Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

What is the feeling about teams who compete at their "home" regional and then go on to compete at other regionals (some nearby, and others far away) ?

FIRST espouses "gracious professionalism", yet as I listened to the Championship webcast, I was amazed at the number of top teams who had won multiple awards at several regionals leading to Atlanta.

Some rookie teams struggle just to field a robot, yet there are veteran teams who are well-resourced and with deep pockets, who are travelling the countryside and beating the local talent on their home turf. What does this really say about the FIRST competition system ?

Does this REALLY encourage new teams to come back again next year when the out-of-towners take all the prestigious awards, and deny the locals a chance to go to Atlanta ?

The more I think about this, the more I keep wishing for FIRST to take some proactive steps to limit teams to entering their "home" regional event (the closest within their region, or if two are equally close, then they must nominate one as the home event) to qualify for Atlanta, and if they enter other "away" regionals, then they can compete, but are not eligible for moving into the elimination rounds, and that goes to the local teams instead.

I'm interested to know what others think about this.

Cheers

J

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

This same topic has been made 2 or 3 times this season already, and I think they all had devolved into locked flame-wars.

Teams that do great are just role models, IMO. I know our team strives to be as awesome as many of the "big teams".

EDIT: As far as the "home regional" thing, then realize that certain regionals would be pretty stacked, and the Championship might be a little askew.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If they can afford it there is no reason why FIRST should legislate where teams compete or how many times they compete.
It's just senseless for them to do so.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Define regional and you have my answer. Change the name, it is very misleading. As for actually competing in qualifying events, I think a reasonable cap needs to be established either by the community (which seems to be 2-3) or by FIRST which is currently 6.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I kind of agree, due to FIRST calling it a "regional", hey! Why not make it a regional? When sport teams compete at a sectional, are they able to compete at three different sectionals? No. Then again, robotics is much cooler in sports in a way that it is a learning experience, so attending more regionals is a great way to become more involved in the FIRST community. Also, limiting teams to the number of events, is like saying your limiting a kids learning experience...It's just hard to do. Also, this subject has been beaten up a couple of times...search for it. In the end, it truly is a hard topic to come to a final conclusion.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'm always very happy when a great team comes to visit my region because I personally don't have the time or funds to travel to other regionals or the championship. I get to see some amazing game play and get to see what that team did to be good.

This year I was very happy to get a chance to see 1625 because I liked there design and wanted to see it up close. The fact that they swept my local regional is a mute point IMO.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

We always do our home regional even if we are not determined to win in Trenton. After that we are known to go down south somewhere (eg: Palmetto, Chesapeake). And we love going there. So what exactly should be stopping teams from going if say..they are finalists one place and then decide to go somewhere else because they know they will have improved and win?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I agree this issue was covered pretty well here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...le+regional s

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If they feel that it's the best use of their money, let 'em run.

Part of gracious professionalism is professionalism. I would be severely disappointed in my team if we didn't give it all we had at every competition we attended.

Ignoring the rookie and veteran labels used, exactly that: there are teams that struggle to field a robot and deep-pocketed teams. At no point has FIRST said either is a bad thing, so long as there is inspiration afoot.

Yes. In the words of legendary professional wrestler Ric Flair, "to be the man, you gotta beat the man."

Which, in effect, undermines the purpose of the qualification rounds. Consider 2237 at Palmetto, the #2 seed. Do we toss them out of the elimination rounds because they competed at Pittsburgh as well? What would a spectator who isn't as versed in the competition think? What would that do for teams that choose to travel to expand their horizons?

Instead of holding the top teams down, let's bring the bottom teams up. (And if you talk to those top teams, many of them are making great strides to do so!)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

After 6 weeks of such hard work, our team decides that two regionals are more rewarding than one. It means that our students must do extra work for us to go, but once we get there it's amazing and we get to make friends with a lot of new teams. Last year, for instance, we were the only team attending both the Chesapeake regional and the Pittsburgh regional, so we never competed with or against the same robot. Attending two regionals also spreads our image to the community. Instead of only being listed in the paper once, we are listed at least three times: once at the end of build season and once after each competition.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Each regional a team attends has a greater chance of inspiring them and teaching them something. Why on Earth would you want to limit that?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

My main point is that a team competing in multiple regionals shouldn't be able to take home awards everywhere they go just because they have the $$$ to do so, and at the expense of the smaller-budget teams. Once they go to their first regional competition, it should become "practice only" (non-qualifying) at other events, and that should include being ineligible for the off-field awards too.

If every team could find a way to attend 2 or 3 regionals, especially if they were geographically convenient to home base, wouldn't that give them a much better (perhaps unfair) chance of qualifying for the Championship than if they competed locally, and then sat around for 4-6 weeks waiting for Atlanta (assuming you were pre-qualified) or else were eliminated and had to wait for next year to try again.

What do the top NASCAR / F1 / Indy teams do between races ? They spend time and money on practice, and practice, and more practice, and throw in plenty of workshop time too (without fix-it windows !). But, regardless of all that, they can't go out and add a few extra races to their season to give them more points in their championships.

In professional sports, the teams get a given match / event schedule, and over the course of the season up the finals rounds, each team will play the same number of games.

In FIRST, that's not the case. But, should it be ?

J

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On one hand, I love seeing all of the interesting robots made by out-of-state teams (not that the in-state teams don't have interesting robots). On the other hand, it always seems like the top few teams are from out-of-state. Plus, teams at their second regional have had time to work out more of the bugs, which puts them at an even greater advantage.

Overall, I wish that I had pushed for us to go to a second regional. In retrospect, I think we would've been a lot happier to have a second chance, even if we didn't make nationals. Plus, it would keep us from complaining about the other teams who did it.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I don't see this as a problem at all. If a team has the money to do it why should they be stopped. Think of it as more opportunities for them inspire and help other teams.

Also the idea of FIRST being completely fair is not really valid. It is more like the real world in which some people or teams have more resources, and the other teams have to make do with what they have until they to work to obtain those resources.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'm not against "teaching". I am against the idea that a well-resourced team with (relatively) massive amounts of sponsorship funding, mentors and facilities can travel around squashing the "little guys", who are the new rookie teams that Dean Kamen and others so desparately want to attract to this competition.

Whether you realised it or not, you saw it happen this weekend in Atlanta, where the highest ever team number to be a Championship Winner in the finals alliance was team 1114. That means there are over half the teams with numbers above that who have NEVER been to that dizzying level.

Looking at

http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/eve...in/awards.html

the Rookie awards were for teams 2352 and 2599, who are 1200+ team numbers AFTER those in the Winners alliance. How many years will it be before we see those teams being part of the winning alliances ?

J

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Perhaps it's because the teams that have the resources to do multiple events have the systems in place that make them more effective at achieving their objectives (inspiring students, changing the culture, etc.).

Nevermind that many teams fare better at their second event than at their first (which then causes issues already discussed with the competition).

A better chance? Yes. An unfair chance? No. If you've worked to form the partnerships required to afford multiple events, you've earned it. (That's coming from the mentor of a one-regional-a-year team.) I'll leave alone the fact that at no point has FIRST called for its competition to be perfectly fair.

You're drawing an apples-to-oranges comparison. In a professional sports league, the teams are all competing together in contests that can only generally happen around one match per day over several months, and the teams in contention don't change over the span of time that play is underway. In FRC, that's a regional competition. To compare multiple regionals with professional sports would be akin to saying that the Atlanta Braves would play the first half of its season in the National League and the second half in the American League.

No.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

What do team numbers have to do with the winning alliance on einstein and how many regionals a team attends. There were plenty of rookie bots at the championship, they were simply not good enough to make it to einstein or for the most part the eliminations of the divisions either. The teams with large budgets attending and winning multiple regionals has nothing to do with the lack of rookie teams on einstein.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I think the problem is more that there are teams that struggle just to make it to one regional and other can afford to go to as many as they want where ever they want.

If you look at teams that travel across the country, their robots are high machined and well built. This is because they have better resources than other teams, more machines, more material, and more money and time to prototype (time spent fundraising for other teams can be spent designing and making parts). So their bot are going to preform well because of the time and money put into them. Which means that at competitions they are going to win.

