Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Thanks Andrew, I think these are excellent questions to move the discussion forward. The intent of my post was to emphasize that the number of plays in qualifications is essentially determined long before anyone steps foot in the venue, so there's little we can do when the event starts to squeeze in an extra play or two.

Running two fields side by side was essentially the solution years ago when Duluth and Minneapolis both became double regionals. At this point we need more events (and more money to do more events).

Cycle times vary year to year, and is influenced by the game. A more complex game that might be more fun might require longer cycle times. Its a tradeoff.

I wouldn't say guest speakers are a problem, especially if you are close to on time. If you are already half an hour behind, they are one of the last things you want.

FMS connection times haven't been terrible for me this year. A little slower than last year, but not enough that tightening that would add a significant number of matches.

I think you hit the nail on the head that fewer teams is the key, the solution is identifying a path forward for getting there and getting more people to help in achieving that goal.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

From talking to MN teams this past weekend, it isn't as much of a problem as room for improvement. Most of these teams never knew about districts, and you don't exactly miss what you never had. I think there are other issues in MN that could be considered a "problem", but right now number of matches isn't one of them.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I wish you the best of luck in your training! You'll be one of the youngest LRI's I've ever met.

I'm glad you're doing this, and I hope it sends a good message to the rest of the alumni around you, and across the FIRST Community that they too can be the volunteer positions they truly want to be!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I can try and answer some of these...
1. 6 minute cycles is as low as I've ever seen them scheduled (and probably 5 and a half is as low as is realistic, and only in the the ideal case). 2014 is the last year I can think of (example) where that was doable because there was basically no field reset. Give it 3 minutes on average between match start and green lights. A robot takes ~60 seconds to boot up and connect. Add another minute to get 6 robots on/positioned and 6 robots off, and there's 5.5 minute cycles (with a 30 second buffer for troubleshooting/intros/whatever).
2. The main lesson I see, simple fields (2012, 2014) means fast cycles. If the field reset portion can be done in 2 or 3 minutes, then it won't be the blocker in cycle times. The more frequently it takes longer than that, the more likely it is to be the part slowing the event down. As an interesting aside, this year, once the reset crews got in their rhythm, it could go super quickly (at NYC, we had at least 10 sub-7 minute cycles, so it's definitely doable).
3. The current control systems are definitely slower to boot up than others from the past. I spend most of my events fieldside, and many of the robot-based connection delays are due to miswiring (forgetting to plug the ethernet cable back into the RIO after tethering is a big one), forgetting to turn the robot on, or something that is solved with a reboot (add 1 minute on to the cycle time). I actually don't think it's that bad, but minor delays can really add up when you tack on 1 minute per robot reboot.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Hearing all of this has been very humbling. I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not the only student who has the abilities to do what I'm doing. I know some very talented people both at NDSU and the University of Minnesota. I'd also argue that I'm not the most technically skilled, nor the quickest learner. I very well could be the most addicted student to FIRST, but Cadandcookies might have me beat;)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'll field this one Wil.

To me this isn't a District/NonDistrict question. Districts don't work everywhere, for those of you who know me, you'll know the Novaks are... well practically family to me. Arkansas will never have the infrastructure to support districts and if everywhere goes to districts they are screwed. I don't think Districts are the final solution to FRC's scaling issue. I do think that for some regions they are an effective stop gap.

Now, for the reasons folks have stated (mostly volunteers and lack of nonprofit group) Districts aren't currently in the cards for MN[1]

My big objection is that two fold - 8 matches given our ranking systems = screwed up rankings. More matches give more time to equalize for a crappy schedule. I want teams that put in effort to be rewarded with high ranking. It's incredibly frustrating to build a great robot and be at the mercy of the draft because of a bad schedule. More matches helps.

My other claim is that, I don't think ANYONE would argue that less matches are better for teams. I'm already on the warpath about one aspect of customer service in FRC, I'd love to see someone else take up this aspect.

