Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Just pointing out that the 800 team + J/FLL + FTC issue might not be so much about venue space as it is about things like hotels.

This is one of the reasons I like the FRC Champs, FTC Champs split: it could conceivably keep the sheer number of people in each city around what FIRST and those metros were planning for.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

For many years I have volunteered to give conference sessions at the Championship with topics ranging from how to build community alliances to engaging parents to recruiting corporate volunteers. A couple of years ago there was a mentor who attended one of these sessions who shared with me that he obtained funding from his school system to attend the Championship BECAUSE of the conferences. Although these sessions have definitely gotten more polished over the years and expanded I continue to feel that "beefing" up the conferences held in conjunction with the Championship to be a destination in themselves has been a missed opportunity.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

The championship event isn't just about the participants because the spectators matter as well. Although only a small fraction of the community can participate anyone can spectate. It won't benefit anyone if the viewing experience declines. Even if a team could attend championships every 4 years, attending the event will be a less special experience compared to previous years for 1 year, and for the other 3 the viewing experience will have declined as well. I don't think it's a good trade off.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

To do what, compete? What purpose does that serve?

Everybody in this thread is "not being able to see all the teams when I go to champs isn't as inspiring"

And I'm over here thinking I'd be happy if autonomous worked right for once.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

So I'm going to reiterate this.

FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.

You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.

PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly).

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I posted this on another thread but it works for here.

As long as FIRST has no touching games like this year then it is just high score wins. In that case the highest score from one of the 2 championships would be the champ. All FIRST would have to do is make sure there are no common game pieces in the finals like the center cans. This maybe one of the reasons for this years game format.

Having another play off for crowning the champ is hard on students. Some students need time in school to get the grades for the FIRST scholarships.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

The problem with the head-to-head isn't registration (I think we'd all be appalled if they had to pay $5K just to do a best-of-2 or so series). It's the cost of travel and hotels with less than a week's notice, pulling students out of school yet again, getting mentors off of work...

I'm also not sure people agree on how much of a partial fix this is, except that it's very little. I haven't read or heard anyone that's upset simply that there are two championship alliances; they're upset that there are two because process of getting them is totally...ahem. A final showdown is essentially a red herring in the debate, being both so easy to promote and schedule (while difficult to execute) and so meaningless to the central issues.

On the other poor hand, if this also actually meant that FRC will never bring back defense (through 2020), I think we all hope that we as a community can refrain from actually rioting at the Town Hall.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I think FIRST and everyone here complaining probably have the same goals, we just have different ideas on how to accomplish them. I'm sure the people who thought of this idea are very smart, but there are thousands of people in the community overwhelmingly against this idea, and they are also very smart. Chances are they didn't think this through and it's in FIRST's best interest to listen. It would be very silly of them not to.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?

If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

But the methods are still up to them. And we have to remember that for as much as we know the challenges of running our teams they know what they are having to do to run FIRST. They made a hard locked dicision about how they need to run it in the future so give them a minute to prove it I'd say.

I mean the non-profit USFIRST when I say FIRST. The staff and leadership.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I made an edit.

So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

You mean jump ship before we see how the new championships work, like how FIRST did with this year?

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Describe in what ways specifically.

From what I see the championship is fundamentally the same but with more divisions and venue splitting allowing for a ~600 team cap for FRC instead of a ~400 team cap last year. That isn't much different from 2014 and subsequently prior years using the same basic structure. Thus they would be familiar with how the 2015 will work because it is structurally the same as what they have been familiar with.

They made a system and duplicated a part (divisions) while shifting another (FTC/FLL) to make room. It's actually a good example of a systems/industrial engineering problem. Also this concept isn't incompatible with the split championship model and likely could be implemented at either with proper planing.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I would say that you are posing either a false dichotomy, or have written an ill-formed question, or both.

"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved.

An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs.

Blake

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

The question could have been formed better. The point was to question whether FIRST staffers (many of whom seem to be ill-informed about FRC teams and competitions) or actual FIRST teams should be determining the direction of organization. The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

That is, to some extent, a true thought.

However, we should be doing our best to inform them of how any decisions they make affect us (as a whole). And, going along with that, they should be thinking of how any major decisions like this will affect teams, and effect the goals and mission of FIRST.

This particular decision, and the manner of its carrying out, match up to some others they've done in the past.
--FVC switching to FTC (result: teams with several $K invested in VEX stuff already did not enter FTC, and suddenly VRC had a really strong foundation to grow on)
--The inaugural district area (result: MASSIVE outcry, questioning, complaining, etc. on a variety of issues. Now, 6 years later, the outcry is going the "other way"--instead of "why do they get them" it's "why don't we have them".)
--Changing of control systems: '08-'09 rather than '14-'15. The former was mostly unannounced--we had a few months, as I recall, but beta teams were few in number, and it was rather sudden. The latter we knew was coming when FIRST put out a call for proposals roughly two years in advance, a call for alpha teams, and a call for beta teams. Slight difference in methodology, showing that they learned from a past mistake.

If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I think that's really what's getting most people. I think FIRST's intentions were right. They know the number of teams is growing, and that sooner or later they were going to need an even larger Championship event. Thus, they said, why not have TWO Championship events? I'm not sure if the concerns voiced by the community were thought of beforehand, but it's clear that there wasn't any form of surveying or anything to see what people thought before announcing this major change. As a result, many mentors, alumni, and students were shocked by the shift, and we're kinda left wondering why there was no consultation until after the fact.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

But like, what if their way is not the best? We're starting to come full circle here, but the whole idea is this proposal has been put, no one knew even a rumor about this, until it was a done deal.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Just as a thought...

Have you ever stood on a mountain, and looked out to another place? Looks like the best way to get from point A to point B is a route, let's call it X. But if you actually talk to people who've gone that route, X might actually be a really lousy route, for a variety of reasons. Maybe Y, which you see but think isn't the best, is actually the better route, for reasons you didn't think about. But if you are telling a bunch of new hikers that X is better...

That's essentially what FIRST HQ is doing. They're standing up on the mountain, setting the direction for the group. But they aren't actually walking that route with the teams. They largely haven't experienced what teams go through. They've gotten better about trying to pay attention to that, no doubt, but they've still got a long ways to go. Not at the Frank level (he's got enough staff who've been on teams to know what's going on, and he pays attention to forums and all), but above that. This isn't FRC HQ talking in the initial announcement, this is USFIRST HQ talking. FRC HQ is the one who announced the townhall.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.

Well you make another point that the group they are suggesting this path to is not just FRC teams. How dose that play into this? How will this look for all the programs in two plus years?

The route of split FIRST world championships is not something an FRC team has done. We all think we know that a tiered system will work and it likely would but the people who have to put it together before we get there have set forth a foreign plan that is so far untested.

They aren't pointing down route X or Y, they found R and want to give it a shot. All of HQ's personnel haven't been on a team and just the same we haven't all run USFIRST.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

While I think most of us understand what you're saying, when we build our robots, there are some things we don't have to prototype or test to know it's a bad idea.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

And there are some things you have to test to know if they are a good idea.

There are also some things you test that should have been a good idea but don't work in the end.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

When we test ideas, we don't immediately jump it and put it on the competition robot. We check out the geometry, look at everything it could possibly mess up on the robot as is, and then try it on the practice robot before making changes to the competition robot. Same with code, and same should be for FIRST. Any form of communication, pilot test, survey? From what appears to be the consensus on CD, there wasn't anything.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Which is exactly the problem. HQ made the deliberate choice to limit their level of research into this issue, and thus their potential for informed thought and analysis. The "what if" is already there: they put it there. What if they'd been transparent? No one can know how this will play out, and HQ made the conscious decision to introduce unknowns into their decision.

Maybe they are right. Maybe "we" are right (whoever "we" are). Maybe we're both wrong. No one will ever know which is most true, because only one decision can be (and will be) implemented. This is normal and inevitable. The current assessment is necessarily a probabilistic one. In those terms, being informed by your stakeholders raises your chances of making an informed decision, which increases the likelihood that the decision will be a correct one.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

"We" is the FRC community.

