarding or not awarding significant numbers of points for those awards doesn't change the invitation list, then why not award big points for big awards just for the symbolism of recognizing the significance of the awards?

The statistician in me wants to know if these numbers are at all significant. Was this survey also given out a regional events? If so, are the numbers presented better, worse or about the same as a regional experience?The survey was distributed the same way other FIRST surveys were: emailed to volunteers and team leaders, with the request to forward it to students. Several of the questions compared the district experience to former regional experiences. Assuming rookies didn't "stuff the ballot box" on those questions, the district model does compare well with previous regionals.

With regards to the district system, I am a huge fan of being able to travel to distant regionals. If the district system does not allow for this, I will be greatly disappointed.MI teams could travel out of state to other regionals. Assuming the entire country doesn't switch to districts, this would still be available. You crated and shipped your robot as usual, and you paid the regular second-regional entry fee. About a dozen MI teams did this. Other MI teams treated more-remote districts as their travel event. After all, while getting out of the cold is a consideration, part of the travel experience is simply going someplace different and being with your teammates in the hotel. It doesn't matter how long the bus ride is or that you had to fly. Many other MI teams were able to stay close to home and conserve costs by not needing hotels. It was their choice.

One option that could be implemented in the future would be to allow teams to cross "State Championship" boundaries (whatever those events end up being called) and go to out-of-area districts. This could work several ways. A simple one would be to allow teams to schedule a 3rd district event out-of-area on a space available basis; points earned would not count toward their championship. Another would be to allow teams to request transfer to a different area, or request dual-area enrollment. This would allow remote teams like Houghton to request to transfer to the WI/MN area (if one would exist), or to request to play one of their districts in say, Green Bay and the other in Traverse City, declaring ahead of time which Championship event they were trying to qualify for.

Paul Copioli

02-09-2009, 09:47

So Jim Zondag and I were having a discussion last night as he is drafting a proposal to FiM to change the point system slightly. Two items regarding Culture Changing Awards (CCA), specifically the Chairman's Award (CA), came up:

1. If you are slotted to win the CA, which is decided Friday, you will not win a technical award or any other award. While this is not a written rule, look at the historical data and it is overwhelming.

2. You can only win this award at one district. All of the other awards do not have this restriction.

#2 above is the single biggest argument to give the CA more points. My opinion is 10 points (if someone wins GM Industrial Design twice they get 10 points, 2 * 5).

The automatic bid is not scalable and I still hold to my belief that if you are truly the best candidate to represent your State / Region then your robot and team should be able to attain more points than 50% of the other teams.

Paul

kramarczyk

02-09-2009, 11:15

...I still hold to my belief that if you are truly the best candidate to represent your State / Region then your robot and team should be able to attain more points than 50% of the other teams.

I concur.

The robot is still the vehicle that this program uses to foster inspiration. Continually saying it is not about the robot starts to sound like 'the robot is not important', which I don't believe to be true. As was also pointed out earlier, the CA candidates are succeeding both on the field and in the presentation room. All of the District CA candidates qualified not only for the State Championship, but also for the World Championship. I'm just not seeing any disservice being done to the CA teams. All of this discussion makes me wonder why people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I thought that was exactly the kind of behavior that kept us from getting the important stuff done.

Rick TYler

02-09-2009, 11:25

The robot is still the vehicle that this program uses to foster inspiration.

The robot is NOT a lie.

Steve W

02-09-2009, 11:48

This past spring we at the NJ regional team have been working hard on a model similar to the Michigan model but with our events on weekends at the very start of the competition season window. It might allow travel to distant Regionals in the later weeks. We wanted to implement in 2010 but it looks now like that will not happen.

It is true that teams who normally stay close to home would benefit from the large increase in the playing times and get a bigger bang for their buck from the robot. This appeals to many. FIRST would also see a reduction in Fedex usage- something that overpowered them this year.