I admit, I mostly come at this from a team experience perspective - I want to see every team in FRC have an experience that makes them think "wow these folks are awesome and I want to come back" The vibe I've gotten is that the lack of plays is a serious pain point for schools, it makes the costs seem really hard to swallow when VEX and FTC offer most of the same experience for a fraction of the cost.




[1] I'd like to see a plan of attack on this, publicly.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Hi Mr Stratis,

I know this is a long thread, but I believe you missed this question directed at you. Just wanted to bring it to your attention.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

As a coach, I felt like we went to certain events that gave us mediocre match schedules and supplemented it with a mediocre experience because that is how the chronological and geographical cookie crumbled. This year, we went to events because we knew we had these options to find out what we liked, and we enjoyed most all of them very much regardless of our final performance. We got to watch our team develop into a machine as they played 70 regulation matches.

I will admit that despite us working with a stingy resource pool, we have tried to develop processes and a work ethic that propels our team forward and upward while holding ourselves to very high standards in the growth and development we want to chart. Sometimes the perception I have is that some people focus too much on the wrong things when faced with certain challenges and in doing so, almost willingly set themselves up to fail. This is an experience a team can have within a season and it is an experience I believe is applicable to larger scenarios in FRC.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

It all depends on the team and their situation.

If you're talking about extending the day to add more plays, that could cause serious issues for teams - I've had teams that had to leave by a certain time due to school rules before, and extending the day would be bad for them.

If you're talking about ensuring fewer teams at events so each team gets more plays, then teams that have serious issues and need time to fix them would have a bad experience having to miss matches or sit on the field not moving because they couldn't get everything changed in time.

If you're talking about limiting the team numbers to ensure more plays, then you're actively reducing the number of teams that can play in a region. MN right now has spots for 246 teams to get plays. If we reduce each of our events to 40 teams, then we'll only have room for 160 teams to get plays. That means more teams would have to spend money traveling. Adding events is rather difficult, as it would mean more money - the current events would still cost about the same, and we'd need to add 2 more to keep the same number of plays in the state. That's an increase of 50% in donations to support our events for the same number of plays, something that simply can't happen.

So, is it bad for teams? You tell me. It might be good, it might be bad. It might be dependent on the year and the team in question. The only team I can answer that question for is my own, and I wouldn't want to answer it without getting direct feedback from my students.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Ok, I'll rephrase - Would you prefer to give teams more plays because you believe it would benefit them in achieving FIRST's stated mission of Inspiration?

I'm trying to find some common ground here, this isn't a trick. I'm simply asking you, mentor to mentor, would you prefer for your team to get 9 plays or 8? Which is better for inspiring your students?

Edit - and I seriously don't have an agenda here. If you say you'd rather have 8 plays, fine. We can agree to disagree and I'm fine with your opinion.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Not to be terribly brash, but I think Andrew and Gregor are interested in YOUR opinion, not your team's.

The question is a Yes/No, I don't see a need to bounce around it.

Edit:
Andrew Sniped me a bit.

I will say this for districts... It does give teams that may not have the experience, tech resources, or $$ to be competitive. From my one year in regional experience which was our rookie year the regionals were overly dominated by teams that way outclassed most of the other teams. Districts still has the top notch teams from the area but it seems to be a bit more level of a playing field.
As a mentor there is not much that is more disheartening to see the defeated look in your students eyes before they even play their first match. Again districts makes it so the lower tier teams can be picked for elims or maybe even captain an alliance which both can be very inspiring!
One thing that concerns me regardless of regional or district model is sustainability. At some point costs to register are going to jump up, and when you figure in the current budget shortfalls most states are facing programs are going to be cut, and I fear for the teams that are super dependent on their school system for funding.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

As a newcomer to FRC, I see value everywhere in the experience I saw at the Wisconsin Regional this year. I was inspired enough to become a parent mentor for next season.

