(Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I'll preface this post by pointing out the majority of my 17 years in FIRST has been extremely positive and FIRST and the people in it have had a profound influence on me as person, as a professional, as a mentor, and as a maker. Anyone who knows me knows that I will go out of my way to promote FIRST and that it consumes my life (for better or worse). I am very thankful for what FIRST has done for me.

I'd like to pose a very simple question: Why does the value of a regional vary so greatly? By "value" I'm referring to what a team (the customer) gets for its registration fee, not the production quality of the event.

Looking through the results for the first four weeks of competition, for regional events only, I see a lot of variation in the number of matches. In general, the more teams there are at an event, the fewer matches each team will get. That's a given. But that's not always the case this year. Virginia had 64 teams and they only played 86 matches, giving each team only 8 matches. Orlando also had 64 teams but played 107 matches giving each team 10 matches. According to the public agendas available for each event, they had the same time allotted for qualifying matches (11 hours total). I was not at either of these events, so I cannot say for sure if the schedule was adhered to or not, but how can FIRST justify a difference of 21 matches between two similarly sized events?

My team attended Wisconsin this weekend. There were 60 teams in attendance, the same number as in 2014. In 2014, 100 qualifying matches were played, giving each team 10 matches, whereas in 2015, only 90 matches were played giving each team only 9 matches. I can understand that this year's match cycle time is likely higher than last year's, but Orlando apparently found a way. Lets go the other direction though - Waterloo had only 30 teams in both 2014 and 2015 and played 65 matches each year resulting in 13 qualifying matches for each team. That's a lot, but based on my previous findings, they could have had even more with ease!

Many teams still only attend 1 event. Those teams in Virginia payed $625 / match (even higher for rookies). Teams in Waterloo only payed $385 / match. 24 of the 30 teams in Waterloo then also got to play in the Playoffs, further increasing the value of their event whereas 40 teams in Virginia only played 8 matches (a whopping 20 minutes of field time) and then packed up to go home, possibly done for the season.

Lets compare that with the district model for just a second - for the same $5000 registration, those teams are getting two SMALL events resulting in somewhere around 25 matches per team ($200/match). Even if a team could not afford to travel to a second district event, the value of one district event is still well above most regional events.

Now lets look at this from another perspective - the spectator. At these larger regional events, most teams are only going to play 2 qualifying matches on Saturday morning. Many spectators can ONLY attend on Saturday due to work or school obligations. Since the majority of the teams will NOT make the playoffs, those two matches may be their only opportunity to see their son's, daughter's, niece's, nephew's, grandson's, granddaughter's, friend's, or colleague's team in action. 5 minutes of play. At least they didn't have to pay to see it...

Enough about robots. Remember, FIRST is about more than just the robots. So lets talk about everyone's favorite blue shirted people - the judges! At Wisconsin there were approximately 20 judges. Some of those judges are locked in the Chairman's Award interview room. Some of those judges are doing Dean's List interviews all weekend. So, lets say there are 12 - 15 judges remaining. Based on my observations, they are probably broken up into 4 or 5 teams of 2 -3 judges - some of them are judging the robots and some of them are judging more than the robots. In an event with 60 or more teams, that's not a lot of judges to go around, but I would expect that every one of those judges would be visiting every one of the teams so that everyone has notes to compare. At least in our experience, that has not been the case. For many years, this year included, we have only seen one or two sets of judges in our pit in Wisconsin. This year we saw only one set of three judges, though we did see them several times. Perhaps only one set of judges looks at 1/4th of the teams? I don't know, but it irks me that the students do not get a chance to talk to more judges about their experiences. We've had very different experiences at other regional events (even large ones like Northern Lights and Midwest) seeing multiple sets of judges, so maybe the issue is limited only to Wisconsin. What have other teams at larger regional events experienced?

There were 41 Chairman's Award submissions in Wisconsin this year. I believe we had 40 submissions last year or the year prior as well. When interviews are going into lunch on Saturday, how can judges properly evaluate and send judges to follow up with teams in the pit when playoffs are beginning (and most teams are packing up)? It's been awhile since I've been to an event with <45 teams - how do others feel the judging is handled at smaller regional events?

No one is forcing us to go to larger regional events, but we can't afford to travel to two events and our sponsors and families would be very upset if we didn't play here at home. If we didn't "HAVE" to go to Wisconsin, we would've happily gone to Central Illinois this weekend. While I am doing what I can and meeting with universities and other mentors to get districts into WI as soon as I can, that only helps out a few teams from the problems and inconsistencies I have outlined above. I have no control over what happens in Virginia or other regions.

All this boils down to is consistency. Why the huge variation in matches? Why the variation in judging? I haven't even touched on inconsistencies on the playing field (more so last year than this year). If the value doesn't improve, why shouldn't we just build the robot for the experience and forego official events and just play at offseason events until districts happen? Our kids will get the same engineering experience, we wouldn't have to build two bots and waste money because of bag and tag rules (well, we don't HAVE to do that now, but at least it helps us make the most of the few matches we get), we wouldn't have to burn ourselves out for six weeks, we could volunteer at the local event and still see familiar faces, we could afford to travel to new and interesting places since registration fees for offseason events are tiny, no missed school....I could go on and on.

I never thought I'd say this, but for what reason should any team continue to play in the regional model? Why are additional regional registration fees still so ridiculously high when the event does not see any of that money? Veteran kits are no where near $5000 anymore with no essential items included (this year with the new control system is the exception) and FIRST Choice providing access to donated parts. $5000 also helps pay for staff and logistics and game fields - so, I can see why initial registration is the way it is (especially since it is the same in the district model), but the $4000 additional event fee still boggles me.

Thanks for reading,

Disgruntled Kevin

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I love FIRST, but this is what had me switch to VEX and run events. $25-50 per event, 10+ matches per event, most of them 30 teams, about $2-4 per match. Plus it's not a once and done, but at my peak we ran 12+ events per year in the Philadelphia area. So many teams came to 4-6 events per year. To me, the C in FRC/VRC/FTC is about competing.

The district model is a way to get more "C", smaller, less flashy events with more play time.

OTOH there is the off season. Lots and lots and lots of $250 events. And I see teams do 1 official event and 8+ off seasons. So your teams value change may be in doing more off season events.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Dear Disgruntled Kevin;

I full heartedly agree with your statements. I have the same sentiments when it comes to FRC and the costs associated with the Regional system. I've compiled the numbers as well and I'm surprised that more areas in the Midwest haven't already moved to Districts. From the team's perspective you get so much more bang for your buck. I haven't had too much time to look into scores and statistics between regional and district events this year but looking through the spreadsheets that Ether posted earlier this morning, it appears that the average scores in district events are higher than regional events (after a brief glance). At the end of the season I would like to see the community work together to do a statistical analysis of scores between district and regional events. As time goes on, I only see more benefits to the district system when compared with the regional system. I'm looking forward to the future.

Sincerely,

Disgruntled community member.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I completely agree that there is better value with the district model over the regional model. At least for teams in areas with enough team density to support such a model. Even for geographically isolated teams it may well be true that they get more matches in one district event than in one regional event. I believe this is one reason why FIRST is headed toward a district model everywhere. I think another benefit is making qualifying to the next level more attainable. There are many teams that rarely if ever qualify for the World Championships. For such teams, being able to qualify for a district championship is a big deal. The district model also levels the playing field somewhat by letting more teams participate in multiple events, with the commensurate improvements in robot performance. While we have been fortunate enough to go the Championships more often than not, this year will be the second time in 13 years we have gone to two regional competitions. (And this year it was a last second thing that is stretching our finances.)

So I guess I would say you have every right to feel disgruntled. And I think that FIRST as an organization is moving in a direction that will address this problem, if not completely solve it.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

If you'll look at my location, you understand why you don't find any pushback from me on this topic. The only caveat I have is that there is a difference between how good districts can be and how well you expect districts in your area to be executed.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I completely agree that the district model is surperior to the regional model, and you can send more teams to champs that way (at least Virginia can as we only technically have one regional).

The District model can however fail if the good teams in the district are split up too much by location and the smaller size, therefore making some district events super boring. But the fact that the majority of the teams get to play in playoffs or eliminations is 100% worth it, as that is a team changing experience.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I agree that the District model gives more benefits in the end than using the Regional model. One of the main points I've heard by people arguing for regionals is that they are held at larger venues and have a more exciting atmosphere than district events held in high school gyms.

