Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to imply that other local alumni groups (GOFIRST) aren't dedicated. In fact, I was trying to state the opposite; if NDSU is providing so many volunteers to the MN regionals, I'm sure that GOFIRST can provide even more just based on the sizes of the two universities. I just felt like GOFIRST hasn't been as well utilized by the RPC as NDSU has, and the hope that GOFIRST could follow the NDSU example in the future is the hope that the opportunities that GOFIRST needs will be given to them.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

It's probably a little further drive but Wave should attend Midwest or Central Illinois next year. Both of those events had 10 matches and usually have more matches than those in Minnesota.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The next weekend's competition is 3 hours away, requiring an overnight stay, and suddenly you find out that 2 of the team members can't go because their parents don't want them to, another one has a medical emergency, three can't pay, and of the rest at least one has a commitment that he can't get out of that lands right during travel. Oh, and you find this out right before you MUST choose. Which do you choose, with THAT information?



If you don't see my point, I'll put it plain and simple: Districts are not for everyone. More to the point, many people in places without districts do not see the value in districts, and do not want districts.


It's great that all y'all in districts want everybody else to be in districts. Just one thing:

GIT YER RHETORIC OFFA MY LAWN! For whatever reason, it seems like y'all are just about going militant to get everybody else to go along with your view. COOL IT. Something you may not know is that if someone is rather entrenched in a viewpoint, incorrect or not, it's worse than useless to try to hammer them over the head with the correct one until they concede! They may acknowledge to themselves that you're right, but darned if they don't want to even look like they're being forced into admitting it, and they'll resist. I'll be honest, seems like half the time when I look here, somebody else has said the exact same thing: Gotta go district, gotta go district.

Ya catch my drift?


Andrew, some folks--I name no names, but I'm not necessarily one of them--figure that you get more inspired if teams from outside the area come to you. You can't do that in a district (outside of interdistrict play, which if I'm not mistaken I can still count the totals without taking my shoes and socks off). Out where I'm at, if we didn't have one of the biggest regionals in FRC, we wouldn't be able to think about having that!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

It's not a question of the RPC "utilizing" each group differently. Last year Ryan came to us (not the other way around) and said "I've got about 30 students that want to volunteer", and then worked with us to get each of them into an appropriate volunteer spot, based on their desires, knowledge, and experience with FIRST. I believe it was that push from him and his group that led to our creating a more formalized training regimen at one of our off-season events last fall. We would love to have student groups from all the other universities in MN (not just the major one's you've heard of!) bring us volunteers like that!

Oh, and the president of GOFIRST is also on the RPC each year, while NDSU's Bison Robotic's is not represented at this time.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I do understand the point and the competitive nature of FRC. That being said, I see greater value in the educational aspect of FRC beyond the competition. My son is gaining an extremely valuable experience that will better prepare him for his eventual career choice than what he will learn in high school. Yes, more matches is nice and all, but the real payoff of FRC for my son is his future. That's my big picture view.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I have been really biting my tongue throughout this conversation, but Andrew, really,

This is one of the most massively disingenuous arguments that I've ever heard. The number of matches, as DareDad points out below, is just one of very many columns when evaluating the impact of an event on a team.

Let's try to break this down:

What are some the benefits (I don't think anyone here is arguing that there any or of injury due to) of playing more matches?

• Drivers get additional minutes on the field
• Team feels a sense of accomplishment by seeing their robot play more times
• Rankings are more likely to be representative of the quality of the robots/drive teams

Now let's take a look at some of those other "columns in a spreadsheet" about event quality/value:

• What does the event physically look like? Is there inspirational value in playing in larger, sometimes iconic venues with more production value?
• How many teams are students interacting with? Is there inspirational value in the diversity and reach of teams at an event?
• What is the team experience like due to quality of volunteers? Is there customer service value in not spreading volunteers too thinly over consecutive weeks, and recruiting volunteers (particularly key ones) of lower caliber out of necessity?*
• How comfortable is the event for a teams due to scheduling? JAMMING 10 matches into a schedule that should really only have 9 is not just stressful and tiring for volunteers, it can also be stressful and tiring for teams. Besides the five drive team members that are participating in those extra matches, the rest of those teams need to be present, in the stands and in the pits - and running schedules too long (and neglecting time for delays on the field) isn't fun for anyone. There gets to a point where it goes from fun to frustrating, and at what gain? A match?
• Many other considerations that I haven't touched on, especially regarding team geography and cost of attending more than one travel event.