I however agree with you that I would find it hard to support a model that took up the entire competition season and disallowed for travel to other regions. Frankly for us it is the travel and playing with new friends in other parts of the country that makes FIRST enjoyable. I would hate to think of being restricted to playing the same teams over and over again because of a restrictive model. No offense to the local teams but we see each other all the time and we do have an extensive off season calendar here in the NE.

The Championships might offer a travel op but I do not have much faith in what I am hearing about locations for the future. Sorry.

Of course the proper way to do all this is to have a much more extensive competition season with a local tier followed by a tier series of regionals and the championship. I cant see that big a change occurring any time soon since it would cost $$$ and lots of time for the volunteer base.

Travel to new regions, especially warm ones after a cold hard build season, can be a great incentive for the team and a goal to work for. And if I wanted to play the locals continuously I would go back to coaching sports.

OK - off the soap box

WC :cool:

This is an issue that I have with the 2 different models. Why should teams that have the benefit of doing both while other teams cannot. If you are in the one model then you should have to stay there with no crossing over to the other unless both models are open to all teams in all areas.

Justin Montois

02-09-2009, 12:20

JaneYoung

02-09-2009, 12:39

I concur.

The robot is still the vehicle that this program uses to foster inspiration. Continually saying it is not about the robot starts to sound like 'the robot is not important', which I don't believe to be true. As was also pointed out earlier, the CA candidates are succeeding both on the field and in the presentation room. All of the District CA candidates qualified not only for the State Championship, but also for the World Championship. I'm just not seeing any disservice being done to the CA teams. All of this discussion makes me wonder why people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I thought that was exactly the kind of behavior that kept us from getting the important stuff done.
Wisdom.

There shouldn't be division between robot and Chairman's in the manner being discussed. All the facets of the FIRST competitions enhance and contribute to the competition. They also help students and mentors develop parts of themselves that were laying dormant, awaiting an opportunity to be discovered and realized. This is made of win. (Don't believe me? Volunteer at an FLL event and watch those students shine as they prepare for the judging aspect of the competition. Look at their preparation and their enthusiasm and be prepared to be inspired, yourself.)

If FIRST is going to depend on the teams and their leadership to help build the roads that FRC is going to travel, then the leadership of the teams has to find ways to be supportive of the whole picture and each other, building networks. The big picture that many teams strive towards - supporting the robot competition, the Chairman's Award and the other awards, along with pulling off an event of high caliber and integrity - showcasing excellence.

Talent and skill comes in every shape and form and non-engineering mentors, working alongside and with, the engineering and technical mentors, can provide terrific opportunities. We can be role models in this, working together and respecting each other. In CD we have spent a great deal of time discussing the value of the technical side of things and it easily shows itself on the field. The non-technical side of things shows itself on the field (by how teams conduct themselves) and in other areas of the competition. They each are facets/parts of the same competition and should be respected as such. If teams just want to build the robot and compete with the robot, that's fine. In my opinion, they are missing golden opportunities to celebrate and more fully understand what it means to be an FRC team, but it is just fine.

I agree with Mark, I don't really think there is a problem.
There shouldn't be.

GaryVoshol

02-09-2009, 13:53

#2 above is the single biggest argument to give the CA more points. My opinion is 10 points (if someone wins GM Industrial Design twice they get 10 points, 2 * 5).Personally I think the Chairmans should be worth the same amount of points as being the alliance captain of the winning alliance.
Overview
The Chairman’s Award was created to keep the focus of the FIRST Robotics Competition on our ultimate goal to transform the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as encourage more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists.
The Chairman’s Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST. It remains FIRST’s most prestigious award.If it's the most prestigious award, shouldn't it get the most points?

But any recognition of Chairmans and the other culture changing awards is great.