However, I think that by having the smaller events, it makes FRC more like a sport, where you "practice" for several weeks, and then get to play at multiple "games", rather than working for 6+ weeks and having your season over in 3 days. By making it more feasible for teams to attend multiple (3+) events each season, it allows students to get more out of the program. Although the logistics will be difficult to work out, I am looking forward to when Wisconsin goes to Districts.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

When Dean Kamen spoke at the Kettering District back in week 2, he made it sound like a majority of the US was being switched to the district system in the next few years with the hopes of the entire program being districts->state->world

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I also agree that the district model is competitively superior to the regional model. More matches leads to more playing time which leads to more opportunity to go to further events.

However, there is always a tradeoff. In many areas (at least of Virginia and Maryland), teams will have to travel a reasonable distance (4+ hours for some) for an event hosted in a high school gymnasium. This incurs more travel and hotel costs than a regional model, raising the "Per Match Price". Additionally, having an FRC competition is good anywhere, but I think many would prefer to have it at a university facility than a high school gym. These do occur, but less often. Although I cannot speak for myself, I would imagine many VIPs and potential sponsors would rather have the competitions, and younger children (Elementary-Middle school) would be more struck by larger numbers of teams in a larger arena.

Although I do see the benefits of the model, there are certainly drawbacks. Hopefully, every state will find a way to make sure all the teams benefit by the change.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I question the assertion that the district model is cheaper. For a team that does not perform well, they get more plays/$. I understand that. However, what about the teams that do succeed on the field? You get the privilege of going to district champs and paying $4000. If you do well there, you get the privilege of going to World's for another $5000. In a good year, you get to pay $13000 for the privilege of going to World's.

In VA they are touting it as a way of playing more for less cash. That logic doesn't jive with my wallet. Can some folks who are already in districts comment?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

There's no denying that you get more field time for your money with the district model, but there are also some pretty significant differences between a regional and a district event, one of them being that regionals often bring teams from greater distances together, while a district tends to isolate teams within their areas. Personally, one of the things I love most at competitions is to work with teams that are new to the area.

I talked to some members from a few different district teams this weekend at TVR, and for some, part of the reason they travel to regional events is that districts just don't have the same feel. A smaller district event in a high school is more like an offseason event than an official FIRST Competition. From my perspective, it doesn't have the same awe inspiring excitement as a regional.

However, I've not yet personally competed in a district event, so most of my opinions on this matter come from what I've seen and heard about them on delphi, and from members of district teams.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Kevin,

You noticed the same thing I noticed, and wrote about in 3 different threads yesterday. You approched it from the value to a team paying in the per match angle, wherein I looked at it from the angle of comparisons using QPA or other points values (and how it made all the data collected really squed and virtually worthless), to use in any real comparisons of bot to bot across all of the events, or all of FIRST.

We are both looking at the same thing as being wrong, only what had value to each is different....(I was going at it differently...The data value was important to me, and the teams money was to you). I looked at your posting and I fully agree, that both are equally are important!

I don't see anyone changing it this year, but the approach to the avail. data and how the existing rules of this game, and new QPA data collection and application to rankings affect alliance building & comparisons accross all of FRC and at your specific events competing at & switching from win/loss/tie to QPA seeding & round robin playoffs format affects actual attempted alliance building using the data collected alone affects that.

This must be recognized early by all teams, so they can compensate for that junk data. Using eyes more than the avail. data solves that issue I concluded.

Thank you for going about it differently (and choosing the $$$$ value per match angle of view), as it added more and made me look at the same problem from a different angle combining the 2.

Now, how do we get the built in huge disparity (8~13 Q Matches), depending on what event you attend), changed for the future?

Though simple solution, is YOU choose events you compete in very wisely I guess, until the disparity is changed to a level playing field (I don't even see how FIRST even begins to attempt to change it), short of assigning the events you can participate in (and I hope that is never an option), or changing the program format by adding or reducing days/time of the event program (I also don't see the show length being changed either), so it appears to me, the Q Rounds number fits the available robots/teams competing at that event, to the show schedule length, and some math formula to get each an even amount of Q rounds.

Can't change it this year of course...But, if you want more value per match, go to Waterloo where 13 Q matches are held and fewer robots (though ask anyone not on that steamrolling super scoring winning alliance, that left everyone else in the virtual and real dust today, and they will probably tell you they wish that they had driven to Virginia instead I'll bet).

They received more value per match for the entry $$$$'s (less for the robot build hrs. and $$$$'s spent), and a higher QPA average in the avail. record stats due to the QPA Inflation accross the board because a couple to few stellar stars added value to QPA of each team present, then had 13 Q Matches to add that value under the new existing format & rules.

Thanks for making me look at something differently that before this weekend I really never paid much attention to.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

FWIW: I heard that it costs roughly $60,000 to put on a District Event at a high school vs. roughly $250,000 to put on a Regional event at an arena.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I think it's actually even simpler.

I suspect that Frank and his crew are aware of this thread. And I further suspect that they may be beginning to discuss how to deal with this.


Here's where the differences lie between the compared events: Cycle Time (and available time for the "show"). Just to compare Virginia and Orlando...

VA: 7-minute cycle time, breaking for just over an hour at lunch (1 hour, 5 minutes), ending at 5:20 PM and 11:34 AM with qual matches on Friday and Saturday respectively.
Orlando: 6-minute cycle time, breaking for one hour at lunch, ending at 5:45 PM and 12:11 PM respectively.

What that means is that Orlando used a faster cycle time, snuck in two extra matches before Friday lunch (ON TOP OF the 3 matches ahead of VA they already were with the faster cycle), added another 7 matches in before ending the day on Friday, and ran an extra 45 minutes or so on Saturday before quals ended to get more matches in.

Incidentally, Los Angeles, running a 7-minute cycle, did 99 matches with 6 teams, 9 matches/team average. Again, slightly longer day than VA, (L.A. ended Friday at a hair past 6 PM) but with a couple of "extra" teams.


So there is some room for variance built into the system. All you gotta do is go "hey, we need a tighter cycle time" and/or run a little longer, and hey presto, 1-2 more matches/team. It's not that hard. So it's a really simple fix, comparatively, and we don't even need to see it.

All HQ needs to do is to tell the FTAs to "maximize matches/team, and run long if you need to", and ideally give them a event size vs plays/team range that they're looking for (60+, 9 matches down to <40, 12 matches). CD might never see that directive. But if it's there, then there's a good chance it will be followed.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Kevin, I completely agree with you-- the disparities between large and small regionals, and especially regionals and districts, are becoming painfully obvious. I hope you're successful speeding up the transition to districts in Wisconsin-- maybe that will help push Minnesota in the right direction too.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Thanks for the data. This is one of the things I'm after. Who decides cycle time (I believe its the FTA) and how is it decided? I've been involved with events in the past that ran a 7 minute cycle until lunch on Friday and switched to a 6 minute cycle for the remainder since everyone by that point should know how the field operates. I figured Orlando had a shorter cycle - after experiencing the log jam of the field this weekend, I'm really surprised they achieved a 6 minute cycle and were pretty much on schedule. We were continually being hounded to move faster while stuck behind 2 other robots exiting the field as they reconfigured to transport config. I think this year's game is an anomaly for scheduling because of the transport config and I hope that those words are never mentioned in an FRC manual ever again.

One other thing that occurred at WI - the quals finished pretty much on schedule and alliance selections commenced immediately after. Selections were finished at about 12:15 with playoffs scheduled to 1:30 according to all published schedules. It was announced that playoffs would begin at 1:00 instead, thus reducing planning time, nourishment time for drivers/pit crew, and potentially causing guests who were told "come for the playoffs at 1:30 - they're the best!" to miss out on some action. Not a big deal, but I'd rather play more quals later than start elims earlier.

While I had not intended for this thread to become a "praise districts" thread, I'm glad to see there are facts coming out on both sides.

Rich2202: I don't know about districts, but the cost of a regional event is completely funded by the regional planning committee and none of the cost is covered by registration fees (I am on the WI planning committee). I heard at one point that district events DO get a portion of the registration fees (or rather, the district as a whole does to then use as it sees fit), but someone more knowledgeable than can probably clarify.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

"hey, we need a tighter cycle time" - Easier said than done.

Which would you prefer: 7 minute cycle times where the FTA's have time to help robots connect, or more disable robots in order to stick with 6 minute cycle times?

It is easy to have sub-6 minute cycle times when robots are connecting. When running with 7 minute cycle times, that gives you a few minutes to help a team with a problem when they do come up.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Really Kevin? Had you played one more match the experience would have been that much better? Really? Why don't you count practice matches? I know our team was on the field on Thursday 6 times. Enjoyed that experience.

I for one do not like the idea of playing in a HS gym. Playing in a large arena is an experience most of our students and their families will never get otherwise.

