FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Posted on the FRC Blog, 9/20/13: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...idays-09202013

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

NASA cant give money to teams outside the US because its government money.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I would honestly have a problem if NASA money went outside the US (especially with the way the US economy is). It's also why (to my knowledge) I've never seen anything NASA-related in FRC outside of America.

IIRC from another thread, don't many of these teams that win EI get grants from more local sources?

And to add to the question, what would happen if an American team won EI at an international event?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I think FIRST could try going to, atleast for Canada, their space agency and seeing if they would be willing to match the same sponsorship that NASA does for US teams.

And I think if an American team won an EI in an International event NASA would still pay.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Why would it fall on FIRST to seek funding from other sources? A corporation makes funds available, understandably places restrictions on how these funds may be spent, and supports teams that qualify for these funds. It is not FIRST's responsibility to make sure these sponsorships are 'fair'.
In the past, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development have paid the $5,000 registration fee to CMP to teams who have qualified via RCA, regional winners, or RAS. FIRST did not have to approach all other states, provinces, regions to make sure they all reciprocate.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I'm not saying FIRST has to, but just that FIRST did go to NASA for sponsorship way back when. And you dont think it is FIRST's responsibility to give IT the same EI opportunity that US teams get? What if NASA changed the EI money payout requirement to only teams from Florida, Texas, California, Alabama, Virginia, and Ohio because that's where NASA installments are? Would you be ok with that? Because it is the same prinicple as not having a funding sponsor for IT EI winners vs NASA funding those EI winners from the states.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I would be okay with that. NASA has the right to give their money to who they want to. Any sponsor can (and should) decide who they support and under what conditions. It's their money, they decide what happens with it. Simple as that.

I hope this didn't sound rude or arrogant. I'm just sometimes blunt with what I say.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

No, its perfectly understandable. I guess I'm just trying to say this from a perspective that FIRST should have. Should FIRST allow a portion of teams a greater advantage during the year vs other teams? Like when the conversations started up about how FiM teams were getting 2x, 3x, and sometimes 4x the amount of matches per year before Champs vs anyone else because of districts. FIRST then came out to say that they were going to try and level this out by adding in more regions for teams to get more matches. That was a FIRST team problem that was solved/being solved by FIRST. So why is it hard to believe that this FIRST team problem cannot be solved by FIRST?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

It's not hard to believe FIRST could solve this at all. Is there an easy fix? Yes. Should it be fixed? No.

When it comes down to it, this is a choice of NASA to put this on, and has nothing to do with HQ wanting a monetary attachment to the award. NASA being an American Agency has every right to look out for American interests above another. This is their choice, and it is not FIRST HQ's job to intervene and level the playing field.

There will always be advantages some teams have over others, just as it is in the real world. Just as much as we try our hardest to make borders not exist, in the real world they are still a factor you have to work around. When trying to secure a contract, especially with governments, you bet where your company and workforce is located against where your competitors are plays a huge factor in whether you are awarded the contract or not.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

But each company is compared based and competes on the same standards set forth by the one offering the contract.

I'm not arguing the teams' resources but those given to teams by Main FIRST Sponsors. If teams want the chance to win/company wants the chance to win the contract, then everyone needs to be offered the same reward for winning EI/each company should be held to the same standards.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Your team has sponsors that do not directly donate to our team. I'm okay with that.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

But the NASA money given to the EI winners is a "sponsorship for everyone."

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

How do you figure? It's a sponsorship for American teams who earn the Engineering Inspiration Award.
As a team that hasn't won EI, I do not begrudge the winning teams.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I know, thats the point of the OP. And I never said anyone begrudges anyone who has sponsorships or gets monetary rewards that other teams get.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I will personally sponsor any FRC team registered in the state of Nebraska that wears blue shirts (with black text) and had won the Gracious Professionalism award in their 2nd year while competing at a regional in Mexico. Their lead mentor must be named Mike and have experience with underwater welding.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I will find this team and hold you to that standard.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I want to expand on this one a bit. I think you're on the right track, but you're missing something.