I would agree that Chm, EI and RAS should only get points for one event.

johnr

02-09-2009, 14:26

If people are looking into tweaking the FIM rules, something from last year bothered me. It was teams getting a third district and getting the extra open bag time. I think getting a third district at a reduced rate is great but it just doesn't seem fair to the other teams that got to touch their robot only twice. What i'm trying to say is if you get a third event you can't open your bag till your at the event. Also, if they set the rosters early enough and see that they need to fill in with third event teams, why not open it up to out of state teams. Sure, those teams wouldn't earn any tickets to atlanta but niether do the michigan teams.

artdutra04

02-09-2009, 14:44

I'm going to take a moment to reflect on this situation as a means of seeing a forest for the trees at the macro-level, and not solely based upon the merits of the specific FRC District Model at the micro-level. So bear with me for a (somewhat) short moment. ;)

Before you read anything else in this post, read the question below, then think about it for at least 30 seconds in your head before reading anything else. Consider it exercise to get the creative thinking juices flowing again, as they tend to coagulate during the non-build-season times of the year. ;-)

How did a car end up in nearly every driveway in America?

No seriously, think about this before you continue reading with the same fever as when you saw your first-ever FRC Game Hint!

Okay, that wasn't so bad, was it? ;)

So how did a car end up in nearly every driveway in America? It certainly wasn't by taking a $10,000 Cadillac, replacing a few shiny chrome and brass parts, and shaving 20-30% of the list price. Rather, it was when Henry Ford's greatest innovation, the modern assembly line, was able to drastically alter how cars were made, for a fraction of the price. $300 for a Model T put car ownership into the realm of possibility for most of America.

Now please don't take this the wrong way, for I mean no harm, but it's always seemed to me that the FRC District Models are taking the eliminate-shiny-brass-from-Cadillac method. On the whole, it's still a Cadillac, just not as shiny, but still easily costs thousands upon thousands of dollars to buy one.

If our goal is to genuinely put a FIRST* team into the majority of schools in America, should we take the eliminate-shininess-of-Cadillac route or should we take on the Henry-Ford-style-innovation route to put a FIRST presence in most schools?

Most rational people would not call Henry Ford elitist because he was able to put an inexpensive car into the hands of most Americans. But last year, I was repeated called elitist for suggesting a similar Henry-Ford-style method for growing the FIRST program - the FIRST Tech Challenge. (Also the Vex Robotics Competition, if our goal is to increase STEM awareness and not just expand the "FIRST-brand-name". But that's another discussion for another day).

The FIRST Tech Challenge costs a fraction of what even District-Style FRC costs, for teams, for events, for sponsors, for everyone. If our goal is to genuinely put FIRST into the majority of schools, this is how we will do it. For less than the price of a FRC control system, you can run at least one FTC team (including registration, most expenses, and materials costs) for a year. Think about that.

While the Districts are great for reducing internal costs for FRC teams, as well as running cheaper events, this isn't the method that will get FIRST in every school. FTC/VRC is that solution.

Now last year I brought up this point, a bunch of people attacked this idea as [paraphrased] saying "why should we even have FRC in the first place if FTC is so good?" This argument is a classic case of misapplying a macro-level concept to a micro-level concept. This kind of argument makes as much sense as saying "why do we need airplanes (and/or high speed trains) when you can drive anywhere in the country?"

Think of FIRST like a pyramid. At the base, we have FLL and JFLL. This is the foundation of the program, as well as the largest group. It's versatility, inexpensive nature, wide age range, and general small team size easily makes it the largest possible program. This group largely learns and is inspired through self trial-and-error of building/programming their robots, as well as their research project. It's also the cornerstone of FIRST, providing for a solid base of inspiration starting at a young age.

Moving up the pyramid, we have the middle group - FIRST Tech Challenge (also Vex Robotics Competition). Right now this market is largely untapped. There exists huge potential for growth in this area. This group in general is slightly older than FLL, and slightly younger than FRC, but heavily overlaps both areas. This group learns and is inspired through a mix of self-learning through trial-and-error and a more active mentorship to teach students about more advanced topics, such as gear trains, torque, etc. The costs for FTC/VRC are more expensive than FLL, but less than FRC, so the number of FTC/VRC teams would generally be less than FLL but more than FRC.

