Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Imagine that we are living in a perfect world, in which U.S. FIRST has all the money they could ever need. Should teams be allowed to attend more than ONE regional event? Please read below prior to voting.


[Reader] “Andrew, what on earth are you talking about? Of course teams should be able to attend more than one regional! How is this even a question? Have you been getting enough sleep?”

[Me] “To the latter question, the answer is no :) ; to the former, here is why I think this question should be discussed:

Every additional regional event that a team attends this year costs that team $4,000 for the entry fee, as well as any travel and accommodation expenses. Let us suppose, for simplicity’s sake, that for any team attending an additional regional, the average cost of participating is an even $5,000.

Assuming, now, that had this $5,000 not been spent on participating in an additional regional, that the $5,000 would still be in the team treasury. (That is, the team would be able to spend it however it desired.)

Do you believe that this money could be better spent in the interests of achieving the goals of FIRST (to inspire in young people an interest in engineering and science) if the money was not spent on attending an additional regional event, but on engineering outreach instead?”

[Reader] “Hmmmm. I’ll have to think about this one and post a reply…” :)

[Me] “Here’s some (statistical) food for thought. Last year, 930 teams attended at least one regional event. Of those teams:

-507 teams went to ONE regional.
-285 teams went to TWO regionals.
-122 teams went to THREE regionals.
-16 teams went to FOUR regionals.

For those of you keeping score at home, this means that over 44% of teams attended more than one regional last year.”


-Andrew

P.S. A search of threads started in previous years concerning this subject has been conducted. The results of that search seemed to indicate that further discussion would be appropriate, particularly concerning the use of money spent on attending additional regionals.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Andrew, if you are having a vote then edit your post and add a poll.

My answer is yes.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

This subject is another subject that has been brought up multiple times and beaten to death, search around, theres plenty of civil discussion on it.


My opinion is what a team does with their money is their business

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

A team should be allowed to attend as many regionals as they wish. FIRST isn't a perfect world but then again there is no such place in the mortal world so we make do with what we got.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I'll bite...

Does participating in a regional not count as acheiving the goals of FIRST? Are you telling me that you are not inspired by attending regional events?

Besides, I'm also a firm believer in teams spending money as they wish. They did all the work to raise it, afterall.

~Allison

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Depending on where/who the money is from, it may go back to the team treasury, it may not. I know with my high school team, any money the school gave us that we didn't use went back to the school at the close of the school year. So if we got $15k in September and spent $10k, the remaining $5k would go back to the school district in June.

Regardless, I agree with most of the above posts; if teams can afford the time and money to go to more than one regional let them. As it is, isn't there a 3 regional per team cap right now?

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

If I had the time and money I would attend competitions everyday. If your team has the money, and they really want to, then why not? Although, you could argue that in doing so they increase their chances of going to nationals, and if too many teams go to nationals it wouldn't work out very well.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

As a rookie team,
we attended three (3) regionals

Did it cost a lot of money? YES
Could we "afford" it? OBVIOUSLY, we did.

Could the same funds have been otherwise spent? MAYBE

Will we spend the funds in the same manner next year? MAYBE

Each team should be empowered to spend their funds just like a real corporation does to earn the maximum RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.

I will tell you that going to all three regionals for a rookie team has had a HUGE value on each one of us in many ways more than just additional practice with the robot itself.

But, not to brag.....
Finger Lakes Regional....."Rookie All-Star" Award
Buckeye Regional.........."Highest Seeded Rookie" Award
Toronto Regional..........."Rookie Spirit" Award, "Rookie Inspiration" Award and #1 winning alliance.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think that teams should be allowed to attend as many regionals as they choose. Our team has been to three regionals thus far. We planned this this way because it was our first year and if we didn't make it to nationals we would have had more experience for next year. It would have been real disappointing if we only went to one regional and then we didn't qualify for Nationals.

I see your point in using the money to inspire kids through science and technology but i also believe that one of the best ways to achieve inspiration is through experience and the FIRST competitions are so inspiring to participate in.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

It's a question of opportunity cost: would the quality of engineering outreach that a team would achieve by not attending another FIRST regional be better than the quality of engineering outreach the team is recieving at attending another regional?

From there, you need to define quality matrices (Percentage of students enrolling in engineering higher ed programs? Finishing engineering higher ed programs? Taking a job in science or technology-related fields? Enrollment/Demand for science and technology-based classes? Higher math standardized test scores?), and figure it out mathematically from there. I would definitely be interested in seeing the data on that.

But in the end....I don't mind teams going to more than one regional. Just a personal preference.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Teams should be able to attend as many regionals as they please. It is, after all, their money that they are spending. Teams that attend multiple regionals usually do a good amount of fundraising to attend these regionals.

Let teams use the money they've earned to do the things they want to do.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think that teams should do everything in their power to attend at least two regionals. My reasoning is that one regional can be a local event and the other being a travelling event. This will give teams an opening to see what other teams are producing, that don't generally come from their area and whom they do not get to see regularly, and some of the ideas that they have. It will inspire more people as they will see more ideas and spread their ideas to a more extensive group of people. Just my thoughts though.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

there is no better way for a student to be inspired to gain an interest in engineering and science than to attend an event with hundreds of their peers that share a common interest.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Andrew,

I see what you are thinking with this one but I haven't seen a good way to make that kind of thought a reality in the real world.

Many teams work very hard to raise the money they need to compete in this competition. This basically means that neither I or FIRST have the ability to directly tell them how to spend their money. I think FIRST offers some idea by making Chairman's Award and Engineering Inspiration prestigious awards. You can't compete for these awards without spending a least a little bit of money (not necessarily a lot) and a lot of time. But people aren't forced to try to win these awards or some can afford multiple regionals and compete for these awards also.