As mentioned before, be careful what you ask for. The district model is more expensive for those who move on.

I for one do not like playing only with my neighbors. I like meeting and competing with teams from around the country and world. That's why we do Midwest, for the international feel.

I've always felt the Wisconsin Regional was very well run. I like the venue floor, the seating and the downtown atmosphere.

Can't answer your question about judges. I have no idea how many really were there. All I know is that we saw many more in our pit than you suggest. Is it possible that they were around while you were on the field with your team.

As you know, FIRST is more than just building robots. One of the great experiences our kids get involves fundraising and securing sponsors. This allows us to do two regionals. The second one at a location of our choice. This extends the season for our students and enriches the experience. Also gives them twice as many matches. As a side note, doing regionals around the Midwest has taught me just how appreciative I am about the Wisconsin Regional.

Please FIRST, keep both models and let people choose. As a consumer I like choices. I will not choose attending the high school gym. Hate the bleacher environment, FIRST is better than that.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

And even on a 7-minute cycle time, a larger event still had an extra match/team... The OTHER half of that statement was to run a bit longer in any given block of time.

I think a 6-minute cycle time is the ideal, given that you've got connecting robots, with 7-minute being more realistic. Smaller events could easily run 8-9 minute cycles, and stick to them, with more matches/team.


But, as part of the "Team Experience" directive from HQ, I think that FTAs should at least consider the effects of running longer on a day, or shortening the cycle time. If there aren't a lot of robots taking the full minute for Transport Configuration, and there aren't any connection issues of a major variety (L.A. had to reboot the field twice, and run a pair of replays, and still finished largely on schedule) then you can get away with more short cycles. Say 6.5 minute times.

I think the better alternative is for HQ to say "Hey, we want X matches/team minimum for an event of Y size, do what you need to do to make it work with the schedule." The FTA then has the flexibility to run faster cycles or longer hours, depending on the event.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

This right here. I love the district events, but it takes every penny you have. Our team this year has a good shot at regional champs, and if we make it any farther, we wont be able to go to worlds. paying $9000 is something we don't have, and our small admin team (me and two others, yay) now have to try and convince our mentors we can get the money (and get sponsorship's to get the money) to go to worlds if we make it, and that gives us... oh, two weeks to try and get all the money so we can pay for worlds if we make it. As is we have barely enough to pay for the regional championships. Lucky for us we live super close to EWU so hotels aren't an issue. Other than that, districts have been awesome.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Emphasis Mine

Running on schedule is a relative term, what the match results don't report is what time that match actually took place. Orlando ran 6 minute cycles so that everyone could get 10 matches. Friday morning matches ended at 12:45 and both Friday afternoon and Saturday morning ran about 30 minutes long. Despite the extended time I am glad that we committed to getting everyone as many matches as we could.

I agree with everything that's been said about the positives of districts. This is my first year in the district system and I really like it so far. I've been talking it up to everyone as I have been at regionals this season.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I am having a discussion about ALL regional events and their value to a team. This has nothing to do with how my team did or performed. This is not a thread bashing the WI regional - I help plan and run it. Any and all comments I have for the event itself will be posted in the appropriate thread, not here.

With regards to the number of plays, as soon as we received the schedule and I saw only 9 matches, I was immediately disappointed knowing that we had more matches last year with the same number of teams. More matches is more chances for the students to show their work, to be under the lights, to feel the rush, to work with other teams. I do not count practice matches as the same experience because the only difference from them and what we do at home is the ceiling height - its not the same as a match with introductions, announcing, cheering, music, strategy, etc. Whether we play 10 practice matches like we did at Midwest last year or 0 like we did this weekend, it doesn't change anything about my opinions of the regional model and match play.

The district model is only more expensive for teams who currently only play 1 event. Quite a few WI teams already do play in two regional events (yours and mine included). Two district events and a district championship for the same $9000 we already pay sounds far better to me.

The district championship is like a current regional in a pro arena or a college arena. Its certainly a step up from a high school gym. While I certainly enjoy giving all students the opportunity to step on the floor of an arena, having them earn it and work to it will make it that much more special.

I agree with you about attending a second event to see new teams and new places. We've taken our kids to Duluth, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and will be returning home to Chicago in two weeks. Getting to meet people from far away, even other countries as we so often do at Midwest, its an experience the kids (and mentors) will treasure forever. I still do. But eventually, everyone WILL be in districts - but when that day happens, cross district play will be the norm, and these long distance friendships will continue to be forged.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Kevin,
I've been doing this as long as you, sigh..... I remember 5 Regionals and 200 Teams.
Now we're at 56 Regionals, 48 District Events, and 3,000 Teams.

Watched the growth and experienced the changes that it brought. The ideal of making this beautiful STEM combination of public and private more available to all students in all schools is a lofty one. With a few exceptions, this can be a tough hill to climb for many.

FIRST in Michigan took the bull by the horns and started the District System. They have an incredible number of rookies this year.
I am so happy that we went District last year. More bang for the buck and more intimate competitions.

Consider the cost of a typical High School Sports team.
The United States routinely spends more tax dollars per high-school athlete than per high-school math student—unlike most countries worldwide. And we wonder why we lag in international education rankings?

High School sports is a unique institution in America. It's makes us different from other countries. This may be why FIRST doesn't translate well internationally

High school football has high expenses, low revenue
The money spent on High School Sports is larger than spending on STEM depending on how you look at it.

This^

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your feelings are shared.
A Wisconsin/Minnesota District could happen. You certainly have enough quality teams there.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I've been going to districts since it was first introduced in Michigan in 2009 and I've loved it. It does not necessarily isolate you to one region because you can go to regional events and districts in other district systems. It is just that other district systems to not count towards State ranking and neither do regional events. One thing that I love in particular about it is awards. It makes it more difficult to go to the World Championships with Chairmans or EI because you have to win it at a District, then you have to win it again at States. Plus, States limits competition to the best of the best in the state. For Worlds, there is a wait list but States is just pulling from who has the highest rankings. For example, FIM will have the 102 best teams in the state competing there.

The $5000 registration fee covers 2 events and the KoP plus First Choice. Then, each additional district, if I remember correctly, is only $1000 more compared to a regional. Then, States is another $5000 because it is almost kind of like a regional and Worlds is $5000. It might depend on region but after pricing out a possible district event, my team found it closer to $25,000

As for the comment about FIM rookies. FIRST added it up and Michigan has more rookies this year then the rest of the US combined.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

IMO, more matches mean the experience is greater and you pay less per match per cost of the regional.
Being in a district model doesnt mean you only play with your neighbors. If that was the case, how did Team 27 play in Duluth and win the RCA there in 2014, eventually winning the CCA? You can still play at a regional.

At IE this year, that was a regular regional, yet we played in a high school gym. Why did that have a cost of $5,000 to participate?

Personally, I dont care if I sit in a high school gym or a stadium....my focus is the experience students and adults get participating in the event.

Overall, I think Kevin is spot on. And while FIRST is still transitioning to moving to more and more district models, they certainly dont have to take forever in immediately changing the price model to make it more uniformly cost effective for ALL that participate.
Furthermore, as a member of a FIRST regional planning committee, I have known about the $250,000 cost for planning committees to come up with to pay FIRST. So can anyone explain how much the IE folks really paid given that the event was held at a high school?

The system is not perfect, I get it. But as the lead director of Team 359 for many many years, I can assure you that I have to be as transparent as possible, explaining to students, parents, and our stakeholders why we charge and spend what we do. Eyes are watching always and people have the right to ensure a fair experience based on goals and objectives, one of which is cost.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

This was one of my team's worries when the PNW went to Districts, but we found it to not be true

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Back when I was young, I thought large competitions were the way to go. But I was an idiot. Smaller competitions are way better. It sort of stinks if the 24th best team (a.k.a. the last team picked by the #1 Alliance) can barely move in the Elims but even that is preferable to fewer matches.

As to the cost of Districts vs. the cost of Regionals, the estimate of 60K vs. 250K may be an average number but I can tell you that there is a lot of variation around both those numbers.

I know a number of Regionals that go way way way over that 250K number and there are a few that are much closer to 100K.

As to the Districts, here in NE, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is close to that 60K number but from everything I have heard about how FiM is running their events, I think most of their Districts are done for a quarter of that number.

Having spent my formative FIRST years in Michigan, I am far from an unbiased observer but, the explosion of FIRST teams in Michigan since going to the District Model seems to point in the direction that less is more at least when it comes to spending on District Events.

Joe J.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I would love to be in a district model system. We already have to travel 120 miles to our only regional, so getting additional money for one more trip and 1 more night hotel is heck of a lot cheaper then paying for another full regional trip.