At the very top of the pyramid, is FRC. Like the light shining for dozens of miles from a seacoast lighthouse, FRC is the guiding light of FIRST. FRC is the program that everyone looks to for inspiration and guidance. This program specifically deals with older, high-school students, and by it's very nature necessitates a much larger amount of mentor involvement to be successful. Because of the increased costs, this program isn't economically feasible to put in the majority of high schools, but rather best suited for rather large team sizes with students coming from all over.

A heavily-biased FRC District Style growth model will probably be able to achieve maybe a 10-20% (at most) market penetration into high schools across the country. But a more balanced model of FTC/VRC and FRC would easily be able to make it into nearly every high school. In fact, as of this writing, several states, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, are in the process of getting either a FTC/VRC team into every high school in their states, which is quite a large task. Unlike what most people assume, we still have large rural/agricultural areas up here in New England - we're not all one giant Boswash megalopolis. ;)

But why am I skeptical about the growth potential of slightly cheaper FRC? Connecticut, as most people know, is the richest state per capita in the nation. (Please don't take that as being snobbish, it's not, it's simply the facts. The majority of people in "Da Cutt" don't wear popped collars or drive their parents convertibles to their yachts. Most people in Connecticut are average people). Getting on with my point, Connecticut has 169 towns/cities and no unincorporated land left. Not every town has a high school, but some cities have two or three high schools. All in all, I'd estimate FRC market penetration at about 20% in CT.

For about the last eight or so years, the number of teams in Connecticut has been relatively steady, around 30-35 teams. let's assume that an average FRC team spends $20k, and a district level competition will shave 25% off total costs ($5k in this case). This means that instead of a cumulative total of $600k-$700k supporting 30-35 teams, we could have about 40-46 teams with same amount of money. This could increase market penetration to about ~23%-27%. Not a particularly large growth amount. (And remember, this would be near the top end of what most other states could accomplish. We have lots of high-tech companies in the area (especially in Central Connecticut and the Worcester-Boston-Manchester triangle, and our state is small enough that even the remotest of remote rural areas aren't more than a 45-60 minute drive from our urban/industrial centers).

But why has the number of teams here remained steady? Even in the richest state per capita, we have a hard time attracting enough sponsors to support a significantly larger number of teams. If teams get innovative and an over-arching entity imposes "regulations" to guide funding sources more efficiently to teams who need it the most, we could probably pull in another 10 FRC teams. But such a system may meet philosophical resistance from some teams and people, despite actually benefiting the state's FRC teams in the long run.

So what do we do? FTC/VRC. Being a lot cheaper, we can much easier foot the bill to spread out to virgin STEM schools and start inspiring their students, while continuing to help our current FRC teams through this economic recession. Using these programs, we'll most likely easily get a STEM competition into nearly every school in our state. AND THAT IS OUR GOAL, TO GET S.T.E.M. COMPETITIONS INTO EVERY SCHOOL.

In the end, this all boils down to exactly the same lesson we are learning from this recession about always expecting continuous postive economic growth, continuous growth of housing markets, continuous market growth for financial derivatives and sub prime mortgages, etc. Expecting these to continue growing forever is foolish. Expecting FRC to continue growing forever is also foolish. There will be a limit, not a hard limit but rather quite fuzzy one, where even the inexpensive District-Style FRC will simply be unable to pass.

Not everyone can afford a Cadillac. Not everyone can afford a million dollar McMansion. And the important thing to realize is that there is no shame in this. There is no shame in not living a million-dollar Paris Hilton lifestyle. But there is a lot of shame in trying to live beyond your means. And right now, I think FIRST is trying to make the same mistake our economy made, and trying to invent new means to live beyond our means to continue our opulent lifestyle instead of realizing there's no shame in seeking less glamorous but more sustainable growth. And just like how our economy came all crashing down to correct our errors, if we try to overstretch FRC, market forces will eventually "correct" us whether we like it or not into a more sustainable fashion.