How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.

How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?

Trust me, I've seen the postings. There are mentors who had that reaction almost immediately. Long-time mentors. If your team had a 10-year+ mentor "threaten" to leave over this, you'd realize just how bad this is. (Mine hasn't, that I know about--but then again, most of the mentors haven't been around FIRST for more than about 5-7 years.)

I don't give a darn that FIRST knows better than anyone what they are able to do. What they have chosen to do is up to them--but if they alienate large numbers of people, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's EXACTLY what they just about did with the announcement. And when they say "this is how it's going to be, now you can ask us questions", a lot of people won't be thinking about the "how". They're thinking about the "if" and the "why couldn't we ask questions before".

These mentors know a far sight better than FIRST HQ what their individual teams' goals, missions, dreams, and abilities are, and what the community reaction will be in event of X happening. When HQ appears to take a step that directly contradicts an awful lot of those local teams' ideals, there are only two possibilities: Either the team mentors are out of touch with HQ's view of FIRST's goals, or HQ is out of touch with the teams. Neither ends well unless someone from either side or both reaches out.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Well I would then suggest you reach out as you say insted of leave.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I never said that I was leaving. I said that some mentors were thinking about leaving. There is a difference.


I won't be in St. Louis. But I'm really hoping that a number of veteran mentors that ARE there will be at the townhall. (I'm also hoping that there's a Q&A, and that the HQ folks brought a lot of notepaper, because I'm pretty sure they're going to get an earful.)

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

And from the sound of things... they're going to need a lot more time for the earful than they will have scheduled for the Town Hall.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Sorry, that was my "we" intended to designate that the FRC community, even within the dissenters, has not reached a consensus plan. I wasn't attempting to quote you out of context or invoke your definition.

Knowing what one is able to do does not lead directly to making the correct choice. Having a decision within one's discretion does not mean that one is the best qualified to unilaterally decide it. We all understand that this decision is made; that does not mean that it is good.

There are two different goals for this Town Hall (or as a general response to "we're listening"). One is to figure out how to work within the framework HQ created with these contracts. The other is to express dissatisfaction at HQ's process and/or decision. The latter aim is not simply to complain; it's to elucidate the "cost" side of the cost-benefit to HQ of them ever doing something like this again. And, quite frankly, the cost they've already accrued in doing so.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I don't know if anyone's proposed any solutions rather than just grousing, but here's an idea:

Send the winner of whichever event is first to the second one (all expenses paid), have them play the winner of the second one for the World Champions title. Lock their robots up right after the final match of the first event to try to minimize the impact that not playing for a week would have. No withholding allowance. The biggest issue is fatigue of the drive team for the one that just went through a whole champs+Einstein elims bracket, but I don't know if there is any other solution. Rotate which event is the earlier week every other year.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:

No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

If he's proposing a standard, it's more along the lines of:

No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I don't see a proposed standard in his post. To me it's more the fact that FIRST should question, and account for, any decision that could cause several experienced mentors to leave the program.

FIRST can make a decision that causes that, but they have to recognise the cost of such a decision up front. We are all worse off if FIRST continue an approach where they only realize the repercussions of important decisions after the damage has been done.

The best way to avoid making any decision that could ostracize valuable members of the community is to keep an open dialogue with [at least] a subset of the community, especially before committing to an important decision.

An outline of the vision in the short, medium and long-term would also help put their decisions in to perspective, so we're not trying to reverse-engineer their thinking to understand decisions that contradict our previously held beliefs about their vision. Especially when this is such a community driven organisation.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change?

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Eric's statement expressed disbelief that FIRST would consider any decision that caused mentors to leave. My point is that, with as many mentors as there are now, there's no major decision that FIRST can make around the competition schedule that won't cause mentors to leave. (I take Eric's POV as more representative than many of the commenters here, based on the team he's affiliated with.)

Let me give you an example. Some of the proposals floated around on this and other threads propose a 5 or 6 event schedule for a team, if they go all the way. That sort of schedule, if adopted, will certainly cause mentors to leave because it's too much time. Yet the only time "mentors leaving" gets discussed in these threads is over the change from "one true championship" to "two championships," and its motivational effect on teams.

I agree with your statements that FIRST needs to carefully consider the impacts of changes that it makes. At the same time, giving a small number of mentors veto power over changes will make it very difficult to make decisions. And I totally get where you're coming on reverse engineering their thinking, being one of the chief practitioners of that particular art in these threads. There are clearly many more factors going into this decision than what has been presented publicly. I suspect this is a decision that needed to be made now, and with everything else that goes on during competition season got as much communication effort as they could. (Couldn't resist more reverse engineering).

Can you point specifically to where FIRST is ostracizing members of the community as part of this decision? I see where there are differences of opinion regarding the means to achieve goals, but haven't seen any ostracism.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

The ostracism came when they announced what amounts to a major change of direction for all FIRST programs with (as far as we're aware) no input from anyone outside of FIRST HQ.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I posted in another thread a few minutes ago:

Those HOF/Otherwise super-elite teams are as inspiring as they are because of a very small number of very dedicated mentors.

If a change makes those mentors want to leave, its bad. Losing those mentors, would in turn make those HOF/Otherwise super-elite teams less inspiring.

If those teams are less inspiring, does allowing 4000 more students see the husk of their former inspiration achieve more than letting fewer see them be their best?

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Difficult question, isn't it? I think reasonable people, all committed to FIRST's goals, could disagree on the answer.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Sorry, tl;dr

Mentors come and go.

Many railed against Aliances at first.
Many railed against Districts at first.
Now we rail against semi-CMPs. But in a few years, when we end up with 4 or 5 of them, we'll add a new layer, and we'll be back where we started.

The only other solution is for someone to build a venue that can handle 1200 FRC teams plus all other FIRST programs. No Way No How.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Really? The only other solution? You can't think of any other ones?

How about keeping Champs at 600 teams? Even this year, 38 out of 121 teams from MAR are going to Champs. (That's 31%, by comparison, 43% of MAR teams went to the DCMP). I think we can afford to let a smaller percentage of teams go to champs. The district system makes this easy, since the proportion of teams let through from a region is easily adjusted.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

You know why these teams are HoF right? They spend alot of time working within their community advancing STEMs, building up the FRC community, and pushing FIRST goals not only here in North american but other countries as well. I believe that these HoF teams help to inspire far more students every year then this expanded Champs will.

Also the idea that a student needs to get to champs to be inspired is silly and reflects bad on any team and it's mentors/coachs that can't qualify or lacks the funds to go.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Just so you two are aware, you're putting words in my mouth. I am proposing no such standard. I am putting out a question that should have been considered, but wasn't. (And just to be more to the point: The question was aimed more at a CD poster who seemed to be saying "HQ is always right, shut up" than at HQ.)

Exactly what I was getting at. You've got long-term, committed mentors talking about leaving. That's not a good thing for their teams (regardless of the reason).

No, it wouldn't. It would, however, mean that I would reach out to those mentors either before or immediately following with a very detailed reasoning why the change was being made, and why it was being made in the way that it was. There's a difference between that and the method HQ used... It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly. I would be making sure that I had as much information as I could before making the decision.

You also are putting words in my mouth, and you are making a seriously flawed assumption to boot. I'm not expressing disbelief, I'm saying that they apparently didn't consider that particular effect of their decision. And when you look just at the team I'm affiliated with, you ignore the team(S) in my signature. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of at least one, you got another think comin'.

I agree that it's difficult to make a decision and not have mentors leave--but mentors leave anyways, for other reasons. There's a difference between a few mentors leaving for personal reasons and lots of mentors leaving because HQ makes a mistake.

Bingo. If HQ takes no input, and then changes the course rather radically, then they're going to alienate critical people.

I'm going to ask a related question; your answer will tell me (and yourself) a lot about your views on the whole topic under discussion.

Quantity or Quality?

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

As an alum, I'm not super against this or for it - really don't have enough information. I do find it a bit surprising since it's so...different. Same with RR. Not the biggest fan of the game but I'm quite happy with some of the outcomes - students inspired, things built and ideas realized.