By stopping them from entering multiple regionals you may give more teams a chance but the best Robot want necessarily win. The fact remain the best Robots do win, mot at ever time, upsets are possible but in general...

Also keep in mind that these team didn't go to 2+ regionals then they would have an extra 15k to spend in entry fees a travel, (more in some cases). Are they going to donate this to other teams, maybe but more likely they are going to spend it to make their Robot better. Which means they are only going to increase their advantage over the rest of the field.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

The teams that have all this money to go places to win awards probably take initiative to get more sponsors for that money, and should be seen as examples on working to get more sponsors! Ask somebody from their teams. This is FIRST. I'm sure anyone would give pointers or forward you to someone who will.

Also, the judges don't give out awards for money. They give out awards for hard work and effort. Every team should and can put up the effort to make the judge's job that much harder. That's what FIRST is about!

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If there are no top tier teams, then who do we look up to for inspiration?


I see no reason why FIRST should limit the number of regionals a team attends; if that team can afford it and their students and mentors can cope with the missed school/work respectively, then more power to them.

When one sees an excellent robot or team, why not take note of what they are doing right and apply it to your own team? "Well-resourced" teams with "deep pockets" don't just spring up, they are usually the result of a lot of hard work. And many of these teams are also quite large (upwards of 50-100 students), thus inspiring more students per season.

And yes, I do know what it feels like to be on a team with little resources. Over the course of two seasons from 2002 to 2004, the annual budget for my high school team (Team 228) dropped by over $30,000, our founding coach retired from teaching and mentoring the team, and our team size dropped from 40 to 15 students. The 2005 and 2006 seasons were tight, but we were determined to help being ourselves back to our previous levels of success, and worked constantly to help find new sponsors, teachers, mentors, and students.

To this day, we are still working hard, but we have also brought the team size back up to around 20-25 students, still working on recovering our pre-2002 sponsorship levels, recruiting several new engineers to our team (one of which was a student on our team back in 1999), professionalizing many aspects of our team, starting summer camps with interactive labs to teach our team members even more, and building the foundation for our team to incorporate as our own 501(c)3.

All of these changes are being made on the aspirations that one day we will again be able to compete at multiple regionals again, with the option of also competing at the Championships. (For the past few years, we've only competed at the CT Regional and the Championships). If all of a sudden FIRST came out and declared that we could only attend one regional, a good majority of the impetus for improving our team every year would dissolve.


FIRST should not dictate how teams run themselves; they should provide resources and incentives to teams to put their nose to the grindstone and continue working to help bring success to their team.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I somewhat agree with placing the suggested restriction on teams.

It's not really inspiring when a team looses a chance in nationals to a team that has three or more chances to get to nationals.

I don't like the idea that to get to nationals, a team has to preform better than every single big name team that has enough money to attend more than one regional. The national competitions are supposed to determine which team preformed the best that year, not the regionals.

I'm not sure how the number of top tier teams is related to the number of regionals teams can enter.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

i would like to point out that 254 has won like 20 regionals in their history and has never won nationals. But there picked every year because they have established themselves. Teams in the 2000's need to prove that their robot isn't going to brake and leave the alliance with a scoring robot. The first time you team qualifies for nationals they aren't very likely to win because they haven't prove themselves at the national level. Three years ago their was only one team over 1000 in the Finals? this year there was 1114, 1124, 1024, and some others which I forget (sorry).

The point is that teams in the 2000's have to prove themselves by beating these top teams before they are going to be selected. They need to do this first a the regional level and then at nationals. Note 1114 did this. They have won multiple regionals the past few year. Teams need to earn there spot by beating the best teams, so I don't see the point in preventing the best teams from competing, and thus allowing other teams the chance to prove their worth.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I don't think attending more than one regional is just about having a better chance at winning a regional, going to Atlanta or winning awards. FIRST shouldn't just be about winning.

There are two reason to attend more regionals:

1. Meet, teach and inspire more teams. Like mentioned above, the teams that have enough funds to attend more than one regional, have to be doing something right. These teams usually have alot of experience that they can teach other teams. By going to more than one regional, these teams have more opportunity to teach and inspire other teams, including rookies. I know in my rookie year at Wisconsin, I know I was inspired and learned from teams like 70, 494, 111, 1625, who were all making Wisconsin thier second regional. Although all of these teams reached the finals and I'm sure won their fair share of awards, they were also fantastic role models for the plethora of younger and rookie teams in Wisconsin that year.

2. Regionals are fun and should celebrate all the work that teams do. Teams put in a ton of work each year and the regionals is where they can enjoy all the work they put in. The teams that attend more than one regional, usually are the teams that put in the most work, so it makes sense that they should be allowed to enjoy and celebrate the work that they put in.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

*my entrance into this hot topic*

In our rookie year, we attended two regionals, and the championships. We won the Rookie All-star award and the Website Design award. We had 4 major corporate sponsors, and a world-class robot, completely designed and built by students with guidance from our fine mentors, teachers, and parents. Our team's image, logo, and mission was clearly displayed and well known everywhere we went. We partnered with a deaf school to reach across disability lines to spread the message of FIRST to everyone.

How did we do it?

We had a set of awesome parents, and awesome teachers, who were determined to have an awesome robotics team. With careful planning, we were able to find the corporate sponsors we needed to do everything that we did. We found the mentors that we needed to help with the design process of our robot. We spent the time planning and preparing to work with students from the deaf school. We have some VERY determined individuals on our team that made all of this possible.

Their work would be in vein, and would be partially nullified if we were not allowed to compete in multiple regionals.


Imagine the U.S. only being allowed to compete in ONE track event at the Olympics, because it would be unfair to have multiple shots at a track medal.

-Jacob, Team 1991

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Sorry for being blunt, but life isn't fair and most teams dont just inherit an unfair advantage. They work for it.
I think as a Hawaii participant even from one of the most remote places on our island, we've had to overcome a lot of hurdles and challenges just to get where we are, 9 years and counting. Its been a roller coaster ride.
The fact that so many "excellent" teams came to our regional, winning many of the awards, didnt outweigh the positives of what they brought to our 21 rookie teams this year. The proof is when these "mainland" teams had nothing but nice things to say and shared whatever questions and information that the new "rookies" wanted to know.

Embrace the challenge, dont shoot it down.:)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Kudos, I was just going to point out your team to answer this one :]

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

It seems to me that you have a classic issue of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" -- and if that is a FIRST precept, then I must excuse myself and find another program to inspire students, because this one is clearly not for me.

I think the problem is not that the "Best Teams" excel, it is that in doing so, they often prevent "Pretty Good Teams" from excelling too. The answer is clearly NOT to keep the Best Teams from /going/ to additional regionals, because certainly they set an example of something to strive for, etc.

But the issue of how awards and Atlanta invitations are handled is a bit problematic, I think.

As it stands, I believe when a team wins a regional and already has a slot in Atlanta, their Championship slot is opened up to whoever happens to register for it first. This seems somewhat unfair to, for example, the alliance that just barely lost the last round of the finals at that regional. It would seem to make more sense if they awarded "deferred" slots (for lack of a better term) in some sort of logical order, rather than just randomly. After all, there are already open slots available for first-come-first-serve registration.

For awards, if one of the Best Teams does a lot of Award X kind of work, for example, and wins that award at three different regionals, it again seems unfair to the runner-up Pretty Good Teams also striving for Award X. Maybe some clause should be included that once you win an award at a regional, you forfeit that award at any other regionals? Something like that?

Some might say that this now seems unfair to the Best Teams. Why shouldn't they get Award X at every regional if they deserve it more than the Pretty Good Teams? After all, they're the Best at X. My answer to that is that I personally believe that you should share the opportunities, and that you should strive (and strive hard) to beat your opponents, but not to crush and humiliate them -- that is how you can be "professional" and win, but still be a "gracious" winner.

There is no need to do a three-peat at regionals to prove you're the best at X -- that's precisely what the Championship is for, after all.

Cheers...

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

The love of competition is human nature. If I can find a way to come up with the funding and give the kids on my team one more chance to compete, I will do everything in my power to make that happen.

I've been on teams in the past where the travel is the only time the students have been on a plane, the only time they've been out of state or country. It becomes an experience for them, especially if they would otherwise be unable to afford the trip.

