What First is missing.
 

After reading the the thread on open build and several other threads about how to improve First it is more evident then ever FRC needs real competition. Competition would

Drive down costs for teams
Make friendly build rules
Improve the quality of awards handed out.

Monopolies are never a good thing. I love First but think an open market approach would solve many of the issues we see posted here on C.D.

Re: What First is missing.
 

These aren't issues. They are people complaining because teams are better then them.

All these complaining threads and changing FIRST threads need to stop.

/thread

Re: What First is missing.
 

To clarify, are you positing that FIRST needs to have more competition among teams, suppliers, other robotics competitions, or some other type of competition?

Re: What First is missing.
 

I think he's saying that FIRST needs direct competition from another robotics competition, because right now, there really is no direct competitor to FRC.

Re: What First is missing.
 

If FIRST really wants to expand and improve changes need to be made.

This is not a thread complaining that FIRST is unfair.

The OP is from a past world champion, I don't think they would ever complain about teams being better than them.

Competition is never a bad thing, lack of competition leads to complacency. Nobody wants FIRST to be complacent or stagnant. FIRST continues to change and has changed over the years, and its a good thing. Having teams express feelings on ways they feel FIRST can change for the better is not complaining, it's constructive criticism.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Ummm....maybe. One thing I will say, though, is that the off-season events are a really good, lower cost way to get a lot more out of your season. And that, in and of itself, helps to drive down the cost, in that it gets FIRST thinking about alternatives (districts) to the mondo-big regional events.

FIRST and the vendors do need to keep thinking up better ways to give teams better return on the investment that each year represents.

FIRST also needs to get better information from those who are not in FRC. Many organizations have dropped out of FRC due to time or money cost, or looked at the barriers to FRC success, and have said, no thanks. FRC needs to determine a better path to transition these organizations into FRC, or else FRC growth will be stunted.

Re: What First is missing.
 

AKA, competition between STEM programs is mostly counterproductive. The goal isn't to be the better program among programs, but to reach out to students and get them excited for science, technology, engineering and math.

Granted there is and will be some competition if another program is as good as or better than FIRST, but in the end the goal of my mentoring shouldn't be to promote FIRST, but promote STEM based learning though a program like FIRST.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Oh, so FIRST is good enough as it is? :rolleyes:

FIRST is effective as a tool for a certain set of problems. What OP is saying is that we need other tools to address other problems. My problem is a screw, yours is a nail... do you use the same tool?

Re: What First is missing.
 

Yes, but I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. The point of programs competing against FRC is that we believe it'll make FRC --and potentially the other program--better at reaching and inspiring students, a goal they share. They needn't be better than each other, just better than they were. VEX and FTC positively push each other some at least for us at the local level (I'm not condoning FIRST's treatment of IFI). VEX IQ and FLL are shaping up for the same. Heck, we all benefitted from some of the reputable competition between two respected pillars of the FRC community this year: AM and IFI/VEXpro.

The point is, competition isn't about mentors promoting their program rather than inspiring students. I'd seriously hesitate to bring it to the mentor level at all. What competition can do is lower prices and increase service across the board, which is something (particularly lower registration fees) that could really help FIRST and its competition reach collectively more students.

Re: What First is missing.
 

If you're on my team, why not? :P


I don't think competition would be the best solution. FIRST is already trying to improve, and over the last couple of years (don't know about before) has taken our input to improve itself on a daily basis.
Competition in the market causes lower prices and more attractive advertizing, not necessarily impovement of the firm and/or product. I think that IF FIRST changes because of competition, the change would be more towards making the competition more attractive to spectators through games that are more fun to watch, which are not necessarily more educational to play. I think this competition, if it will be heavy and a threat to FIRST's spread (which is kind-of the definition of competition in marketing), might cause FIRST to lose focus on what matters to FIRST most: inspiring students to persure a career in STEM.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Just a few thuoghts:
I believe that VEX is starting to really compete with FIRST on some STEM related competition aspects. Talking to team mentors that have gone from FRC to VRC it makes sense in a few areas mainly money. One mentor told me that he can run 7-12 VRC teams for the price of one FRC team over a three year time span. VRC is also more easy and less expensive to run from an event stand point compared to an FRC regional. Now VEX has taken the game and upped the diffcuilty of it due to VEX Iq. Now the games are becoming more challenging and high school targeted. I'm not trying to bash FRC because the fact is that FRC is still the only competition in which students get to work side by side with professionals to build a 120 lb machine. The problem is that unless the cost to the teams go down or a full district model is put in place many teams will seriously consider going to VRC instead of FRC. I'm not saying FRC will fall to the way side but it will be hurt from it. Also I have a question for all of you more expirenced people out there. Will VEX Iq. challenge FLL or is FLL established enough that the cost difference wont hurt it too bad?