My compromise would be to instead of adding another full layer, simply get one HUGE venue (or two adjacent large venues), in a big city and expand to 8-alliance Einstein.

Bigger conventions happen all the time. So why can't we do that? What's the point in diluting the "CHAMPIONSHIP" name if you could do the same elsewhere? That's the bit I'm confused about.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

It's not in this thread, but there's some discussion in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=136519&page=4 (start at post #48) on just what it would take to get that happening. Some square-footage requirements, some loose sizes, and throw in other stuff that needs to be handled. Good luck...

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

HOF teams are inspiring because an ever changing group of people spent a lot of time creating programs that will withstand student, sponsor, and mentor turnover. No one group makes a team a HOF team.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I'm sure you can attest to this better than I can. While I'm certain many of these teams experience turnover like the rest of FRC, some of these HOF teams have cultivated a sustained mentor base that isn't easily impacted by turnover. Having the ability to retain those key mentors is huge. Institutional knowledge of FRC often makes the difference between a good team and a great one. The fact that some of these teams have mentors who've been with their program, or at least FRC for 10-15+ years is certainly a testament to the program those teams have created. I would argue that this key group of mentors certainly helped shape those teams, and many of them continue to do so today.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I'd like FIRST to actually outline the long term vision. It's quite obvious that their long term vision differs significantly from the one that was outlined a few years ago.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Didn't say USFIRST headquarters was right. I said the had the right to make the decision and these three threads aren't going to help anything.

You don't have to shut up and march but if you wan't to positively affect the program. Telling an inspired student that split championships would be so uninspiring for none of the reasons FRC or championships was inspiring isn't inspiring. Everyone gets that almost no one on this forum likes this decision for so many reasons. That is no reason to continue the debates like this. The same basic counter arguments, people taking hypothetical speech and examples as personal attacks. If I showed this to someone new they'd be more confused by the arguments than having north and south leagues!

This is how it is and it's going to be so quit bickering and find some solutions like engineers do!

I glanced at the 2010 championships field for 30 seconds but talking to the people and seeing the robots up close... the 2010 game was a thing of the past the moment I walked from the dome to the pit, but the experience of FRC isn't a yearly thing and It doesn't depend on USFIRSTs finances or planing or weather you crown 4 winners or 8. I was never told or shown or bothered to look up the winning robots form 2010 and yet here I am. One way or another FIRST makes you want to build robots and I still do and will. The way I see it we still have a good excuse to build them.

Here is your challenge for the 2017 session and all the ones after to go along with the games. Try to inspire some people in spite of whatever the championship structure is. You'll find it'll go better than you think. Figure it out engineers.

Also spare me the "that's just why you thought it was inspiring" speech and realize the things you think this weakens don't apply to everyone either.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I've skimmed every post in this thread, and y'all are either saying the same things or just talking in circles. I wanted to make sure the above quoted post didn't get lost in this discussion. It's a great suggestion, and a necessary one.

For students, I'd like to see a heavier emphasis on leadership.

For teachers, I'd like the conferences to be offered as professional development through an accredited university where I can earn postgraduate level units which can be applied to my placement on the salary schedule with my school district. This is common practice at numerous other educational conferences.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I was part of the VEX split. Two things happened, I took my many hundreds of dollars worth of parts and created VEX teams. I then took my many hundreds of hours of personal time and created events. The same as many others did (Blake) and you now have the VEX of today.

If I'm at FIRST HQ looking at the mission statement on the wall to "inspire" and look at the showcase events, I'm going to go "more showcase, more inspire" and decide to have two WC. (Not sure why they stopped there, I'd gone for 5, Europe, East Coast, North Coast, South Coast and West Coast, with the AsiaPac one in my back pocket when there were enough Down-under and China teams for the Hawaiian Teams to compete with. More Worlds! More Inspire!!

Remember FIRST is an INSPIRE company vs a WINNER company.

Someone posted that we were customers of FIRST. Yes the same way I'm a customer of Comcast. I want robotics/internet I send cash and maybe help out at an event. Neither FIRST/Comcast management ever thinks about me or cares what I think or do. I'm replaceable. Look at the 100's of 1 and 2 year teams that are gone. Too Bad So Sad. The only difference between Comcast and FIRST, people at FIRST know who I am. They BOTH still don't care when I call.

Bottom line:
-- This is a done deal
-- This was done as a way to inspire MORE NEW ROBOTEERS
-- You can stay and help, or you can go, but we are inspiring NEW ROBOTEERS
-- And yes, you can go and form "SECOND" with some of our current teams and new teams and we think that is great! There isn't enough robotics out there and having you start your own stuff means more roboteers are INSPIRED, Yay both of us!
-- Sorry about Detroit and Houston. Seen their tourism numbers? They suck. We are a big deal. We will get you cheap rooms and we got a cheap venue, you won and we won and we inspire together!
-- See you at the town hall where you can figure out how to help us out for free! (We'll bring pizza)

Sorry my cynic badge was flashing, but this is how you should read this deal. 1700 post on CD is worth it's weight in electrons, about the same as a small gob of warm spit.

Sorry CD, time is over for the denial, move to the next stage of acceptance.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

_______________________________
815 posts read in the last 12+ hours non-stop in 2 threads (and not a peep out of me yet. Just ask anyone here, as that is highly unusual, more like very unlikely, and almost nearly impossible!)

But, I have to respond to matthewdenny's post (finally 1 that actually made me smile and laugh out loud to just myself)....I have said it before, and I'll say it again young man (Matthew Denney....You just keep thinking like that, and you will go VERY FAR in this world, and in life in general. Just keep your eye on that ball, find your true passion, and no matter what anyone says or does...You follow that passion to the very ends of the earth. (I too am praying for your autonomous to work right just once for you...and,...When it really counts!)
__________________
Earlier today I wasn't so much worried about the 2017 Dual Championships as I was the health of the 2015 Championships 1.5 weeks away that I am volunteering and my team is competing at, and the effect of these recent decisions, the timing of the announcement, and the severe backlash of the community at large. (And I thought the real major issues of the season were ALL NOW behind us all).

I hope cooler heads prevail in a week and a half in St Louis, and any town hall meeting is very civil, professional, and constructive, and a reasonable solution is also found, to a real World Champion being crowned in the future years, while still allowing more teams to earn their way as growth of FIRST continues to expand even further, and further, and more teams receive that Awe Inspiring experience also.

I don't actually buy the FLL and the FTC angles, as most~ if not all of those younger participants (if we all continue to do our jobs right, and continue to INSPIRE THEM), will also have that 4 year window of opportunity when in High School to experience attendance of at least 1 FIRST Championship event or more, if the recently unveiled plan works.

I was very lucky my very first year as a mentor (My Wife's first year as an Education mentor), and my youngest son's Freshman year (2011), that we as a family were able to attend together, with our earned invitation competing team...It was beyond inspiring, it was ABSOLUTELY AWE INSPIRING, and to sit in that Dome on the very last evening as the battle(s) commenced that would determine the 2011 FRC Champions, and realize that all that brainpower in one place, and at one time, was a (Major), but also a minor 20% of all the inspiring and inspired STEM related High School Students and Mentors in Just FRC alone, not even the entire FIRST Community...It hooked us as a family for life.

And it made me realize, that our planet's future is much brighter than I ever could have even possibly imagined! These students will be our broad spectrum world leaders soon enough. And also just how much FIRST's Mission statement, and their mission was such a huge success. (I was absolutely clueless in January 2011!)

If you build it they will come. And come they (we) are, as we all spread FIRST far & wide with outreach (we reward that outreach, inspiration, and growth with the very highest awards FIRST has to offer), and along the way, that growth will have extreme costs (and HUGE Planetary HUMAN REWARDS),....So change is inevitable, we grow it, we must change with it.

FIRST will never be able to please ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, they know it, and we know it....Now, lets work together to solve the problems caused by our metoric growth and expansion...Which we should be celebrating, instead of cringing from its results.