The one offering the contract may be regulated by other standards, that HAVE to be passed on to their contractors. For example, ITAR. For a U.S. company that doesn't deal with potential weapons applications, no big deal. For a U.S. company that deals with weapons, potential weapons, and their applications, HUGE deal. And, in short, ITAR means for the latter company that foreign parts/persons are going to require lots of paperwork, if they can even show up at all. (I won't even go into sanctions...) Oh, and did I mention: Much of the U.S. space program has been based on Air Force research for weapons systems.

Because the one offering the contract (sponsorship) in this particular case happens to be a government agency (NASA), ITAR and/or other standards regarding dealings with non-U.S. entities almost certainly apply. NASA has to comply with those, and the simplest way (and maybe the only way) is to offer to only U.S. entities.

tl;dr: NASA may want to offer the sponsorship to everybody that wins the EI, but the rest of the U.S. government probably has a regulation against it somewhere. NASA's hands are therefore tied in that respect.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

To be blunt, I am actually pretty appalled by this question. I can't imagine any FIRSTer thinking along the lines of "If I can't have it, nobody can." I would not expect NASA to give money to international teams, even if they were not restricted by law. That means that the sponsorships NASA offers should remain solely in the U.S. FIRST does not have a responsibility to level the playing field for international teams in the same way that it is not responsible for providing the same benefits to Chairmans teams. And international teams should be happy for U.S. teams, not jealous. You don't hear anybody complaining that Michigan has an awesome sponsorship program (it really is awesome). How is that any different?

I'm sorry if I insulted the asker. It is just that I perceive this question as really immature in nature.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

As I was reading your reply, I noticed something that got me thinking about something similar to the theme of this thread. Currently, the FIRST website domain name is www.usfirst.org. I assume that the "US" stands for "United States" unless is actually means the word "us." Is it right/fair for FIRST to show affiliation with one country over another now that it is international?

I do not mean to start a heated "my country is better than yours" discussion. I just find it interesting in the similarity to the NASA funded grant.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

This 2012 thread has some information on this topic.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Matt, I think you've forgotten what you may have learned back as a rookie. (back when Canada had few teams, though a few they did have). The United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology ("FIRST") generally does not use their FULL name in common use, mainly because it's a lot faster to just use "FIRST". The only places I found it on the website were in consent and release forms, and in the policy on the use of FIRST's trademarks. In other words, legal stuff where they have to use the full name (and even then, it's only long enough to get the acronym in play, usually in the first couple of lines).

I would guess that FIRST picked up the domain back when they weren't so international and kept it because of a combination of the following:
1) It is, after all, their full acronym.
2) It isn't terribly difficult to move a website to a new domain... but it isn't terribly easy either.
3) The confusion to all users, international included, isn't worth it.

Edit: Looks like Nate beat me to it...

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

And www.first.org was already taken by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Nate and Eric,

Thanks to you both for bring my back to my rookie roots. I did not intend to accuse FIRST of having a preference to one country. If I came across this way I apologize. Over the internet it is sometimes hard to convey a thought clearly.

The intent of my post was to say: Where does the line end? Sometimes there has to be a line drawn in the sand because of country borders (Like NASA and USFIRST). Although that may not be the preference of some FIRSTers, it just has to be.

Does that make more sense?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

It seems to me that FIRST has stopped using US publicly in pretty much everything except their domain name; it could just be that it would be too hard to change (as has already been said, "first.org" is already taken).

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

This.

To inform everyone this is not the belief for every Canadian. I can't say I haven't been jealous of teams getting money from NASA, because it's NASA, but I don't know of any other Canadian who wanted first to not let NASA do this.

There is always companies that will only sponsor unless certain criteria is met. For example Chrysler will only sponsor if the team has a mentor who works for Chrysler. 772 was lucky enough to get a sponsorship from Chrysler this year and I have to say they are a pretty nice sponsor to have.