Re: What First is missing.
 

IQ vs FLL is going to interesting to watch, with FLL being the firmly entrenched 800 lb gorilla. Convincing people to move away from the product they already have experience with is never an easy task.

If anything you are going to see school divisions pick and choose the programs they support due to previous investments in products and perceived return on their investments.

Example: Our school division which is just over 80,000 students now has FLL in most (all?) elementary schools, VRC in most (all?) middle and high schools, FTC in a number of high schools, and three FRC teams.

Educator's note: That is total division wide enrollment which includes over 60 elementary schools, 16 middle schools and two traditional schools, as well as 11 high schools,

Re: What First is missing.
 

I think FIRST faces enough challenges without outside competition. In my city, we have five fewer FRC teams than we did in 2005. The difficulties faced by every single FRC team provide, IMHO, plenty of competition. Every single FRC team has to constantly compete against the outside world for the funding and support we need to survive. I'm confident that FIRST understands that if it is not constantly improving itself, it will not last long.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Aloha,

From what we have seen over the past years is that VEX is a wonderful starting program that allows basic programming and building skills to develop. These skills help the students to transition into FRC. Our program was started with the low cost underwater ROV competitions and then added the VEX program and then Botball. It was after our successes in these programs that we were approached to start a FIRST team.

I like the fact that the programs have different seasons which allow the robotics program to run thought the school year. There is little overlap and competition for resources.
I am saddened that the Vex and FRC world championships coincide this next year. This makes for some tuff decisions on which to attend if you are lucky enough to attend both. In my mind there would be no question which to go to.
There is NOTHING like a FRC world championships. It is by far the most student inspiring event we have ever attended. The amount of stories that the students bring back from ROV, Botball, and the VEX world championships is NOTHING compared to the amount from the FRC world championship ….

Back on to the topic.
Would another program competing with FRC be a good thing?

Many areas have a hard enough time supporting the existing FRC teams.
Having another program compete for students as well as sponsorship would, in the end, hurt everyone.
If a company has to decide on which to support, most sponsors will make the decision based on costs. If it is going to cost the company less to sponsor a non FRC team then it is a good business decision to do so and will still look good to the community. If they have a set budget of outreach sponsorships, then they could now support two non FRC teams for the same amount and it then it looks even better to the community to do so.

Would this cause FRC to make changes to be more competitive? Sure but at what costs?
Cheaper quality and fewer KOP items? Less scholarships available as participation drops? Smaller venues and less commercialism (making it Loud)?

Are monopolies a good thing? Sometimes…Do monopolies they still exist? Yup…

Are you old enough to remember the telephone system in America prior to the monopoly break up?…….
My service has never been quite the same :D

An open market approach will solve some problems but will just cause others.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I'll ask the tough, sensitive question because its going to come up sooner than later, IMO. It already is to some extent with the overlapping of 2 major World Championships in 2014 which affects many including us directly.

What happens if VEX views this as the other way around? What happens if in the future, there is no need to transition at all? Hard choices which will force real competition.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Which means there are about 100 students a year no longer exposed to STEM. If there were a viable competitor to FRC it may provide an opportunity that currently doesn't exist for those students.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I think FIRST and sponsors should start not just focusing on inner city teams but other underpriviledged teams that live in areas that don't feature many willing or even engineering companies. There is a lot of scientist and engineer potential that is missed through that.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I don't want to sound rude, but please go understand what the definition of what a monopoly is. FIRST isn't a monopoly. It is an open market and they are putting up no barriers to entry, that is they are not preventing anyone from stepping and competing. There are other competitions that compete with FIRST and they are open to anyone.

FIRST doesn't make money, they get their bills paid. And they run the organization financially responsibly which means they keep a proper amount of reserves for operations.