So Mr. Wise Aleck, since you seem so smart, what's your solution? If the decision was up to me, I'd put a significant portion of the effort and capital (both money and man-hours) that could be used into creating new district-level competitions into vastly expanding the middle-tier programs of FIRST Tech Challenge and Vex Robotics Competition, while still keeping a modest effort to continue growing FRC (for large portions of the country, I don't think we are near the economic limit of number of sustainable FRC teams). I'd also create a new campaign, one using the lessons learned from this recession, to be more humble with it comes to growing our program. No longer would pure growth "We started 7 teams!" be rewarded as the end-all-do-all, but rather "We created or saved a total of 7 FRC teams and 12 FTC/VRC teams, for a total audience of 300 total students." Sure, it's not as catchy, but it's vastly better for long term sustainable growth. I also wouldn't penalize regionals such as Michigan for trying new models and methods (such as district-level competitions) to internally reduce their costs, but would make it known that actions like devaluing cultural awards over technical awards is highly discouraged. (Although I don't have definite data to prove it, I'd guestimate there is a pretty strong correlation between the number of engineers on a team and number of technical awards won. This isn't a bad thing, as the idea of engineers and students working together is one of the basic core values of the program, but FIRST is primarily a vehicle for changing the culture, not bolting pieces of metal together. Even if the culture changing awards are usually won by the teams who win technical awards, it's the philosophical meaning behind them that necessitate their continued stay inside FIRST. And it's not an either-or situation, supporting the culture awards does not have to detract from the technical awards. They can both easily co-exist).

And for the teams who want to get more bang-for-their-buck, and have the chance to compete in more matches for cheaper amounts of money, I would give them strong encouragement to start literally DOZENS of off-season competitions in their area. Let local teams run these events, and use them as a fundraiser to help fund their team. A great example of this system is here in the Northeast. There are literally over a dozen off-season competitions within a six-hour drive of almost anywhere in the Northeast. Most of these are small, and with registration costs ranging from $50 to $350, they represent a HUGE bargain. It's not uncommon for a team in the Northeast to attend up to a half dozen off-season competitions from May through November. Many teams around here are year-round teams, and continue meeting the entire year. And with this system, we help both other local teams raise money to fund their programs, as well as have the ability to compete in dozens upon dozens of matches at very little cost.

* FIRST DOES NOT EQUAL FRC!!!

Rich Kressly

02-09-2009, 14:44

Good discussion here. As best as I can see it, the district model presumes two things:

1. More FRC plays per season inspires more students toward science and technology futures while instilling in them a stronger social conscience than their non-involved peers.

2. Making FRC more accessible in "FRC-dense" areas is the best way to spread FIRST's mission, goals, and ideals.

The funny thing is, I don't think any of us have any data to support one way or another here. Unless we really had a handle on all of our team alumni, found out exactly what they are doing today - who's involved in STEM-related education/work and who isn't, then find out how many of those alums carry with them the "social-conscience/volunteer" piece FIRST places such a priority on with the culture-changing awards and culture, THEN find out how many plays per year their teams had in FRC ...

then we'd really know where to dedicate our money, people, and time. Right?

If we're talking only about making FRC more affordable and accessible to areas that are already involved in FRC heavily, then the district model certainly serves a purpose.

But, if we're really talking about the core mission of FIRST, I'm not entirely sure if the district vs "regular" model discussion even matters. The fact that FIRST has other programs, including FTC, and none of that is really a part of this whole discussion bothers me a little.

For years, both inside FIRST offices and out in our communities, I've heard a lot of discussion and reporting on # of FRC plays, # of FRC second plays, etc and I still am not quite sure if this metric matters at all to what we're supposed to be doing for our global future.

Is it cool and exciting when we're there and do we get to win more stuff? Yeah, but ...