Because of our travels, our kids have made friends with teams all over the US and Canada. They ate meals at competition with these kids and we joined forces with other teams to scout our division at Championship. We like being able to travel and compete with our 'friend teams' and enjoy playing against the 'big dogs' of FIRST. Even if we play and lose every match against them, it gives us a reason to try harder next year and gives us a goal to work towards.

I've been on a team so poor that I donated a chunk of my tuition money to them. And yet, even when we put our robot back in the crate and went home, the conversation in the car always was, "Man, did you SEE that robot? Now THEY were awesome!" And even though our year was over, the competition set a bar for us to aspire to reach.

You can be a one-regional team and have an inspiring experience in this program. Limiting those teams who are better off than we are doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel worse. Who are we to lower the bar?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Personally this topic is a very important one to me. Going to 3 regional competitions is a feat in itself. If you can build a robot that can last 3 regionals and championship be my guest. Good luck just accomplishing that task. Then go and win three events it's nearly impossible teams that go to 3 regionals and champs or 3 and 4 events are what is supposed to draw the rookies in. I stay in FIRST because I am continually inspired to better myself and my team as a whole. Just that fact alone is worth it for me. The teams that inspire have worked hard and are well organized so that they can do such things as 4 FRC events. 1114 for example just doesn't build great robots neither does 67 or 217. These teams also have exceptional websites, community outreach and chairmans teams. They also have gone out and gotten the sponsorships and raised money to do all this traveling. All I am saying is that being a topflight FRC veteran team year in and year out takes a lot more then deep pockets and you should respect the work that these teams do. The more rookies that see the great veteran teams the better, they will be able to learn from the best and find out what works and what doesn't. So that they too one day can become a great FIRST team with there own ideas,programs and budgets.

My two cents,
Drew

* This post is my own thoughts and does not reflect the views of team 1251.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I don't think that this would be fair. Let's say that you're on a team that's above average, but still not "top-tier" yet. You can afford to go to two regionals. At your first regional, the field is stacked full of top-tier robots who win all the awards. You still have a pretty cool robot, just not as cool as all the other robots. Let's say your second regional was filled with teams that had robots "not as cool" as yours. If your team was ineligible to win any awards that it COULD win, it is unfair to all the participants. There's no real "fair" way that awards can be limited. The hard work that a team puts into their robot should be recognized. How and where do you draw the line to say this team has been recognized enough? You can win different awards at different regionals, not necessarily winning the same award at every regional, with perhaps the exception being the Website Award.

For my team, we won the Rockwell Automation award for our steering system at SVR. When we got to Hawaii, another team had a "better" or more impressive control system. However, we were rewarded for all the little things (DBS steering system, vacuum, driver/operator LED hats, etc.) we had on our robot with the Judges' Award. I'm glad we were able to win both awards because just about every aspect of our team was recognized through both awards.

Honestly, I don't think it is fair for a team that is "not as deserving" to win an award over a team that has been deemed ineligible just because it was their second regional.

P.S. I was in Atlanta for a day visiting Georgia Tech and decided to drop by the Georgia Dome for about an hour. One of the first things I did when I went into the pits was find the 1114 machine and see it in person. I wouldn't have had the chacne to be so impressed with their engineering feats if they had only attended one regional. With each regional, they gained more and more publicity, demonstrating that they truly are a top team.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If teams are only limited to one regional, then there would be a lot of teams who are Regional Champions. But when you can attend multiple regionals, the really good teams win multiple awards at multiple competitions and place themselves a cut above the rest.

These are the teams that inspire; the ones that engineer awe-inspiring designs or build rock solid machines, or have been able to start more FRC teams than one can count on both hands. These are the role models for FIRST.

Lowering the bar to force equality upon a group of participants is never a good idea. It's a horrible idea as No Child Left Behind, and it would be a horrible idea in FIRST. The only thing it would do is drag down the top tier teams, which are the usually role model teams and some of the strongest for growing, expanding and inspiring in the program.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Newton Division Winners:

330 - 67 - 503 (2005)
968 - 233 - 60 (2008)

Archimedes Division Winners:

245 - 217 - 766 (2005)
1124 - 1024 - 177 (2008)

Galileo Division Winners:

56 - 254 - 64 (2005)
1114 - 217 - 148 (2008)

Curie Division Winners:

175 - 33 - 108 (2005)
67 - 16 - 348 (2008)

This shows that there has been an increase in the average team number of the divisional winning alliance... (if you look at all the divisional winners since say 2000 i believe this would hold true as well)

Now taking a loot at how many teams above 1000+ where involved in the eliminations we get:

Newton: 10 (2056, 1574, 2016, 1251, 1625, 1502, 1714, 1086, 1806, 2591)
Archimedes: 8 (2166, 1124, 1024, 2081, 1218, 2335, 1598, 1771)
Galileo: 8 (1114, 1717, 2340, 1450, 1983, 2046, 1089, 1503)
Curie: 8 (1592, 1126, 1511, 2337, 2171, 1071, 1649, 2344)

so that is 34 teams out of 128 teams were numbers 1000+, considering these teams have only been in first since 2003 (so this would be there 6th year).

Also looking at the teams we have:

the #1 alliance on curie was made up of ALL teams being over 1000.
the #2 alliance on curie was led by team 2337
of the 8 alliances made on curie 5 of them were led by teams over 1000.
of the 8 alliances on newton 6 of them were led by teams over 1000
the #2 alliance was led by a 2nd year team
the #3 alliance was led by team 1574 (on of the Israel teams)
the #5 seeded alliance on archimedes was made up entirely of teams above 1200.
the #1, 2, and 3 alliances on Galileo were captained by teams over 1000 (1114, 1717, and 2340)


In all honesty i think that teams over 1000 are doing exceptionally well for being as new as a lot of them are. and its part of the challenge right?


As for being able to go to multiple regionals i'd say that that is perfectly fine... there was a statement made that 1114 went to 3 regionals, won them all and took awards home. Honestly if i was to attend a regional that was suppose to be dominated by a team it would give me that much more drive to beat them.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I don't know about those particular teams, but I was astonished to see a rookie team, 2340, seeded 3rd on Galileo. In Curie, 2337 was seeded 2nd; they even made it to their division semifinals. With this kind of performance from rookies, I wouldn't be too concerned about who wins the Championship. It could very well be one of them next year.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I am a bit unsure of the point you are trying to make with this post. Are you suggesting that if the "powerhouse" teams did not go to multiple regionals that higher numbered teams would magically start appearing on Einstein?

Would 1114 or 330 or 968 or any other powerhouse team be any worse at Championships because they only went to one regional? Yes, they would have less time to make and test tweaks in a competition situation. They would also have less time driving in a competition situation (although for many or all of the powerhouse teams, not less time driving period due to practice bots). However, I would suggest that even with these teams limited to one regional they would still be the ones that come out of the heap at Championships.

The reason for this is experience. Not necessarily experience in terms of number of competitions (although I think this does help some), but experience in terms of number of robots built and number of different games played. These lower numbered teams have a lot of knowledge built up through experience. There are a lot of things that seem good on paper, but don't work quite as well in the actuality of a FIRST competition, the lower numbered teams have seen these or even tried them themselves and built up the information on their success or failure. Each year these teams have been able to look at the things that have gone well and the things that didn't go so well and have been able to improve for the next year. These teams have not remained powerhouse teams through sitting stagnant, the rest of FIRST would have long since passed them by if this were the case. These teams are constantly evaluating and improving themselves to stay at the top. You can limit them to one regional, but they will still be the teams left standing when all is said and done on Einstein.

I am personally extremely inspired by these powerhouse teams and seek to bring our team up to their level, not them down to ours. I think that these powerhouses establish themselves through competing at multiple regionals, so I would like to see the rules regarding this remain the way they are.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'd like to address a couple of things here.