I am unsure if the Canadian aerospace association has been contacted about FIRST but I know that Chris Hadfield strongly supports FIRST.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

No, it is not.I completely agree.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Why not?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Because as far as I can tell, this particular item was NOT initiated by FIRST. It was initiated by NASA offering to sponsor FRC teams who met a certain set of conditions, to a certain amount for a certain purpose. (IIRC, it was even MORE limited than "any U.S. team who wins EI" at one point--it was more like "A U.S. team who wins EI at X Regional(s)" for about a year IF I recall correctly.)

If you're going to say that it is then FIRST's job to look for funding for that purpose in that amount for teams that do NOT meet the conditions, then I have a suggestion for you. Ready?

--Please make the same suggestion regarding the Boeing grants. After all, not all teams have Boeing mentors, so teams with Boeing mentors have a distinct advantage in raising funds.
--Please suggest that FIRST ask that JCPenney help fund all teams. Currently, it's nowhere near that.
--Please ask FIRST to make it so that EVERY team gets a NASA grant or equivalent. After all, teams that do get those have an advantage over those that do by a few thousand dollars.

Do you see where I'm going with this? A sponsor has placed certain conditions on a portion of their gift. This gives an advantage to some teams that meet those conditions--less fundraising. You want FIRST to apply (read: apply for) a similar gift to teams that don't meet those conditions--so why not go all the way and apply that to all grants so all teams are on a more even footing? (I'm not even going to pretend it'll be an even footing--too many other variables involved.)

Now, if teams that are not getting this advantage (even if slight) want to do something about it, their best bet is to find their NASA equivalent (or other big sponsor or potential sponsor) and very politely ask if that sponsor/agency would be willing to meet or beat NASA's funding offer. (I do recall that at one point, there was some sort of grant aimed at Israeli qualifiers--don't remember who gave it, or for how much, or if it's still there.)

Of course, there's the other alternative--but do you really want to hear the howling that will rise if NASA starts pulling sponsorship out? EI winners' registration, webcasts, NASA Grants, NASA house teams, NASA employees who volunteer their time and effort... Anything pulled because it gives an advantage to teams who are able to use it, which is most of those, is an opportunity for mass complaining from those teams and teams that sympathize, along with counter-complaining from teams that think those teams had it too easy.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Does Boeing sponsor an award that anyone can win that gives a reward of the money needed to go to the World Championships? Does JCPenney? Im not saying that NASA should pull out funding for them disadvantaging other teams for not funding them but for FIRST to allow only American EI winners to receive funding from the same award that International EI winners cannot seems a little biased. if you look at it without a POV of being on either a US FIRST team or an International FIRST team, it looks pretty one-sided. I am just saying all this to be cautious of the possibility(or if it has already happened) that an EI winner from Canada, Israel, or Mexico cannot make it to World's to compete both with there robot and for the overall EI award because they didnt have the funds needed to go. Like I said before, just playing the Devil's Advocate here; no need to get really heated over this.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I perfectly understand what you are saying and I agree with you and what NASA did. It is very nice of them. Can you explain this? Once upon a time, Michigan teams were not eligible to apply for NASA grant. What was our sin? It was because FIRST told us that teams outside of Michigan cannot compete in Michigan district events even though we wanted them to fill the empty slots. I thought people in Michigan pay tax to the US government also. Where do you draw the line what conditions sponsors can put on who they sponsor? When does it become discrimination or unfair? Many great sponsors only sponsor teams where they have a presence (office, plant) or have an employee who mentors the team. These make perfect sense to me.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

But this award from NASA has nothing to do with FIRST. FIRST has no control over it, it's not that they are "allowing" only US teams to get it.