FIRST is listening, and we as a group (a community), are some of the largest problem solvers I have ever witnessed in my 58 year lifetime. If you can design a system to snatch 2~4 of those RC's off the shelf in .02 seconds, this problem should be a snap to come up w/ a reasonable solution to determine a world champion in 2017 and beyond.

This year 600 Robots in 8 divisions in one place 20% of all teams represented, next year the same (hopefully, but may drop again to 17% w/ more growth), and the following year (2017), 800 Robots in 8 divisions in 2 different places, 25% of all teams represented again.

(FIRST may need to actually back off that "Geographical Assignment or Placement," add in a single lottery the first year to determine whether each team is N/S, w/ 400 going to each location, and after that add an odd/even last digit Team # switch of location every 3rd. year (odd the 3rd year switch/even the 6th year switch, or even 1/2 teams switch each year by lottery at season beginning), to mix up what teams play where each year so that all teams qualified & attending will have exposure to all other attending teams throughout a 4 year run).

Add 1 final place in 2017 and beyond, mid-June (maybe FIRST HQ), where those 8 teams are rewarded w/ an all expenses paid face off to determine a World Campionship in a Nationally televised best of 7, or best of 9 match event to see who the real World Champions are. (I would go 1 further...allow after the 2 N/S events, an unbag period of 3 weeks before the mid-June event, allow both Alliances to effect repairs, practice new drivers if graduating seniors cannot move on, strategize, & cheesecake all they wanted).

Or, if that isn't agreeable, just ship all 8 of the robots to NH immediately from the N/S events bagged in the crates. 1 Truck/ 2 weekends (Houston to Detroit, then...Off to NH w/ all 8 bots & 8 Sets of Team Tool Crates)...Teams will see them in NH in 3 weeks or so. (Hey, I know where FIRST could find a whole lot of Grey/Yellow Totes to pack those tools in after this years Champs! They now own them). Now that...is Recycling!
______________________
There are other ways beyond the existing signed contracts (I had discussed something like this w/ my wife last Fall)...1 Event site 4 Days 400 Robots/Teams. Then out w/ the 1st bunch...In w/ the 2nd. Bunch next 400 Robots/Teams...You store the robots and pit gear for the winners only of days 1~4, they fly back in for the finals on the last Friday PM/Saturday AM. Just the drive team and essential personell paid for say 12 of each (Each of the 4 teams can/may send the rest of the team on their own dime if they wish). The venue goes dark 1~2 days (Sunday~Monday), for cleaning & admin. to breathe. Back at it again Wednesday.

That way, the same venue/hotels/fields, etc. can be used, and it is still a true Championships. You move that around between 4~5 geographical locations N/S/C/E/W. (You are only inconveniencing 4 teams...4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!) How many would actually turn that down? How many of us wouldn't help them if they really couldn't afford it? Not many! (FIRST could set aside $50.00~$100.00 of all 800 teams entry fee to Champs to create a fund for the returning 4 teams=$40~&80K).

12 Team Members Ea. X 4 Teams X $600.00 Flight Avg.=$28,800.00/1 night hotel 48 X$100.=$4,800.00=$33,600.00 Total =Very Doable! (Of course as FIRST, I'd be hitting up a Major set of Airlines or Other Major Corporations wanting top billing exposure, to Sponsor the returning teams playing for the Championships myself for both the home & back round trip flights! And building the returning teams 1 room night into the actual event contract.) </;-)~

(There would be no strategy that would help any team, as nobody would know who plays the week 1 winners, until they were even back in town and ready to play again on Einstein). Just attempt to strategize when you have no clue of who you will actually play.

OK, there would have to be a televised production of the Championships, so the rest of those playing week 1 and back home would have viewing access as usual to the following Saturday Championship Matches. Invited Teams are rotated based on when they last played as far as week 1 or 2 at Champs (or by simple luck of the lottery draw each year).

_______________
Just throwing out some other ideas here.


We are growing, growing, GROWING! BIG Change is HERE! (So, get used to it!) Be the problem...Or.....Be the solution. Rant over.

There's my $0.32 cents after reading 815 postings in 1 single sitting.:eek:

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Two words...Las Vegas! (Plenty of Venues, plenty of rooms! To handle 800~1200 Teams). Planning would have to be years into the future though to secure all that would be necessary. They can handle the World series of poker & CES and much more, they can handle just about anything. You might have to break up the 8 divisions into 4 venues, then bring everyone together at say UNLV for the Championships...So what? (Schedule a 2 hr. pit move & dinner break between Divisional Awards and the BIG SHOW!) You know how much room there is between the MGM Grand and UNLV alone (just a couple of blocks from 1 another).
_________________________

As I read these 2 threads and see the doc's come out that have been circulating now for actually a few years, & the committee that was put together to explore options for the future and to deal w/ the exponential growth of FIRST & FRC & The Championships, the Finances of US First, and all that has gone into bringing back up to at least a mere 25% access to Champs attendance & future INSPIRATION OF STUDENTS, and the recent pushing for the district format, and the overall slow to change directions the community really seems to have been to adopt that format in some places still today...I wonder how much of a real shock this should have really been to that many in the actual FRC community.

Could it be "the community" has had its heads buried in the sand and or just didn't read the tea leaves (of the road map), that "management" has been leaving them? Or just doesn't really want to change...Remember HofF Teams are highly responsible for a lot of actual growth within the organization also!

And that is a GOOD THING!
______________________

What I hear is a lot of hurt feelings from some that Management left them out of the decision loop, OK that hurts a bit from well invested customers, and Really Well Invested Volunteer Mentors...Especially THE REALLY LONG INVESTED ones! (I have to talk to George Williams our 19+ year low digit Team Founding Mentor who has not taken a year off since the very start (almost 2 decades now), and see how he really feels about the issue this week...I don't even know yet, but I know whether or not the team attends/competes at Champs (We certainly are this year).....George & Crystal are there VOLUNTEERING for FIRST, with or without the team, year in, year out...EVERY YEAR! So, I'll assume until I hear differently from him, that he isn't going anywhere).

Now, just to play devils advocate here, I hear throughout the community often, FIRST (but, especially FRC), compared to a company, and the problems and solutions real companies & teams of workers within companies/industry face every day, from personell and company size, to supply chain issues & far beyond.

How many here have been with a company years (maybe decades), and 1 day find that the ownership changed overnight without a word or even a whisper, one day new management just arrives, w/ a new management team usually. Or, The Board &/or Management decides one day that something just isn't working, and MANAGEMENT DECIDES w/ little input from the workers (the labor force), that we are trying something new folks? And YOU will make it work. The customers are usually informed right after Labor and about the time the new name/logo's are released.

Management rarely if ever, asks Labor or The Customers exactly what they think before the changes are actually decided on, only afterwards how we are going to actually accomplish the tasks together, and how the new company will serve their customers even better than the old image/company.

While USFIRST is a HUGE Community Driven and Industry Sponsored... Industry, Education, and Personally Fueled Volunteer Mentor Organization....USFIRST Founded the Non-Profit Organization, organized it, and Manages it...They are MANAGEMENT (We are both the customers, and the Large Labor Base). but, THEY ARE STILL MANAGEMENT.

They did not go into this blindly...There has been a widespread COMMITTEE drawn from all angles of FIRST working on the project, and today wasn't the first time I have seen that blog post about that large committee or the Charts listing the 2 different methods of conducting Districts to Super Regionals to Championships either.....And I have only been around FIRST the last 4+ years.

They warned us months ago, THAT BIG CHANGES ARE COMING, and BIG CHANGES ARE HERE. (And they were not just talking about game design I fully realize now). We all should realize that by now.
________________________

*Nothing I am posting has anything to do with any team, anyone else, or any discussion with anyone else....Just personal ideas and observations as I read and see a wider view of both sides of the multi-pronged issues. I dislike change just as much as the next guy or gal.. Just trying to look at all sides of the issues & all views in a realistic manner, and laying emotions and ego's aside. Discussion is now the key as decisions have already been made.

Lets make things better, not worse. Deep breaths can help.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

FIRST could easily have considered that effect of the decision without consulting you or the mentors you know.