If FIRST were making money, plenty of investors would be starting competitions to try to get a piece of that action.

To seriously impact the current cost structure would require a fundamental restructuring of the whole program. That restructure might be offensive to other people. That is one of the factors driving the district model. More plays, lower cost, less show, more high school gym, but that is another argument for another thread.

The real issue here is Value.

Anytime we are talking about cost, we also need to be talking about value.

Cost and Value are two distinctly different entities.

If you can persuade your community of the value of FIRST, then there is a chance the cost issue will resolve itself with increased funding.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I don't see how this relates to any of the issues he mentioned.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Amen. When I worked at Linens 'n Things, we had a large portion of product that we called "Value Merchandise". For five years, to the chagrin of my manager, I called it what it was: "cheap crap" -- there was no *value* in it; most of it wasn't worth the pittance it cost.

Value means a high-quality product at a price worth paying. FRC is an excellent product, but I think that the cost is prohibitive for many. If we can maintain the quality but lower the cost, I think that would be one of the greatest changes FIRST could make.

Please file under "easier said than done".

Re: What First is missing.
 

What FIRST is missing is exposure. The type of exposure that creates top-of-mind awareness. The exposure that is enjoyed by major sports, created by massive marketing campaigns.

Newspaper articles, TV news features - they're all neat, and a decent starting point, but they're not enough. FIRST is missing the daily interaction with laypeople. The Make It Loud initiative is a step in the right direction.

FIRST is missing a fundamental change in its own philosophy. Celebrity on chiefdelphi does not equal celebrity in the real world. Having wild celebrations for two months - at college campuses during their spring breaks and an unoccupied stadium - then being largely dormant the other ten months of the year does not create the level of awareness needed to be what it needs to be. Districts and offseason events are a step in the right direction, but they're nowhere near as comprehensive as they need to be. I know of 20 offseason events, which is great, but really less than a tenth of what there needs to be - and I'm just talking about America.

What we have now is similar to the Indianapolis 500 or Kentucky Derby. It's a cool story once a year, but largely ignored and underground for the rest of the time. That is unacceptable.

When FIRST has its own magazine, we'll be on the horizon. When FIRST has its own television network, we'll be pretty close. When Vegas lays published odds on FIRST events, we'll be there.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Re-quoting because I think this is spot on exactly what needs to happen. Also I need to spread around more rep before giving it to Taylor again. Aaron, Gregor, wanna help me out on this one?

Re: What First is missing.
 

Here's some of the stuff I want to see some day:

• Really high quality video feeds of every event, including organized archived matches, dual camera views (full field + one that tracks the action), and high resolution.
• A medium for viewing the video feeds that makes it really easy and fast to access info on the teams that are playing in each match to get some of the context and history that most viewers aren't aware of.
• Official stats kept for every robot in every match, and the availability of real time stats just like you get in a pro sporting event, like in MLB GameCast
• Nationally televised reality TV show that tracks the progress of several teams each year during the offseason, build, and competition seasons
• More exciting Einstein finals (no energy killing extras) that are ready for prime time
• Elimination rounds that are broadcast like a big pro game, with announcers who have access to a lot of info on the teams, replays shown of key plays, interesting statistics shown during down time, and bits of rules shown frequently (with diagrams and bits of animation)
• Automated Fantasy FIRST leagues that are easy to setup on Yahoo like other fantasy sports.

That would create something that people can follow in the way that people currently follow sports. The webcasts that we currently get are making some progress, but they still suffer from some issues that make them hard to follow unless you already have a decent idea of what's going on.

I'm not saying all of that is going to happen tomorrow, but if it did, I bet a bunch more people would get hooked on FIRST. They'd start out being hooked on the competition aspect, and some of those people would probably end up getting involved as volunteers or mentors or students.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Sounds a lot like what VEX and FTC are intended for. Some areas don't have the financial means/mentors/build spaces available to support a program on the scale of FRC in every school. Grants are often available to get teams started, but they don't provide the means for these teams to be self sustaining once the grant money runs out. I saw this happen in Boston with the Smith Foundation grants- we had something like 23 rookie teams in one year. The next year, all but a handful did not return.