YMMV

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Again, it depends on the year. Last year, for example, our robot performed horribly on the field. Every match we went out to left our students depressed and angry. I spent a ton of time and energy that year working to keep their spirits up, keep them motivated, and keep them working towards improvements. Every match was a huge emotional drain on everyone, and I know it wasn't inspiring for the students.

Other years are different. We go out there , do what we designed to do, and the students come back happy seeing the robot do what it's supposed to do.

Personally, I try to get my team inspired with the engineering we do, not with the on-field performance. It's difficult, and it's hard. But on-field performance is just so dependent on so many variables that it's something you don't want to rely on. So from an inspiration standpoint, I honestly don't care how many matches we get.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

This is very true and can be evidenced by certain states. Ones that have taken advantage of the FTC competition structure to improve team quality have seen improvements in merit qualifications to world champs. Meanwhile, those same states that stay in the regional systems send a lower percentage of FRC teams to worlds.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The difference in qualifications to Champs is that regionals get a specific number of teams per regional, while districts get a % of spots at Champs. The result is that district areas have a pretty equivalent ratio representation at champs, while some regional areas are worse. It's not a question of competitiveness. From what I saw posted on here, the new Iowa regional was highly competitive, with high scores, higher % of breaches and captures... but they still only sent the same number of teams as every other regional.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Lets say I'm Coaching a youth sportsball team.

I have the opportunity to choose between two tournaments on the same weekend.

Option 1: $5000 Registration Fee. My sportsball team gets to see the field for 8 games. The Kids are excited because there will be 60 teams from the state at this event, but only 8 plays?

Option 2: $5000 Registration Fee. My sportsball team gets on the field 12(!!!) times for the weekend! My kids are so excited, but there were only 30 other teams at this tournament. BUT, the team also received an invitation to compete in sportsball the next weekend, for no extra charge, for another 12 matches, against 30 teams AGAIN!


So.... Which do you choose?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

As a team who earned their first robot-merit spot in 14 years yesterday, I am acutely aware of this fact.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

My god man... can you reasonably say that 8 matches gives you a better return on your investment (time/money) than 9 would?

I get that it's not about the robot, I get that it sucks to go out there and lose. I get those extenuating circumstances. But holy crap, I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever try to say "well, we only had to play 8 matches".

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'm new at this, but I don't think my team has a choice. We only seem to have option 1 so I think your analogy is off a bit.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

That depends on how you measure return on investment.

I understand that you measure it only on the number of times the five people with drivers badges get to play qualifications matches.

Do you understand that other people may have different metrics?

For example, the metric I most care about is the promotion of STEM to the general community.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The analogy is a bit of a stretch, yes.

However, it just illustrates the idea that I've never met a competitor that wouldn't want to compete more if they had the opportunity to.

8 match play regionals really put teams at a disadvantage to teams that are able to attend, say.... Waterloo where there are 13(!!!) qualification matches, or district teams where they get 24(!!!!!!!!!) matches for the same price.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

But this is the question. Option 1 is regionals. Option 2 is districts.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

What an interesting analogy, obviously teams want the second option, but you have to remember that this isolates some teams in some states, like New York, we are all over the place!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

And the metric I care about is inspiring the $@#$@#$@#$@# students. As an alumni, know what's inspiring? Pointing and saying "we did that"

I get you can have other metrics but I really don't understand how there is a metric that benefits from only having 8 matches.

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.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

That implies that students do not want to see their robot do poorly, right?

A robot that does not perform well is not a robot those students want to see playing in a match. If a team has such a robot, for whatever reason, then more matches is not automatically a good thing.