As for district champs, sure we might not have the money to go the first year but being able to say we qualified for state champs would help with funding and getting school support next year. Also at the end of the day if I have to pick between telling my kids that we don't have the funds for district champs/worlds, or that we need to get worse so we can be cheesecaked into winning our regional, I am going to choose the first option.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

District events (at least in MAR) are cheaper than that. According to this document the budget for all six 2014 MAR districts was $135,000, or $22,500 per event.

MAR got $111,000 from FIRST that year, and raised the other $345,000 through sponsors. So only only 24.3% of MAR's budget is from registration fees. Interestingly enough, 24.3% of the average cost of a district event is only $5,500. So MAR runs an entire district event with less than the registration fee of one rookie.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

For its first nine years across three venues, the Palmetto Regional was held in arenas--two primarily basketball (Colonial Center and Littlejohn Coliseum) and one primarily hockey (North Charleston Coliseum). When it moved to the Myrtle Beach Convention Center in 2013, I was very skeptical of the move as other convention center regionals I'd attended hadn't had the same feel, like you state. This year, I had the privilege to work the finals as the game announcer--and lemme tell you, that crowd was hot and it had a big-time feel. A similar phenomenon happens with a good (if smaller) crowd at SCRIW, which has only ever been held in a high school gym. There's a reason an incredible dunk in a high school basketball game can still get thousands of views on YouTube--good product is good product.

The move to Myrtle Beach was also the same time that Palmetto, like so many other events in the area, jumped in team count from the 40s into the 60s (and we still have capacity problems in the region). Like Kevin, I have concerns that this is just too big for a Good Team to feel like they're having a successful, rewarding season. I'm not saying everyone needs a trophy, but you hope that a team doing the right thing and building solid machines will at least make the playoffs or snag an award here and there--having one's faith rewarded helps a lot sometimes. In the three seasons Palmetto has been this size, the seven teams in the Columbia area (two of whom started in 2014, most of whom I've got history with) have combined for zero Palmetto Regional playoff appearances and zero awards. From knowing the teams and seeing the machines, it is disconcerting that our collective not-that-blind squirrels have yet to find a single nut--especially when three of them are one-and-done teams this year and a fourth was for a couple of those years. I remark as such on the event evaluations, but I suspect the only relief we'll see on that is the day South Carolina goes to districts.

IRI is held in a high school gymnasium. (Okay, it's an Indiana high school gymnasium...) You do not get a team to crate their robot and ship it halfway around the world, get dozens more to arm-twist school districts about a summer field trip, turn away dozens more teams on top of that, and some years get your feed on NASA TV if you aren't running a solid event, no matter how good the teams may be. I love pushing a cart into the big arena as much as the next man, but don't knock it 'til you try it. :)

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I was FTAA at Mount Olive District Event.
The cycle times started slowly but very quickly we waited on the field to connect to the robots.
If the field and the robots connected quicker we could have gone even faster.
Even with that we slowed down on Sunday because we actually were ahead of the schedule once we got the rhythm down.

So to a certain extent the speed is dictated by the field connectivity.
Hopefully there are some ways to accelerate that in the future.

If you watch the video during the match setup I am often on the field waiting for the robots to complete the process which would end just before we would start the match.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

IIRC a key to that would be upgrading from the D-Links to the proposed USB dongle that didn't get off the ground this year.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I think there's a bit more to it than that.
We noted that if we restarted the DS software sometimes it would go faster.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I can't remember the times since I am not a CSA or FTA, but isn't it something like >= 30 seconds for bootup and >= 50 seconds for connection to establish for the router, or are my numbers backwards or totally wrong?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Sounds close. If the teams turned on their robots the minute they sat them on the field they could get out of transport configuration and align them and often exit the field before they completed the field connection. Some robots could not be safely turned on, or would not operate correctly, if they were turned on the minute they were sat on the field. So those teams held up the process (safety and correct operation are very important so the delay was reasonable).

If we could accelerate the field connection after the radio ready the match resets could save 1 minute and over the course of 60 or more matches that adds up.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

From my experience at Waterbury week 1, the main delay was the driver station software sometimes not connecting to the field, which was blamed on mDNS. They had us enable/disable network adapters and restart the driver station application to get it to connect. The problem appeared to happen frequently when we tethered to the robot with the laptop while in queue, then unplugged and went straight to the field.

The problem also happens in reverse-going from field to tethered mode doesn't work with restarts, reset, and long delays.


When all worked well, match times weren't too bad because many teams turned on their robots before placing them out on the field.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Sorry Billfred, been to IRI once and only once. For the same reason I tried stating earlier. Don't like the bleacher/cafeteria environment. It felt like a high school volleyball event (nothing wrong with that) versus a Regional like Wisconsin where it feels like a really big deal to students and parents. Different strokes for different folks. (Still have fond memories of Atlanta, loved it there, more than St. Louis)

IMHO FIRST has always been different, special and unique. The arena experience is part of this. I don't want to become just another gym experience. Nor do my sponsors I think.

Some of our sponsors give us 2-5k. I fear that we would loose some of this support if they thought it was just another high school event. When we invite them to our regional events they mention how empressed they are. I don't see any high school sports teams getting the outside sponsor support we get.

I'd like to hear from those who made the switch and had major sponsors. Did they stick with you after attending districts?

Kevin, not sure why you reference your team performance? I nor anyone else mentioned it. Gotta ask. Are you totally against Regionals now? Or if they give you 1-2 more matches and judges you'll be happy?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I can't speak for other districts, but MAR put together a grant to help teams pay for district championship registration or travel costs, as well as world CMP registration.

@marwallet

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

As someone who started in the regional system then moved to Michigan and fought the District system for several reasons(feel free to look at my old posts on the topic) and then moved back to the regional system. I miss the district system. A well run district competition is almost indistinguishable from a full blown regional. The district system allows those with smaller budgets to get more play, when they might only get 7-10 matches in the regional system. The district system also allows teams to qualify for championships who might not have qualified had they been in the regional system, without diluting the talent pool at champs.

On the whole those who think districts will ruin the experience(me in the past) have never competed in the district system and don't truly get why people love it.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Your earlier post questioned whether our experience would have been better had we had one more match. Yes. That's the whole point - the team experience. Experience and performance often go hand in hand, but this has nothing to do with our performance. Its about our experience.

I was curious when we only had 9 matches instead of 10 if other reigonals this year were having fewer matches as well. Thats when I found the large disparity between Virginia and Orlando. While that was the catalyst to start this thread, the ideas in this thread are nothing new and I've been asking these questions privately to individuals for years. I have been in favor of districts for several years. Am I against regionals? They are better than nothing....but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

You should bring your team to RoboFest and see how much fun a small event can be. We have no cafeterias or gymnasiums.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Agreed, however FRC has started a trend of hosting actual regional events at high schools. There are four regionals at high schools this season, and I expect that number to grow in the future. (Unless the switch to districts happens a lot faster than anticipated.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Just a hypothetical question I have about first switching to districts, what about teams in Iowa or other states with few Frc teams? What would they do?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

In past threads there have been a few different suggestions-- ranging from voluntary inclusion (something that seems unlikely), to having them play at other regional events. Personally, I'd love to see a North-Midwest (MN, WI, IA, ND, SD) District system happen somehow, but that seems pretty unlikely based on current precedents.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I am a senior on Kevin's team. I've driven at Northern Lights, Midwest, Championships and Milwaukee. I have never attended a district event.

What I really would like to understand and don't is what exactly happens to the money from registration fees for regionals.

I understand that building/transporting the field costs money and hiring staff costs money, but my understanding is that regionals are almost completely volunteer-run. I understand the kits cost money, but there's less and less useful material in there every year. This year, there were precious few pneumatic components(they were available in FIRST choice, but my understanding is that that stuff is donated). And its also my understanding is a lot of that KOP stuff is donated as well... most of the vouchers, 8 denso throttle motors, IGUS bag, etc.

I understand the new control system costs money, but I can buy one on andymark for 770$, not 5000$. And even after that, the second event cost is 4000$ extra, you can't even think about including the kit in that, and that money appears to go straight to FIRST.