What it comes down to is that the team and their sponsor(s) have control over how the money is spent. If that means going to four regionals, the only thing that will stop them is running out of spots.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

With the amount of money it costs, I wish FIRST would include two regionals with their registration fee. Like this year it cost $6,000 to register for the KOP and 1 regional, I bet a lot of people would rather pay $8,000 for the KOP and 2 regionals, then $4,000 for every regional after those.

Obviosuly it's expensive to run these events, but you need to wonder how much money FIRST is really going to lose by offering a 2 regional package to every team. Plus this year several regionals had open spots, I'm sure FIRST would rather gain $2,000 on those open spots than have them remain empty. A lot teams that attened 2 regionals this year, would maybe attend three next year and I'm sure moneywise it might balance and work out.

(When I say FIRST gains money, I don't mean make a profit because FIRST is legit organization that puts the money back into the students and the compeition)

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Although each regional is extremely costly for each team to attend I believe that the experience itself is worth every penny. If there are teams can pay the entry fee for multiple regionals nothing should hold them back. If my team could afford it I know we would all be at as many as possible.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Originally posted by Allison K:
Ms. K, I’m very glad you have spotlighted this issue.

I think that attending a regional event ABSOLUTELY counts as achieving the goals of FIRST (particularly the Inspiration aspect). However, all regional attendance is not equal. What do I mean? I’ll explain.

I believe that there are two main ways in which a team may choose to attend a regional event:
1) The “full-team method.”
OR
2) The “drive-team method.”

The “full-team method” probably needs no explanation. But an example or two might prove useful.

Example A: Bluateam is planning to attend only one regional event this year. When it comes time for Bluateam to compete in their regional, the entire team attends. Maybe Bluateam is a large team, or maybe Bluateam is a small team; regardless of their size, every team member that is eligible to be with the team at the regional will do so. Bluateam members will go to the regional, they will get the joy of seeing their own creation come to life and compete against other works of engineering brilliance. In some cases, Bluateam wins awards for being the most spirited, for being the most gracious professionals (sportsmanship), or for truly exemplifying what FIRST is all about (Chairman’s). A perfect example of this sort of team is Team 364 (Sparky), out of Richmond, VA. At the NASA/VCU regional they embodied, in my humble opinion, the true spirit of FIRST. They were always spirited, helpful, and gracious professionals.

Example B: Bluateam is planning to attend two (or more) regional events this year. Bluateam sends its entire team to both regionals. Bluateam members are inspired at each competition. Again, in some cases, Bluateam wins awards for being the most spirited or for being the most gracious professionals (sportsmanship). Bluateam has many reasons for attending an additional regional event, but most of all they feel as if the entire team has benefited from the experience.

The “drive team method” is one that has been employed by a number of different teams. It is often used to gain a competitive advantage over other teams (which is not, specifically, up for debate in this thread).

Example: Redateam is planning to attend two regionals and nationals. To the first regional they attend, they send 3 students (the drive team) and some number of engineers (we’ll say 7). Those 10 Redateam members do not try to win any awards, other than those involving the design/success of the robot. Redateam has sent those 10 team members for two reasons: 1) to gain additional driving experience and 2) to gain an extra three days to build/fix the robot.

The question then, redefined, is this:
Do YOU believe that the $5,000 dollars (which is, I might add, a very low estimate) spent by Redateam to send their drive team and 7 engineers to an additional regional could be better spent in the interests of achieving the goals of FIRST (to inspire in young people an interest in engineering and science)?
In other words, do you believe that the money used to fund the "drive-team method," as described above, could not be used differently so as to inspire more people to become involved with science and engineering?


Originally posted by Katie Reynolds:
I'm not 100% sure, but I do not believe that there is any rule that prevents a team from attending more than three regionals. As for last year, there was most definitely not a rule preventing teams from attending more than 3 (hence the 16 teams that attended 4 regionals).


The feedback so far has been absolutely great. Thanks to everyone who has posted their thoughts.

-Andrew

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think that teams should be allowed to do whatever they want want with their time and money, like someone else said, they fund raised for it. I think it would be cool for everyone to go to at least two regionals because of the experience and more chances to qualify for Championships if they are not already pre-qualified.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Teams should be limited to one, or make it so everyone can attend 2. We wanted to attend a 2nd regional but just couldn't get the money to go. Its kinda (man, i know this sounds like whining) dissappointing to see teams who have large budgets that exceed ours greatly attend 2, 3, or even 4 (dunno about 4 but still) regionals. I'd love to have the finiancing to attend multiple regionals. We would have alot more practice driving, coaching, and being an HP before nationals.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

In the past our team has always done two regionals and then nationals. With the introduction of the tiered system this year, our team decided to not try and go to nationals but instead we'd go to three regionals. After winning two regionals, we came to the conclusion that we really should go to nationals, which means that every team member who's going (nearly everyone) has to pay their own way. Those stats for the number of regionals that teams attended are interesting, but of the teams who attended 3-4 regionals, how many went to nationals also?

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

But that's the same arguement smaller market teams have in pro baseball. They'd love to have their budget to get big name players but obviously they are working on a different perspecgtive. It may not be fair but it's not wrong. You can't hold team accountable for using funds that are their to do with as they please.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Double check your numbers. Adding up, this means that there were 1507 regional "participations" last year. There were 26 regionals, so that means that at your average regional you could expect 57.9 teams. Most regionals couldn't host this many teams if they wanted to. My bet is that you included Nationals in your count.