And before NASA offered this particular award, there were also likely EI winners in the US who could not scrape together the registration fee for champs. So isn't this better?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

NASA does not sponsor the Engineering Inspiration Award. NASA pays the entry fee to the World Championship for US teams that win EI. It is not under FIRST's "control." Payment *could* be made directly to teams so FIRST is removed from any administrative part of the sponsorship chain, but logistically, it makes sense for NASA to go through FIRST to pay entry fees on behalf of the teams it has chosen to sponsor. This is no different than at BMR this year, the Indiana Space Grant Consortium decided to sponsor each team from Indiana who qualified to go to the World Championship at that regional. Any teams from outside Indiana who qualified wouldn't receive a dime of this sponsorship. I didn't hear any complaints about that.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Giving a reward for winning an award is sponsoring that award. And it is under FIRST's control because they allow NASA to do so; the Engineering inspiration Award is a FIRST award not a NASA award, so FIRST was the ones that had to allow NASA to stipulate the money to American winners of the reward.

I never knew that BMR had that kind of sponsorship from the ISGC, but you dont think it would be unfair if the winning alliance of BMR consisted of 2 Indiana teams and, say for the argument, 1 Florida team, that the ISGC giving the money needed to go to Champs to 2/3 of the winning alliance wouldnt be wrong? What if that Florida team was the alliance captain and those 2 other teams probably might not have won the regional without the Florida team? Would you still think it was right if that Florida team wasnt given that same reward and then couldnt go to Champs?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

So broke US teams are better than broke International teams?

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

What? How is it that FIRST can decide how an agency uses its money again? You act like FIRST could call NASA and go "no, you MUST also give money to Canadians" and they'd say "lol okay sure no problem". You can't actually think that it's "under FIRST's control" who gets what money. The only option FIRST could have here is to decline NASA's sponsorship altogether, which is clearly ridiculous.

FIRST gives the award. NASA gives money to the American winners of that award, via FIRST. You're saying because FIRST gives the award out, they magically have the ability to tell NASA how to spend their money. That makes no sense at all.

It would be really cool if FIRST, Canada FIRST, etc. found an equivalent EI sponsor for Canadian teams. That'd be awesome. That said, it's not wrong that they haven't - it's not like getting organizations to part with $25,000 (5 Canadian events, assuming no Canadian teams win EI at US events) is easy to do. Three years ago every team had to pay if we won EI, and now a lot of teams don't - the teams from the country whose government is funding the winners of this award.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Did I say that?

I meant that it's a good thing someone saw an opportunity to help these teams out, and it's better that we have less teams in that situation. As has been pointed several times, it's unfortunate that NASA has to comply with various regulations that prevent them from supporting everyone, but at least they're supporting someone. And still, even if it were entirely at their discretion (perhaps it is, I don't think we know for sure), why can we judge their motives and enforce "fairness" rules on who gets the money? It's their money! Just like any other sponsor of any FIRST team ever.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate is dangerous business.
If you have a new argument, please make it. Otherwise, read what others have written and move along.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Not really sure why you're arguing here, dodar. I'm fairly positive that all regional FIRST organizations have the authority to find and accept/deny sponsorships for teams who qualify at their events.

NASA can do what it wants, just like the board of Mid-Atlantic Robotics can do what it wants with the money it gets from sponsors. MAR teams have funds available to assist with registration costs if we qualify. Does that responsibility fall on FIRST? No. Should other teams be upset that they can't have our funds? No, because they are designated for our teams. I'm fairly positive that the strong FIRST organizations in states and in Canada have their own designated pool of funds to help their teams when/if they qualify for an event they cannot afford. If the smaller FIRST organizations don't have their own pool of funding for their teams, then they should start doing so now.

The idea of declining a sponsorship because it doesn't apply to all teams is pretty childish and would be irresponsible of FIRST, and this is coming from a team that doesn't qualify for a NASA award because we are in districts.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chris is me again."

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Why don't you ask the Hawaiian Kids? They were captain of the winning alliance, with 2 Indiana partner teams. You could make a pretty strong argument that they were essential to their alliance's victory. I'm sure you can find dozens of examples of this throughout FIRST.