It seems to me that it doesn't cost FIRST much more to run a regional than to run a district, so why are teams being charged more for them? I suppose it creates an incentive to go to districts, which works in some areas but not in others. What happens to the Turkish teams I meet at Midwest after the last affordable North American air hub goes to districts?(not saying the last affordable hub is Chicago, but the plan seems to be districts everywhere)

From what I've gleamed from team budgets, much of the travel budget isn't registration, but is instead travel and lodging. Sparsely populated areas with no events nearby can afford one travel event, and thats it. How can we expect them to afford to travel twice under the district model?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I've always been a fan of keeping a few traditional regionals around like back in the "Open" days, even with 90+% of FRC in the district system. Have a Midwest, Southwest, Pacific, Southeast, Northeast, Hawaii, Eurpoean, and Pan-Pacific "Open" that stick around. Just like regionals, but outside of teams that have to go there, other teams can apply to go to the open tournaments.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

What is your definition of major? We have not lost any sponsors because of a switch to districts -- our largest sponsors continue their enthusiastic support, but our largest individual sponsor is on the order of the registration fee.

I get that something is lost when you switch from a real venue to a high school gym. BUT, the robots get so much better! Particularly at the second event, what was an alliance captain performance at event #1 becomes a middle of the pack performance at event #2.

At least 12 matches per event, and 24 total is huge -- it at least TRIPLES the amount of driver experience the average team got when I was in high school, and it shows.

In my experience, the energy from the fact that robots are so much better at scoring points more than makes up for the fact you are in a high school gym. And in the PNW, the PNW video crew does a better job than the pros used to do back in the day!

In my opinion, the value proposition is definitely in favor of Districts. I wouldn't want my money paying for a fancy arena*, I would want my money paying for world class employees I can hire in the future. And in the District model, students get more out of the FIRST experience. They get to go to two events. They get a chance to fix their robot, and watch their fixes work! In the regional model, a small obscure issue could sideline you for 4 matches, 50% of the event, and totally eliminate you from alliance selection. In the district model, even if that issue takes an event to troubleshoot, you still have 12 matches to shine, be selected, and end on a high note. The events are smaller, so they are more likely to feel the thrill of alliance selection, winning, and the pangs of defeat. It is so much easier to get your students inspired for the next year when they have those experiences, and you can watch it work!

And the real kicker -- you've still got the District Championship which is the class of the traditional Regional and the world-class robots of the District in one place to really knock their socks off!

*I know that none of the registration fee typically pays for the event, but most people don't.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I'm not sure why you are singling out Kevin when many other people agree with him.

Not speaking for Kevin or anyone else, but I don't think its about the extra match, but more about consistency.

The Virginia Regional and the Orlando regional both had 64 teams. Doing some basic number crunching, the average team number (and median) of Orlando was higher (and significantly at that) than the average/median team age of Virginia:

Orlando had 6 rookies, and Virginia had 4. If anything, one could argue Virginia had more experienced teams and should expect their regional to run smoother/faster because everyone there has been doing it longer. But instead, despite being the same size and older, Virginia had less matches.

Compared, the Wisconsin regional had four less teams, 90 matches (Orlando had 107), and had comparable average/median team numbers to Orlando (ave/med: 2790(7 years old)/2856(7 years old)), and only 3 rookies, so its hard to find reason as to why there are less matches.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Look at Skunkworks. They have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Alaska Airlines, they are pretty big sponsors.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

You must understand a regional event in one place is not a regional event in another...We just competed in a Regional event we compete in every year...Yes Hamilton High School in Chandler AZ (AZ East Regional). Stadium Gym bleacher seating.

And this Week 5 event is the NV Regionals in Las Vegas, NV...While it is a Stadium location, we are in an internal large event hall, again bleacher seating large open air high ceilinged event hall...The experience is virtually the same, except the pits have much higher ceilings.

Las Vegas Regionals used to be held 5~6 yrs. ago at the UNLV events center (lots more money to rent), and that had actual Basketball Stadium event seating (not bleachers type).

It depends on location across the country...But, many Regionals today have bleacher type seating, and many are held in High Scool Gyms too (not just District events), is what I was attempting to convey.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

What made me first notice the item at all (because in both regionals I listed above), and that we attend every year because they are closest and we have agreements mainly for lower cost hosted team housing....Is because we always have about 10 Q matches.

This year that jumped without explanation to 12...I wondered why, and then I was on the FIRST Stats site and started looking at many different Regionals...Found from 10~12 matches each Regional was norm, then I brought up Virginia 8, then Waterloo 13....Fewer Teams/Robots more Q Matches.....More Teams/Robots fewer Q Matches, then started looking at the data and QPA's and saw the implicit differences in the data the high teams and the lower teams (call that the Inflation/Deflation factor), have on the QPA Data, and the differences in each event.

If you shine huge, w/ this years format change, you inflate and affect everyones QPA scores, likewise if you stub your toe often, you will tend to deflate the QPA's (though on a lesser scale if the High shiners are on your alliance)...Not much matter at Virgina (only 8 chances to do either, but Waterloo...13 chances to do so). That's huge.

And I realized after looking at the published OPR's today (and comparing multiple events), that issue is not corrected for in the figuring of those OPR's any more than the QPA's. (I don't know how you can compare some that played 1/3 more matches, to someone playing 1/3 less matches)....Or, correct for a 1/3 difference.

The data is not reliable...But, many will rely on it and still do the comparisons all year long. Kevin's Team Value in $$$$'s is also very viable on the subject for the same reasons.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I rise in opposition to this idea. I honestly could care less about the AV equipment, what type of seating is in the stands, etc. For me, robots are the thing. And IRI has robot, great ones and in higher densities than any place (even more than the FiM Distict Championships - which is saying something).

Speaking of the FiM District Championships, I honestly think that is where the money for AV, stadiums, etc. is worth the expense. Move the Districts down in cost even if it means giving up a bit of the Show Business aspect of things while moving the District Championships up that same scale. I think this is the best of both worlds. It makes FIRST more affordable and more accessible to teams (by having low cost, local venues to compete in) while it makes getting the The District Championships something teams strive for and worth remembering once they reach that goal.

I know I am sounding like a District Model Fanboy, but honestly, I don't care because I believe that the District Model is the way FIRST gets us where we want to go: FIRST Robotics = Something Every High School Just Does.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Indiana just moved to the district model and the only differences that I noticed this year were different lighting, no big black curtain and a smaller screen for video. In my opinion this was a very smart financial move and in NO WAY impacted the professionalism or the prestige of the event.

I must also admit that Indiana has some of the largest HS gyms in the country so the venue size is not an issue.

If sponsor donates based upon a venue they are missing out on the purpose of FIRST. Our sponsors donate because of the impact upon the students.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Katie,
Was not singling out Kevin. The two of us have a good working relationship I believe. He started the thread and I had specific questions about his experience. Mentioning his name directly doesn't mean I'm singling him out or I'm attempting to degrade him or your team. That is not my attempt. UPS has a very strong history, we all know that. Kevin has great insight because of his experiences. I value the input so we can all digest the input from the discussion.

Many on this thread have experience with district events and they are in favor of the change. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind their views. If it is strictly financial I don't buy into it. IMHO a big part (being redundant now) in the overall experience for kids is getting out and raising $$. At least that is our model and I believe that is why they offer an entrepreneur award.

Still digesting the notion that kids get a better experience from more matches while attending district events. That seems to be the main qualifier as to why most feel it's better. We attend two regionals for this very reason. We think kids deserve more completion time after all the hard work. But it's not just the "on the field" experience we strive for. It's the extended pit experience; the interaction with judges and their peers; even the traveling experience. It's all good. I want to hear more! Our kids get to present twice for chairman's. Do you get this with district? I don't know. The list goes on.........

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

For everyone comparing VA to Orlando, there is an external factor here. We have a new head of VA FIRST, and this was his first time running an event on this scale (AFAIK). I wouldn't worry about burdening him with telematics until he's had a chance to digest what it takes to run a successful FRC event. From the webcast, I think he did very well as there weren't any discernible issues.

I've seen several sides to how Regionals are run, including from a corporate sponsor's perspective. Sponsoring of venues for the DC or VCU events brings up the question of relative value every single year. This is especially highlighted by the fact that 1000's of kids over 8 years in local VRC and FTC events got just as much out of their competition events as FRC. Yet FRC itself is a premium program with its specific merits, so they continue to sponsor it.

I don't understand how the tradeoffs to districts in VA are any different from any other area of the country, especially those areas which have overcome the same problems inherent with transitioning to the district system that VA has. I seem to remember a survey about districts a couple of years ago, but I don't remember if the actual results were ever posted from that survey.\

For teams who usually attend 2 Regionals and have a reserve for World Champs, the amount of fundraising will be the roughly same as a team who attends 2 district events, District Champs and has a reserve for World Champs. Thus I think the fundraising argument is somewhat weak.