I don't think any team schedules four regionals.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

each team should be allowed to attend as many regionals as they want. ok, they might be able to spend the money elsewhere, but that is each teams decision. they have to make the financial decision on what the team is going to spend money on. last year, each student on my team had to pay extra money out of their own pocket AGAIN in order to cover the costs to go to natinoals. originally, we werent going to be able to go, but we ended up winning TWO of THREE regionals. in other words, ITS WORTH IT!

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Since the original numbers are in doubt, I assumed that each of the previous numbers included the championship and came up with these numbers.

-285 teams went to ONE regionals.
-122 teams went to TWO regionals.
-16 teams went to THREE regionals.
edit
That is 577 regional "participations". This means that the teams that participated in more than one regional created a demand for approximately 10 regionals with an average size of 58 teams per regional. If these numbers are correct, then limiting the demand for regional participations by restricting the number of regionals that a team can attend, could reduce the number of regionals by 10. Personally this still sounds like a lot of "regional participations" so I still doubt these numbers. The the point is that limiting the demand, will limit the supply and/or increase the price, two things that I do not want to happen.

edit/ Based on the post below there were 147 "regional participations" which is equal to about 3 regionals.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

This is the excell spreadsheet from which I got all of my numbers. I should mention that I did not put it toghether; but it was provided to me by a reliable source (he recieved a WFA nomination this year :) ).

According to this list, 292 teams attended Championships in Atlanta. Of those 292 teams:

-161 teams attended ONE regional.
-116 teams attended TWO regionals.
-14 teams attended THREE regionals.
-1 team attended FOUR regionals (according to the list, that was Team 141; let me know if that's incorrect).

NOTE: I tried to attach the spreadsheet, but it was waaaaaay too big (1.21 MB).

-Andrew

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I'm really surprised to see that teams have gone to 4 regionals...
Anyone that has done this.. what has your highschool said about it?
just curious...

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I also believe that a team should go to as many regionals as possible. MOE travels to one regional and always attends our local one, and also Nats. The experience of just going and staying in a hotel with friends is worth the extra money to travel to a second regional. If a team can make the money they should spend the money.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think every team that can afford to go to two regionals should do so - I've seen so many teams that become much, much better, and therefore much, much more inspiring, at their second event.

Some might argue that the inspiration doesn't come from winning matches, but that's not what I'm getting at - I think the real inspiration comes from simply seeing your own robot out on the field, doing what it's supposed to do and doing it well. In 2001, for instance (my last year of high school), my team's robot was way too complex, and we ended up second-last in our division; however, I was the lead designer on a pair of gearboxes that year (the first year we moved away from the drill transmissions), and they worked perfectly. I think that was really a landmark moment for me, when I saw that you really could come up with an idea, push for it to be implemented, make some drawings, build the thing, and have it work well in competition.

Winning is nice (and there's no doubt that a second regional is a competitive advantage), but I think the really important part is seeing that you really can take on a complex, demanding technical challenge and create an effective, working solution. Especially with a complex robot, there's a very good chance that your robot won't work properly at its first competition, and in that case I think spending another $4000 so that the whole team can get a sense of accomplishment from watching their robot work well is the best possible way that money could be spent.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I do not mean to disagree with almost everyone that voted, but I voted for one regional only. I honestly had no idea that some teams attended 4 regionals. Ok for the rest of this post, I am going to assume that winning the chairman's award would mean more to teams than winning a regional. Some team can barely make it to one regional. They do fundraising and everything. They just cannot get the sponsors that give out the big amounts. What if your team was big enough to BE a sponsor? So many team sponsor FLL teams. Think about what would look better on a Chairman's registration; 3 regional wins or 2 regional wins and sponsoring another team in your area?

Then again, why can't a team spend their money how they wish? It is their money. Go ahead. You earned it with hard work and dedication. But come on guys; do you really need to go to 4 regionals? Even 3 seems excessive. I would love to hear about a team sponsoring one or even multiple teams. It is what FIRST is about. Also, wouldn't it be more fair to only be allowed to attend one regional? Everyone gets the same chance. But finally, let me once again say IT IS YOUR MONEY. YOU EARNED IT. SPEND IT AS YOU SEE FIT.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Excellent point.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Registration is only half the battle. Then you have to worry about hotels, transportation, food, promotional materials, and other.. well.. stuff.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

My only real comment to add to all of this, is that going to multiple regionals is ALL about budgeting. We got our team to 3 regionals and nationals, with the same amount of money that I know most teams use for one regional and nationals. If you make really good estimates, keep close watch on your budgets, do some major deal hunting, suck it up and do some fundraising, you can make it to multiple events. It takes a HECK of a lot of organization, but it can be done.

And our kids/parents have raised almost $7,000 this year, and we only started at the end of october 04 (imagine what they can do with a whole summer!).

Now I know there are a lot of little teams out in the middle of nowhere, and this isnt as applicable to them... but there are ways... NASA offers grants for your first event, so take that, and fundraise more for a second event. One of our carwashes yielded $500... 8 of those would put us at a second regional. Stay with other teams!! There are 16 teams in the rochester area... im certain our great rochester teams could find a way to house another team if it helped that team get to another competition. AND more teams need to look at traveling together... we sent a 49 passenger bus to Cleveland with 15 people on it... granted we found a really good deal, but we EASILY could have split that bus with another team.

