pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan (Source: J. Zondag)
 

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

This is fantastic.

At first, I disliked the District Model because my team had made a habit of attending a second regional far from home. It was a huge team builder and it was a lot of fun to leave an impact on teams far away. That was (temporarily) taken away from us with Districts, but it's really easy to see the benefit that it has on the majority of teams.

FRC is going to be hard to sustain moving forward simply due to the cost required to compete. Districts is the first step in the right direction to making it easier for more teams to sustain themselves.

The only question I have is what's the next step?

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Dr Joe,

So right. But don't forget that the Gov. Synder has been particularly supportive by setting aside $2 million in state grand funds, with legislative approval of course, to encourage the growth in the Great State of Michigan. This is in addition to the hard work of the FRC volunteer staff and members supporting this initiative in our state.

Kind regards,

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I said "subsidies where they can get them" Gov. Synder's support is awesome. But it is far from the full story.

FiM runs districts with the minimalist philosophy. They don't have much more than a field, a projector to show the scores, a PA system, and spartan pit set ups. Typical districts compete with afterglow competitions with respect to cost. That really helps FIRST in Mighigan keep the costs down for their teams.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

how much does the average event cost?

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I don't know specifics about FiM's costs, but if you take a look at the Regional & District Planning guides FIRST posts (http://www.firstinspires.org/resourc...lanning-guides) they have the average regional costing about $150,000 and the average district costing about $25,000.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I see how districts keep the cost down for FiM, but how do they keep them down for teams? Doesn't each team still have to pay the $5,000 registration fee? If Michigan teams are paying less, it's because the government is paying for them.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Less than $41,000, probably

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

With so many events around the states, Most teams (not all, but most) have 2 events within a reasonable daily drive. This reduces hotel, bus, and food related travel fees for the team.
While not directly apples to apples, say you have 20 students staying 4 to a room Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night for an event at $100/room. This is 5 rooms x 4 nights or $2K just for the student rooms.

Having events within driving distance allows for teams to dramatically reduce that portion of their budget, and still have a 2 event season (minimum).

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

FiM had originally set up the budget so that states would be free to all qualifiers. FIRST nixed that because they wanted their income.

In addition, if you do the math on a per-match basis, FiM went to two competitions for the single entry fee so you got far more for your money.

In addition, FiM themselves have used the substantial cost savings to pay it forward, giving many first and second year teams lower cost entry fees and grants. The state grants are gravy on top of all of that - though GREATLY appreciated.

I've tried to create culture change like this where I work - I can't imagine the amount of convincing and arguing that went on for FiM to convince FIRST that this was a good idea.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Since we are going through our first district season, I am well aware of this document. I was asking what the costs in Michigan are since Joe said minimalist.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

That all makes sense, but I'm not sure how big of an effect it has.

Let's compare Michigan with other states.
http://i.imgur.com/hnUpuX2.png?1

As you can see California and Michigan were neck and neck until 2014, when the State grants kicked in. The growth spurt didn't begin in 2009 with the introduction of districts.
You can also see that this incredible growth didn't appear in NJ and PA, where districts were implemented in 2012.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I don't think the main point should be that Districts cause growth directly. Rather, Districts accommodate growth. Michigan could never have afforded enough Regional events to support the number of teams we have - that was the point back in 2009.

There is anecdotal evidence that at least some growth was caused by having Districts. Much of the growth came in the northern part of the state, where having access to an event was instrumental in getting teams going. I've probably told this story before, but at lunch at the first Traverse City District, I talked to a person who had driven about 60 miles to come see it because he had seen coverage on the news. While we were talking, it became apparent that whatever group he was involved with was not old enough and would not have the capability of entering FRC. But that was OK - we told him about FLL and he was very interested. I don't know if anything came of it or not. But having a District event in a location where it wouldn't be possible to support a Regional event at least made for the contact.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

As someone who has been on the planning committee for the Midland District (formerly known as the Great Lakes Bay District) since we started it two years ago, I can tell you the cost to run our event the first year was approximately $24,000 due to a lot of one-time purchases (floor tarps being probably the biggest cost) we had to make. Going forward we expect our yearly cost to be in the range of $15,000 - $17,000 per event.