FRC is and always will be expensive, and not just financially. The tools, space, mentor and student hours (not just during build season, but planning meetings, organizing fundraisers, public outreach and demonstrations, recruiting, etc), parts, other materials, and competitions all have fairly high costs associated with them, and not all are monetary. Any competitor on the scale and of similar mission to FRC is very likely to have similar requirements in terms of time and material.

VEX and FTC appear to be designed to avoid such requirements. With primarily bolt-together components easily assembled with hand tools, much more relaxed time requirements, reduced system complexity, and dramatically lower cost, these programs were started with the intention of getting STEM into schools where FRC scale teams are either impractical, or unfeasible. These "100 students per year no longer exposed to STEM" don't need something on the scale of FRC to be inspired if their school/community can't support it, and a competitor of equal flashiness and cost likely won't change that. Practical alternatives do exist, if the powers that be are willing to consider them.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I'm well aware of these programs and these problems (I've publicly announced a distaste for rookie grants numerous times). The primary barrier to entry for Vex (I'll get to FTC in a minute) for me is the lack of scholarships. I can start an FRC team, doesn't matter how bad they do, my students are now eligible for a lot of scholarships. Vex doesn't really have the range of scholarships. For FTC the primary barrier to entry is less but still there, many scholarships are written for FRC not FTC.

For me, viable competitors do NOT exist. My students need to pay for school and FRC is the only game in town for that.

Re: What First is missing.
 

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

Re: What First is missing.
 

+1 and QFT. This should be a top priority.

Re: What First is missing.
 

And add to this camera operators that actually know what to watch for in matches. I honestly think that, just as refs are trained for each game, camera operators should be "trained" as well. I know every team deserves to be given spotlight on the webcast, but I really dont want to see two robots sitting at the pyramid doing nothing and the 3rd struggling to get their robot to shoot into the low goal when the other pyramid has a robot climbing to the 3rd level with 15 seconds left or dumping in the pyramid goal.

Re: What First is missing.
 

This is one of the most irritating parts of webcasts for me. I can distinctly recall a match where during autonomous I listened to the announcer call out the blue alliance as they made 1 autonomous shots, while the camera operator focused on the red alliance which had one robot shoot 2 disks over the 2 point goal. It was incredibly frustrating. I completely agree that the camera operators need some sort of training on where to point the cameras. If FIRST is going to spread, we need to have webcasts that are more exciting and better quality. I swear some of these must be filmed with a potato, they are completely embarrassing to share with people outside FIRST.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Although I could be wrong, most of the webcasts are usually filmed on decent cameras (if they are streaming the video shown on the audience screen), but streaming high quality video becomes a problem with bandwidth constraints and other problems. But I agree there were some pretty low quality streams that I saw.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Re: What First is missing.
 

There are definitely more than 20 offseason events but since they aren't listed on a single page like the regionals, it's hard to find them. Honestly I wonder what percentage of FRC participants (students and mentors) even know off season events exist?

It would be nice to have a central place to host information about offseasons that also has a place for teams to register and sign up volunteers. Something like robotevents.org but for FRC offseason events.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Then find a better website to host your streams. Try something new, like the new Bittorrent streaming protocol that needs significantly less bandwidth on the broadcaster's end.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Yes. Some of these streams were unbearable. Some of them looked liked washed-out CCTV security cameras. Fixed views from the very back of the stadium does not a good stream make. As someone who already knows what's going on and into the program, I found it hard to watch them, so I know a random parent/friend/stranger that stumbled onto the stream was probably not impressed.

I feel like if there were production standards and a minimum budget, we may even see some local stations pick it up, whether live or after-the-fact. While we may not compete easily with NFL/MLB/NASCAR/LMNOP on Sundays, there's always the Saturday slots that are usually reserved for paid programming during the afternoon. Or the digital over-the-air channels such as 5.2, 8-3, etc.

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I believe this is what yoqu're looking for, it seems to be a pretty cool concept with a lot off potential. Definitely something that we should look into (and preferably someone with more webcasting knowledge than I have)

Re: What First is missing.
 

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

Re: What First is missing.
 

What about the setup 2337 brough to a couple events. I was a sigle camera with a wide angle lens on a pole behind the scoring table:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...64&postcount=9
Here is a randomly selected video from that setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lOCOmD2keeY

I don't know much about the bandwidth aspects of it, but that hardware setup would be pretty affordable to have one for each field.