The team I mentor went to Champs once, four years ago, early in my involvement in the program. My known universe of teams is those that are at regionals I attend -- teams like 525, who selected us in 2012, and 2826, who are routinely in the top ranks. I'm sorry if it's insulting to you, but I have no knowledge of any of the teams listed in your signature. I see they're quite successful. But, if I hopped in the time travel machine, moved backwards a couple weeks to the last regional I was at, and asked random mentors in the pits about those three teams, it would be interesting to see who would be aware of them.

Based on the history of those teams you've been affiliated with, it's likely that you're well connected in the "mentor of successful team" community. Note that I've never disputed your points about mentor response to the change.

I hope you can accept that your experience in FRC is both meaningful and unrepresentative of teams as a whole. One goal I have in in participating in this thread and its siblings is not to impose my point of view on others -- in fact, if you look through my posts, you'll find little to identify what my actual opinion is about this change. That is intentional.

Another goal I have is to get posters to think about their assumptions, to separate fact from opinion, to get them to think about the problem from the point of view of someone in a different situation. Only then will they have a sense of the tradeoffs that FIRST HQ is trying to make.

There's also a learning opportunity here for team members (and mentors) about how to deal with change, and how to advocate for change with decisionmakers in an organizational context like FIRST. No matter whether you participate in a FIRST program, go to one of the competing programs, or decide to create your own, any moderately successful program will soon have a set of decisionmakers, independent of teams, who are charged with balancing tradeoffs to make the program a success. The decisionmakers need to balance the needs of participants, volunteers, sponsors, and others. You might think that they are unconstrained in their decisionmaking choices, but I think you'd be surprised at how constrained their options really are, given their organizational mission, the resources they have available, and the multiple constituencies they work to satisfy.

Compare pages 4-5 of the FIRST Annual Report to page 5 of the BEST Annual Report. There's a reason why both programs measure their success along the same lines -- number of teams and number of volunteers. FIRST (or BEST, or the VEX competitions) are ecosystems, and you need the right combination of resources to make them successful. The organizations work both to optimize the set of resources, and define what success looks like to them. Think about the relative success of FTC since it started, and the discussion that must cause at BEST about whether their free-to-teams tactic is the right choice going forward.

I'm also trying to convince people to tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric, and focus instead on making the best of the situation. Something made FIRST think that splitting Champs was the best choice for those years. I can't believe that they made the decision stupidly, or uncaringly, or lightly, without considering the tradeoffs.

They announced the decision two weeks before the largest annual F2F gathering in the FIRST calendar. They have positioned the announcement so that they can hear directly from people immediately afterward. I heard on another thread that they were at the FiM District champs last weekend, and there's no lack of long-time teams there from which to get feedback in person. If they wanted to bury this, they picked pretty much the worst time of year to do so.

A final goal I have in these threads is to get people to speak precisely about what they mean, and that's why I'm asking clarifying questions about your statements. Does your statement above mean that you think FIRST is not taking the change seriously?

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

A lot of people have seen decks similar to this. If you are planning a migration from the competition model in slide 6 to the one in slide 7, it is difficult to do in one season. The proposed North/South model for 2017 would make a good transition between the two.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Please bear with me: I think I am about to get overly loquacious.

The mission of FIRST is to "inspire." FRC is a vehicle FIRST uses to that end. FIRST wants to inspire as many people (students, families, friends, acquaintances, etc.) as possible so as to bring an aura of "cool" to STEM education - and FRC does just this beautifully. However, as FIRST has grown we find ourselves dealing with a contradiction: Though FIRST strives to maximize the number of folks it inspires, the "competition" in FRC strives to narrow the field. As I float the the many pages of thoughts, ideas and I suggestions, it seems that the question that stands at the center is: "Are we about competition or inclusion?" At some point, one of these two has to give.

The reason FRC works so well is that it embraces certain aspects of our culture so as to promote something (STEM) that is not universally embraced by teenagers or, even, many adults in our society. It is the competition that gets the public to the events. It is the competition that brings excitement to our schools. It is the competition that pushes every team to do better each year. It is the competition that compels us to learn. Let's face it: in the very nature of our capitalistic society is competition. And, for good or ill, we demand a winner. We have a (rather illogical) need to always be able to name the "best" team, athlete, whatever. Every competition we know and admire has a "winner." If we take this away from FRC, we lose something that is at the very heart of the program.

At the same time, many of the teams that attend Champs are the same every year. The Championship does not really help FIRST to attain its goals if most of the same teams come back from year to year. In fact, nearly every team (and their families and communities) at the Championship each year is already "inspired." The Championship is just the icing on the cake. It's the proof of a good year at competition.

In other words, though an incredible event and a great experience, the Championship is necessary for FRC, but not for FIRST. Dividing it into two events or even making it so big that a huge percentage of teams can qualify seems to weaken the impact of the event for those that do qualify - not to mention create some legitimate logistical nightmares for those trying to travel with last-minute preparations!

The notion that we could have another layer of "championship" after these two events is not feasible. Either it would have to be another huge event or it would be a major letdown after the previous week's (month's?) championship events. Moreover, I just shelled out over $60K in order to get my team to St. Louis - and only 1/3 of the team is attending. If we were to have a second event requiring airfare and missed school: 1) We would not be able to afford it; 2) Way too many students would have to skip out due to excessive missed school; 3) My school district would question why we have to have two championship events requiring long-distance travel when most teams don't have any and 4) My wife would kill me. Robotics events take me away from my family for an entire weekend - and leave me recovering for another day. And, of course, there is the pre-event preparations. To me, this seems excessive when we are talking about teams who are already 'inspire' to excel. (Had they not been so inspired, they would have either not put enough of a robot together so as to qualify in the first place or, had they gotten "lucky" would have not shelled out the cash to go. Do not a large number of teams turn down their bids to Champs each year already?)

It seems to me that, if FIRST is hoping to "spread the inspiration," it really needs to be targeting the teams that don't qualify for district championships or only tend to attend one regional event. I recently attending the PNW Championships and I believe I can safely say that all of those teams were inspired. It's the large number of teams who did not qualify for the event and are in danger of collapsing that need the extra boost.

So, I would propose that the extra efforts to "inspire" more teams should be handled on a more localized level. Some ideas:

* Increase the percentage of teams that qualify for district championships. The PNW championship was a huge spectacle. Let's get more of the "borderline" teams to these events: They can do it without having to cough up airfare and with fewer missed days of school. They might even be able to get more of their families to attend. There is plenty of inspiration for those teams.

* Add a second "district-wide" event for the "almost" qualifiers. Give them a chance to compete and win with all the pomp of a championship event without having to face all the power-house teams that blew them out at districts. If this is held on a different weekend than the district championships, you just might be able to get some of the powerhouse teams to lead really good seminars. Then, invite (and pay for!) mentors from the teams that did not qualify to watch the events, walk the pits and attend the seminars.

* Keep Champs exclusive - 600 teams really should be plenty. The teams who qualify - or come close - are already "inspired." Keep the event special, but put effort into helping more teams be able to complete for that qualification. For instance, a "price" of winning champs should be having a FIRST video crew interview the mentors and leadership students on the winning alliance about how they got there - everything from their training, to their design process, to the technical specs of the robot, etc. Post these online and send the links out to every team in FRC. Le't all learn from the best - not just the teams that can afford to go to St. Louis (or Houston, or Detroit, or wherever).

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Since you’re listening: For nearly a decade, I've been motivated by the competition and sport of FRC. Like many engineers, I spent a childhood of never really fitting in. High school, especially, catered to athletes and extraverts for most social development. I competed in band and orchestra, but nothing was celebrated in comparison to sports.

What has drawn me to FRC, not FIRST, has been the ability to take students, which resemble my former awkwardness, on a journey of greatness. Demonstrating to them every day, that it’s cool to be brilliant and investing in their mind will result in an amazing and fruitful life. That, in the not so distant future, we nerds do prevail. We find beautiful spouses, many friends, make lots of money and raise lots of cool little nerds of our own.