As for cost to the teams, in Michigan, teams still pay the $5000 registration fee, but instead of 1 event, they get 2 as part of that fee. If they choose to go to a 3rd event, the cost is $500. It is also worth noting that, for the most part, the district events do not actually get any of the registration money, and have to do their own fundraising to cover the bulk of the costs associated with running an event.

The cost for teams to attend states is either $4000 or $5000 (can't remember) but any team affiliated with a public school can get that fee paid for by grant money set aside for teams by the State of Michigan. There is also similar grant money available for public school teams that qualify for the world championship.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I don't speak for Matt, but I think we both learned something from seeing you all started at $24k and are down to 15-17k. What kind of fundraising do/did you take into consideration? Does it pool from sources similar to those teams could use?

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Thankfully Midland is home to Dow Chemical, who generously sponsors our District Event, our parent organization FIRST of the Great Lakes Bay Region, and a number of area FRC teams (including the event Host teams) through our parent organization.

We've also gotten additional funding from Nexteer Automotive (which also sponsors a number of area teams directly), Dow Corning, Hemlock Semiconductor, and a handful of other sponsors.

Our specific relationship with our sponsors varies; some companies allocate funds that are specifically for the district and separate from funds they allocate for teams. Some sponsors prefer to sponsor just the event itself, for various reasons. And finally some sponsors simply donate money to FIRST of the Great Lakes Bay Region and allow us to allocate it wherever it's needed (for the event, teams, or otherwise).

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Joe,
Thanks for sharing my graph to all.
The key to the growth of FIRST hinges on 2 things.
1. Reducing participation costs
2. Increasing Return on Investment.

When we recreated the District System 8 years ago, these were our objectives and these have never changed.
The growth that that you see is a direct product of accomplishing these two goals. We are not done, we are just getting started.
We work to reduce event and operating costs wherever possible.
We use the money we save to help fund initiation costs for new teams and sustainability grants for existing teams.
We have worked with our state government to secure over $7Million in grants.
Many teams in our state play their entire season without ever paying any registration fees.
We have proven beyond any doubt that reducing costs will dramatically increase growth in FRC.
However, our cost reductions are artificial. We are offsetting the high cost of FIRST's enrollment fees with government money. In the grand scheme of things this is not sustainable. If administrations change, if the economy shifts, these grants may go away.

So the real question is: If FIRST really wants growth, as Dean repeatedly says they do, and they have real proof of what cost reduction can do to fuel growth, then why do they not ACTUALLY reduce program enrollment costs?
After 25years, and 100X growth in scale, there is still no price break from HQ.

We at FiM operate on a thin operating budget.
Our total operating costs are less than $1000/team/year.
FIRSTs costs are about 10 times this much, despite the fact that a significant portion of the league are now in Districts and these events are not financed by FIRST anymore.

If we ever want Robotics to be a sport in its own right, program enrollment costs must come down. Other leagues understand this. FIRST still apparently does not.

"It is not the idea......It's the execution."

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

The costs are kept down when making it to states and worlds. That's where the grants really kick in, they pay for both states and worlds registration fees, assuming you make it there.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

When we looked at hosting a Westside event, we were told to expect at least $15-20k. $25k if you wanted to play it safe or have anything above and beyond the normal district event.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

*If the team comes from a public school.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

You're saying that's for startup or year over year?

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I'm pretty sure that's just an estimated cost range provided by FiM. We got a similar estimate our first year, and then we had to work out what our actual recurring costs would be for our specific event. It's more a fundraising target than anything else.

Costs for specific districts vary due to a variety of factors.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I understand that costs are different, just trying to get at what he means. Type of venue, geography, amenities built into the facility vs what the event itself would have to cover (specifically, power) are just some of all variables that contribute to the cost.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Our average district event cost is about $18,000.
Several of our events get sponsors from local businesses and have zero net cost to our FIRSTinMichigan Organization.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Right, but what I'm saying is the estimate they got was likely generic and not tailored to their location.