Re: What First is missing.
 

An HD camera with a fisheye lens mounted right next to the field (just like the MSC feed) provides the best viewing angle from home, as the field fills up like 90% of the viewable area. Tiny GoPro cameras on poles can do this just fine without obstructing the audience's view.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Oh, in that case P2P streaming won't help this specific problem, as the broadcaster must have enough bandwidth to upload the stream in the first place.

Re: What First is missing.
 

We are one of those teams. Small rural towns who have few local engineers who really want to get involved and no veteran teams within a 50 mile radius need a little more help to get off the ground and stay there.
We have been around for six years. Four years ago we were lucky and got connected with an extremely dedicated and fun loving engineer. This year we happened to get connected with another two who have found great fun and enjoyment with our team and FIRST in general. The company that employs our original engineer as well as one of our new ones has just been purchased and we do not know what the new owners plan to do with the plant. If they shut them down we could lose two phenomenal engineering mentors.

One suggestion that I have made to FIRST directly is how the top 8 alliances are formed. I submit that if you want more excitement from the mid-level, low-level, and rookie teams treat the alliance selection at competition like alliance selection at many of the off-season events. You may not choose from within the top 8 and/or if you have already won at a regional you may not compete as an alliance captain in subsequent regionals. To my way of thinking this would not be much different than Chairman’s as you can only submit it at one event. Before you start yelling that it is their reward for hard work take a breath and let me finish because I have the utmost respect for those teams and push my team to emulate their work ethic and dedication.

At our one event we compete against teams that attend 2, 3, and 4 events and many times they bring home those big blue banners from multiple events every year. I am at a school and in a town that simply is not yet willing to pay for two events even though we have been in qualifiers 4 of the 6 years we have been competing and our performance is consistently improving. Because we have not yet brought home a blue banner we get a lot of smiles and pats on the head saying ‘how nice for you’ etc. If I brought home a big blue banner there is no question that my community and school would step in and help pay for us to attend championships but until that point we still rank somewhere behind underwater basket weaving in the eyes of this football obsessed town (once again please forgive as my home lives and dies by two seasons, football and robots ) If alliance selection were shifted to ‘must pick outside the top 8’ and/or you cannot compete as an alliance captain if you have already won a regional I think a couple of things would happen:

1. More teams in qualifiers = more teams going home excited about their experience = more kids/teams in their local media = more support and widespread knowledge of FIRST
2. Lower seed alliances would not go into quarter-finals expecting to lose (i.e. #1 vs #8 which on the surface seems exceedingly unfair however it is by rights that #1 earned that advantage)
3. More new teams to championships = more local publicity for FIRST because I don’t care how small your town is when you have something this cool advancing to World Championships the entire town will jump on board

Now, all of that being said I could be (and often am) completely mistaken and talking out of my backside so please feel free to take my comments as such. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching powerhouse alliances play all-out on the field. It’s exciting and fun to watch. Sometimes though, it’s tough to sit in the stands knowing that your one competition is done while you watch and try to appreciate the finals playing out before you between two alliances made up of multiple teams that have already won their way to championships.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I can't recall which regional it was (I think MSC, as stated earlier in the thread), but I saw that setup before. Something like that plus the static "aerial" shot that we already get would be much better. 3 views minimum, then regionals with more resources/space can also add in the optional camera operators.

I like that. You can see everything, and the regional only needs to setup one camera.

I definitely think FIRST should try to implement some of these ideas and enforce a standard. It's the next logical step in their plan to spread the word.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Personally, as far as the original argument was saying, I have to say that cutting the prices would help rookies who still are trying to gather a ring of sponsors. No one should show disaproval over some one wanting lower part prices. It would allow rookies to actually try out their ideas with efficiency. The only casulty that I think veterans are objecting to is quality of parts. That's probably why the very next post that followed objected.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I prefer to say that you are attempting to repeat history (and should you succeed, the traditional "doomed" will apply in big, bold letters). I think I would much rather deal with powerhouses forming within the top 8/multi-regional winners than deal with teams throwing matches to drop out of the top 8.

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

This had about the same effect as disallowing picking within the top 8 would have. It's not necessarily difficult to intentionally lose a match and make it look like an accident--not that anybody necessarily would, but it wouldn't be surprising, at least to me.