But to answer the question in this thread, I am obviously for multiple events. Our team has grown in leaps and bounds over the last three events... especially for a rookie team. I see the kids taking in something new every time, learning a little bit more about it... There is just something about competition that solidifies the entire experience. And traveling together often helps the team bond... when you can all run to your own rooms in the school its a lot different than being locked on a bus together!

And can anyone answer, does anyone know teams who actually use the "drive team meathod"?? I know I've heard teams talk about it, and oftentimes teams will bring reduced numbers to one event, but ive NEVER seen a team send 3 kids and 7 mentors when its a team of 40 normally.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think that the number of regionals attended should be much more balanced. I'm on a rookie team, and I'm sure that my views will change, but I see that there are some "superteams" who go to three, four regionals and win several of those, and then go to Championships. I also see many teams discussing how to organize fundraisers because they barely have the money to make their own regionals, or, much rarer, haveing to see if they can afford to attend Cahmpionships. I know that my own team would have had a problem like that if we hadn't recieved help from Turner, who sponsors rookies (fortunately for us, we're in Atlanta and don't have to worry about Championshp, not so for everyone.... :( ). I think that, while is is great to go to a FIRST competition, and must be even better to go to many of them, teams should help other teams that are not as fortunate as them, instead of maxing out on regionals. While I know that this is an unralistic view, and impossible (not to mention unethical) to enforce, it seems that in FIRST, which has the most sportmanship and teamwork of any organization I have ever seem, this should be second nature, a few (ok, a good many) steps up from lending the team in the next pit some tools.

Another thing that deserves to be metioned that relates to this is when teams go to different regionals and sweep the awards at all of them. Is there a rule that limits this? If not, there should be a rule that limits how many special awards (awards that do not pertain to actual gameplay) a team can win at regionals other that their home regional.

P.S. Sorry about any spelling errors. I type fast and am not used to my dad's flat laptop keyboard! :D

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

99% of the time, I am in favor of their bucks, their business.

However, I personally would give pause to signing up for anything beyond a third regular season event (whether three regionals or two and the Championship). At that point, I would take a long, hard look at the current needs and abilities of the team. The big questions would look something like:

• Will the students be able to afford missing two or three more days of class?
• Can the mentors survive three more days surrounded by screaming teenagers without going deaf or insane?
• Can this money help those students who contribute greatly to the team, but can't travel to competitions because of money?
• Is our current level of robot building enough to make a robot that won't leave a mess of parts all over the field from the additional matches and the use and abuse that comes with them?
• Does our team need any additional equipment, for fabrication or otherwise?
• Are we capable of mentoring a rookie/Vex/FLL team?
• Could we use the funds to implement something useful at school or within the community?

If I could honestly answer all those questions and have the signs point to registering for a fourth event, then I'd be in favor of signing up.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

How is it that, of the four people I know that want to limit the number of regionals that a team can attend, three of them are from Texas? :)

First off, I have an issue with the basic premise. The question "Do you believe that this money could be better spent in the interests of achieving the goals of FIRST if the money was not spent on attending an additional regional event, but on engineering outreach instead?" is problematic. The construction of this sentence requires that you subscribe to the precept that funds expended on ANY engineering outreach activities will be more effective at achieving the goals of FIRST than attending a regional event before you can answer in the affirmative. This is an absurd assumption, and I must hope that was not what was intended.

But therein lies another problem. Ever so many people have spent so very much time over the past weeks pointing out that when trying to understand written communications (e.g. game rules, Q&A answers, etc.) it is nearly impossible to determine the authors intent unless it is made exactingly clear with nearly endless narrative. We have been forced to the conclusion that using personal intuition, logical understanding, and just plain common sense is inappropriate when discussing anything to do with FIRST. Thus, I must put my hopes aside, and be forced into a strict interpretation of the exact words that have been provided. So we will stick with the absurd assumption and see what happens.

Simply put, there are LOTS of ways to spend team funds on activities that could be called "engineering outreach." A minimal standard of quality for any such activity has not been defined for us with this problem, so we have to run through a few examples to determine how they might affect the logic of the problem. Engineering outreach could include everything from creating a new mini-engineering expo open to the public, to printing "Enjiners R Kewl" on 186,292 buttons and handing them out at the shopping mall. Some of these activities will be worthwhile, and others clearly will not. Providing an exciting, detailed, professional quality introduction to engineering achievements and the FIRST program would likely be a worthwhile activity. Stabbing random people with the pointy ends of poorly fabricated buttons imprinted with misspelled propaganda probably would not be as successful at inspiring them. Given these two examples, we make the assertion that there exists a set of activities which satisfy the criteria to be called engineering outreach, but are ineffective at achieving the goals of FIRST.

Once it has been established that such a set of activities exist, then the initial problem statement quickly collapses. If the money is spent on an activity from this set, then it will logically be an ineffective use of the funds. We further assert that use of the team funds to attend a regional competition is an effective mechanism for achieving the goals of FIRST (if this were not the case, then why would so many teams sign up to attend a second event?). Given the surrounding context of the problem statement, we can equate spending funds in the interests of achieving the goals of FIRST as simply "money well spent." By substituting these qualitative valuations into the original problem statement, the problem is simplified into the question "do you believe money could be better spent doing something that is known to be effective, or something that only has a chance of being effective?" Unles you are a former top executive at Enron, the implicit answer to this question must always be "invest in the known effective solution."

Of course, all of this is academic because none of us ARE former top executives from Enron, and we are all able to do whatever we dang well please with our team funds. And that is just the way it should be.