All of this combined with the harsh reality that many regions are at their capacity for what they can afford in terms of number of regionals, but aren't where they need to be in terms of (volunteers, viable venue space, geography of teams) to be come a district simply means that some events will have less plays than others. While this is unfortunate, it's the reality of the situation, and frankly, doesn't have the real impact on real teams that you're promoting.

There are a lot of really smart people working very hard to find the optimal configuration to run their events to the greatest benefit of the teams. Despite what others in this thread have said, I'm not under the impression that anyone is trying to "cheat teams out of matches", or are trying to promote systems that worsen team experiences. Every event and region have a different set of challenges, and attacking or just frankly being rude to the folks that are there, in those trenches, trying to make things the best that they can for their teams is beyond not being a gracious professional, it makes you appear to be ignorant as well as aggressive.

I'd highly encourage those involved to go back and re-read the progression of this thread for the past three pages or so.

****
FRANK
lybored
****


*Sidenote: Take this into consideration. The number of times that I've heard actual teams complain about an event being ruined for them because of a bad interaction with an ill-place or under-trained key volunteer far exceeds the number of times that I've heard actual teams complain of playing 8 matches instead of 9 or 10 or 13(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) <= to quote Bailey.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

What on Earth does that have to do with districts?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

He's using a sports analogy. I'm pointing out that there's some real-life problems that could shut down the second play from the get-go.

My team was, at one point, considering declining our Champs slot due to similar concerns. Schoolwork, missed school (it's our 4th event), and family commitments can easily cut down the number of available students to the point where "Is it worth it" becomes a very real question.

Now, had we known from the beginning of season that Champs was our destination, we'd have been able to plan around that... but we didn't.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

These have gotten a bit buried, but Bryan had two really great posts. I hope everyone reads them :)

I'll add that there is also not space at the current MN venues to run two fields side by side for a single regional event. Maybe expanding to Ridder for pit space or something, but it's usually in use.

Some opinions here, but here are my answers:

• No. I like the lights on, and smaller more numerous venues that make the competition more accessible. DCMP and CMP are opportunites for production value. Others may disagree.
• No. I find that 60 teams at an event is too many to take in. Scouting is more unwieldy, you see barely two thirds of them in matches. At 40 teams or less you get to know everyone. Others may disagree.
• This is part the cost of switching to districts, and the benefits of districts motivates building the infrastructure to cover these costs. It's about the teams, build the system to support the teams.
• Another argument for districts. More events with fewer teams at each allows more match play without this strain on the system.
• An important consideration for sparsely populated areas. MN has fairly high team density across the state though, similar to MI outside cities.

If we want more play time, the answer is easy. More events, fewer teams at each event. It's a challenge people are working to solve, with many tradeoffs involved, and lots of infrastructure to build. I really hope the volunteers aren't seen as incompetent, they do a wonderful job.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

When I was a student I wished we had more matches at our regionals. Looking back we had regionals with between 9 and 12 qualification matches (more than 8). Those extra matches gave me opportunities to talk and meet more people from all sorts of different teams. Was I inspired by competing in a college sports field? Of course. I agree that competing in a regional location can increase the "feel" of the event.

Districts and regionals are two different ways of doing something and they both have positives and negatives. In the end it seems more important to ask the kids and see what they want.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Actually the fact that on any given weekend during competition season someone can get sick or have some commitment that they can't get out of is one of the biggest pluses to the district system to teams that are one and done in the Regional system.

I spent 5 seasons in the Regional system on a team that attended 2 events. I do not believe that every student attended both events during that time. Yes some times it was because the parent wouldn't allow the student travel the ~3hrs to the next closest event. However there were also students that were unable to attend the event that was only ~1hr away. Going to 2 events meant that a much larger number of students were able to attend at least one event. Now under the District system that same team has 2 events that are under 1/2 hr away. Some of those students that couldn't attend the travel event did so because their commitment or illness really only prevented them from attend part of the event and it was prohibitive to make the long travel for a single day.