Joe Matt

02-09-2009, 14:47

Greetings Teams:
[/FONT]94% of team leaders, mentors and team members rated their District Model experience as “good” or “excellent;”

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?

dtk

02-09-2009, 15:18

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?

The term "Team Members" here is used generally to mean students as it is limited to age 19 and under. Looking only at the Team Members numbers they fall essentially inline with the overall numbers. 94.4% of the "student" category rated the overall tournament experience as good or excellent.

EricH

02-09-2009, 15:20

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?
Joe, please go read some of Dave's posts from around build season. It's not all about the kids, it's all about the partnership between the mentors and the students. (And, a good mentor is also a good student...) Also note that this is the overall number for the team survey.

If the students aren't learning, being inspired, or having fun, they'll quit. This is their option. If enough students quit, then the team no longer exists, and the problem definition changes.

What I'm surprised at is how few students responded to the survey, comparatively. Off the top of my head, about 150-200 mentors and about 100-150 students responded. (I haven't looked at the results in a couple of weeks, so these figures are probably wrong, but I do remember that more mentors than students responded.) This may have to do with the distribution methods, but the ratio of students to mentors responding was low for what the number should probably be. I don't know why.

IKE

02-09-2009, 17:06

What I'm surprised at is how few students responded to the survey, comparatively. Off the top of my head, about 150-200 mentors and about 100-150 students responded. (I haven't looked at the results in a couple of weeks, so these figures are probably wrong, but I do remember that more mentors than students responded.) This may have to do with the distribution methods, but the ratio of students to mentors responding was low for what the number should probably be. I don't know why.

My guess would be three-fold for the low student turn out.
#1 The university that did the survey sent it out after the season was over, which puts you late into the "I don't care or am too busy" portion of the school calendar. This is especially true for Seniors.

#2 The team leader/contact may not have passed things. It happens.

#3 Have you ever asked for a student to get a permission slip to be signed? Have you ever read the numbers of submissions for Scholarships? I was amazed at the IRI that a really great scholarship was not given out because..... NO ONE APPLIED!!!

fuzzy1718

02-09-2009, 17:35

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

Akash Rastogi

02-09-2009, 18:01

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

Well that's a little disappointing, hate to say it. :/

waialua359

03-09-2009, 04:07

Some conversations have occured in Hawaii about the postings on this thread.
The idea of change when it involves:
1. Allowing teams to play more often in a season
2. Saving on cost to teams
3. Savings for FIRST such as FedEx freight costs/donations
4. Better logistics in terms of the RPC for respective events

IS a great thing.
But, I see one major drawback. It's not equal for everyone.
I would hope that further discussions and exceptions be made for teams not as fortunate in terms of location issues, or non-qualified participants outside district model events.
If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.

Having the opportunities to compete with California teams is part of our history (started by 254) and I cant see not being able to compete with them or in NJ in 2011 and beyond.
As Wayne pointed out earlier, FIRST is more than the robot competition itself. Its giving students an opportunity to broaden their horizons, meet new people, and visit the areas surrounding the competition. ;)

EricH

03-09-2009, 09:53

If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.
What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

waialua359

03-09-2009, 14:32

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

We thought about the possibility of that. But, yeah, like you said.........the cost to attend many events in one season would be impossible. Being a part of the CA districting plan wouldnt work.
I was implying that perhaps a pool of teams (based on criteria) could be exempt from either participating/not participating in district events. I cant see how it would hurt Michigan, for example, if a team from outside was allowed to compete with the rest of their teams, due to a criteria such as ours. Hmmm...:rolleyes:

dtengineering

04-09-2009, 13:51

Geographical issues come into play not just for Hawaii teams, but for any team located more than a couple hour's drive from a potential competition site.

I think the Alaska and UK teams, in particular, might share this concern, but I also think of some of the teams from Montana and Idaho who make long drives through snowy mountain passes to reach either Portland or Seattle. Not to mention, of course, teams in Alberta, who are even further from FRC hotbeds than the Montana and Idaho teams.