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

Re: What First is missing.
 

And this I did not know ::rtm:: should have read up on my FIRST history I suppose lol...thank you for the info on this. And I can completely see your point about match fixing. Having only had experience with the selection process for the past six years this seemed like a good idea when I first considered it however if past history has proven otherwise then it should be removed from consideration.

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?


I should have explained better. In my head (like most things it always sounds better in my head :) ) they would be available for selection just not an AC. Maybe I have built up the position of AC as having more 'power'(?) than it really does because of the selection process. I don't want them out of the top 8 totally as they are extremely valuable partners and can absolutely help another alliance advance to regionals.

Interesting, I know District events are out there but have had no direct dealings with them or understanding of how they actually work. I have heard rumblings of Texas perhaps shifting to a District set up but no real concrete information. I will have to do some more research on how the District setup works because that would definately nullify the ideas posted above.

Re: What First is missing.
 

That would have a similar problem; teams would have an incentive to throw matches if they're the top seeded team and have a chance to drop down to rank 6-8 by losing their last match.

Re: What First is missing.
 

In a district system, AC gives more points towards the district championship than 1st pick or 2nd pick (which are themselves on a sliding scale so the farther back you get picked the fewer points you get). So, yes, there is an advantage there. And they get to pick the broad strategy in any event.

But here's the problem. Let's assume, for a moment, that there's a previous event winner in the #1 slot, one in the #6 slot, and one in the #10 slot. That's a pretty conceivable scenario, I think. My question is this: The #1 team cannot make a selection. Who gets first pick? Well, you say, the #2 gets the first pick. But, are they the #1 alliance or the #2 alliance in the bracket? There is a bit of a difference. If they are the #1, then as I mentioned, how do you treat the #1 team?

What I foresee happening is mass confusion. Confusion and complication are never good unless you're actually trying to solve a very nasty puzzle. If you've ever seen someone try to pick a team that already declined, that's straightforward. Trying to deal with a high-ranked team that can't pick because they happened to win an earlier event...

I also suspect that there may be a few "questionable" finals wins due to teams not wanting to lose their AC eligibility.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Actually, this is false. In both MAR and FiM, the AC and 1st Pick of any given alliance receive the same number of points: 16 (A1) through 9 (A8). It's only the 2nd pick that's different within the alliance: 8 points (A8) through 1 point (A1).

This is because statistically, being the 1st pick is actually slightly more indicative of future success than being the 1st alliance captain, etc. This makes sense, and actually contributes to the issue you're explaining--what draft advantages would really come out of forced skipping? Particularly as more regions go to districts or other points-based systems, this has the potential to be not just confusing, but at least superficially invalidating.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I agree completely, mass confusion is never a good thing even when trying to solve nasty puzzles :D . As I said I don't have any experience with district systems and while 6 years in FIRST sounds like a long time it really is not in the grand scheme of things. Many of the ideas that I suggested would require much more thought than I have put into them.

I suspect that many smaller teams who don't hang around may be leaving FIRST because they feel like they cannot win or even run with the powerhouses. I personally have had parents who have been involved with my team for multiple years come to me and ask, 'How long do you expect the district and town to continue to support the team financially if you never 'win'?' It doesn't take too many parents with that attitude to put the idea in the head of someone who makes funding decisions that for a non-winning team this is just too expensive and that is what I am truly afraid of not just for the smaller teams but FIRST in general.

Re: What First is missing.
 

This holds true not just for the webcast but for event production quality.

That is my biggest beef with the few district events I have been to. (and it really is just a FEW, so please don't hate on me for that statement. I haven't been to the ones I've heard described as 'well-done', so I am not going to speak for those events.) One I was at in person felt like a badly-done offseason event. It just wasn't the event quality I'm used to from FIRST.

Yes, districts are great because of their lower expense and their ability to give teams more matches... but if the events are disorganized and unimpressive, then nobody from 'outside' is going to watch, online OR in person.

Re: What First is missing.
 

This is a great example of a double standard. Most high schools in the United States have a football team. Sometimes new schools are built or schools without football teams decide they want one, so a new team is formed, and they hire a coaching staff who may or may not have experience, and buy uniforms and equipment. And usually, like most rookie FRC teams, they kinda suck. Does anyone question the district for spending the money to do this because the team doesn't win? No, and when I have seen school districts cut sports, it's an outrage. That question should not exist for FRC teams, because like football, there's more to it than winning.