Now certainly that situation does not apply to all teams. For some it does mean that their second event is 2, 3, 4 or more hrs away than their closest event. However the fact remains that for almost all of the teams there is now an event that is a similar or shorter distance than before.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Given the choice between 8 matches and more than 8 matches, everything else being equal, I too would have a hard time understanding someone who preferred to compete in fewer matches.

However, everything else is not equal. I think it's clear that you put the number of matches per team at a higher priority than other criteria, but can you really not grasp that other people can value other things more? In just the past month, I have seen people say they prefer "more polished" regional events over "amateurish" district competitions, or the high-quality seating of a professional sports arena over the non-air-conditioned bleachers of a high school gymnasium, or the opportunity to play with 60 teams from around the country over 32 of the same teams they already saw this year.

In this thread alone there are people who express a desire for more time between matches, which naturally means fewer matches in total. And there, now you have a metric that benefits from having only 8 matches.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I've tried to stay out of these threads as much as I could, but as a mentor of a MN team I think it's important. Also this is my view on the whole situation, other mentors and students from my team might feel differently.

Our team has attended two regionals each year since 2013. We've been lucky enough to have sponsors and have had very few problems financially when it comes to paying for our regionals. Our main problem though is the lack of inspiration felt by competing at Minnesota events this past year. The return on investment, all of the work we do throughout the season, especially the hours that us mentors put in just to play so few matches doesn't make sense. When you have a robots on your alliance not moving during half of your matches during an eight play regional my students stop feeling inspired, and their moods start to sour. Also, last year we got three matches on Saturday, a day our parents and sponsors come to support the team and watch us compete. We had parents and sponsors come again this year who missed out on our one Saturday match, they were devastated, and once again our students were bummed that they couldn't show their parents what they've been working on this season.

Listen I appreciate everything that the MN RPC does for the state and have spent seven years loving the 10,000 Lakes Regional but honestly it doesn't make sense for my team to compete at these events anymore.

My team is more than likely going to make the switch from FRC to FTC next year. If we do, we not only do we get to work with an awesome staff at High Tech Kids, but we will be saving a lot of money. It makes more sense to our school to pay $150 a tournament where we would get five matches and don't have to travel at all instead of an eight play $5,000 regional. That's $30 a match instead of $625, and trust me I don't mind my kids competing in a high school gym. That return on investment makes more sense to me than watching my upset kids after only getting to play eight matches.

So for teams like mine, it's not worth sitting around waiting for things to change in the state anymore. Listen we all have our own views, I'm just trying to inspire my students and right now it's not working.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

While there are certainly many things that go into an event that one can value, I think what most people are missing in this mentor-dominated conversation is that students want to see their robot do well. I know FIRST is more than robots, but that's not exactly an easy message to observe when team members pour so much of their time into one 120" reason. (Remember, students only get at most 4 of these things, and a majority of MN teams don't have the infrastructure set up to do much more than build, meaning that the robot is what most students are focused on).

Being finalists and qualifying for champs in 2014 was a turning point on 4536. Bringing home an MSHSL banner was a turning point on 4607. These are the successes that bring in more kids and inspire students to go into STEM fields, because they can see all their efforts validated on the field. They help an FRC team grow and continue to succeed.

Sure, the perks that come from competing in a super-regional are nice, but from most students' points of view, they are not even close to the value of seeing your robot do well. Playing in a basketball arena does not inspire students to become engineers. Longer times between matches to talk to members of other teams does not grow or improve an FRC team.

Students get excited about success. They get excited about making eliminations and winning awards. That's what helps them succeed again. That's what helps them make it loud. And the data has shown that the best way to accomplish that is with fewer teams at more events. That gives them more opportunities to compete and improve their robot.

Disclaimer: While I cannot speak for all students in FIRST, my opinions on what MN students look for are based on my own team's, as well as what I've observed from other local teams, and from the views others in my high school have expressed about robotics and inspiration in general.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Unfortunately, this was something that was completely out of our control. With Goldy's Run scheduled on the same day as our event (i'm sure you saw the runners right outside on University Ave, the closed lanes, and limited available parking), it was everything we could do to get teams the matches on Saturday that they had, and we reworked the entire schedule for the event to ensure teams didn't lose out on match time overall because of the scheduling conflict and the late start on Saturday. It really did suck, because we know we get more spectators on Saturdays than the other days, and really do want teams to be able to show their stuff while all those people are there.