Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I want to invite you to do two big things:
1. Read this link, provided by Jim Zondag, that explains the district model. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...postid=1253411
Zondag likes to say that districts are like watching your favorite band in a small venue. It's more compact, but the excitement is higher because it's more intimate. It's also already proven to help FIRST grow.

2. Come to Michigan and check out a district event! I suggest the Grand Blanc, Waterford or Troy events. All three of them are amazing examples of how exciting Districts are.

This year, I attended a Regional for the first time in three years. It was great, but I much preferred the Districts.

/derailing this thread.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I'm with you, I really love the feel of the arena at Wisconsin. I think it goes a long way towards "legitimizing" FIRST as a "real" sport. When I was a new student to FRC, I too was inspired by the scale of the regional. I think if it was held in a gym, it would really lack that impact.

In a gym, FIRST looks like a "small" organization.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Can we please keep this thread about the Negatives of 2013, and not districts? There's plenty of threads discussing districts already.




And if MSC is an example of what a regional should be like, I'll take my "tiny, two day events in a dinky high school gym" please.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

* Scoring was atrocious (real time scoring was a failure, and the system for manual counting was ad hoc and error prone particularly at early events). At every one of our events other than Championships, we have evidence that at least one of our matches was not correctly scored. But this is the ONLY bone to pick with this otherwise great game.

* The diminished frame perimeter, 54", and 84" restrictions (and their reinterpretation halfway through build season) were the most frustrating rules to deal with. Even more so because in practice the 54" and 84" limits were nearly impossible to enforce. A little more leeway in these departments would have let many more teams climb successfully.

* 8 matches at a Championship is unacceptable. We need fewer teams, faster cycle times (working scoring system would have helped here), and/or better time management. Why not intersperse divisional awards with playoff matches? Why the enormous time gap between divisions wrapping up, and Einstein beginning?

* I know it is contentious, but as invitations to Championships get harder to come by, we need to start making hard choices about who gets in. There were many Championship robots that simply were not Championship caliber, and this combined with the 8 matches-per-team format meant that an unlucky alliance pairing could wreck an elite team's chance of seeding where they should.

* Another contentious one (considering many of the posters on Chief Delphi fall in this group): "Special Invited Guest" and "Media Passes" are handed out like candy to team mentors who know the right people. When I see a half dozen mentors from the same team scouting matches from the floor right beside the field, I just roll my eyes.

* FIRST needs to get Einstein to end on time. That means reducing the gap between Divisions and Einstein, or being more selective about the number/length of corporate backslapping speeches, or doing a better job of spacing them out, or simply altering the schedule so Einstein is designed to end later so teams can plan accordingly.

* As much as I love the functionality and weight of plastic air tanks, there were several cases of these tanks exploding due to over tightening threads or spilling solvents on the tanks. Of course well-mentored teams will treat the tanks as they should and will not have problems, but giving a bunch of under-mentored high school students access to these tanks is a disaster waiting to happen. We either need to outlaw the tanks, or come up with some sort of legal "sleeve" to at least contain the shrapnel if something goes wrong.

* Practice field policy at Champs worked fine after Thursday, but on practice day lots of teams just needed to plop their bot down in front of a goal to dial in their shooters, and the line for this was insane on the Newton practice field. The two additional fields in the annex were absolutely necessary, and it would have been great to have even more (especially some with enough carpet to practice midfield autonomous modes). Also, on Friday morning our full practice field started to turn you away if you weren't 10 minutes early to your scheduled time, which was not well announced prior to the change. By Saturday morning it was better communicated that this was the policy.

* Refs had to make a lot of judgement calls (ex. what is a 3 point foul vs. what is a 20 point foul for contact with a protected FCS), which makes things more difficult for everyone.

* Pyramids varied in tolerance a lot from event to event, which is almost certainly an assembly issue. Need more precise instructions for field crews so that they are correctly assembled every time. A similar thing happened in 2011 with the inflation of game pieces.

* Pyramids were among the most expensive and hardest to build field elements teams have had to build.

* FIRST Choice had numerous issues this year (already beaten to death in threads months ago)

* FIRST Finale was so crowded that it was unsafe.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This is garbage. FIRST is not about "elite teams." It is not about the finals on the Einstein field, though they certainly are fun to watch and an integral part of the experience. FIRST is about an engineering challenge, a program which allows high school students to gain actual engineering work experience and which inspires people to seek careers in STEM. This is why the Chairman's award, not winning the championship, is the most prestigious award in the competition.