Firstly, I think the idea of teams attending multiple regionals allows for opportunities that would not otherwise be possible in terms of exposure. I'll point out a couple of personal examples.
It's always amazing to see some of the incredible robots that are at the Waterloo Regional and the Greater Toronto Regional. We have a multitude of home-grown talent, but there are always some American teams who make the trip up north that add so much to the competition. Some very impressive teams such as 68, 176, 217, 229, and 703 have made the trip up, however, if regional attendance were to be limited, I'm not so sure we would see so many of these teams up in Canada. Seeing some of these great teams is a rare opportunity, and allowing for teams to travel to regionals as they please is really the only way to encourage this sort of exposure. Great things can come about as a result of this exposure. For four years Team 4/22 and Team 188 had an international exchange program that saw us travel to the each other's "home" regional. Everyone involved had tremendous experiences as a result of the program, and many of us still remain in contact to this day. However, none of it would have been possible with a capped regional attendance system. Winning is not the goal in what we do. I think if people look beyond that aspect of the competition, and took the time to embrace everything else that makes up FIRST, everyone will come away much more enlightened, much more inspired, and much happier.

Secondly, it seems a lot of these sorts of threads are coming about as a result of disdain towards successful teams. People need to stop vilifying these teams and instead see them for the valuable sources of inspiration that they are. Talk to them, ask them questions, they will tell you all about anything you want to know. That's how you can improve. Also, the prospect of facing up to these "powerhouse" teams should never discourage anyone. It should instead be seen as a challenge that, like every other challenge during the FIRST season, one must find some way of overcoming. Team 188 has faced some pretty stacked alliances in the past few years (1114/1503 in '06, 254/330 in '07, 1114/2056 in both '07 and '08). However, despite who we are up against, we are never willing to settle for anything less than our very best attempt to beat our opponents. We may fall short in our efforts, but that only makes us hungrier to try again.

If a powerhouse team is at the same regional as you are, I think to a degree you have to almost want face them. You have to be driven to want to beat the best. There is really only one way to get better as a team, and that is to play against teams that are better than yourself. You don't have to beat stronger teams to get better, but I certainly think that the only way to get better is to be forced to push the envelope against stronger teams.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair? Right Idea, but you are asking the wrong question.

Soapbox time: (Please read because I think I am stating a new point for this thread even though it is not new to FRC)
Does competing in multiple regionals make you better? For most of the teams that compete yes.
Should the awards be limited?
They currently are. For several awards you are only allowed to submit at 1 regional.
Should teams be limited by geography? This one is interesting to me being a Michigan team. For the last several years we have competed in only in Michigan. This year we went to Midwest.
End of the year results: 1 second place, 2 tech awards. We were the #2 pick on Curie (I take this to mean we had a strong team) where as a 2 time regional champion was not picked. Would it be "fair" to those starting michigan teams to have to go up against: 67, 27, 217, 47, ......... Not really if fair is defined by everyone have an even playing field. That being said you will hear no complaints from 2337. They were the #2 seed on Curie because they got some experience by going against those strong teams at multiple regionals.

How many kids would want to play soccer if they had to do drills for 4 hours a night and all day Saturday for 6 weeks just to get to play 1 soccer game that decides whether or not they get the opportunity to play a second soccer game. Not many.

The right questions that we should be spending our time on is how to get low budget teams to be able to compete several times.
How to get a $10,000 season to include 3 local events, maybe 1 or 2 large regionals, and then a national?
How can we set up these events to not have too much out of school time and too much time away from work?
How do we get every team up to the level of these marquis teams?
How do we get people to come and see these events? (as Dean always says, if they see it they will get it)

Let me take a moment to compare arguably the best robot and best competition team this year and compare them to a sports team (the model we were told we are trying to follow). These is only from the information I have read and from talking with them.

There machine is elegant. If you really look at it the machine itself is incredibly simply. Given a 1114 kit, most teams could get that made in 6 weeks. For football, most schools have enough atheletes to field a team. 1114 attended 3 events. Most high school football teams attend about 10 games. 1114 practices. Almost every high school sports team practices 4 or more times a week for 3+ months. By High School Sports team standards, they would just be an average team. Below average in many respects, and really only above average in terms of their success. My conclusion would be that it must be a pretty weak sport.

With 1500 teams nationwide FIRST is ready and needs to take the next quantum leap into figuring out how to truly give every student an opportunity to compete. IMO they have done this by having lower budget competitions Like FTC. If you don't have the budget to have a killer FRC team maybe FTC might be a better fit.

At one point in time having a full size basketball court and gym was considered an unfair advantage to High Budget schools. Now it is considered the norm. I would like those that feel that "high budget" teams have too big of an advantage to talk with those teams an you might be surprised by the number of these teams working very hard to reduce the price events and make them more readily avaialbe so everyone can compete at their level. If you don't beleive me stop by the pits of team 33 and talk to Jim Zondag. The arguments I present here are a lot of the arguments he has expressed to me. Look up pretty much any WFA winner from a team that has been around more than 4 years and hear what they have to say.

One task for low budget teams: review your situation and think hard about how you too can attend a second regional (Better use of funds, possibly comp and pitcrew only to 1 regional and everybody to the second, more sponsorship, better off-season fundraising). Read up on Chairman Award winning teams because the answers are usually there. Once you figure that out, the rest is easy.

My task for FIRST is to come up with a way to be more like a sport and not cost $20,000 to have a strong team. Their answer may very well may be FTC.

I am stepping down from my soapbox now. Thanks for reading and good luck.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

there is no reason why teams should ever be limited in the regionals they go to no matter where it is. It would be quite different if someone like 1114 or 987 went to one regional every weekend just so they could beat the bejesus out of every team possible, but no one would want to do that anyway because it is way too time consuming. Regardless, limiting the regionals a team can go to ruins the competitive spirit of the game, and if rookie teams want it to be easier to compete then they shouldn't be in first in the first place; they should be striving to be the best they possibly can be. That to me at least is what first is all about.

also, there may be a reason that teams travel far to go to regionals, maybe they are looking to finding better competition, so they go to regionals where other teams go. I find it very hard to believe that a good team would travel a long distance just to go to a regional that would be easier for them to trample the competition.

on a side note, I dont understand why people have been making such a big fuss about teams that won 3 regionals like 1114. They may have won 3 regionals, but that is only because they went to 3 regionals. My team only went to two regionals, and we won all of them

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Maybe 5 seasons from now, just like it took 1114 six seasons to get to where they are now? Or maybe far less. Do you realize that a rookie team was 2nd seed in Curie, and went on to the semi-finals, in which they won a match? And that a 2nd year team was in the Curie finals?

I'm not sure where you get this. Rich teams get poor - at least one example was given in this thread. Poor teams get rich, by seeing what the rich teams do and emulating them. They go out and find more sponsors and mentors. They learn from the "rich" teams, most of whom are very willing to teach and mentor the other teams.

How can this be, since every "Best Team" that wins a regional does it with 2 other teams on their alliance?

Please read the Championship eligibility criteria here: http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...nt.aspx?id=944 - something that has been posted since last fall. Teams that didn't go to the Championships last year had equal opportunity to sign up and pre-pay for Championships this year. When the available slots were not filled, they opened up Championship registration to every team. The waiting list for Champs was formed only after the registration process was opened to all teams. As the teams qualifying from regionals were determined, those teams next on the waiting list were contacted to finalize their Championship registrations.

Hmm, 1025 won the Motorola Quality award at Detroit, one of the regionals where Rush competed. 27 won it at Great Lakes and at Atlanta. If the "best at X" theory holds, why did they not win it at Detroit as well?

Precisely.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Being a part of team ULTIMATE 922, we are self sustained and have absolutely no corporate sponsors or engineers helping us. We struggle in creating a really good robot. Luckily for us, we are extremely strong in our marketing aspects that teams coming to our regional in addition to theirs has not effected us. regardless, we have been able to win some of the most prestigious awards. And ultimately if your as good as you believe, than other teams coming to your regional shouldent be a problem. Besides who doesnt like a little extra competition?

Although I do agree with a few teams on how you should only be able to win at one regional instead of winning multiple awards at many. If anything, allow teams to continue competing at other regionals but make as the chairman's award submission is. You in a way can only "submit" or in this case be eligible to receive an award at the regional you "submitted" at.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Anyone remember one of the 2006 rookies with the number 1902?

Division finalist, Archimedes (where 217 won before carrying their win to Einstein).