That said, I can provide a few examples of costs associated with events (Dollar values listed are approximate and specific to our event in Midland. Actual costs will vary by event):

Recurring Costs:

• Pipe and Drape (for dividing pits, blocking off the field area from the stands, etc.)
  - $1600
• Table & Chair rentals (for team pits, field equipment, pit admin, etc.)
  - $500
• Multimedia Equipment (Projector(s), audio mixer, speakers, mics, radios, etc.)
  - $2750
• Generator for pits (Cost to rent if you don't have one, and cost of fuel)
  - No cost for us, school district has a generator and donates fuel
• Cost of DJ (unless role is filled by a volunteer)
  - $500
• Cost of food for volunteers
  - $3850
• Cost of Janitorial services and event Security
  - $250 for security, janitorial services donated by school district
• Gaffers Tape
  - $650

One Time Costs:

• Installing Ethernet runs for field and pits (if needed)
  - $1600
• Floor Tarps if not already owned by venue, and Masonite (may have to be replaced every few years due to degradation)
  - $3250

And those are just some of the basics; there are, of course, also extras that events may opt to buy. For example, after our first district event we decided to build our own livestream system for streaming events and running the event projector, and more recently, we purchased our own sound equipment so we didn't have to rent it (we looked at getting a projector too but the cost was a bit high for what was required). We probably have over $10,000 that we put into multimedia alone over the past few years just to go above and beyond event basics.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

What cbale said is pretty right on. We have a very up to date gym as it was just built six years ago. We also have two more gyms to hold pits and practice fields.
The 15-25k target was a rough estimate, we were told we could probably come in cheaper because certain infrastructure was already in place. I was just starting to look into detailed costs when we were told that we would no longer be able to host unless it was a week one event. This was after Bag day and all our facilities were already reserved by then.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Jim,
I was an idiot not to include that I got this chart from you. Sorry about that. Glad you are not upset that I shared it. There was another thread that talked about MO going to districts and I wanted to get the chart online someplace that I could link to it from within a message, so why not upload it to CD?

I didn't think that this would then start its own thread. But it did and that turned out to be good too.

Thanks for adding your perspective on this. I know that a lot of people think that MI is an anomaly because of the Auto Industry. And, yes, that helps but honestly, most of the growth is coming from places that have more in common with the more rural areas of NY, WI or WA than they do with Metro Detroit.

There is nothing I know of in the MI experience that could not be duplicated in dozens of other states.

Joe J.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

You would have to duplicate at least one Gail Alpert, and I don't know if that is possible just yet. She has more drive and passion for spreading FIRST than anyone I know. Though, I'm sure you could find someone that is near her level if you look good and hard.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

This is truth. I refer to Gail Alpert as the "Super RD", even if she isn't actually an RD.

When I hear about the all the great work Gail and FiM are doing, I feel like we're living in the dark ages over here in CA (and that's not just because our game is medieval themed this year!)

Great work Gail, Jim and the whole FiM crew. I wish certain individuals in our community would celebrate FiM's excellence, rather than diminish it or write it off!

-Mike

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Zondag asking the real questions here. I'd love to read a Frank's blog on this one...

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Yes, Gail is amazing and FiM would not be where it is now without her (and frankly a number of others as well) working their fingers to the bone on this.

BUT... ...Gail was blazing a new trail. Others can follow without nearly the heroic effort required.

The chart that started this thread off should be inspiring copy cats all over the country if not the world.

Dr. Joe J.

Can anyone share (or point to) the value proposition FIM put forward to earn this support? Was this support initiated by FIM or by Gov. Synder? Is there something unique to Michigan that means other regions couldn't hope for similar levels of government support?

The high level (chicken and egg) template seems simple enough.
1) Reach team density critical mass.
2) Optimise costs for teams.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Agree, the road is paved, please follow.

If we ever want Robotics to be a sport which competes with 'real' sports, then we all need to up our game. Sure after 25 years, we have had great success and now have tens of thousands of participants, but in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing. There MILLIONS of kids who play basketball, and that it just one of several main stream sports. If we truly expect 'cultural transformation', then we need to get MUCH larger, and do it MUCH faster.

Reducing participation costs and increasing ROI to bring us closer to parity with mainstream youth activities are the best way to achieve this. Ignoring this reality will restrict growth until this change is made.

BTW: Here in Michigan, according to the data we have, in 2016 we now have more high school students participating in FIRST Robotics than we have playing Hockey. So we have actually finally passed one of the 'real' sports. Can any other robotics organization on Earth claim this?

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

If you compare VEX or FIRST in Virginia to Virginia hockey, I think there is a good chance the comparison might turn out well.