Also, the kids will get 2 chances to present Chairman's by default at the District events. They'll get another opportunity at District Champs, if they got CA at a District Event.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

FIRST HQ makes the teams do their fundraising for them. We raise something like $20 million each year in the form of registration fees to pay for the cost of running FIRST HQ and whatever else it pays for.

FIRST doesn't tell us where this money goes. Their annual report has one line that says "XY million: FRC expenses," and that's all we get to see.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

125 - UTC, BAE, Textron, PTC, Northeastern University and National Grid... I view it as far easier to get sponsors in district system. More chances to showcase the bot = more chances to get sponsors.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

IMO this is a good system. It promotes partnerships between schools (or other pre-college student groups) and industry sponsors, and it provides an entry-level for sponsoring the mission of FIRST: sponsor a team. Other kinds of sponsorship should begin there, because a sponsor needs to see FIRST from a team's perspective to understand how this thing of ours works.

I expect this to change as Frank and his HQ team continuously improve transparency. Their track record since Frank took over the FRC is great and getting better all the time. The CD community can help by keeping our concern about transparency where FIRST can see it. Frank can't do this all by himself.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I will preface this post by reminding you, the viewer, that these are my personal opinions, nothing less, nothing more.

Having spent 7 years on the regional system, the most recent 3 as a volunteer, and this year on the district system, I have noticed some pro's and con's to both systems. Here's my personal take on switching to districts:

Pro's:

-Lower cost to Teams. Registration gets 2 events, not 1, out of the box, with a third only $1000 more (not $4000).
-More matches per team: as the Scorekeeper at all IN events this year, We have been (IIRC as per FIRST mandate) giving teams 12 Qual Matches per event.
-Reduced Travel costs: Fewer days and shorter travel distances (for most teams, minus border teams).
-More local events: In my case, as opposed to only being able to do 2 local events as a volunteer, now I can do 4. While many do not have schedules that this benifits, for those that do and love to volunteer, it is indeed a plus and also builds the "family" within the State's volunteers.

Con's:

-Higher up front costs to the state's organization: The state has to provide all the AV equipment, volunteer radios (minus the referees), Field perimeter (yay AndyMark for a lower cost field), and as we found out, the medals rack for the awards ceremony.
-Fewer "consumables"; We were shorted on name Badges and T-shirts... while the latter is not much of an issue as there is a lot of overlap between even crews, the Name badges are cheap enough that it feels, honestly, skimpy. Hence why my Badge has now two (soon, three) crossed out event names on it.
-(perceived) lower priority with support from HQ. There have been a few things that I am not going to mention publicly on CD (PM me if you REALLY want to know) that, at least from the sound of things, would we have been a regional event, would have been immediately fixed, but instead, as a district, are "less of an issue" and have been left in limbo. Obviously, the show must go on either way, and thanks to our determination we've pushed through the setbacks so much that most attendees wouldn't have noticed anything.
-Higher cost of Teams going to Championships. For a Non-HOF and Non-Legacy team (or a team not pre-qualified), they must effectively pay $4000 extra if they want to go to Worlds. Why? Their only two routes to get there are either thorough a regional as a 3rd event or making and attending State Champs, both of which are a $4000 check to HQ away. Sure, you get another event out of the deal, but if you want to play, you (or sponsors) gotta pay.

Non-issues:
-Size: the size and "flash" don't seem to be as big of a thing as one would have thought beforehand. While the audio and lighting isn't as good, the volunteer AV crew has done a great job (being scorekeeper, I have to work with them a lot).


Final thoughts:

Districts are the way of the future, like it or not. There have been and will be some growing pains as more places adopt the system. Once more areas are on it, I imagine that a lot of the con's on my list will no longer apply or be much reduced. However, the one issue that could be troublesome is championship fee issue, which to me, conflicts with the idea of having a bigger championship. There is only so much money in circulation, and to me, making championships should be a matter of merit, not of wealth. Sure, there has to be some cost somewhere, but this IMHO isn't the way to go. Overall, however, the system can be made to work well, better than the regional system, especially if the local FIRST family has enough determination and supports one another.

(again, there are my personal thoughts, no the thoughts of anybody else but me).

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

A lot of what I wanted to say has been pointed out already. I am a staunch supporter of districts, but I also believe that a lot of Kevin's gripes can be addressed outside of the district system. Just as I was back in 2009. People forget what a radical change districts were when they first appeared, and how much of that has transitioned into the regional experience. Instead of crating and shipping our robots to our local events, we bag and tag them. While the amount of matches per event is still a concern, 7-8 per team used to be the norm regardless of event size. Running 12 matches was unheard of, even at small events.

The regional experience can be further improved independent of which areas become districts. FIRST HQ can make outlines to regional planning committees, regional directors, and FTAs more clear on the quantities of matches to be run. FIRST HQ can make outlines to the judges advisors about how to distribute judges. If anything, this sounds like a great place for input by the FRC team advocate*.

*I have no idea what the FRC team advocate does on a day-to-day basis or if they would actually have any say on this matter, but it at least fits the job title :rolleyes:

I'd also like to point out that there are district events held in venues other than high school gyms. When affordable, college stadiums/athletic facilities are still venues at the district level. I know of events at UMASS-Dartmouth, Northeastern, WPI, Rutgers, NJIT, and Purdue off the top of my head. I'm sure there have been some in Michigan and PNW as well.

While a supporter of districts, I do want to point out that the production/AV losses can be more significant than some are letting on, at least initially. MAR has improved significantly in the AV department over the years, but the first season had projectors without suitable power, audio equipment that wasn't audible in portions of venues, poor quality webcasts, and the lack of production value at the MAR Championship event has lagged behind that of regionals ever since Show Ready stopped providing it. This is to be expected, and things have improved dramatically as MAR learned what needed to be fixed and people gained experience in how to fix it. Hopefully the lessons learned from each existing district can help smooth the learning curve even more for future districts.

The entrepeneurship award can still exist even if the fundraising goal is changed. Some arbitrary value on the amount that needs to be raised in funds doesn't remove that experience from the equation.

Yes, you still can present Chairman's at each event you attend (unless you win your first one).

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Joe said:
This is what I want. Yes FIRST is expensive. But it is not really outrageously expensive compared to operating sports teams. (For the record, I am firm supporter of sports teams, and have read the article cited earlier in this thread about sports teams vs. math students and as a trained statistician have a few quibbles with it.) Most schools could probably afford $10000 a year to support a FIRST team as long as the team had a decent number of students. And if schools contribute more it should be easier to get sponsors to help when teams qualify to the district or world championships. Think about the cost of a field perimeter. Fairly expensive for one school. Not as great a cost for a group of schools. Think of your school's athletic league purchasing one for its teams to use. Furthermore, when this becomes something that schools just do, then travel costs for the first level of competition drop dramatically.

Yes, I will miss seeing some of the teams from far away (and maybe with inter-district play some of this could come back) but I will also be highly gratified to see kids from the local schools that don't have teams get a chance to play. And it will be fun to play some of our local rivals. I also coach track and field and cross country. These are two sports in which the opponents are often friends as well as rivals. I believe the quality of play will improve as we get more scrimmages and there is more local support for teams.

Yes the district model is more expensive than a regional model if you are a team that plans on one regional and the championship. But how many teams is that really? And most of those are probably infrequent qualifiers to the championship. The district model gives you a chance to more easily earn advancement to another level of competition. For some teams this could be a really a big deal. As I said in an earlier thread, we have been lucky enough to qualify for the world championships fairly often. Many other local teams have not. For teams that routinely attend at least two competitions before the Championships the district model offers a more economical model. For us, it would make attending two competitions an every year thing instead of a twice in thirteen years thing.

As for venues, I agree that all other things being equal, the big venues have more wow factor. But that is all other things being equal. Anyone who has ever been to a high school basketball game in Indiana can attest to the fact that even a small gym can be absolutely rocking with excitement. A good sized high school gym with a full crowd can be every bit as exciting as a half full college arena. It can certainly be louder. I think a lot of how such an event comes off depends on how the adults approach it. Any coach can tell you that the mental state of a team depends a lot on how the coach prepares them. I find it hard to believe, for example, that team 379 attends will not be a loud, exciting affair.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I for one do not like playing only with my neighbors. I like meeting and competing with teams from around the country and world. That's why we do Midwest, for the international feel.

I've always felt the Wisconsin Regional was very well run. I like the venue floor, the seating and the downtown atmosphere.

As you know, FIRST is more than just building robots. One of the great experiences our kids get involves fundraising and securing sponsors. This allows us to do two regionals. The second one at a location of our choice. This extends the season for our students and enriches the experience. Also gives them twice as many matches. As a side note, doing regionals around the Midwest has taught me just how appreciative I am about the Wisconsin Regional.