2007: Division champ. (Sorry, I don't remember the division, but they weren't Curie or Newton.)

I too wouldn't be too worried.

On to the topic: Yes. Any team with the funds can do it. Many teams do do two regionals.

For the "only win awards at one event" crowd--FLL already does that, at least for qualifying for the next level. There are some teams that aren't exactly happy about that. This might lead to teams intentionally seeking out weak regionals so they can qualify. I don't think that's what FIRST wants--or what you want. Do you really want to be trounced by a top team who came there only to add to their trophy collection or get into Championships?

And, a question for the OP: Is FIRST REALLY fair?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'm a parent with 1024. Here is our story:

We did not do very well, AT ALL, last year. Because of that and the cost of events, the team decided that they would go to the Midwest to see how the robot would work. We did not expect to win and the team doesn't really have the funds to attend mulitple events. 1024 sent a skeleton crew to Chicago and parents organized to send food with the kids to cut on cost. Parents also carpooled the crew up to avoid the cost of a commercial bus.

As an Indiana team the Boilermaker is one of the main events for us. Again because of cost, a local event is only the cost of the event. No hotel stays, no restaurant bills or commercial transportation costs. The kids and the parents pay for any of the extras... not the sponsors.

We were at the Buckeye, only because we had already paid for it, no refunds. Again parents got together and provided food and help.

For the Championship; The team set up some pretty strict criteria for travel to Atlanta. If you didn't fundraise a certain amount of money you didn't go.

Additionally: Other teams get a chance when they are picked as part of an alliance. At both the Buckeye and Atlanta there was proof. 1024 picked 1386 and then we subbed in 2048. 2048 is in it's second year of FIRST and granted they weren't originally picked, they were high enough in ranking to sub into the finals. 1124 picked 177, because as the team captain stated (not quoting) that the points & ranking don't always show the quality of a team.
To say that the winning bots are out to squash the little guy is just not a fair stament.
Bottom line... if you are trying to say that teams with money get more chance to win. I think someone else also said, that it isn't only the robot ability, it is the mentors, parents, coaches, and students (and believe me a LOT of luck) who have the heart and drive to try to achieve what they want.....
Which, if I remember correctly, is Dean Kamen's goal.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Restricting regionals wouldn't 'solve' this 'problem' anyway.

Let's say we restricted teams to 1 regional per year. To claim that this will somehow eliminate the spectre of powerhouse teams dominating regionals is incorrect. At least in my neck of the woods (Canada), there are 48 (Ohio), 68 (Detroit? I'm thinking of Truck-town, I may have got the # wrong), 188 (Toronto), 217 (Detroit again?), 1114 (St Cats), 1503 (Niagara), and 2056 (somewhere in Ontario) who are consistently high performers. Since that's more teams than there are regionals in my area, you can infer that it will STILL be very difficult to win nearby regionals. In fact, by reducing the number of powerhouse teams, you reduce the probability of anyone BUT the powerhouse teams winning by reducing the depth of the field at each regional. If there are only 2-3 of these top-tier teams at a regional, you pretty much guarantee that the #1 alliance will face little opposition as they pick the other powerhouse team and steamroll to a regional win.

I should note that I had the same negative opinion of multi-regional attendance until I was on a team that went to multiple regionals. Going to multiple regionals increases the enjoyable:miserable ratio of a FIRST season quite a bit by allowing you to have fun with your robot for longer. You spent thousands of man-hours building it, compete with it as much as you can! For large tracts of North America, there are multiple regionals in driving distance. If you can't afford to house everyone, get a hotel for a few select students, pay just the entry fee, and ask everyone else to bear their own costs. Multiple regionals is really the way to go.

My solution: Change the name from 'regional' to 'invitational' so that the name more closely matches how people actually treat it with regards to attendance.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I think a lot of the reason that this thread is so interesting is the number of teams this year that qualified for championship at more than one regional, thus limiting the number of teams that qualified for championship. I see no problem whatsoever with teams competing at more than one regional, but perhaps FIRST should implement a procedure to fill the spot that may be lost to a repeating winner by another highly seeded team at that competition. Just a thought that might let the teams still compete together and still give teams hope for earning a spot to championship.

As for the fairness of going to multiple regionals, the only issue that I have is that some regionals will save spots for local teams, allowing them to register for other regionals while having a spot secured at home. This seems to cause problems when teams cannot get into other regionals. Since this is not a practice at every regional, it unbalances the system.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Those spots freed up by multiple regional winners, or when a team on the winning alliance also wins the RCA, EI or Rookie award, are offered to the teams on the waiting list. That list is created way back in the fall, so there's no reason for any team not to be on the list.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I do not have a problem with teams attending more than one regional if they have the funds available, but by attending the multiple regionals, it gives the team more time to work on the robot and make improvements.

Our team attended the St. Louis Regional this year (Feb 28, 29, Mar 1) and did not touch the robot again until Atlanta. We were not able to tweak any of the hybrid modes, or make any modifications outside of the practice day on Thursday, and even then, the practice fields were booked solid, so the only way to test was in the matches.

Should allowances be made for those robots that are not attending multiple regionals to have the robot shipped back before Atlanta to allow an additional window of time to work on the robot? If cost wasn't an issue, would spending the entry fee for a regional be worth the 3 days of being able to make improvements on the robot?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I can admit that today our team has opportunities that other teams might not have; however I can remember the day when we were getting squashed by the competition and had to work our way up. Back in 2000, we idolized Chief Delphi, HOT, the BEAST, TechnoKats, and several other teams. We were often in their way during matches and had to learn how to be a better team. We used these teams as role models and outstanding examples of how to do it the right way.

Obviously, money helps, but it takes time and not money to inform your community about FIRST in order to raise funds. We posted our business plan on the forum and have taken much time and effort developing our program over the years...it did not happen over night, and we needed to be shown by veteran teams who "invaded the regionals" that hard work will eventually pay off.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

accusing teams of attending more than one regional only to 'steal' the awards from the local teams is the only unfair statement here. A team who does this is just as apprehensive about winning anything as the team who attends the local regional, and in no way are the 'bullies' of FIRST. Rather, they are the ones who are there to inspire, always coming up with an effective design for the current game.
If teams would take the time to learn from such excellent teams instead of trying to find a way to impede their ability to do well (aka restricting them to one regional), then maybe the bar would raise itself?



complaining about the good teams in an effort to cut down their success is definitely not one of the ideals of FIRST, nor should it be in the real world.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I would love for any caliber team to come to my home regional prove to all of us "locals" that their design is truly better than ours.

If 330 showed up on our doorstep at VCU, I would have been pretty happy to be able to see such a great team in person. The same goes for 254, 67, 1565, 1114, or any other team with a simple or unique design. To me, it doesn't matter that their design beats mine: what does matter is that I get to see it and learn from the ingenuity of it. Sure, it's frustrating that some awards are won over and over by the same team (meaning we go back to sponsors with almost nothing to show for measured success) but to be honest, competition for awards is not the point of FRC. Most sponsors understand that.

Every veteran team has the opportunity to sign up for a sort of lottery every other year to go to the championships. There is no reason any team that sustains itself for a few years should complain about not being able never making it to the championship. Be patient, save some money, and go when you can: it is very worth it.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

In addition, how will limiting the amount of regionals that powerhouse teams attend increase the number of teams over 2000 that end up on einstein. The powerhouse teams will still end up in the championship. Maybe a few more teams over 2000 will get in but for the most those teams will not be ranked highly at regionals anyway ( I know some are like 2056). Additionally we were on Archimedes this year and there were a good amount of teams over 2000; however, most are not good enough to be selected for an alliance and certainly not to win the division ( I know there are exceptions). Increasing the amount of high number teams at the championship will only make the competition more boring as many of those teams function quite poorly and simply cannot stand up to the elite teams.

Also, we are team number 1771, a high number, and we were one of the top hurdling robots in the entire championship. Just goes to show that high numbered teams can get into, and do well at the championship.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

The attendance of multiple regionals is not only fair but it should be encouraged.

Our team, a veteran team, typically has been attending 2 regionals and the Championships since 2000. We work all year to raise the funds for the travel to these events and they are an intricate part of how our team operates.

reasons for multiple regional attendance include-
1. exposure of the team to new opponents- after many years of competing at our home NJ regional we have pretty much seen the same teams annually and we know them well. So every year we try to visit some other region where we would meet new challenges and make new friends.