Re: What First is missing.
 

This precisely. I came from a school with a football team that went 3-37 in the 4 years that I was there. They went 2 seasons without a win. Yet, they were never denied any funding, (and actually got increased funding), and people always praised the individuals on the team. Granted, the football teams do bring revenue to the school through the games, but even then, if the team is winless in 2 seasons, there is still an outrage at cutting any funding to the program.

Re: What First is missing.
 

One big thing that is missing from FIRST is Mentor training. Yes I understand that FIRST has a conference at Championship and there may be other outlets for mentor training but as a mentor who spends most of his time in the pit make sure things are running smoothly. I barely have time to check out what is going on and what other teams have done. There needs to be a better outlet for mentors to get trained without having to burn more PTO. Because it takes a special understanding and knowledge to design and build one of these robots and not knowing the technology or resources leaves teams in the dust.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I agree. Being a team coach who is a true NEMo and has never been to championships it has been difficult to navigate my way through many things.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Several areas have teams that do mentor workshops during the summer or fall. Scott Rippetoe (1477) and myself started a summer one in Houston last year and we are working on one for this summer. Maybe you could get together with teams in your area and do the same. HQ can't solve all the problems, that the best part about FRC we can do a bunch things ourselves.

Re: What First is missing.
 

FIRST could include a LTE hot spot with the field. Then FMS always has internet and you can stream HD video (assuming you're not in some remote location with no LTE). Even if this costs $10,000, that's nothing.

Re: What First is missing.
 

Or they could just include some way for the fields themselves to record in like 720p or 1080p and then upload each match like how TheRoboShow did for the Orlando Regional.

Re: What First is missing.
 

The only thing I can think of that I think would make first better would be an equalizing chip between really large teams like 80 students to small teams like 7-15 students. Don't get me wrong I'm not talking a competitive advantage I'm talking more on the side of funding as raising money because I can imagine that raising money is a lot easy with 80 students then with 15

Re: What First is missing.
 

It may be true that they have more students available to organize some sort of formalized fundraising plan or system, but think about the costs. A team this large has enormous travel expenses. You have to factor in transportation, lodging, team meals, etc...

I wouldn't say it's much easier.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I'd also encourage some regionals to look into raising their production quality. Let's just say that one of the events I was at recently (within the last several years) should have been the premiere regional but was run worse than most district events I've been to... or most off seasons.

Re: What First is missing.
 

I never thought of it that way, but you are right with a big team you do have more cost to cover.. And in some cases I do remember that those huge teams can't afford to bring all there members.

In that case your right its not much easier

Re: What First is missing.
 

I'll note that it has already been pointed out that FIRST is not a monopoly. Anyone who thinks they can create a better high school robotics competition is welcome to give it a shot.

There is no obvious direct competitor to FRC... which may be sufficient proof that FIRST is doing a good job of managing FRC, but Skills Canada, MATE, and a number of other competitions do exist.

That said, however, I'd like to point out that the assumption that competition is always better than a monopoly has gone unchallenged. In most cases -- as with VRC and (perhaps... we'll see...) VEX IQ -- competition has worked to provide the consumer with a better range of options.

There are many examples, however, where a regulated monopoly has proven to have social benefit. I'm most familiar with examples from Canadian history, such as the telephone and electrical systems. In return for a regulated monopoly, the crown corporations were tasked with providing electrical and communication services to all citizens, even in remote areas where a competitive system would have made the cost outrageous. While this resulted in higher costs for service in urban areas, the overall benefit to society exceeded that which would have developed under a free market system. Now that the goals of the regulated monopoly have been achieved, regulation is being reduced and competition has been/is being introduced.

It can also be convincingly argued that in areas such as health care, roads, and education that monopolies provide services more equitably and efficiently than free markets.

If the argument that teams in less populated, less technologically enriched, areas need more support is accepted, then perhaps a regulated monopoly is the ideal situation.

So maybe FRC needs to be a monopoly. :)

I don't seriously expect that to happen, but I do wish to challenge the notion that a free market is always the optimal solution.

Jason