-dave

p.s. and if you think that ANY of this discussion is really about the question that was asked, then you have missed the point.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think two regionals per team, plus nationals is enough. After that, I think the money can be used elsewhere, either promoting engineering, science, technology, or even FIRST.

Let's take a team that has attended four regionals, or three regionals plus nationals. If they had only attended two events, there is an extra $8000 leftover from registration fees alone. That is the kind of money that can create a whole new FIRST team where FIRST can impact so many other students. Sure this new team can only travel to one event, but that is sufficient for FIRST to have an impact.

Also, when a team starts attending more than two regionals, they are in the running for awards that they may have already won. I know that many teams will attend another event and asked not to be included for an award if they have previously won it, and I love that. However, if you have not won an award at your past two regionals, how fair is it for you to win it at your third one? And if you don't disqualify yourself for these awards at your future regional, and it happens to be a championship event-qualifying award, you are taking away the chance for other teams to have the opportunity to go the championship event.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I think a limit on the number of regionals a team can attend would make the competition a bit more fair. My team had enough trouble raising money for one regional this year, but the main problem for us isn't the registration fee, it's the travel costs. We're from North Dakota, and even the closest regional to us is in Colorado, nearly 800 miles away!

My team's trip lasted six days this year (including four school days) because of all the travel time. It complicates things a bit when your budget also has to include food and lodging for six days!

Limiting the number of regionals allowed to one or two would really help even out the playing field for those of us stuck out in the middle of nowhere. :)

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I can't do anything but agree with you..
That was something I had a hard time undertanding when I started in highschool.. some teams were able to goto 3-4 regionals and the nationals.. but we only went to one. but why...oh yeah money... Do teams really need to be going to 3-4.. I dunno. it's not for me to say.. but I dont' see the benefit of it..all the kids on my team get inspired after just one event.. and if it's not about winning.. I still don't see the purpose.. but I'm not on a team that has been to more than 1 regional so I don't know-- oh yeah kids should also think about school =) That's a bit more important than winning a regional :)

can lavery tell which ppl voted for what?

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Everyone commonly brings up the fact that with the money saved from going to one event could start a new team.

I don't think that's accurate at all though. While you may have enough money to start one, can you guarentee you'll have money year to year to give them? Or that you can guarentee there will be sponsors available to fund them yearly? How about mentors?

My point is, that even if a team could afford to start a new team, it really is not a smart idea. Especially in an environment like California, where we are saturated with FIRST teams, what happens after the first year? Can the team find enough money to survive?

I think it's MUCH more preferential to use the money, however the team sees fit, to inspire the current members of the team, than to inspire a group of kids for one year, and leave them to fend for themselves, and likely slowly (or immediately) die out.

$0.02

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I would say that if a team would like to go to more than one regional, let them. Yes, FIRST is about inspiring students in science and technology, but it's also about having fun and meeting new people. These competitions aren't just about trying to win, they're an opportunity to make new friends and ties (that might even end up helping you in the future).
I also think it's an alternative to Nats. now, I don't mean that there's a replacement for Nats, but think about those teams who aren't qualified to go - a second regional could be their way of getting to travel and have fun (even our team was considering going to the other coast for a regional if we didn't qualify for nats). Most of the fun of robotics is just that - the robots, but another chunk of the fun is getting to travel and spend time with friends. So I don't see why a team should be limited to only one regional - let teams go and enjoy themselves.
On the other hand, I also believe there *can* be to many regionals to sign up for. Going to 2 (or even 3...though that's kinda pushing it) regionals is fine, but any more than that, and I would say the team is wasting time and money that could be put to better use. I say time because every regional a team attends means students missing class (and how well can students perform if they're missing close to 2+ weeks worth of class?) and money because that money can be put to the robot or to some good cause if they already have enough money for the bot.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

If teams should be allowed to do whatever they please with their money, should FIRST eliminate all restrictions on how teams spend their money?
If FIRST were to take this route, changes might include:
• Eliminating the $3500 limit on parts used for robots.
• Eliminating the 25-pound limit on fabricated spare/replacement/upgrade parts that you can bring to each regional event (since these parts do not count towards the $3500 limit).
• Eliminating the 120-pound weight limit for robots.
• Lengthening the 6-week build season.

FIRST already has restrictions on how teams can spend their money.
The reason for these restrictions, in my opinion, is twofold. The first is obviously to keep the playing field reasonably level. No one wants there to be teams that win simply by outspending other teams (this isn’t Major League Baseball ;) )
The second reason is that FIRST doesn’t want teams spending every penny they have solely on the robotics competition.

If FIRST did want teams to spend all of their funding on the robotics competition, then why is there a 120-pound weight limit for robots? Why is the build season only 6 weeks long? Why can’t teams build $15,000 robots to compete? (note, a $15,000 robot could be pretty darn inspiring)

The general consensus seems to be that teams have a “right” to spend their money however they want. If this were truly the case, why isn’t everyone denouncing rules like the $3500 limit?

The responses to this thread and the results of the poll have made it clear to me that restricting teams to 1 regional is an unwelcome idea. Ah well, it was worth a shot :). However, I believe that a rule restricting teams to 2 regional events (and the championship event, if a team is eligible) would not be some socialist plot to take away teams’ freedom to spend money. Instead, it would serve to remind teams that FIRST is not purely a robotics competition, but a chance inspire others in the same way that you have been inspired.

Spend your money how you want, but if FIRST wanted teams to spend all of their money building robots and attending competitions, FIRST would have made the season 52 weeks long.

Side note: I’m curious to know if FIRST would be as large and as prosperous as it is today if older (lower numbered) teams hadn’t spent so much time and money to do engineering outreach in the name of FIRST.