2. rewards for our workforce- Frankly it is no treat for my hard working mentors and team to spend a weekend in Trenton, NJ. But if I can arrange a trip to Vegas or Hawaii it rewards the elders for all their hard work and motivates them to work even more for the following year.

3. contribution to the local regional- One tenet of our team is that we believe in contribution to the local regional (NJ) and we volunteer there, work on recruitment, etc. THAT is where the local involvement should be more encouraged. At distant regionals my crew that worked at NJ get their chance to have some fun.

4. Motivation- the work required for travel to a distant regional requires the team to gear up and continue the FIRST experience all year round. If the team wishes to do the work why shouldnt they be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Right now we are fund raising for the 2009 travel regional.

5. Fairness- The easy response is "who said anything is fair?". Hard work SHOULD get rewarded but obviously not all teams can attend multiple events. I personally believe that if a team sincerely believes in a goal and they work to get it they will be successful. But nobody ever said it is easy.
The only fairness issue I would insist on is that EVERY team be welcome in their home region as first priority. Second regional teams should never be able to bump teams that have nowhere else to go and I know that FIRST tries to insure that they cant.


Now my rant on FAIRNESS at regionals-

Chairman's Awards should not be awarded the same team at the same region two consecutive years in a row. If the team is truly worthy that should be evident to judging panels at more than one region and they should apply in different regionals. And at a given region the monopolization of the award by the same team annually makes the CA seem unattainable to the other teams and defeats the motivational incentive behind the award. Multiple CA's- sure. But the same regional year after year? Aren't there other teams at that regional worthy of something too?


Something to chew on...

WC :cool:

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Arizona no longer has to worry about that one...:D Since 2004, I think 842 has won every RCA there. Now, they can't win it there or anywhere. Problem solved!

In all seriousness, I think this might or might not be a good idea. It would motivate teams to go to multiple regionals. However, sometimes a RCA winner can't afford to go to more than one regional a year, so they need to go to a farther-away regional to compete for it again. And it would show just how good a team is.

Hmm...Interesting side discussion, Wayne. I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Three important lessons your team might not get without going to more than one regional-

1. Importance of robust and reliable design and fabrication
2. Understanding of how strategy evolves with each week (shared learning)
3. Adaptation to new and different circumstances

Three important factors that having regional winners at more than one event MIGHT make it worth the risk to a smaller or newer team-

1. “David vs. Goliath” factor- They might take down the big guy
2. “Rocky” factor- They might go the distance against the big guy
3. “Tiger Woods” factor- Everybody loves watching that guy’s game

Alternatives, such as an elimination process where regional winners only play regional winners by design EXCLUDES more teams than it INCLUDES (not from competing but from competing with the really strong teams). I'd be afraid we all would loose the opportunity to share in a pretty amazing community.

When my dad started a rookie team, they couldn't and still can't afford two regionals, but there are alternatives, such as WATCHING TOGETHER the live or recorded feeds of other regionals and COMPETING in off-season events...two relatively inexpensive ways to get some of those same benefits.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

There are a few ways to look at this,

1. The local teams are not getting chances to represent their area, and since they are truly not "regionals" it is kinda unfair for an area not to compete within itself.

2. Then again, you have those teams who may not get in through one regional but they win another one. Last year we lost Peachtree Regional but I am confident that had we gone to another regional, we could've won.

So I think there is no SOLID answer. Another debate.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I will add my voice to those who say that inspiring the "little guys" is a better thing than holding back the well-resourced teams.

That you use the word "competition" instead of "program" is a good clue to your mindset here. Try to broaden your goals to include the stated mission of FIRST, rather than focusing on winning medals. Does it sting to be beaten by a powerhouse veteran team? You bet. Does it make me want to pout and go home? No way! It makes me want to do better next time. It inspires me to do better next time.

(Full disclosure: Team 45 always goes to multiple regionals. We rarely fail to compete in the elimination rounds. We won the last National championship to be awarded to a single team. I might be so far removed from Skippy's situation as to be completely unable to understand his viewpoint.)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

why would a rookie team ever even expect to do well in their first competition anyway? Would they expect to do really well, when the majority of the time they get destroyed? Wouldnt there be a Huge problem with First if rookie teams had it easy? Why would Rookie all star teams want to go to Atlanta if they knew they would get destroyed?
The answer is simple, new teams are not started with the hope of doing very well their very first years, they start for the overwhelmingly positive First experience which they most certainly get.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Yes, yes it is

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Traveling to multiple events is an exceptional way to spread the FIRST message through the visitor team and the visitee team (is that a word?).

We have competed in two regionas for several years, and try to pick different places to travel, not in an attemt to crush the local teams but to see other parts of the country, meet the teams we read about and see from a distance, and enjoy the different ways regions play together (there are differences, but that is another thread). I am always amazed at several robots and several teams that we meet when we are on the road.

As a team, we have been to Phoenix, Orlando, Kennedy Space Center, Houston, Cleveland, Grand Rapids, Chicago, Richmond, and Long Island, plus our 'local' event at Purdue. We have traveled to off season events in other states. Each place has its' own unique atmosphere. The volunteers are great to meet and talk to. We invite others to come to Indiana.

For many of our students, it is their first trip out of the state. It might be their first time to fly and see a very unique part of the country.

I am excited about some of the new regionals - I am looking forward to Oklahoma City and Washington DC in the coming years because i think they will be cool events, and they are cities with exceptional histories.

There are lots of reasons to travel to far away events and multiple regionals.
If you think most teams do it just to beat the locals, i think you are grossly underestimating those teams and their motivations.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Really this arguement is big guys vs. little guys. big guys want to pwm (pun) and little guys don't want big guys to pwn...

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I can only speak with the knowledge that I have with our team. Team 188 has been around a long time. The first year that I was involved with the team was 2003. I believe that that was the first year that we had done multiple regional events. The last event we went to was West Michigan and this was the first regional we had won. To this day we have attended 2 or 3 regionals a year and have come close but we have yet to win a second regional. Our team is competitive and we always seem to make the elimination rounds but we still have not won.

Working hard to raise money we have earned our way to multiple events. We are always competitive but we also don't put everything into winning. Our team is always willing to help any team that asks. We share what supplies we have, invite teams to our school to build, spend time at events helping others. We are also a team that does not have a lot of equipment. Come by our school and you will see our students with normal hand tools and some mentors cutting with the table saw. We have no engineers (yet, come on Shawn) on the team but we have experienced mentors with varying skill sets. The students are amazing. They see what others have and instead of complaining work hard to be just as good as other teams.

We also draw from the experience of other teams. Our drive base is based on that of team 25 who graciously sent us their plans and gave us their blessing with our project. Some of our best friends (and team 188 alumni) are from team 1114. Even though we seem to continually get beaten by them we strive to prove ourselves better. We also have no problem sharing with them or any other team. This is what makes FIRST so great. Having money does not mean that you will win. Going to multiple regionals doesn't mean that you will win. But I will tell you that the more regionals that you attend, the more friends you will make, the more inspiration you will receive and the the more chance that you will see that you have been winning all the time, you just didn't notice.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.

Let me state a few things about my perspective of FRC.

I am a relatively new mentor at Team 178- I had a lot to do with our team for FRC 2007Rack'n'Roll (my first year of FIRST), but then very little to do with it this year (a lot to do with my personal schedule at home and workload at work).

Last year, the team took home the EIA in Atlanta, but this year, our team seemed to struggle a bit, and really didn't seem to have as much momentum going into our local regional and to Atlanta. The ever-changing team dynamic as old members move on to college and new members come into the team is definitely something that forces FIRST teams to have to find new ways of re-energizing themselves on a regular basis (and definitely this is different to the business world I live in daily).

I have no sour grapes against teams who have competed in multiple regionals, nor with those teams who out-designed, out-programmed, and out-lasted the team I've been involved with. You guys, gals, gents and ladies have done everything in your power, and within the current rules of FIRST, to attain those goals - the programs you initiated to start new FLL, FTC and FRC teams were innovative, as were the robots themselves, and also the many other ways that teams reach out to their communites, educators, and legislators to put science and technology on the same pedestal as sport is often viewed. All of these are good things that come out of FIRST.