I admit that I'm giving arguments that go against something that I personally believe: playing more matches is an appropriate goal. But I don't think I'm doing it just for the sake of arguing. I am honestly trying to answer people who seem to be asking why everyone else doesn't wholeheartedly agree that an 8-match schedule is a priori unacceptable.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I understand that people like the regionals. If you are in the stands as a spectator and don't really get the whole robotics thing. Then yes. "more polished", air conditioned, and high quality seating is what you would probably what you want. But from a student. I will not speak for anyone but myself, but when I go to a competition, even like 10K this year where our team grenaded 3 gearboxes, broke our climber, broke our active intake, and our shooter loosened, I do not give a crap as to how comfortable the seats in the stands are. I don't care if the pits have AC. I don't care if I'm in a gym or a sports arena. If chairs really inspired me that much I would be in woodcrafting club and not robotics. I care if our robot works or not. Even if it works for 1 match but it works really well. I want to have our robot work.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

These two sentences really hit home with me. In 2013, my team had a really hard time financially and competitively. I am grateful we had the chance to play 2 events with 12 matches each. Every match was another chance for the robot to work. If we didn't have as many matches, we may not have had a chance to experience the bits of robot functionality we saw, like when we successfully blocked a full-court shooter for most of a match. Having those matches, and then a second competition after, gave us more chances to see success. If we didn't have a second competition (and if we had regionals, we wouldn't have), we may have not gotten our first judged award in four year that season.

More matches and more competitions give teams, especially struggling teams, more chances to work out their issues and be inspired by their hard work all coming together.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Sorry to jump back a few pages I didn't have the time to post until now.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to create a video on the inspection process to walk teams through the checklist? For the most part it stays the same from year to year with new additions due to updated games/rules but a lot of the big issues like weight, size, and bumpers have been pretty consistent with a few small changes.

I know for a newbie in FIRST the inspection process was a mysterious part of competition until you go through it the first time. Sending a video like that with the inspection sheet a week before bag (if it can be made available that early) to teams could help them catch problems they might not have seen until then.

Imagine a field tour video but of a robot going through inspection.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

It might help, but it's also difficult to give good advice without the robot sitting in front of you. As an example, the 8" bumper rule has been really rough this year, but what can we do other than repeat the rule in such a video? If someone didn't understand it while reading the rules during the season, they won't understand it while having the rule read to them. And I personally won't release a video that contains anything that could be labeled as an "interpretation" of the rule. Interpretations are just too malleable. For example, take a look at the issue over Velcro on bumpers this year, or the question of legal pressure regulators. In both cases, my interpretation of the rule was changed twice in mid season, due to what I was told by HQ and the Q&A. I would support HQ doing such a video, but wouldn't want to do one all by myself, on my own initiative.

What we do already for teams, however, is offer inspection services during the build season. We have inspectors at the week-0 events (and usually an LRI at each of them!) performing inspections. I've driven to teams build spaces (up to an hour or so away) to perform inspections on them and their neighboring teams. We have inspection presentations at all of our December training events (led by an LRI) that informs teams of the biggest issues we see year to year, and covers most of the rules that generally don't change. I get emails and phone calls all season long about the Robot Rules, asking if something is legal or not, and am able to point those people to the specific rules that are most applicable, or recommend they get on the Q&A if it really is something ambiguous. All of that helps. I know there were teams competing in Minnesota that avoided serious issues at competition because those issues were identified in week-0, when they still had some time to fix them.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Just an aside, the 8" bumper rule is, quite possibly, the most horribly communicated, critical-to-design rule in the entire game manual. Pains me to see so many rookies miss this mark.

I'm sure someone in this thread will just tell me to suggest a better a way to communicate it. Or if I care so much about it, to do it myself.

Alas, the internet.

-Mike

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Wow people, I take a few hours to make a dent in my taxes and you add three pages of posts. I have a few things to add here so try and follow me it will be a bumpy ride...
Long overdue is my praise of the NDSU students at Duluth. I heard praise from almost everyone at the event. They handled themselves very well, doing the hard work that does need to get done at any event. From what I could see the FTA and other Key Volunteers, just pointed and said "go do (this)" and the next time they saw them it was done. Nice job everyone! I can give no higher praise that to say 'I would work with again, anytime'. I am thankful that you had a school schedule that allowed to attend the events.