However, before you could collect the stats you might need to explain to Virginians what hockey is. :D

More seriously, Virginia's Prince William County schools (with Loudoun and Fairfax starting to catch up) almost certainly have more students in robotics programs (a mix of VRC, FRC, FTC, FLL, VIQ, SeaPerch, and whatever I might have forgotten) than those schools have in several of their sports programs. That's nothing to sneeze at when you consider that PWC has a total population of around 450K.

The FIM and PWC/VA examples are very different in some ways, and much alike in others. If both remain successful, maybe their influences will merge into a cultural tsunami somewhere around Indianapolis.

Blake

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

in FiM events have you ever had the following:
extra paperwork outside of STIMS required by FiM to go to an event?
Limitations on the amount of power you can draw in your pits?


Trying to find out what is normal/accepted and what is not.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Yes and Yes. There are requirements for all teams to provide two volunteers per event you attend and the required VIMS paperwork associated with that. There is also a special consent and release form for FiM that covers all the standard things that the FIRST consent and release form does.

We have had limitations on pit power, but mostly it is common sense things like not using a compressor or a refrigerator or other things that you really don't need in a pit.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

In the spirit of Chief Delphi I can answer your question in a half way of sorts.

Most of the seemingly draconian pit regulations for events in the high schools for CHS events come directly from lessons learned in PNW. I know MAR at the very least has a separate C&R form, probably due to the fact that VirginiaFIRST bears more explicit responsibilities at this level of play than they did in the past.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

That's an excellent answer. That's exactly what I was looking for. That's an answer I can understand and live with.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

When decisions are made out of one's control, context tends to make those decisions more digestible.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

+1

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I think Jim and Gail (and others) have made the smoothest road in Michigan. Maybe the state should hire them.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I hate disagreeing with Jim but...

Jim, the work FiM has been doing has cleared a lot of the event logistics and cost hurdles but it has done nothing to solve the mentor hurdle. FiM has been able to handle it's astonishing growth in part due to the large number of engineers and engineering companies in the region. I haven't looked at it in a few years but I'd be willing to bet that a large number of FRC teams are congregated around the I75 corridor through Automation Alley (Detroit -> Flint -> Saginaw) where the density of engineers and companies that are long time supporters of FIRST is unparalleled. It also has at least 3 HoF teams within a 45 minute on a side triangle. (51, 67, 27) And more World Championship winning teams exist in Oakland County than exist in most states. This has led to not only a massive growth of teams but also an increase in quality.

My point is, there's still one last hurdle to explosive quality growth that FiM cannot help regions with, the road is there but you still have to figure out how to drive down it.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

When I talk to people, and in particular to school administrators, about the cost of FRC I use the sports model. Since we are talking about an activity for high school age students, I make the comparison to high school sports. Here are the high school sports with more than 100,000 total participants (from NFHS, for 2014-2015):

Football: 1,085,182
Track: 1,057,358
Basketball: 970,983
Baseball: 487,770
Softball: 365,528
Combined: 853,298
Soccer: 808,250
Volleyball: 486,594
Cross Country: 472,597
Tennis: 340,116
Swimming: 303,925
Wrestling: 269,704
Golf: 221,405
Lacrosse: 193,235

Since it was referenced, hockey has 45,293. So FRC is starting to push into the realm of being a "real sport" in terms of participation.

At my school, the FRC team would rank high (but definitely not at the top) of the total cost/participant. And FRC has a lot of curricular overlap. If I split the cost of equipment also used in classes then FRC is in the middle in cost. It also costs far less, for example, than our marching band. (The band having similar curricular overlap.) So I try to get them to see this as similar to adding a sport. With events that are daily driving distance away the costs per student go WAY down compared to other sports. Moving us to the bottom third.

I completely agree that we should be driving FIRST to push down the cost. I would love to see a time when FIRST manages just the championships, or even better something like "super regionals" and then championships. That would make it more like a state athletic association. And the districts manage their competitions. With a majority of the entry fee going to the districts. But I also think that we need to get schools to change how they few FRC and think of funding it like they do their band or their track team.

edit: As for mentors, that is one of the biggest hurdles. Allow me to propose one big avenue for creating new mentors: increasing participation in FRC. I also coach track and field. And finding qualified coaches is often a challenge. Particularly for technical events. As participation has grown (and more HS sports are shrinking than growing right now) it has become easier because there is a larger pool of mentors to draw from. If we can drive up participation we can also create more potential mentors. I would bet that part of the large supply of mentors in Michigan is because there are so many FIRST alumni there.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

That is very true, Andrew. Teams on the outside looking in on FiM are acute to the differences between each party.