Maybe I've been hung up on the term "regional", and as others have pointed out, the word "invitational" maybe seems a better fit for the way the current FRC competition operates.

I think I also feel strongly that FIRST needs to figure out how to allow newer teams (and mine is NOT in this category, so this isn't some sort of self-fulfilling barrow I'm pushing) to be recognized for their efforts across ALL categories, not just Rookie Inspiration / All-Star / Highest Seed.

Should there be a purely rookie-focused championship series (in addition to the existing Championship) where only new teams of 1-2 years standing in FRC are eligible to compete ? Multiple competition tiers in FRC would be similar to what is found in baseball with the major/minor leagues and also in other sports.

As an added wrinkle for 2009, I think the new control system has the potential to exacerbate the gap between veteran, well-resourced teams, and those who are new or struggling to attract mentors who can assist the teams to program the new control system (whether that's in LabView or C/C++). Personally I am excited about the possibilities, but in a 6 week FRC build season, it will be a challenge to really learn how to wring maximum performance out of the new system and make the most out of it - hopefully we'll get enough time in the pre-season period to familiarize ourselves with the hardware and software, and enough on-field time to iron the bugs out (again, it seems that the ability to compete in multiple regionals may really enhance the performance of those teams who can do this)

J

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I sat back and read this gibberish long enough...In the words of Popeye,"I've had all I can stand..." if your team can't afford to go to more than one regional...maybe you need to look at how the team is ran.

If you need help fund raising... speak up, there plenty here willing to offer ideas and ect.
Need more sponsors... get them. Why you think race cars have all them stickers on them.
Yes some teams have been blessed with sponsors with deep pockets... and some have whole machine shops at their beck n call.

If you look you'll see these powerhouse teams do spread their wealth,be it by forming other teams or mentoring to others. They too were small and poor once. With a lot of hard work, and yes a little luck they have grown to where they are now. Even with golden spoons the kids on these team work hard... why should they be held back cause a smaller poorer team fells left out.
A lot of teams build two robots... should that be not allowed too?

I bet I could give a rookie team a blank check and a full machine shop and they still won't win champs. Winning on Einstein take experience, team work, and luck. It takes time for a team to develop the winning elements

A violin player once ask a man how you get to Carnegie Hall, the man said, thats easy... practice, practice, practice.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Actually, there was a regional this year that was only open to rookies at Kettering University. The idea was to try out a low-cost event plan and give the rookies a little extra competition. I would support continuing this--bring the bottom up, not the top down. Some rookies don't need it. Most do. Even some veterans do.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

an all rookie competition sounds like a pretty good experience for the rookie teams, but I am concerned that it would just turn into a lapbot-fest that would be less than exciting to say the very least. Sorry for sounding harsh, but I think it might be pretty boring to be in, and much more boring to watch, thats why atlanta is so great, ever single match is full of action. Regardless it is probably a good enough idea to entertain, and try to develop.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

There's no prohibition on rookies winning any award, save Chairman's. Consider 1398 (Imagery Award, Peachtree 2004), 1959 (Website Award, Palmetto 2006), 1114 (Xerox Creativity Award, Canadian Regional 2003), or 1002 (Johnson & Johnson Sportsmanship Award, Peachtree 2003).

Again, no. 1618 may have competed for four seasons now, but the vast majority of the team was new this season. We got just as much enjoyment playing the old-timers as we did from the newbies. (I draw a distinction between that idea and giving rookies a chance to get their feet wet through techniques such as the Kettering rookie pilot and hosting pre-rookies at off-season events a la Brunswick Eruption, though.) If you're looking for multiple competition tiers, try FTC and (J)FLL; some teams find fielding a JV team for their freshmen (or a feeder system with FLL) to be rewarding.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

lol@this thread

and people seemed to think that my views were so audacious, I guess im not completely alone after all.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I don't believe teams automatically deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They should be recognized for their accomplishments. Billfred pointed out that FIRST already "allows" any team, rookies included, to receive every award except Chairman's.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

NCAA basketball "Regionals" - I rest my case.

You do realize that one of those rookies at Kettering was the 2nd seed on Curie, right? Most probably the Enginerds didn't "need" a rookie-only event, but it certainly didn't hurt - they went on to win the Rookie All Star at Detroit, and were in the top 8 in both Detroit and West Michigan. While the pace of the competition at Kettering might not have been equal to that at Atlanta, it was exciting (except for the 4-hour field delay). And I dare say that there were some matches at regular regional events that were not as exciting either.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

what about the amount of $$$$$ your take from you sponsor or your communit
,in many case you could start a new team on the $$$$ you could save but my team would really love to go to a second regional but we can see who we would be hurting

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Here's the thing about multiple regionals:

For six weeks straight you spend all of your time, energy, and efforts to build a fantastic machine. For six weeks straight you go to bed thinking of new strategies and ideas for the games. For six weeks straight you sit under flourescent lighting with a bunch of cranky, sweaty, and tired people. For six weeks straight you dedicate every waking moment to reading Chief Delphi and passing notes in class about new drawing ideas.

Now that you done ALL THAT for six weeks straight, why would you only want to go to 1 regional?!?!?

I can understand if money is the issue because that is something you cannot prevent. But if you CAN go you SHOULD go.

And believe me, it is possible. In 2006 we went to the Florida Regional, the Purdue Regional, the Palmetto Regional, AND Nationals!! That was the best season EVER for me because (even though I had a mountain of schoolwork) I really got enough time with my team and my robot to feel like those six weeks paid off.

If you can't count that was 3 regional events AND Nationals. Boy was I tired!!

So for all those people who disagree about attending multiple regionals all I can say is so what? If we can raise the money then I am sure y'all can. And if morality is the issue (not money) then I hope you have fun at your 1 regional.

But as for me, the more competition the better!! =)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

This is one of the most honest and telling statements I have seen in a long time. It is one I MUST salute!

You see, I find myself and my team on the opposite side of the spectrum. We look longingly, and jealously, at the "other side". Although, we acknowledge, they have earned it. It was not handed to them. It took time, tears, sweat and work to get to the place the are in, and we expect nothing less for our selves.

Teams like 45 and people like Alan are an awesome example of what is possible if you are willing to do the work. They are indeed a rare breed. All I can ask is that you remember where you came from and understand that those on this end have a daunting task to even try to compete with you.

(Yes, I understand that this is not about the competition, it is about the inspiration. But you must admit, because we play a "game" every year, it will inherently breed competitiveness. That is human nature.)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

To me, these two ideas contradict each other.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Since elaboration wasn't provided, I'll ask: How do those two ideas conflict? I can't find any disconnect, but more explanation would be beneficial for the enlightenment of the group.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Team 2337 competed at the Kettering Rookie event, and while it seems like a lifetime ago now, at the time it was anything but a boring event. While understandably not at the same level as Atlanta, it was definitely exciting for those competing. There were some robots that were purely lappers, but we saw that at all of the regionals and the Championship as well (and what is wrong with that anyway??). There were also several hurdlers, both shooters and lifters.

For us, it was a very valuable experience. Having never been to a regional event, we got a chance to run our robot under game conditions. But more importantly, all of the teams learned just how a tournament runs, including alliance selections and eliminations, so that when we got to our first "real event", we had some idea what was going on.

I hope FIRST expands this program next year. We are already hoping to volunteer at the Kettering event next year, to help out those rookies coming up behind us.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

My reaction to this thread includes our perspective as a 2nd year team.

Our first year we did not get a NASA grant... we got busy and raised enough money for 2 regionals anyway.... We came to CD for help and we got it...
We ended up at our "local" Regional (in Portland) and at a distant regional (Las Vegas)

We received the Imagery award in Portland and we went to Las Vegas and BECAUSE we got picked by an Oregon team with experience (1425) and a powerhouse team (254) we won a regional. We also got Rookie All Star and got talked into going to Atlanta. We would NEVER have gone if we hadn't gone to a second regional. We scraped up that money too somehow... primarily on the backs of the parents and the PTA.