Andrew, no one thinks less is more. I would love to see more than ten matches especially if my team could only attend one event. That being said, there are all kinds of issues that rear their ugly head that will compress that schedule. Every minute that is delayed, means the next regional will likely have less time to unload and setup. Regionals do not make the truck schedule. Districts will still have to transport the field, generators and other equipment from regional to regional. In districts in small states that is a lot easier than in larger states like Michigan and Minnesota. (BTW Michigan is larger than Minnesota in area)

A few things that haven't been mentioned yet...
Every team wants to take home hardware. Too many teams are missing out on the awards because or their travel schedule now. They end up leaving prior to the finals matches if they are not competing. If it was me, every team would get some kind of award. However, even the awards that we do give out, all take time to present. We could compress that little by making presentations during finals matches. Say for Highest Rookie Seed, Entrepreneur, Excellence in Design, etc. In a six minute reset time that is a good use of time.
Judges stay to the end (to present awards) and all of them have been going full on interviewing teams for two solid days and deliberating. To lengthen the day adds to their tough day. They are the very ones we want to keep happy as they are leaders in industry (at least many of them) and we are hoping that will garner sponsors for our teams and events. Many of those people have to travel as well. Districts have less awards so they have less time dedicated to presenting.
Finally, we need to load out the field. There is a lot of time in tearing down the field, getting it packed (correctly), loading the truck and getting it on the road. Any delay here may affect the next regional. Having been in Minnesota when the truck didn't show until midnight on Wednesday, I can tell you, it is very distressing. A team that did not attend that event stayed until the field was setup, after 4 AM on Thursday morning.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Mike,
By far and away, more veteran teams had issues with the 8" rule than rookies (OK maybe 50/50). It has been very distressing that teams did not interpret the rules correctly, even after the Team Update #5 that added to the bumper drawings came out in Week 3 of build. There is a big arrow pointing to a bumper segment that is "<8 inches" as being "not OK".

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

No 8 play regionals are not reasonable, but I think thy are just a symptom of another issue. I don't think 64 team regionals are reasonable.

Good schedule is just far too important in a 64 team regional. Since, in a 64 team 8 play regional, before playoffs, teams can only play with 25% of teams and against 37.5% of teams. Where as in a 40 team 12 play event, team could play with 60% of the teams and against 90% of the teams before the playoffs. Now of course in the 40 team event you are likely to get repeats.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I agree that the 8" minimum bumper width was a problem for Veteran teams not just Rookies. Granted there are far fewer Rookies but I only had one Rookie that showed up at the events I was at that had significant bumper problems and there were a number of Veterans with similar or bigger problems.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Alan,

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate on the issue. I think this thread has made the benefits of more matches for more successful teams clear already, but there are a couple of reasons that struggling teams could also be motivated by playing more matches:

1. They are more likely to win and play with good teams. For some teams, just winning a match, even if they are contributing marginally, can be a great confidence booster. There was a rookie toaster-bot in Iowa who must have gone 2-8 or so, but every time they won a match their drive team was elated. By this same token, playing with a good team can help a robot contribute to a greater accomplishment than they would achieve on their own. If a team can only score one low goal in match, it's going to be much more exciting for students to see that boulder be the final one needed to capture the tower, than to be the only boulder scored in a match with two tortuga'd alliance members. At 10K Lakes, there were only about 3 really good robots, making it hard for the other 60 teams to get in matches with them.

2. They are more likely to have a mechanism work. There are some robot add-ons that need to have the stars align in order to work. There isn't necessarily a good fix for it in the pits, some teams just build mechanisms that need to have some luck involved to work (i.e. making the tolerances too small, or using pneumatics that are too weak to work reliably). My team's climber only worked once throughout the entire 10K lakes regional, but when it did, it was an incredibly exciting and inspiring moment for the team, and especially for those who had spent the most time on it.

And going the extra step to districts would obviously help, as there is clear data to show that scores rise at a team's second event.