Even during the economic downturn FiM still had the most valuable resource: great people, and a lot of them. I am obviously partial to looking at FiM through a Virginia-oriented lens, but before the FVC->VRC split that also coincided relatively closely with the great recession and a bunch of other factors, you could draw more parallels between the RCPs that made up Michigan FIRST leadership and those that made up my region. FiM, it can be safely said at this point, had the leadership and foresight (and looming threat of the program's collapse) that no one else had when moving to districts (a system that very smart, dedicated, and competitive people opposed at the time)

Virginia had a climate that lent itself to a great explosion of sustaining VRC teams (which is great!) and unstable and folding FRC teams (which is not great). We also have never and likely never will have a single team of the same caliber of the top dozen Michigan teams for a lot of reasons; unsurprisingly that answer is yet again, people.

It will be interesting to see over the next three years if my region will be able to become the power it has the potential to be or if the status quo will continue to let our car coast down the shoulder while the rest of FRC blows by us.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I am so confused by this answer. "CHS events" "draconian regs" "C&R form" "lessons learned from PNW" "more explicit responsibilities"

I really don't know what you are talking about...

Dr. Joe J.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

I would add that we should also be participating in alternatives that cost less per student. If there are students missing out because of costs, and if lower cost methods (that might or might not be a little less sexy, but are still very effective) of reaching those students exist, ...

Wow :ahh:, I'm sure some people feel that those are fightin' words. :D

Seriously though, are you using success in the on-field part of a team's total activities/purpose to measure "caliber"? There is a spectrum of opinions about that subject, and many folks feel that on-the-field-results isn't the right metric to use. I think the jury is still out on whether FRC teams in any part of the country are lagging, leading, or cooperating so hard they don't care, when compared to Michigan's many fine teams. ;)

Blake

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Michigan has three hall of fame teams; the way things shake out in Virginia greatly hinders the chances of getting 1 any time soon.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

OK, not on-the-field-performance. And, sure, three HOF teams have come out of Michigan, One in 2014, one in 2005, and one in 1997. Congrats to all three, and best wishes for continued success, but ... One of those was ancient history, one was long ago, and one was recent. At the pace the FRC landscape evolves, going back to 2005 or further is a loooong time.

Let me suggest this: If you were to start a clock now, I'm not aware of any obstacles anywhere outside of Michigan that prevent well-rounded teams from catching their own lightning in a bottle, before the next Michigan team does. The money coming from Michigan's government might make it a little bit easier for Michigan teams to be effective at satisfying the HOF evaluation criteria, but there is more than one way to skin that cat.

Blake

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

Chesapeake Region = CHS
C&R = Consent and Release forms. Apparently CHS is required to complete a second, non-STIMS consent and release form that has the exact wording as the STIMS Version. I find the repitition annoying.

more explicit responsibilities = probably the reason for above. what they are I do not know. They have not been communicated to me when I asked about the extra C&R.

draconian regs = for me this was the power limit of 400W per team for the event. This struck me as entirely inadequate considering the popular 3-bank charger from AndyMark is rated at 500W. I have been assured there will be enough power for everyone. When I asked for specifications, they asked for how much we needed.


lessons learned from PNW = not sure, but I suspect the reasons for the item above.

Re: pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan
 

"More explicit responsibilities" is the way I summed up the way FRC is administrated in a district system vs a traditional regional system. The district systems are run by 501c3s that operate interdependently with FIRST while RPCs are more directly agents of HQ. Things like liability insurance are probably under the wings of FiM, PNW, MAR, CHS etc., and therefore we require an additional form to recognize this fact.

Matt, the lessons learned from PNW comes from my research and communications with people in districts leading me to a variety of places. In this specific case it led to this presentation, which I think we can agree FIRST Chesapeake has taken the guidelines from PNW to heart enough that entire parts of this presentation have been lifted on to documentation we have been getting in emails.