Organizations have the right to spend their money where they please, including rewarding teams for accomplishments if they meet certain criteria.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

Organizations have the right to spend there money/resources however they please. There are plenty of advantages in first caused by where you live that often affect a teams performance more than monetary donations. Some areas of the world do not have a strong of a technical background as others, does this mean that teams outside those areas should turn away mentors just to make it "fair" for the others. No it would be crazy to. Every region has there strengths and weakness's and whats important to remember here is that those strengths are passed on to the kids... There is never a bad way to sponsor a team. In the end its all about what knowledge and experiences we can pass on to the students to help them make better choices in life.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I will give the winner of the Hatboro-Horsham Creativity Award $1--provided they are from Exton, PA. Try and stop me, FIRST. They don't have the right to. Even if I sent the check to the team's FIRST account, what are they going to do? Not cash it? If so, I offer to hand their driver a $1 bill. I don't need Dean or Frank's, or even Eric Zygmont's, permission to do this--though I doubt any would object beyond my waste of their time. (In fact, in the US, I have a 1st Amendment right to use money as speech, but that's a different story.)

This is not FIRST's doing or FIRST's right. It's NASA's--bound by US federal law. Just because they're requiring an award in addition to the common--virtually ubiquitous--location requirement (be near a JCPenney, known to local sponsor, from Indiana, Israeli, close enough to a Boeing plant to have their mentors) does not mean FIRST is somehow responsible for ensuring all locales are equal.

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

I'll chip in a dollar (Personally)! Siri: You never need my permission...

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

No. However, NASA sponsors... wait for it... ZERO awards.

Instead, they have offered a sponsorship to teams that *complete a requirement*. This is the part that all devil's advocates WILL fall on! Any sponsor can set their own requirements for who gets the sponsorship, including specifying that certain teams, singular or plural, do NOT get a sponsorship regardless of otherwise qualifying. (Ask any NASA Grant applicant who did not complete their requirements from the previous year and are otherwise qualified!)

I'm guessing that FIRST's requirements had at least zero, and probably less, to do with this particular aspect. See my previous post in this thread about where the requirement may have come from.

Devil's advocate on your devil's advocate: Why do I care at all if I'm not in either one of those team categories? And, to answer myself: there are a number of positions that might care, so I'll go through a few.

--FIRST HQ--"Sure, it's not fair. Neither is this game." (Which is just about what Frank said.)
--Potential sponsor--"Hmm... Not too fair... maybe I can donate for some of the international teams... How about I sponsor any team from Canada who wins EI, or any team that wins EI on U.S. soil?"
--Average Joe--"So?"

Just a note from the rules, Championship EI is apparently not restricted to Regional/District EI winners (or hasn't been in the past--I remember hearing about one team winning at Champs that hadn't won at a regional). As far as making it there, there have been teams who weren't able to go because of funding anyway--RAS, winner, RCA...--so it's just a general problem. (Also note that said funds are mainly travel, which NASA doesn't cover.)

Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013
 

The world is not fair, get used to it.
This could go on and on.

It is interesting that no one has brought up the other NASA grants that are certainly advertised heavily in FIRST (As well they should be..) I don't think that rookie teams from Canada or Mexico qualify for them either. Or any other non-US teams for the veteran grants.



Does that mean because EVERYONE can't qualify ..we throw out the opportunity for those that do?

When we walk down this path... we trod heavily...

The idea that FIRST would ever turn down money to help teams (other than for obvious reasons like Budweiser sponsoring the CMP in St. Louis) is preposterous.

I applaud what NASA has done for FIRST and I am not going to tell them I don't want their money because everyone can't qualify.

It is US taxpayer money ... when that money is spent it has to be spent by US federal government guidelines...

I love our Canadian and Mexican brothers... I want them to compete with us... I want them to be successful

moving along...