Please FIRST, keep both models and let people choose. As a consumer I like choices. I will not choose attending the high school gym. Hate the bleacher environment, FIRST is better than that.[/quote]




I second this completely.!!!

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I'm a big fan of meeting teams from faraway places. Now that Indiana is doing District events, I figure I can get my "exotic" fix at IRI. :-) I'm also looking forward to further refinements of the cross-district competition rules, with more teams ranging further afield.

The other big opportunity is the FIRST Championship. If you want to play with world-wide teams, that's an incentive to be a world-class team yourself.

The last time the TechnoKats attended the Midwest Regional, I got quite a different "feel". It seemed like a big block of Chicago teams with a few further-away teams struggling to be inspiring against a tide of unexcited local students. That is likely because I spent much of my time there trying to work with some of the most underperforming, underfunded, and undermentored teams there, but it's what I took away from the event.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I volunteer at events far and wide and there isn't really all that many teams that go to the event outside the area (unless you're a destination event like Orlando or NYC and even then there's not a huge number of teams coming from far and away). GTCR was strictly Canadian teams with only one team from Quebec. The show went on fine.
Like Alan said I can get my exotic fix from the off season (and championships, of course).

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I don't think Stan set the cycle time at VA. Jeff Wetzel was the FTA at the event and he posts on here frequently so if he catches this he could provide insight. I wouldn't be surprised if the long cycle times were due to the occasional really long delays in connecting on Thursday, but I have no clue what it was.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

While it would be nice to do six minute turn around times and give people more matches you also have to realize that there is little margin for error with such a tight window. Often the events will suffer death by a thousand paper cuts. A minute lost here, a minute lost there and next thing you know you are a half hour behind. God forbid something serious happens to the field or a team comes out that is just not connecting at all. It is really hard to make an event run smoothly without losing time. In my personal opinion I think they should at least do seven minute turnaround times for the championships but Ii know they are going to push for six minute turn around times. That's gonna be a tall order to pull off.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

While the discussion about regionals vs districts is important, Sean hit the nail on the head. The fact is that districts WILL eventually be universal (for all but a few select locations), but until that happens, most of us are stuck with the regional model. This is not a *BAD* thing, but the regional model needs some refinement, and the areas that Sean hit on is exactly what I'm after.

You're absolutely right. The schedule must be properly crafted to allow for unforeseen circumstances. The answer is not to universally apply 6 minute cycle times, but possibly to allow the cycle to be adjusted on the fly if things are going smoothly. Cycle time is also related to directives given for introductions, load-in/out of robots, and of course, field reset. We were spoiled last year where field reset was a piece of cake compared to this year. '13 wasn't terrible and neither was '12.

No doubt its a tough thing to figure out - if it were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

It took me two minutes to find the audited financial statements and the form 990, which have a lot more data than "XY million: FRC expenses."

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I am very much so excited for California to transfer to the district model soon. I think it will lead to more play time and more opportunities for teams to attend Champs. However, as many have said, there are a lot of tradeoffs. I for one am not looking forward to missing even more school than I already do for robotics. Of course, I love competition and I will continue to do anything possible to compete as much as possible. But I know my teachers and many other teachers on campus are not happy when the same group of 50+ students on my team are gone for the last part of the week multiple weeks in a row.

That being said, I love competition and am glad more teams will be given the ability to go on in competition in the district model.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

More often than not district events take place on Saturdays and Sundays so you won't be missing any more school time than before. You may be missing even less.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

While I didn't run the numbers, I wouldn't automatically characterize it as "more often than not" districts are Sat/Sun affairs. I'd say it's a fairly even split between the two schedules.

This season, Dawgma students are going to miss 2-3 days of school for all three of our events combined (depending if they're part of the crew we bring Thursday to MAR Champs). We had one season where they didn't miss any school at all.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

A quick TBA scan tells me it is indeed still leaning Fri-Sat rather than Sat-Sun.

That said, another good thing about Districts is how responsive they are. That is, if you respond. (District events and the district model itself happen because the people in the district make them happen.) Have enough people concerned enough about missing Friday that they're willing to work on a Sat-Sun option (or the other way around)? You can make it happen, particularly in a place that's as FRC-dense as San Diego. Disclaimer: I know nothing about San Diego; I just typed the first zip code Google gave me into the FRC team search engine.

MAR leans very heavily Sat-Sun while FIM leans heavily the other way. PNW and NE seem more split.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I said S/S because I know MAR leans heavily S/S and with Cali's frequent Fri-Sun regionals they might have more S/S events when they go to districts in 2022 or whenever. I do know that MI has a LOT of Fri-Sun and last year I know NE had a T/F and S/S event one week because IIRC Andy Grady worked both events.

Always a salient point.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I've never personally competed in districts, so I may be a bit biased. However, I loved the regional model when I competed in high school. My first year we only went to the Orlando Regional and did not make eliminations. The great venue in Orlando helps make it a special and inspiring event. It made it seem like a big deal and helped inspire me to want to be a big part of our team and perform on big stages.

Having smaller events may make sense economically or logistically, but they need to retain their inspiration, or else we're missing the point.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Honestly if I was in the US/Canada I would agree that the value proposition from Districts (from the outside, never experienced it myself) seems higher.

However I (and like a growing handful of other teams) am not, and while I predict that districts are indeed the future, I hope you find a space for the outlier teams. We love competing in the US.

As an aside, we send ~35-40 people every year to a regional and there was only 8 guaranteed matches at NYC. Luckily I don't do any team finances, but I am definitely a proponent of more matches at events!

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Ok, I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing me to the IRS 990 form. It lists some expenses broken down by categories like salaries, information technology, and travel. It also has an $11M category called "additional robot expenses."

The first form you linked is what I was thinking of. It has FRC reduced to a single line item as you can see in the copied section below from page 6 of the pdf:



This is the form that is available on FIRST's "Annual Report and Financials" page. That is why I came under the impression that they aren't disclosing a whole lot about their expenses.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

That form 990 is crazy. The government could probably save a few trees if they let nonprofits condense that grants section.

I think we overpay for things in Frc but it comes down to me with regional presentation. For instance take sbpli regional vs the NYC regional. The NYC regional is hosted in the huge javits center. There are teams from all over the world. There are Ftc, fll, and Jr fll to tournaments going on at the same time and there are even major companies like Goldman sachs, and google there. Everyone has 10x10 pits and overall the presentation is great. Then you go to the sbpli regional. You get a homy effect being in the small University. Your lucky to get 8x8 pits and everything feels kind of dark. It's still a great regional don't get me wrong. But what I don't understand is how you pay the same for both the events.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

The disparities are crazy, especially considering how expensive I've heard the NYC Regional/tournaments are to host.

I can imagine. Im at the javits center all the time (once a month at least) one event I go to every year is the 3d printing expo. When I was in the press lounge I noticed the event coordinator. Being it was in the same room the Frc competition was hosted I asked him how much it costs to rent this for the weekend. He told me it cost them 300,000 for the 3 days during the week but if it was a weekend it would cost. 400,000! Now I imagine first does get some discount. But it still is crazy expensive. Let alone them renting bleachers, cherry pickers, light systems, and trucks to transport all their things. It most cost close to 600,000 so I see why you would pay 5k to enter it. Where as the hofstra competition probably costs like 150,000 - 200,000 at most. The difference is though sbpli is a small company compared to the companies who sponsor the NYC competition.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Did you know that none of your registration money goes to the regional?

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

This, or similar to it, is an often cited fear. I had similar fears before I experienced districts. Let me tell you they're virtually unfounded, at least in my experience and the experiences of those I know. Districts are every bit as inspiring as regional events.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

The way that value is calculated for this discussion is naive but I get the point. Sometimes a little hyperbole helps. It does lead many questions to be asked: What value is placed on the kit of parts and support from FIRST? What is the value of the time spent traveling? What value is placed on the quality of the competitive field and competitive match play? What value is placed on seeing, interacting, and playing with people and robots that are not in your area? What value is placed on turn-around time between matches to make a fix?

Clearly, it does not cost $5000 for a kit of parts and one fractional slice of a competition. It costs way more than that, especially in more expensive markets. These fees go to support all aspects of supporting the teams and competitions. It costs $4000 to go to a second regional because a second regional is a luxury and it costs a lot to support the infrastructure of the FRC system so the $4000 (from those that can afford it) subsidies the cost of all competitions that you attend, kit of parts, and the entire infrastructure. True, the money does not go to the Regional Planning Committee to put on the events...but it does go to things like creating the field, supporting the field, transporting the field, paying the engineers and support staff at FIRST, sending that staff to run and support your regional, your local Senior Mentor, and other costs of running FRC. So, it confuses the trees for the forest when it comes to saying that the registration money doesn't go to the regional...in my opinion.