Attending two district competitions for the entry fees equivalent to one regional competition, while a benefit for teams that do not face challenges in their travel budget, could be a real challenge for teams that are "inconveniently" located. In fact a district model with multiple competitions could actually make it more difficult for those teams to compete on an even footing than it already is.

I do, however, have faith in the people who run FRC, to think about these challenges and find a way to address them that works for everyone. The district model, after all, is an option... not a requirement... and I do get the sense that it will be implemented with a fair degree of flexibility and sensibility.

Jason

Cory

04-09-2009, 17:38

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

That would be impossible to make work from a monetary standpoint for most Hawaiian teams I would imagine.

johnr

04-09-2009, 18:41

I hope that state/regional championships would be able to save acouple of spots for teams that have to travel a long distance. Being part of the actual district would probably not work, but lets say a brazil team wanted to use the michigan championship as a regional i would hope that they would be more then welcome. Maybe FIRST needs to tell future districts that they need to have x number of spots at their championships for those teams that travel.

Cory

04-09-2009, 19:19

waialua359

04-09-2009, 21:10

The district model, after all, is an option... not a requirement... and I do get the sense that it will be implemented with a fair degree of flexibility and sensibility.

Jason

Jason,
I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur. :D

Akash Rastogi

04-09-2009, 21:13

Jason,
I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur. :D

Plus, we might need you guys here in NJ for 2011 :rolleyes: :D

waialua359

04-09-2009, 21:23

Plus, we might need you guys here in NJ for 2011 :rolleyes: :D

Other than freezing butt, NJ is a great competitive regional. We WILL get back there soon.

Karibou

04-09-2009, 21:57

I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur. :D
I believe that part of an earlier discussion was setting up districts based on regional (Midwest, New England, etc), and not necessarily state boundaries, due to the sparse locations of teams in some areas. Even if California's state boundaries were used to set districts, I'm sure that FIRST would realize how much of a problem it would be for the Hawaiian teams if they weren't included in California's district, and would allow you guys to compete there.

Madison

04-09-2009, 22:09

I believe that part of an earlier discussion was setting up districts based on regional (Midwest, New England, etc), and not necessarily state boundaries, due to the sparse locations of teams in some areas. Even if California's state boundaries were used to set districts, I'm sure that FIRST would realize how much of a problem it would be for the Hawaiian teams if they weren't included in California's district, and would allow you guys to compete there.

It makes no difference. There will be always be teams that are on the outskirts of districts, regardless of how their boundaries are drawn. Those teams will incur significant additional expense to receive the same opportunity to play as teams within districts, presuming things remain largely similar to FiM's pilot.

The boundaries of each district are arbitrary and meaningless; what matters is that teams that already incur significant travel costs to attend a single event will be placed at a tremendous disadvantage compared to teams in more densely populated areas.

Mr. Pockets

11-09-2009, 22:26

It makes no difference. There will be always be teams that are on the outskirts of districts, regardless of how their boundaries are drawn. Those teams will incur significant additional expense to receive the same opportunity to play as teams within districts, presuming things remain largely similar to FiM's pilot.
I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district? If the distance traveled is no different (or less) and would theoretically be getting a better deal monetarily than they would under the regional system (even if you factor traveling expenses). So I don't see how districts would be fundamentally less advantageous for remote teams than regionals are. I understand that they proabably wouldn't have it as good as the more centrally located teams, but they almost certainly wouldn't have it severely worse.
-$0.02

Chris is me

12-09-2009, 01:30

Chris Hibner

12-09-2009, 10:31

Nope. Consider a team in Ironwood, MI. They're in the UP. The Wisconsin Regional is closer than their second district. It's a pain to drive anywhere else.

Then they can pay to go the the Wisconsin regional, and they're still $1000 better than they were with the old regional system.