Decades ago, Dean recognized that the sports model worked. It motivated me and it motivated our students in a new direction. Moving towards the participation model demotivates me. Before FRC, I volunteered for SAE's A World in Motion, mildly. However, FRC has motivated me to involve my entire family, most of my friends and to spend 5 to 7 hundred hours a year motivating the kids. The hours I have put in are crazy, but I want to beat or compete with the best in the world, and the kids win, regardless.

This is because, FRC has given each team a progression model, and a culture that enables your team to progress and become better each year, working towards an ultimate goal of world champion or world chairman’s recipient.

Four months ago, I moved 4500 miles to England, and now I watch and chat with my team from a far. From my new perspective, I see a much larger issue to expanding FRC, broadcasting. Expanding FRC, or FIRST, would be drastically improved through broadcasting. It’s absolutely ridiculous how little the webcasts have improved in my decade. I have to walk up to the big screen and point to robots (when explaining FRC and the game), whilst consistently being interrupted by commercials at most regionals. I don’t get it. National Spelling Bees are broadcasted on ESPN and I can barely see my team on the big screen at home.

We’ve definitely expanded past the days where teams were intended to ‘buy in’ every 4 years. I personally never allowed my team to ‘buy in’, because when you earn your way in it’s truly gratifying. However, consider solving the problem of having all students experiencing championship, through improved broadcasting.

I’ll close with this: You won’t lose me as a mentor, because I’ve already left the country for five years, but you have made it impossible for me to even consider starting an FRC team in North East England. Thanks for listening.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I understand that you see it as a 'good transition', and I understand why. However, FIRST has been quite open about the difficulty of Slide 6 to 7 for many years now. To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me), splitting Worlds was never floated. I see people draw their line of what to consider reasonable unilateral latitude at different places. I'll present my reasoning and agree to disagree:

This method has led to completely blindsiding many [majority position unknown] people best positioned to positively contribute to the change. This includes both those who are personally opposed to content and method of the decision, and more notably those who now have the legitimate problem of "how do we actually make both of these events as inspirational as possible with only 2016 Worlds as a true preparation?" (The announcement being so close to 2015's that it cannot be fully utilized for this purpose.) I do not personally understand why HQ would do this or what upside they were looking for. I understand that they can of course, just not why they would. Moreover, the split was announced entirely as corporate "spin" (or insert a positive term), with exactly zero attempt to preemptively discover or address community objections and get people on board. Again, particularly in light of the first issue, I don't understand this choice. Both results are directly antithetical to all of our goals.


This is not to say that the community as a whole or myself individually have taken this in the most productive way possible. (Though I argue expressing upset is productive in this instance, if only to illustrate the cost another such action would entail.) But failure on the part of the community does not absolve HQ of not taking its own helpful action. Perhaps this split is correct. I am personally working to make it a positive experience. But this process have given me me very, very little confidence in its reasoning and management.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

"Don't worry about qualifying for champs due to ridiculously small percentages of qualifying teams because there's always next year"

"They are young, it's okay for them to lose chances they could have, they have time"

These are bad arguments. Not all FLL students go to FRC.

If we are expanding champs for FRC, we absolutely must expand for FLL and FTC.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I think this is a key observation about the situation FIRST found themselves in -- that there's no obviously superior transition between the current model and slide 7. There are factors, not all of which are visible to us, that cause them to move away from slide 6 in 2017.

When I said "good transition" in an earlier post, what I meant was that it was a transition that would merit consideration (a "good choice"), not that it was the best choice. If I was making the presentation for the town hall meeting, I'd be sure to discuss that and what other options were considered.

"Why this decision now?" is another good question for the town hall meeting.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Give me a few hrs. to sleep (NM, I'll just go search for it now)...It was linked back to Frank's Blog from "the longest thread" here somewhere near the 700 or so post mark as I remember.

The Committee Names List was over 6" long (ending w/ Franks..."and Me")....I will locate it as soon as I can, and both PM the link to you, and post it back on this thread requoting you. It did not specifically say anything about splitting Championship into 2...But more about looking toward the future and dealing with growth issues and the like.


Off on the hunt, BB soon.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I can think of this one and this one, which were the ones I was thinking about and I am describing in the post. One's about Districts the other is 2015 Championship eligibility. The latter is closer to the topic at hand, but was not used for the "this project". (I won't detail the 'who' in terms of who's clarified they didn't know, but I feel this is important enough to say in generality. If someone involved objects to this level of detail, please tell me.) Perhaps the makeup of the task force did change without affecting representation. If this is the case, it would be very good to know. I am not personally appreciative of HQ's closed lips about this even after the fact.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

___________________________________________
Found it, sry I was way off on the post count (post 624...Hey after 900+ posts read in a single sitting to hit within 76 posts wasn't actually too bad, 703 was the start of the Town Hall Thread Link!), and the actual Committee Subject was "2015 Championship (and beyond) Eligibility" Blog Posting...Then read down a bit further to the post after that....The "Beyond" part.

Yes, you had to read a bit between the lines...But, the tea leaves (and that's all they were...nothing but road signs.....Were there.
_______________________________________________
http://community.usfirst.org/robotic...nd-Eligibility
________________________________Reprinted below for direct reference.

2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Blog Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 - 11:18.

As I said in an earlier blog, we have had a task force working on Championship eligibility for FRC. The members of this task force are as follows, in no particular order:

•Jamee Luce – Districts Representative
•Dennis Hughes – Mentor for Team RUSH, 2014 Chairman’s Award Winner
•Lane Matheson – 2014 Woodie Flowers Award Winner
•Naomi Mancuso – FIRST Operations (Customer Service)
•Jen McManus – FIRST Finance
•Cindy Stong – Chief Judge Advisor
•Dana Henry – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Teri Benart – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Connie Haynes – FIRST Regional Director
•Collin Fultz – FRC Team Advocate
•Me

I want to thank the task force members for all their hard work. We’re not quite done yet – see below – but we’ve made significant strides. We have, however, completed our work for changes to the 2015 FRC Championship eligibility. As a reminder, you can find information about the 2014 eligibility rules here. If no change to the 2014 rules is noted below, the 2014 rules will still hold.

Also, Districts will be getting the number of available Championship slots (total Championship capacity less the number of pre-qualified teams) proportional to their percentage representation in all FRC. As an example, if a District has 10% of the teams in FRC, they will be getting 10% of the available slots. This is similar to what was done last year, but this year, the allocation will be done on current season - 2015 - team counts. Districts will still be using the points-and-awards system to determine Championship eligibility, as they have been.

Wild Card Changes for 2015

Unlike in prior years, any team arriving at a Regional who has already earned a Championship spot, and ends up on the Winning Alliance at that Regional, or earns an award at that Regional that would make them eligible for Championship, will generate a Wild Card slot. As an example, if a Hall of Fame team (who is pre-qualified for Championship before the season starts) ends up on the Winning Alliance, that will now generate a Wild Card slot for the Finalist Alliance. Or, as another example, a team that is on the Winning Alliance at one Regional, then wins the Engineering Inspiration Award at a later Regional, will generate a Wild Card slot at the later Regional.

Also, if a team at a Regional earns the right to attend Championship through two accomplishments at the same event, for example, being on the Winning Alliance and earning Chairman’s Award, that will also generate a Wild Card slot.

These rule changes are cumulative. So, if a team who already has earned a slot at Championship attends a Regional and is both on the Winning Alliance and wins a Championship qualifying award, like Engineering Inspiration, that team will generate two Wild Card slots. And will get a congratulatory phone call from POTUS, as they clearly rock.*




If you think this through, you will find that, in most cases, this means that Regionals will be making 6 new, unique teams eligible for Championship attendance. One important caveat – Wild Cards recipients will still be limited to the Finalist Alliance. If more Wild Cards are generated than can be absorbed by the Finalist Alliance, those Wild Cards will still go unused and can’t be backfilled or replaced.

This is good news, right? I think it’s good news. But I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Waitlist Changes for 2015

With the increase in team capacity at the 2015 FIRST Championship, even with the increase in Wild Card availability outlined above, we expect to be able to offer a good number of Waitlist slots in 2015. To support our interest in the fair distribution of these slots, and to provide greater opportunity for teams that haven’t attended in a few years, we are making some changes.