I understand that it is incredibly difficult to free up time/space for more matches in MN right now, but saying that struggling teams would actually prefer having fewer matches is absolutely ridiculous. You can't give teams improper resources to succeed and grow (which is what's perpetuated with the 8-plays-a-season super regionals), and then use their lack of success as an excuse to continue those same practices.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

We had 26 rookies in Australia.

Issac, I have teams who came to their event hoping only to be able to drive. Their goal was to get on the field and when they did that they celebrated. We, of course, want more but we build on the accomplishments that are achieved. Many of those teams do exactly that. I did have one team that won the first match they played and decided to go out and have a big lunch to celebrate. They missed their next match. They only had red bumpers built and were working on the blue set, but as luck would have it, they only had red matches all day on Friday.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

In the PNW District we were blessed that Frank Merrick attended the DCMP. I took the opportunity to discuss the problems that we experienced with the 8" min bumper width rule this season. We came to an agreement that part of the problem is that the person writing the rules knows what they are trying to communicate and thus they are highly predisposed to read what they have written as clearly communicating the idea. That is because they know what they are trying to communicate and thus read into the words the intention behind the rules, that is present in their mind.

So I agree that reading the rules word for word will not do anything to make it clear to person who doesn't understand them by reading it themselves, because they don't have their own knowledge on what the intention was.

I do believe that a video that showed what defines a "side" and more importantly for this season a segment of a "side" if done properly, could go a long way to furthering the understanding of the rules by everyone.

A great example was with a team I saw at an event this season. Their mentor's argument was that there is no magic number that defines what creates a bumper that provides adequate protection. Their Robot had ~6" bumpers and they covered the full length of both frame segments on the front of their Robot. Extending the bumpers 2" in the direction of the center of the robot on both sides would have meant that they had an opening smaller than the diameter of the ball. So the conversation quickly turned to "making our bumpers wider will make our robot useless, so maybe we should just go home". (not the only time I heard that argument this season)

Once I explained to him that I agreed that their bumpers fully protected their robot, BUT that the 8" bumper width was created in part to make teams decide on the trade offs of their choice of robot size. Fact is that on the one hand you want as wide of an opening as possible to make it easier to acquire a ball without the need for perfect alignment, but on the other hand you want as narrow of a robot as possible to make fitting through the defense dividers and to fit on the batter/scale w/o interference from the batter dividers or an adjacent scaling robot, without perfect alignment, he accepted it. We then went to work creating a plan for a robot that was wider at the front that it was at the back to meet the rules.

Now to be frank I don't know for certain if that was the intention of the people who wrote the rules, but it did work to diffuse the situation and move from "you are making our robot worthless", to accepting my idea to increase the width of the front of the robot to be within the rules and still be able to intake a ball with their current opening and intake system.

So adding a little more explanation of the intention of the rules would also help to ensure that the reader fully understands what is required to be compliant with the rule.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

This was in part a design challenge to make you think about picking up boulders and adjusting your frame opening accordingly. However, this is not the first year that 8" segments were the rule.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I don't help write the rules, so I can't know for sure... But I've always been under the impression that 8" was used to accommodate 4 digit team numbers. 8" plus 3.25" from having a noodle in the corner is enough room at a common font to fit a max sized team number (and many teams I see do fill the space on the bumper entirely with their number). This came from several years ago when they first introduced the 8" rule, and that year splitting team numbers was prohibited (which was also a headache to explain to some teams).

And as you said, it does help to force design tradeoffs, and encourage critical thinking about the game challenge.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Although I didn't build the climber, I would say that most of that excitement resulted from that climb coming in our first semifinal game, which we won by 10 points and would have lost based on the auto points tiebreaker had we not climbed.

I'll use that to transition to my main point here, which is that more matches are better... especially if they are elim matches. The greatest perk of a smaller event, in my opinion, is that a higher percentage of teams will make elims and have the chance to play a part in more meaningful games. Even if they lose in the quarterfinals, they certainly will have a greater sense of accomplishment resulting from at least playing a part in the most exciting and talked about part of the events, and they will have had a chance to work more closely with their elims partners than their quals partners.