Even so, how can it possibly be $4000 more to travel 6 hours to Kettering than 3 hours to Milwaukee? Gas is expensive these days, but I have trouble seeing them spending an extra 4K to drive an extra 3 hours.

Chris is me

12-09-2009, 11:17

I'm not actually sure. I just picked a city relatively close to team Superior Robotics (?), who complained about this issue while participating in the district system this year. Perhaps they rely on bus transportation for their team?

Madison

12-09-2009, 13:18

I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district? If the distance traveled is no different (or less) and would theoretically be getting a better deal monetarily than they would under the regional system (even if you factor traveling expenses). So I don't see how districts would be fundamentally less advantageous for remote teams than regionals are. I understand that they proabably wouldn't have it as good as the more centrally located teams, but they almost certainly wouldn't have it severely worse.
-$0.02

My concern is predicated upon the assumption that the district-model will operate as it did in Michigan and teams in participating regions will attend two district-events in place of the single, larger regional event they might have attended in the past.

By allowing districts to exist in some places but not in others, FIRST is creating inequality of opportunity for its most rural teams. The distance to an event, whether it be a district or regional, is inconsequential except for where it might increase substantially enough to require teams to travel by air in the future where they'd traveled by road before. Otherwise, increased travel costs are incurred by the additional lodging required when attending additional events.

If a team has to travel to a more populated region three times (for two district events and a regional championship event) to have the same opportunity to qualify and attend the World Championship as a more centrally located team and must pay for lodging each of those three times, how is that not disadvantageous?

It's true that they hop, skip and jump right past their old playground and attend a good old regional event somewhere else and, in that case, their costs probably won't rise over last year; though, please recall that the $1500 reduction in entry fees holds no relation to the implementation of the district model and I do not think those savings are not germane to this discussion. This offers them the cheapest opportunity for ongoing success and a shot at the World Championship, but it is by no means equal to what their former neighbors (however distant) are getting for their money.

For a team from Spokane, WA (on the state's eastern border), it's not unreasonable to drive to Seattle or Portland -- somewhere between 300-350 mi. each way. Do it three times, though, and those hotel bills are starting to get expensive. Their next nearest alternative site would be Davis, CA -- more than 800 mi. away. Driving is less practical and flying is quite a bit more expensive.

Perhaps a simple solution is that district organizers artificially locate district events in less populated areas and spread the financial burden of the west's wide open spaces around to more teams. Instead of making that team from Spokane haul it over the pass three times in March, maybe offer a district event in Spokane (or in nearby Idaho) and force teams from the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor to go east. At such a point, costs for most teams might remain unchanged from what they are now, but they're getting to play more. Some might groan about it -- how would teams in MI feel if they were forced to attend one district on the UP? -- but it's the best solution for the most number of teams.

Mr. Pockets

12-09-2009, 21:24

If a team has to travel to a more populated region three times (for two district events and a regional championship event) to have the same opportunity to qualify and attend the World Championship as a more centrally located team and must pay for lodging each of those three times, how is that not disadvantageous?
Mea culpa, I forgot that there were three competitions and not just the two districts. I was guesstimating that the cost of travel and board for two districts wouldn't be as bad as travel, board, and additional cost of going to a regional. Forgot about states though.

EricLeifermann

13-09-2009, 10:53

Mea culpa, I forgot that there were three competitions and not just the two districts. I was guesstimating that the cost of travel and board for two districts wouldn't be as bad as travel, board, and additional cost of going to a regional. Forgot about states though.

Actually the cost of traveling down state just 2 times for us, cost more than attending the 2 closest regionals. Coach buses are not cheap, the trip to Traverse City district(which was the closest) was an ~8 hour drive and cost us $2,500 or so for busing and another $800 or so for the hotel there. Also being so far away the added savings of an extra day didn't happen for us(district events were only 2 days comps). We still had to get there a day early and leave a day later, we couldn't just drive to the venue each day and sleep in our own beds like 90% of the teams got to, if they planned their events correctly.