Ahh...cycle time: my understanding, as a former scorekeeper, is that the cycle time is recommended by FRC but some leeway is afforded to FTAs to pick within a range. I am sure that many things go into this type of decision but I am not going to speculate. I will say that there is a sizable risk in picking a lower cycle time just like there is sizable risk in failing to allocate slack and buffer time in a project schedule.

Many people have mentioned the trade-offs between the Regional and District models. The comments from Lij2015, bobby5150, Sunshine, PayneTrain, Lil' Lavery, Bruceb, and Alan Anderson include most of my feelings on the matter. The one additional issue I see (that is a problem in some areas with regionals and many of the districts) is that there is a lot of inbred characteristics in the robots where there is not a lot of cross-breading due to limited outside influences. Take "west coast drive" as a thought experiment. How long did that take to spread across the country...long enough that it was unique to a subset of teams from a geographic location and that it was called "west coast drive." Mix it up, get new ideas, get inspired, be challenged.

Let's talk about those judges...since that is apparently something Kevin wants to get at. I am going to talk about the Wisconsin Regional Judge corps here but this is mostly the same all around FIRST. It must be recognized that there has been a shortage of judges in many areas around the US this year. Based purely on public observations, the Wisconsin Regional apparently lost many veteran judges just a short time before the competition. This resulted in there being 2 fewer judges that in previous years.

The judge break-down by responsibility is pretty easy to see...if you can see the whole competition at once. If you have been in the Chairman's presentation room, you see that there are 3 judges in there. From the award presentation you can see that there are 2 Dean's List judges. You can also see that there is a Judges' Advisor and a Judges' Assistant. You can see that there are no judges dedicated to watching matches this year in Wisconsin. This leaves 12 judges to judge the remaining awards.

From watching the judges in the pit in the morning (especially on Friday), you can see that there are 4 sets of three judges and it can be calculated that each set must interview 15 of the 60 teams. By listening to the questions they ask, you can see that this group of three is a survey team, each with different responsibilities. These three judges that your team see survey 15 teams between 8:30am and 12:00pm and with opening ceremonies that leaves 3 hours or about 10-12 minutes per team per day. That team sees the same teams again on Saturday but for a more brief interaction. In the afternoon, you may see a second set of judges for varying lengths of time and this set will be from one to four members. You can hear that this set of judges has a very specific set of questions that they are asking. If you are very good or very lucky, you will see more than one addition set of judges. Then, after early-afternoon, judges are very scarce and then they return sporadically. I am sure that we all know what they are doing during that time.

My experience is that this break-down of splitting the field and surveying first is fairly common. If you see a different set of judges...they are likely there about a specific award or set of awards. The Wisconsin Regional is quite large, as regional competitions go, so there is simply no way that every judge can see every team. My experience as a judge has been that it was extremely fast paced, we were always very busy, and we were under a lot of time pressure. I personally interviewed 36 separate teams of the 60 present and visiting 20 of those teams many times. This is more than most judges at this competition get around to seeing. As far as the insurmountable task of doing going through 41 Chairman's Award presentations and written submissions, I have no idea how they do that. They have the submissions ahead of time...so I suppose that helps...but still. Wow.

In the end, I think that the Wisconsin Regional is a fairly well run event that handles an insane number of teams and has been at max capacity for a while. Yet, I don't think Wisconsin is ready for a district model as the team density is simply not high enough and the travel times would be crazy for a lot of teams. The district progression in the upper-midwest mirrors that of the recognition of statehood in the region. Michigan and Illinois are taking away teams from the Wisconsin pool as they go district just like they took away territory from Wisconsin as they applied for statehood. Hyperbole...sure. False comparison...maybe. South-east Wisconsin, north-east Illinois, and north-west Indiana would be a great district. Just have to figure out how to get some good Michigan teams in there too. Lake Michigan District? Or...Lake Michigan Region?

I don't ever see there being an FRC where there is only the district model without some major changes. The logistics just don't bare it out and I think that would result in dead-zones devoid of teams where there was not critical mass. Clearly there are growing pains and we have all felt them. We need to work together to improve the opportunity and experience for students in all systems and models.

Let's make all the regional, district, and state competitions the best they can be!

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

My usual proposal when this comes up is that the "outliers" (as you so rightly termed them) should be given an opportunity to join--or rather, be included in--the district that their "home" regional will be in. For you guys, I believe NYC is the typical option; Chile and Colombia tend to show up in Los Angeles. IIRC, Idaho was asked about this when the PNW district formed.

I suspect that as time goes on, district events will become the "standard" event, and it'll be less of an issue that "such-and-such group of teams can/can't play in this area".

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Agreed. I was worried about the same thing when New England went to districts, and there has been nothing to worry about. District events have that "in your face feel" many sports teams love about their arena because it's packed to the rafters. You can really feed off the crowd.

It's definitely a different experience than regionals, but nonetheless inspiring. I think the fact there's virtually all positive feedback from teams who have moved to districts (I can't think of one person who has said "I hate it, give me back regionals") says enough.

Seriously. Then what are we paying for. The kop and first choice are half donated and the gdc can only have so many paid employees.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Fields. Did you know that each field has to be refitted for each and every game, every year? Did you know that each field travels in a semitruck, for 6 weeks, plus a championship run for some of them? (District fields excluded from the HQ fields assessment here--some of this comes out of the district, I think.) And did you know that the field's road cases have to be refitted, too? Not counting the whole "repair" sort of thing. They've only got what, well over a dozen fields on the road, including the spare?

Training. HQ brings in the key volunteer positions, every year, and helps pay for their travel. Plus makes training materials for everybody else. I suspect travel for key employees to events takes some change as well.

Overhead. Gotta keep the lights on at HQ, along with the A/C, FIRST Place and its summer programs, and other stuff that needs to be taken care of.

Salaries. I think there are more people than you think working at HQ.

Promotion. All them videos and brochures gotta come from somewhere.


There's a lot of stuff that you don't necessarily see, year-to-year--you only see the effects. And all that stuff costs money. I suspect I only touched on a few of the items...

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

There are a lot of other expenses about running a regional that HQ takes care of.

Just think about the field, for example. There are 16 trucks, minimum (11 in the US, Canada, Australia, Hawaii, Israel, and at least one spare on standby). This doesn't even include the district fields (which aren't owned by FIRST, but that's another 10). Each field consists of ~20 road cases that have to get shipped (in a truck) to each event. Most of the US fields do 5 or 6 events, then go to St. Louis, and the others are crossing international boarders. Then the carpet has to be shipped separately to each events. Multiply that by the >60 regionals, and that adds up to a lot of money. Then add in the costs for all the field elements and game pieces - a portion of the field needs to get redone every year x20, parts go bad and need to be replaced (and some of the field hardware is not cheap), and game pieces (each event is budged 100 noodles this year, and each truck has at least a full extra set of totes. Then add in all the trophies, medals, banners, 100,000+ volunteer shirts, small mountain of gaff tape, and all the other disposables an event goes through.

These things add up - all that money is not sitting being used as a swimming pool somewhere in Manchester.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

The issue with that is every season we'd have to attend two events separated by at least five days, and a successful season would include up to four trips to the US (or three with the first being quite long).

I understand that a whole system should not be compromised for the exceptional cases, but there probably exists at least a temporary solution. For example, keeping a few strategically located regionals would mimic the current hybrid solution and work for the "short-term".

The best answer would be our local event, but the reality is even if "local" was Europe (which can be very not local), we are a still far from a European regional let alone a European district. I don't know if Australia or Mexico have the teams to make a district work either, if they don't, regionals seem like they'd have to persist.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I for one love the district model, the kids get two competitions and get to go into the second feeling confident. I do have issues with the Director of the organization we are a part of, for the past two years she tells me that she misses Manchester and that the district events just don't have the same feel. She used to attend the regional event but comes for like one day to a district. When I explained this year after doing OK at our two district events that the Regional Championship was a possibility her first response was "No" she was not willing to spend the additional $4000 for us to go, eventually letting us fundraise with a solid "NO" if we qualify for Worlds. We already have a Zero budget, so every year its a fight.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

Schools can be such a pain sometimes.

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

This reminds me of one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes:
"Don't let schooling interfere with your education."

Re: (Lack of) Value in the Regional Model
 

I would point most following this back to the initial question. Forget districts versus regional events that should be a different thread. However the initial question actually comes to play in district events as well. How does FIRST justify the disparity in similar events when looking at matches played?