-Andrew

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

There may be a few teams that use the so called "drive team method." I personally have not witnessed any. Ever. All I have ever seen from a FIRST team at a regional competition is passion and enthusiasm in all of the members. I have seen small teams, and from what I have seen they are just as inspired as the students on large teams, so doesn't that make the money worth it?

I will assume however that since you brought up this "drive team method" that you have somewhere witnessed a team using it. If that is the case, is it really worth taking away from the experience of students on all of the other teams by limiting all teams to one regional. It is my opinion that FIRST is not about lowering the bar to those with the smallest expectations, but helping helping all teams exceed the standards set by the best.

If I were to guess, I would say that the $3,500 limit was put in place not to control the use of a team's funds, but to enhance the engineering experience. It would be a lot esier to build a competitive robot with $15,000. And that $15,000 robot may well be inspiring. But the $3,500 creates a much more realistic engineering experience with taking away any of it's inspiring qualities.

The six week build phase is similar to the monetary limit. I'm sure teams could build an amazing robot if they had an entire year (and $15,000) to build it in. But the six week build phase more realistically imitates a real world eningeering experience without comprismising the inspiration factor.

The 120 lb weight limit is another case of this. The real world has limits. There are deadlines and there are small budgets and there are project limitations. I think it's great that FIRST is able to achieve the number one goal of inspiration and still create such a wonderfully realistic engineering challenge.

FIRST rules are not about being negative and taking away to level the playing field. They are about creating a unique design challenge while still being an extremely positive experience. Limiting a team to one regional would take away from the experience without significant benefits.

~Allison

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Uunnnhhh, perhaps there is a different reason. Yes, the $3500 limit was initiated to help level the playing field at a reasonable level (i.e. ensure that well-backed teams could not buy an unlimited amount of machining and out-sourced services while other teams struggled to purchase minimal supplies). But it was also done as a specific part of the design challenge. Installing a price cap mimicks real life (virtually every engineering project has a budget cap and spending limitations) and encourages innovation (if you can't just buy a solution to a certain problem, then you have to find a way to create it). Just like the weight, volume, power, and schedule limitations, it was done to constrain the problem to a manageable level. This is done to ensure that the robots can be completed, competed, and then put aside so we can can actually have a life outside of FIRST (yes, I know, this may seem like heresy to some, but it is true!). Attempting to define the spending habits beyond the cost of the robot was never a factor in FIRST's determination of the robot cost limits.

FIRST recognizes that a very high percentage of the teams in the program spend their entire budget just paying for the registration fees, travel costs to attend the events, and purchasing supplies to construct the robot. For most teams, there is NO money left over to fund elaborate outreach activities. The situation alredy exists where teams spend their entire budgets building the robots and competing. And contrary to the previous statements, FIRST is just fine with that. They have not made any attempt to tel lthe teams, explicitly or implictly, how to spend any excess funds they may have (and I would not want them to).

-dave

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Our team 1 time did the "drive train" method. It was 2003 and we won the WM Regional on Saturday. We were iced in and couldn't return till Sunday evening. Championships were on Thursday. We had very little time or resources but decided to take the drive team and a few mentors. The reason for not taking everyone was that at that time tickets were about $1000.00 each and we just couldn't raise the cash that fast.

Were our team members inspired. You bet. I was writing back to the team once or twice a day updating them. It was almost as if they were there. Since that time our team has improved over the last 2 years and I am really proud of them. Remember that a team does not always have to be present but they are always a team.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Ms. K, and Mr. Lavery have both brought up a great point which I failed to think about while I was writing my last post. That is,
&
At the time of my post, I certainly had not considered this aspect of the rules restricting how teams may spend their time and resources. It seemed quite reasonable to me that FIRST would make those limits both in an attempt to prevent overworking students/mentors (which I think Mr. Lavery referred to) and to prevent teams from focusing solely on the competition aspect of FIRST all year-round (which, Mr. Lavery has clearly pointed out, was simply my misconception).

I shall happily agree that “a very high percentage of teams in the program spend their entire budget just paying for the registration fees, travel costs, etc.” But based on that statement alone, we know that some teams (a “very low percentage”, perhaps) have the budget capacity to do more than just attend a regional (and in some cases, nationals). The question then, is NOT:
--Should teams that can afford to attend only one or two regional events not attend those regionals?
But rather:
--Should teams that can afford to go to 3-4 regionals not attend those additional (third and fourth) regionals?

Actually, no, that is not the question at all. Nevermind, don’t answer that one. :)

Perhaps what I have been getting at this whole time is what Mr. Lavery is referring to here (although my opinion would appear to be quite different from Mr. Lavery's):

Although it has been a fairly long while since I last heard the legendary Mr. Dean Kamen speak about robotics, FIRST, engineering, and life (in fact, it was about one year ago); I thought I remembered him talking about “homework.” I could have sworn that in each of the past 4 years that I have attended the championship event, Mr. Kamen has given every team (and person) an assignment:

Spread the word. Help FIRST grow in any and every way you can.

Again, my memory of his exact message is suspect at best, but I do believe that Mr. Kamen has explicitly told us to do everything in our power (whether that includes funds or not) to inspire those who have not yet been inspired.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Mr. Kamen that was conducted by Kathy Kowalenko, posted in this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=Kamen+speech
I take from Mr. Kamen's statements that he explicitly, or implicitly, wants teams to do everything they can to help FIRST grow. I do realize that there are plenty of ways to help FIRST grow, including, of course, attending regional and championship events.