Waitlist slots will no longer be first come first served, as they have been – essentially – in prior years. When teams sign up for the Waitlist will no longer matter, as long as they sign up during the time the Waitlist is open.

Also, teams will be selected randomly from the Waitlist, with the number of chances they have of being selected equal to the number of years they have missed attending Championship. As an example, if a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2012, that team has ‘missed’ Championship twice, and so will have their number ‘put in the hat’** twice. If a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2004, they have ‘missed’ Championship 10 times, and will have their number put in the hat 10 times.*** Teams who have never been to Championship will be considered as missing every year they have been a team. You will note this means that teams who attended Championship in 2014 will not be eligible for selection from the Waitlist. As a practical matter, though, since for several years Waitlist sign-ups for teams attending the prior year Championship have been later than those who had not attended the prior year, we rarely – if ever – have ended up inviting those prior-year teams anyway. One final note – teams must have participated in FRC during all their ‘missed’ years for those years to count in this system. As an example, for a team that participated in FRC in 2002, then did not participate again until 2005, we would only look back to 2005 in determining Championships missed.

Rookie All Star Changes for 2015

This is less of a change and more of a fine-tuning that we wanted to let you know about. Rookie All Star winners at Regionals, and District Championships, will still be offered a slot at Championship. However, we have noticed that at nearly every Regional, regardless of the number of Rookies present, Rookie All Star gets awarded. It has become more of an ‘automatic’ award then was intended. We will be working with the Judge Advisors this season to help clarify the standards for this award. We love having Rookies at Championship, and we absolutely want to recognize the many outstanding Rookies we have every year, but winning an award that makes a team eligible for Championship should be a big deal, and we want to keep it meaningful. We don’t expect, or desire, a significant drop in the number of Rookie All Star awards presented, but you may see a few more Regionals not presenting Rookie All Star award than you have in the past, and this will be the reason.

This issue is not a concern at District Championships, as Rookie All Stars selected there have already had to pass through a selection gate at the District level, and only one or two Rookie All Stars from each District as a whole are selected to go to the FIRST Championship.

Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.

Frank

* I’m joking about that call.

** No actual hat will be used. We think.

*** Yes, this is the Hunger Games model, but you’re getting invited to an awesome party instead of near-certain death. No, you may not ‘volunteer as tribute’, wise guys.
_________________________________________

Looks to me by that last part, they fully thought it over as a fully formed task force...And this was the decided on result...Not to decrease slots in the future as we outgrow 1 single site, but to increase Championship Slots as Growth is predicted to increase beyond a certain line in the sand that 1 site cannot possibly service all, and still hit the goal of 25% FRC Team participation (hitting that goal of at least once having each High Schooler have an opportunity to be inspired at The Championships!)

**I have no actual factual or personal knowledge of whether it came down that exact way or not, but I'll bet that is as good a guess as any. (I'm usually pretty good at reading tea leaves)...Especially after Frank's recent Blog Posts. He pretty much spells it all out as much. At least the decisions that were reached.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

If they did, they showed no evidence. I'll explain that farther down.

Only one is still in existence: 330, BeachBots. (Other than the team I currently mentor--1197, Torbots.) I might suggest playing Fantasy FIRST next year; it'll greatly broaden your teams horizon. I attend local regionals and I know those teams--but I know other teams, or know OF other teams, from either their (long-past) travels out this way, or through Fantasy FIRST, or through discussions on Chief.


Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. The "well connected" part is because I've been on CD for quite a while.


No: It means that they really give that appearance.

Let me put it this way: You're thinking about some major life change that will affect you, your family, and your friends. You know that that change will be a difficult one. Do you make it without talking to at least some of your friends? What about your extended family? How about your immediate family? If you're like most people, you'll talk to both sets of family, at least to say "hey, I'm considering this" (and for immediate family, some serious discussion would naturally ensue). And the vast majority of people will also at least mention it to their close friends (not necessarily acquaintances, and maybe not even distant relatives). If you just make the decision without talking to your immediate family, you probably didn't give the decision the weight it deserved. Probably. It might have taken a while to reach that decision, but it still looks like you didn't give it enough weight to consult others, when maybe it should have.


And that's exactly what appears to have happened here: There was no outside discussion. The usual folks who'd be the first in line to know before the decision came out knew NOTHING, at least that's what I've been picking up via the grapevine. In the districts case some years back, some folks from both HQ and MI said "Oh, yeah, we've been quietly discussing this for this long". This time? "I heard nothing", all across the board. FIRST could have been considering this since 2011, for all we know--and yet, nobody heard anything. Not even folks who'd be generally counted in the "family" part of that example I gave. That means that no matter how much weight was given the decision, the appearance is that it was somewhat spur-of-the-moment (which I'm fairly certain it wasn't). For that matter, there wasn't a hint that venue contracts were under consideration, and usually there is something somewhere.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Not that St. Louis is a particularly attractive, either. Actually, downtown Detroit is far less pothole-ridden than St. Louis, in my experience. :yikes:

You're right that there isn't much we can do, even with the most pointed arguments against the new format. I'd like to see a long-term plan explaining why FIRST is going to this new format. I know about the super-regional format, but it's be nice to see a more defined year-to-year plan for the competition, not just the venues.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Frank is about as straight up as a man comes (Never met him, but read enough of his writings to know by now)...As transparent as they come, says what he means, means what he says...and very articulate in his writings (unlike myself).

(It isn't paranoid if there is possible evidence, facts, & truth to it!)

USFIRST & FIRST FRC/FTC/FLL was faced w/ a BIG ROCK, Big Hard Spot, pretty much no win situation (take away hard earned, special award slots, in the future HofF down to Rookie AllStars...Just imagine what the response to that would have been), or go more inclusionary to fit the FIRST vision of inspiring and rewarding, & it is no doubt Contract signing time again.

Re-read his "We're Listening" posting again, parse every word and sentence. He says it all! nothing should be misconstrued...Now, just constructive dialogue is all that is necessary. (and a little bit of understanding and reasonableness on all sides....Their side already shows much willingness to meet halfway.

But, certain things are absolutely necessary at this juncture is all. CHANGE is coming....CHANGE IS HERE!

How more prepared could they actually make us?

And folks...Bidness is Bidness...We don't guarantee the Champs Venue Contracts w/ our bank accounts!
___________________

Everything you need to know was spelled out in that August 14 Blog post, The Release, and The "We're Listening" Post,....It cannot be more plain or honest than those 3 postings about the current situation...And how it can be fixed...To a reasonable degree that is to assure both Inspirational & Rewarding.

__________________________
Addition:

Sry, I used the wrong wording...There is no their side (and no our side)...It is ONLY OUR SIDE TOGETHER!

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.

I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

________________________________________________

Lets for a minute look back at an August 2014 Blog Post by Frank

Upper part about 2015 Champs snipped off-----
________
Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.

Frank

1. We will be soon overbooked.
2. There is a Task Force handling the issue, not a Committee.
3. Task Forces handle large items, Committes usually lesser important items.
4. We just may have to curtail Auto Award entries/berths (HoF~RookieAllStars). Imagine those results folks! (The Rock...)
5. We want to be fair. We will let you know more in OCTOBER...That info never came in October, they were probably in Contract Negotiations by then, or at least a bidding process maybe. But, the info did come and was fully explained by Post & Video, and now more coming.
6. We will detail THE RESULTS of these IMPORTANT DECISIONS WHEN THE INFO IS RELEASED!
7. Nowhere did they say they would be asking the community for input, or opinions, or anything. It appears to be a FIRST Decision w/ full and fair warning.
8. Usual Contract time is here (Hard Place...).

9. The man and his team cannot be more straight up...Say what they mean, mean what they say, and willing to work with the passionate community within reason.

**Opinion only, I feel more were just concerned (if paying attention at all in August), last August about how the 2015 Championship Eligibility applied to their teams, than reading about "The Longer Term- Changes" part.