Additionally, with fewer teams there will be more excitement for those who don't get picked. At a 40-team event only 16 teams don't get picked, so almost everyone is either in or on the brink of getting in. As a team looking forward, I would much rather see an event where more than half of all teams made it to elims than a 60-team sea of robots to be lost in.

This doesn't even have to happen at a real event. Increasing the number of offseason events will increase the likelihood that a given team makes it into elims at least once, which hopefully could give less fortunate teams a point to rally around, and validation that they were an important part of an event.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

One simple change of nomenclature would help teams understand the bumper rules more easily: stop calling the measurement FRAME PERIMETER. Call it something else, without the word "frame".

Maybe GIRTH. Or CONVEX PERIMETER. Either of these would remove the ambiguity behind many teams' misinterpretation of the bumper rules; i.e., they are mis-led by poor nomenclature, and believe the edges of their frame on either side of the robot's intake slot are "sides", which can be protected by bumper segments along their entire length if that is less than 8 inches.

----

My apologies -- this should be in a separate thread. I agree that bumper rules in games with floor level ball intake are a repeating issue for teams and inspectors. Some of the more difficult examples I saw this season were not on rookie robots.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Only if you include the water.

But with a chokepoint at the Mackinac Bridge, it's likely that maximum travel distances in MI are at least as great as those in MN.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I think the more interesting statistical comparison is population per square mile of land area:

• Michigan 174.8, Minnesota 66.6. (Michigan's population is 86% higher than Minnesota's.)

Minnesota will have a harder time putting districts within easy driving distance of the rural population.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

A picture is worth 1000 words.

Attachment 20584

Edit: Well, two pictures.

Attachment 20585

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

From what I can tell from the MI FIRST web site, there's one district that covers all of the Upper Peninsula, with district events in Escanaba and Soo St. Marie. And one other district that covers the rest of Northern Michigan, with events in Sterling and Midland...is this true? If so, then I wouldn't think that the driving distance would be all that different for rural MN districts.

Escanaba (pop. 12,562) is also potentially instructive for the question of whether there are cities spread across the state that have enough hotel rooms to support a district event. I counted 19 hotels/motels on their tourism web site...this is probably a higher per capita room count due to it being a vacation destination. But that's not unlike some Minnesota cities in Greater Minnesota. Brainerd, for example, has only 13,500 year-round residents, but more lodging options than you can shake a joy stick at.

Driving to district events on two-lane roads during the winter is indeed something to consider. Then again, there are probably a couple of hundred youth hockey tournaments across Minnesota each year, and plenty of Minnesota parents who have experience driving on snow-packed roads to those rural tournament towns. :)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Brendan,
I start working on the Inspection Checklist almost at kickoff and we post it as soon as possible. It was available on line by the second week of February this year if I remember correctly. I want teams to check it before it goes in the bag. Bumpers should not be as big a problem as they have been especially since I moved bumpers out of the bag many years ago. Teams can work on bumpers right up to competition.

Don,
Brainerd does have a lot of hotel space but many are only open seasonally. They don't have the staff during the winter to stay open. (My sister in law lives in Nisswa just up the road.)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

About half of my family lives in the Brainerd/Baxter area (I even have a cousin on FRC 2503!) and a few of my cousins work or have worked in the hotel industry up there. 10 years ago, I would completely agree with you, there wouldn't be enough hotel space for an event in the late winter. However, the whole Brainerd/Baxter area has really exploded in growth over the past few years and the family who works in the area says that the major hotel chains do remain fully functional throughout winter. That of course doesn't mean there wouldn't be challenges but I wouldn't count it out on hotel space.

Having an event in Brainerd would give me an excuse to go visit my family during build/competition season. Some have even resorted to volunteering at competitions with me, just to see me :P (which I wouldn't consider a bad thing...)