[slight change of topic] One thing that I just thought about is that everyone who spends their time thinking about FIRST in the middle of the night :D , posting on Chief Delphi, wearing neon pink or tie-dyed shirts, designing transmissions for the kit-robot, and/or coming up with thought-provoking YMTCs… we are all inspired. There is no question about that. I am inspired and it feels good.

That being said, there are plenty out there who have not seen the light of inspiration, with regard to science and engineering. It seems as if FIRST is entirely about using every means at your disposal to bring that light of inspiration to the uninspired.

The fact that FIRST has been able to inspire so many people and continue to do so, is, I believe, a testament to the dedication of those who are constantly using their resources to further increase the reach of FIRST. Thanks to every person who has dedicated themselves to promoting FIRST and science/engineering, and inspiring others to get involved (I'm one of those inspired others). Without you, there’d be no discussion about how best to inspire; indeed, there would be no torch of inspiration to pass on to the next generation of FIRST participants.

All of this aside, thanks to everyone for the thoughtful discussion.

-Andrew

P.S. Feel free to tell me if I am way off base about anything I mentioned in this post :).

P.P.S. In the first post of this thread, I was referring to Team 384 (Sparky). I mistakenly typed in Team 364 (not that they aren't great too!).

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Agreed. Our team would love to help start new teams in our area, but we just don't have the funds. Every year before kick off, we struggle to get secure funds to register for the first regional. At that time, no one is even thinking about a 2nd or 3rd regional, or even championships. This gives us no possible way to spend our funds on anything other than for our own team.

I realize that the real world operates like this, that every project hinges on amount of money involved. But if the true mission of FIRST is to get kids invovled in science and technology through the really fun competition, then shouldn't every team get the means to be able to spread the word of FIRST.

Every year I hear the homework assignment from Dean, and every year I wanted my team to try and start up a new team in a nearby high school, but year after year, we fall short on money and there is simply no time or money to to do anything.

That's my spiel.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

My team attends 3 or 4 regionals every year, and each year we make attempts to get another team started at that highschool, they refuse to accept us though, they don't have any interest... and that saddens me that they don't

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

As we start to dissect Dean's quote, there is one important factor that I want to make sure is remembered. On a regular basis, FIRST and Dean are quick to point out that FIRST is not just the FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC). FIRST is about inspiration, cultural transformation, mentorship, celebration of creativity, and recognition of innovation. Those goals are not limited to just one part of their program, or just the FRC. When Dean speaks of having a FIRST team in every high school in the country, he is not necessarily saying that every high school will have a FRC team - he is saying that every high school will make some element of the FIRST experience available to their students. He is saying that he wants every student exposed to that message of inspiration, cultural transformation, mentorship, celebration of creativity, and recognition of innovation. It may be done through a FRC team. But it may also be a FLL Mentoring program, or perhaps a FIRST VEX team (let's see where that one goes), or an implmentation of other parts of the FIRST program that are currently in the development pipeline from Manchester.

In other words, there is not a complete one-to-one relationship between FIRST and FRC. Helping FIRST grow does not necessarily have to mean helping FRC grow. It could mean helping FLL, VEX, or a future to-be-announced part of FIRST. And if that is the case, then is it necessary - or is it even appropriate - to ask FRC teams to foot the bill for that growth?

-dave

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%.


Again, I agree wholeheartedly. This is precisely why I began this thread: to point out that FIRST is not just the FIRST Robotics Competition.


Absolutely. In fact, I could not imagine a more appropriate or capable group of people to whom this task could be appointed. Who better to spread the word of FIRST than teams of dedicated engineers, enthusiastic teachers and college students, and inspired high school students?

-Andrew

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

But Andrew, I see an enormous difference between asking a group such as the FRC teams to help grow the FIRST program, and asking them to PAY for growing the FIRST program.

In the interests of playing the devil's advocate, I would pose the question at the opposite extreme: the FRC teams are helping FIRST grow their program. FIRST is the most direct beneficiary of those efforts, not the FRC teams. If that is the case, is it really appropriate for FIRST to ask the FRC teams to pay for the privilege of growing FIRST? Shouldn't it really be the other way around - for every new FRC (or VEX or FLL) team that a FRC team creates, should they be paid a reward by FIRST? ;)

-dave

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Well, I for one wouldn't complain!
I'll admit that paying to attend multiple regionals is a stretch for any team, but money-management is just another facet of the yearly challenge. Developing new fundraisers, finding new sponsors, and eventually, finding the time to create a new team are all integral parts of FIRST that are oftentimes harder than creating the robot itself.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Should teams be allowed more than one regional?

Of course!

FIRST is about inspiration, and some of the most inspiring moments comes from seeing people from other regions, sometimes even other COUNTRIES, compete with the same ideals as you. Looking across the pits and seeing a crew of high schoolers from South Carolina that you would have never met in your life otherwise and seeing them studying their machine the same way you were seconds before. Being able to go up to them, completely comfortable in doing so, and ask them for aide, knowing that I'd recieve an affirmative. Asking them questions about their robot, knowing that a friendly conversation would ensue. Forgetting all about the warnings our parents gave about not trusting strangers at all. Or looking at the eyes of a fellow drive coach after a vicious match, where an opponent lay on the field damaged, and without words traded between either of you, knowing that you are both going to rush over to the aid of that wounded bot. Seeing more refreshing and widespread signs of good in this world.

Being able to travel to more than your home regional allows you to see that FIRST is truly working. It allows you to learn more about how the world works than within your own home state, which some of us won't get to leave until college, if that.