I do remember reading it...Then again last night someone else posted the link and I read it again...LIGHTBULB! Oh, that's straight up. And now many affected either way are quite upset about it.

Lastly...To ask for community input (where potential loss of high award auto berths are concerned ~anybody involved in any team could potentially be affected), would actually put forth a potential set of conflict(s) of interest(s). If it appears so, rest assured, it usually is. Or, will be conceived to be by someone,...somewhere.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

________________________
Of course they did, and the didn't want to punish those they actually reward for growing the organization, due to said growth. And they want to inspire every High School Student w/ at least a chance to be inspired by attending at least 1 Championships in their high School years. You can plan for growth all you want, but, if your Organization does a really great job...It will sneak up on you quickly when you must sign venues years out. (Rock/Hard Place).

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Siri,

I agree with staying away from that kind of detail...They probably couldn't discuss it if they even knew, and wanted to. (Non-disclosure agreements and all, you know). Those are usually rock solid and highly, swiftly enforced. (No comment, or I know nothing!)

The looking at direct post community informative evidence was pretty easy in hindsight though (Oh WOW! Bing!). All the facts were laid out, just not the exact details, until as promised, when the VERY HARD decisions were finally made, and the ink was almost dry.

The response came, they heard the passionate crowd, they will work w/ the community..Nuff said. Sleepy time.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)

I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)

So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.

On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?

A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.

As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.

I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.

-Mike

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.

All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.

It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.

Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I never said they went against their word. I proposed that:

1) Frank has not followed up on his word (to "detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released")

2) FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that went in a different direction than the items discussed in the August 22nd, 2014 blog post.

The speculation in your post may or may not be true, but they are not a precise response to the main thought of my post. I simply aimed to highlight the discrepancy in Frank and FIRST's communication and allow discussion to come from that.

Thanks for reading and responding, I'll try to be clearer in the future.

-Mike

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Frank's Blog Post from above opposes the reasoning for having two championships. To compare, in the reasoning for having two championships they said they wanted more teams to attend because of its transformative experience. In last year's blog post, he speaks of "cutting eligibility" and re-enforcing that the RAS does not become an "automatic bid" to championship for regionals with very few rookies. If the long-term goal was to give more teams a transformative experience, isn't a rookie team a fantastic candidate?

I don't see how people are reading the blog post and seeing this announcement, except the realisation that the current structure is unsustainable, which has always been known.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Thank you for your clarification.

All I'm saying is that it is possible that it wasn't a different direction and maybe they are doing both. Redoing the eligibility (as discussed in the fall) and this. This task force was charged with a number of things, and eventually they realized that they might not even be able to sustain a new cmp qualification structure at one event. Or maybe they realized that they can't take away Chairmans ei, rookie all star, etc from champ qualifications because it goes against FIRST's goals and objectives.

Maybe they could not announce anything in October because of non-disclosure agreements, or maybe they were still in full discussion about this and the time just wasn't right.

So just because we all read into Frank's earlier announcement in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is in a different direction. And if it is, maybe it is not bad, but maybe they decided to go in a different direction to meet several different criteria. Maybe they realized that what they originally wanted to do was not possible. None of us were in the room discussing with them, so we don't know. I'm not speaking just to you, Michael, but to everyone. Just because we may see a discrepancy in something like this doesn't automatically mean foul play or poor leadership or anything bad. Maybe it just means that they later came up with a different idea that met more objectives. Or again maybe they realized that with more exponential FRC growth in coming years, this was the only sustainable option.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Actually, from reading Mike's comment, I dont see it as criticizing FRC leadership other than wanting to get more detail on why the decisions were made.

Increasing championships from 400 to 600 teams was an enormous decision by FIRST that affects FLL, FTC and FRC. This most recent one is just mind boggling and so soon.
We havent even had a chance to play in this year's Championship event with 8 divisions and 2 Einstein fields.:ahh:

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I've looked at the blog post at the beginning of this thread. I read through it several times. Each time, I knew it struck me as odd. I just couldn't put my finger on what seemed wrong with it.

Reading through the various posts and the various reactions to this announcement, it's clear that a lot of people have a fundamentally different view of this changed format for championship events, but it has taken me a while to understand why those views seem so different. I think I'm starting to get it. Maybe I can explain, and maybe in explaining I can help myself to understand it more deeply.

My realization about why there seemed to be a disconnect between those who support the “two championship” model and those who are put off by it began with this sentence.

“Fundamentally, this change to two Championships is about making the Championship experience more accessible to more teams.”

After reading those words about seventeen times or so, the light bulb finally went on. An awful lot of people think that “the championship experience” ends at the stadium door.

Frank notes that if this move is successful, and based on reasonable growth projections, 25% of the teams will be able to participate at one of the two new events. That means 75% of the teams will not be able to participate. What does that mean for those teams? Does it mean that those teams can’t have a championship experience?



I disagree. We watch the matches. We follow the scores. We cheer on from afar. We talk with our friends.

Moreover, every time we take to the floor in a district match, I feel like we are participating in the championship experience. We are on a road that we hope ends at the championship, and maybe Einstein Field, and maybe.....dreams are fun.I can’t say what First ought to do. There’s an awful lot of factors involved. There are logistic issues, and media issues, and just plain physical space. There are travel costs and school days and goodness knows whatever other considerations have to be made in planning an event. No matter what happens, some people aren’t going to like the outcome, and nothing will be perfect.

I would just like the decision makers in First to be mindful of the impact of their decisions on all of the First community, and of all the people that we want to be part of the First community, and of all the people who are not part of the first community, but whom we wish to inspire anyway. Think outside the walls.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

Very well said. It's the program not the events that make the largest difference.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I like the fact that you chose to use the word "impact" because:

1. EVERY decision FIRST HQ makes (including the decision to do nothing) impacts the FIRST community,
2. Impacts can be adverse, beneficial, or neutral, and
3. Any impact is relative to the existing condition.

Since people have now had time to gather their thoughts and evaluate the situation, AND since the town hall is a little over a week away, it's probably a good time to step back and reestablish exactly WHAT impacts the "two championship" model will have on the FIRST community.

What I will ask, however, is that you evaluate the impacts compared to the "no action" alternative (this would be the existing, one championship model). You need a measuring stick to judge the two championship model by; that measuring stick is the one championship model, 2-5 years in the future.

Here's and example of what I'm talking about:

Let's look at the impact on event capacity and team representation, since discussion and research has made the constraining factors pretty clear.

Two Champ Model: Moving to two championships would allow FIRST to grow event capacity to a maximum of 1200 teams attending the highest available level of competition. When regular program growth is assumed, this would allow for at least 25% of registered teams to actively participate at the highest available level of competition through 2018.

No Action: Due to venue size constraint, maintaining the one championship model would limit the ability of FIRST to increase event capacity at the highest available level of competition. Current available information suggests that the highest reasonable event capacity for a single venue would be close to 600 teams. Regular year over year program growth would result in a decreasing percentage of registered teams actively participating at the highest available level of competition, as event capacity would not be able to keep pace with program growth.

NOW, what are some other potential impacts? Here's ones I can think of, and everyone can evaluate these (and others) against the "No Action" alternative:

• Percentage of teams receiving awards
• Regional diversity of event(s)
• Cost to teams
• Access to high-level teams
• Anything else?

Please look at this from a program-wide perspective, as FIRST would. And, try your very best to be objective. In my example, I tried to evaluating increases and decreases in concrete things.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I dislike the fact that so many people choose to use the word "impact" so often nowadays because:

1. What those users almost always mean to convey is either "effect" or "affect"
2. "Impact"s primary meanings are about collisions and clogs, and are not about not "affecting", or "effects".

But I suppose that is a topic for another day.

Blake, the grammar grump with a (vocabulary) word to the wise... ;)

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

The listening/Q&A session will be Thursday at 12:30 in the Ferrara Theater. Bring your pitchforks.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

You linked to the 2014 pre-CMP post. Here's 2015.

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...day-Priorities

Edit: Whoosh. You were referencing his pitchfork line. My bad. Regardless, there's the 2015 info.

Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
 

I was providing context for the pitchfork reference. Edited with current blog link.