When you lose sight of this, you lose sight of the entire purpose of FRC. If you honestly think that your success in the tournament better matching your robot ability should rank higher on FIRST's list of priorities than allowing teams you deem "unfit" the opportunity to attend and compete in championships, then you do not understand FIRST, and need to fix your attitude. Shame on you.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

A couple of things that might help seating. One is a scouting block of 6 to 8 seats per team, which I know has been tossed around. I realize it doesn't solve having the whole team sit together but properly placed in the best seats for actually seeing either the blue or red alliances, it sure does help with scouting.

Another is if people would not move during matches. Sit tight, and then get up and do your moving around between matches. It's always always always a huge issue trying get people to remember to stay "down in front" when EVERYONE is trying to watch and collect scouting data.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

You do realize 341 is a Hall of Fame team right? They get what FIRST is about and I personally saw nothing wrong with his post, since as a team who got in off of wait list I would much rather have not gone and allowed for less teams thus more matches for those who did go.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

If being from a HoF team immediately makes your posts Word of God, then I guess I'm uninformed.

Bear in mind that his point was not to reduce the number of teams for the sake of event logistics or increased number of matches, it was purely because he felt that teams were being "cheated" out of their "rightful seed" because they had the terrible experience of being paired with a team that isn't "elite!" Oh, the horror!

This clique-y nonsense has no place in a competition whose ostensible goal is to spread interest in STEM, and I don't particularly care who it's coming from. Neither should you. If you find the idea of a FIRST in which a small number of "elite" teams get to compete in nationals more appealing than a large number of not-so-"elite" teams, simply because you value the competition more than the engineering, then I contend that you do not understand the point of FIRST, no matter how prestigious your background. Get off your high horse and realize that FIRST is not about winning the tournament, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

As someone who has never remotely come close to getting to Einstein or to being an elite team, I disagree with this post 100% when it comes to the World Championship.

Jared is absolutely spot on with what he said.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I agree. Having been to both Seattle and Spokane regionals, I enjoyed Spokane, which was held in EWU's gym, more because the seating was closer to the field.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

You completely missed the point why it is unfair to teams attending. I think I know pretty well that it meant more teams does mean an unfair set of qualification matches due to the number of teams attending. The quality of matches can go down and rankings are not perfectly accurate. Please don't put words in people's mouths.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Let's look at the quote itself, shall we?

Now, please tell me how you could possibly read this in a way other than "we need to make sure that non-elite teams don't get in, because being paired with a non-elite team is harmful to the ranking of an elite team." He did not say "we need to restrict the number of teams that get in," he said "we have to make hard choices about who gets in." The sense of that quote is very clearly discriminatory as to team quality, not quantity.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

FIRST appears to believe in inspiration through competition. If this is the case, then Championships should be as competitive as teams are able to make it. Being at the mercy of the schedule after spending so much more time, effort and money to qualify and attend is uninspiring for everyone, it's just most obvious when known powerhouses get caught in it.

This is how: don't conflate "not Championship caliber" with your definition of elite. Yes, Daisy is elite. But the complaint isn't about not playing with elite teams, it's about not playing with teams that are on par with Worlds.

"...invitations to Championships get harder to come by, we need to start making hard choices about who gets in" is not a normative assertion. It's not an elitist attitude--it's not an attitude at all. It's simply true. At what point does inviting more teams to play fewer matches result in diminishing returns? How many people do you inspire pulling someone off the waitlist vs qualifying another wildcard team, versus even keeping it at 8+ matches? Whether we like it or not, we're coming up on the point that these decisions are non-negotiable.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

"as invitations to Championships get harder to come by, we need to start making hard choices about who gets in."

This implies quantity of robots as well as quality. Quality and quantity can sometimes go hand in hand when teams are taken off the waitlist.

Sure, many teams who attend from the waitlist have terrific bots, but many times there are also robots that, as Jared said, are not Championship caliber. A way to alleviate this is a qualification system based on points like FiM and MAR. The fact of the matter is that teams off the waitlist make for larger divisions = fewer matches for those who qualified for Champs.

Until that happens, I fully agree with Jared's points. Why should we come to the point where a random team is taken off the waitlist, while a team who competed early in the season and was, let's say, a regional finalist but did not get a wildcard slot, cannot attend? I would much rather see teams who didn't get Wildcards be able to attend champs instead of random teams who had good luck and fast fingers during registration.

Good example of a team that should have deserved to attend: 2791. No wildcard, no nothing.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Please give a definition for both "elite" and "championship caliber," and explain what precisely the difference is and how precisely it changes the meaning of that post from how I had interpreted it.