Or I could just be rambling. My apologies. It's late for me.

Also - you work for countless hours on your robot. Of COURSE you want to be able to compete with it multiple times. Unfortunately, yes, there is budget restrictions on some teams that disallow them from traveling to a second regional and even nationals. It is a sad but true part of life in FIRST. But for those that do have the money, why not?

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

My only issue with a lot of the comments in this thread, is that it all seems to be based around funding. True inspiration does NOT come from funding. And a lot of the teams with financial resources, may not have an overabundance of engineering resources. Take our team. We have a very stable and very generous sponsor: Harris Corporation. However, when it came down to the six weeks, we really had about 10 engineers (for 30 students). And probably half of those were part time (meaning they could only make it a few times a week). Looking at these numbers, next year, I would not start another team. I would use the engineers I have to give quality time to the kids that we have. I feel its better to give a smaller number of students a truely inspiring experience, than it is to give a large number of students a mediocre experience. Additionally, the logistics that go into starting and running an additional team are HUGE! I spent over 45 hours a week outside my job just to get 1511 up and running, and get everyone organized. There is no way we could have handled doing that for a second team. My hat goes off to teams like the triplets of Toronto who can gather, organize, sustain and put forth multiple teams.

Additionally, further support for my "inspiration does not come from money" pitch, is that we can go to the middle schools with our robot for free, do presentations and mini seminars for them for FREE. We can introduce other schools to FIRST for FREE... at zero cost to us. We even held a large community scrimmage for 10 local teams, and we paid under $500 for EVERYTHING! It was still a very fun, very inspiring event.

So in the end, if teams have the funds to attend multiple regionals, I still say go for it. Give the students as much competition for their hard work that year as you can afford. And especially now that Championships are not "anyone can register" a lot of teams are using multiple regionals to 1. give the same experience, or 2. to have a better shot at getting their kids to championships. Plus think about your seniors... this may be there last shot... shouldnt they get as much out of this year as possible??

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Here is my theory on the matter:
Teams that attend more than one Regional reduce the cost for all teams to attend Regionals. This promotes the growth of FIRST by increasing the number of teams and Regionals

I’ve never been part of a Regional planning committee so I don’t know the exact costs involved in hosting a Regional. However, I think it is safe to assume that:
1) Fixed costs (site rental, playing field, etc...) are high
2) Marginal costs to add one more team (power, spare parts, etc…) are less than the marginal revenue ($4000 fee) until the venue reaches maximum capacity.
(Sorry bout the economic jargon, but its nice to see my minor in Economics is coming in handy :) )

The optimal number of teams at a Regional is the maximum capacity, from a profit-maximizing standpoint (loss-minimizing in FIRST’s case). FIRST has 30 Regionals and let’s say about 900 teams because it’s a nice number. If teams were only allowed to attend one Regional, the average Regional would only have 30 teams. This is significantly less than the capacity of the smallest venue (41 at Philly) and less than half the capacity of some of the larger Regional. To make up for this loss in revenue, FIRST would have to raise the cost of the kit and registration for a Regional (currently $6000) and/or reduce the number of Regionals.

Keeping the cost of the kit and entry down is important since it is the minimum annual cost of fielding a FIRST team. If this cost increases, less potential new teams will be able to raise the money for the entry fee. Also, more existing teams would have financial difficulties and possibly go bankrupt (dropout of FIRST).

If teams could only attend one Regional, there would not be enough participants to support 30 Regionals. Some Regionals are more popular than others, so the less popular Regionals would be starved for competitors. This year, the Waterloo Regional had the bare minimum of 24 teams in attendance. I don’t think teams 40 and 68 would have traveled to this regional if it meant they would not be allowed to attend BAE and GLR as well.

Is it fair that some teams attend more Regionals than others? No, but FIRST isn’t fair and never will be. Some teams will always have advantages (money, experience, engineers, etc…) over other teams.

In FIRST, it doesn’t really matter if the competition is totally fair, as long as the competition is fun. The actual competition aspect of FIRST has always been a means to an end. The competitions are fun so teams keep coming back and more teams join. More Regionals are added, increasing FIRST’s exposure in that region. More teams join because they have a local Regional now. FIRST continues to grow. Along the way more and more students every year are learning that engineering is more than just difficult equations for geeks. Engineering can be a fun and rewarding experience that everyone can do if they try. The culture of young people around the world changes for the better simply because robotic competitions are fun.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

I personally feel the more you attend the better. You spend 6 weeks working on a robot , why wouldnt you want to use it as much as you possibly could this year team 56 went to the Sacramento Regional, New Jersey Regional, and Philadelphia Regional and being we won the Philadelphia Regional we are now also goin to Nationals. This took a lot of work out of all the students on the team not so much to get the money for regionals but we were able to raise $15,000 in 2 weeks to be able to send half of our team to nationals. i think it will definately be worth all the work because we get to use our bot once again! and cant wait to see how we do. ATTEND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ITS WORTH IT.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

Teams rely on regionals to qualify for nationals, if they only have one regional and something goes wrong... well they're in trouble.

Re: Should teams be allowed to attend multiple regionals?
 

What if FIRST tried to place a cap of, say $5000 of "value added" on INSOURCED machining provided by the teams' sponsoring organization? Boy, would that ever change things!!

More on-topic is this. I feel a team should be allowed to attend as many regionals as they want, but my 10 years in FIRST says that two is the right number. You need more than one to get the driver experience and robot debugging necessary to be competitive at the Championship, but attending three or four regionals takes kids out of too much school and most mentors away from work too much.