We got valuable experience in this which we parlayed into more fundraising this year.

If 254 and 1425 had not been in Las Vegas... or we had not been... we would probaby have not gone to Atlanta last year and this year would have been much more difficult.

We were INSPIRED by teams like 233 and 254 that attended Vegas... We came back with a desire to emulate them.... to become better....

This year again we had no NASA grant... but we started fundraising earlier...we were determined to be a better FIRST team... We worked offseason... we worked in season... We built a practice field for the region... We helped with a workshop and mentored FLL teams and had an FLL regional...

This year we were lucky enough to be 3rd seeded in our new Seattle Regional and to pick two terrific partners and to win it. We also got the EI award here and we won two more awards at Portland. On Galileo this year we were the 5th seed and played in the quarterfinals with some incredible teams.

I am not boasting here but we SAW what good teams were like in Las Vegas and in Portland... and in Atlanta....We came back energized... ready to take on a challenge.... We feel that we are well on our way to be a good FIRST team....

Without those big teams coming to small regionals ... rookies and local teams never get to see anything to aspire to.... Please keep them coming...

And that's all I have to say about that....

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I think that competing at multiple regionals is very fair. I don't really think that there should be any actual limit but, there is an understood one that's in the 2-3 range. I only know of one team that has ever exceeded 3 regionals in one year. Personally home regional doesn't really apply to us because we're about equidistant from two regionals Philly and NJ, and about 2 hours from Annapolis and NYC.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I could see how it'd be unfair... not only does the team traveling to multiple regionals have greater chances of winning awards, but their drivers get more experience handling the robot, giving them more experience and an edge at the Championship. If I'm not mistaken, MOE 365 has provided funding to other teams, so maybe instead of going to more regionals, these teams should help new teams fund their way to the Championship. It'd look good on Chairman's and they'd get the Gracious Professionalism award.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If you are comparing competing at multiple regionals with competing at one, no, it isn't fair. The more experience the team has competing, the more opportunities they have to improve, to hone their skills, and to deepen their understanding of the game. For the teams that consistently attend one regional, like ours, that is the choice that we make. We choose to attend one regional. The reasons for the choice can be many and can be varied but the decision is still the same: to compete in one regional per season.

Why does it have to be fair? It doesn't. Every time a team travels to compete, they are showcasing the development of science and technology that is so important to the competition, using the resources, brain power, and courage that it takes to compete in the current season's game.

If FIRST were ever to devolve to the point that only winning the robot competition mattered, then the program's vision would have vaporized, the dreams would have died, the purpose would have shriveled, and the participants would have lost. Before they ever received the KoP. If we feel pummeled by the program as it is set up now, we should re-evaluate why we are participating as a team and what we want out of the program. If we feel beaten up by the success of teams who have found the means to compete at multiple regionals, then we need to build stronger muscles, mentally and emotionally, as we are evaluating the purpose of FIRST for the team(s) and for each of us, individually. FIRST isn't for wimps. It never has been. Robustness is a part of the program: the robots, the teams, the individuals that develop while participating. There will never be a way to fully balance the big dogs with the little dogs. The haves and the have nots.

I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in the science and technology aspect of it. I'm interested in watching students be inspired by a wall of patents at Georgia Tech. I'm interested in listening to the team members of FRC 842 tell me all about their latest and newest project. I celebrate the robot performances and the teamwork that is evident during the competitions. I celebrate the fact that teams have found ways to travel to multiple regionals and continue to set the bar for themselves, inspiring others as they go. I also celebrate the teams that travel to one regional. They have all gone the distance.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I personally agree with your notion about accomplishments, but the comment in question (to split hairs :)) was made specifically in reference to awards, so I do see a contradiction. Regardless, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even the original poster, despite what many seem to think.

Awards are indeed not everything, and the simple process of building a robot, and competing with it in even one regional, has many intangible benefits in its own right -- benefits that won't ever be done justice by a trophy or medal.

But awards do matter, let's not kid ourselves. Especially those championship eligibility awards, which not only represent tangible recognition, but also something more important: opportunity. Opportunity to go to that next level, as well as to be exposed to more sources of learning and inspiration.

And no one likes to be denied opportunity -- especially when that opportunity must be earned.

Which is kind of what it smells like, to me, when what was previously a merit-based championship slot is suddenly relegated to the random waiting list. It was originally a merit-based slot for a reason (one would hope), but suddenly, for no other reason than because some team merits a slot so much that they in fact already have one, the meritocratic principle is simply cast aside.

That's what aggravates me as it relates to this topic.

And I think it's an easy thing to fix. :)

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I'm not sure they contradict each other. But what does it mean to be recognized? And where do we draw the line between effort and accomplishment?

In its June 2005 newsletter, FIRST recognized its champions, but the lists linked from page 3 (Spotlight on FIRST Teams and Spotlight on FIRST Champions) do not include any teams that were awarded medals or trophies at the Championship. Even the Chairman's Award winner for that year is mentioned only in passing (on page 13)! Whatever the rest of us consider important, reading this newsletter forced me to realize that FIRST does not care at all about which team wins what award. The FIRST idea of what makes a champion diverges from what we think a champion is. So does the FIRST idea of accomplishment. Nor do I think that FIRST cares how many regionals a team attends, as long as that good ol' "Inspiration and Recognition" keeps flowing.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

:mad: Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.:mad:
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.:mad: :mad:

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Not so. The number of teams attending the Championship does not depend on the number of multiple-Regional winners. A team that is already eligible to go doesn't take extra spots if it earns its eligibility in more than one way.

What payment are you referring to? Every team pays in order to register for the Championship.

I'm sad that you feel stepped on. I firmly believe that it's within your power to aspire instead of lament.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Surely you must recognize that this post is hypocritical? You ask these teams that buy their way in to Atlanta and win more than one regional to "stop stepping on the lower budget teams", but you seem to be putting your team (which attends 2 regionals) in this "low budget" category.

What separates these teams from yours? The fact that they are successful? No team goes into a season knowing that they will win the first regional they attend when they register for multiples. Are you asking them to not participate in the second if they win the first. How inspiring is it to go at all for the students on that team. In my opinion, you can't have the inspiration of bringing in the "powerhouse" teams and still have the "fairness" of keeping them out of the eliminations. The students on these teams will just not be as interested in being there if you're dragging them around like a show pony and taking away the fun, competitive aspect of it.

To take this to an extreme, should teams that buy their way into Atlanta not be allowed to participate in Elims at regionals at all? Or be eligible for EI or Chairman's for that matter? After all they do already have a spot in Atlanta so why should they have a chance to get another one and deny a "worthy" team of a spot.

Having said all that, I do think that there should be a better way of assigning the spots that are vacated by teams qualifying multiple times. Why don't we take the spots vacated by any teams that have qualified multiple times and pass them to other "deserving teams". Perhaps take the vacated spots and give them to members of the finalist alliance in the order captain, 1st pick, 2nd pick. If 4 or more of the teams from the winning and finalist alliance are already qualified then you can give them to the waiting list. Chairman's and EI spots can still go to the waiting list as normal as these are less affected by attendance at multiple regionals.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

So, you would rather we went the FLL road? So you want MORE teams coming (if you're a weak regional) just so they can win an award and qualify for the Championships?

I see what you are saying, but I would ask you to remember some things: You are making some generalizations. You're going to have to back those up, and I think you'll have a hard time.

There is a limit on where you can enter for the Regional Chairman's Award and the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award. One regional. However, there is no limit on all the other awards. You want a limit. Very well. YOU can tell the judges that team xxx can't win award yyy because they've already competed, even though they clearly have the best candidacy for it.

(I even know of a case where a team told the judges not to consider them for an award that qualified them, because they had already won it. This was a rookie team. While this is an option for judged awards, there is no guarantee it will work, and it isn't an option for competition-based awards.)

You're also saying that possibly the best robot can't compete in eliminations if they're already going. That's like telling the New England Patriots that they can't even start the playoffs. Or the New York Giants. You get me? Teams that are in the Hall of Fame need to stop competing, because they have already qualified and *might* win and steal a slot from a team that isn't the best? Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, then you need to revise your statements, because that's the impression you convey.

Your statement about teams "stepping on the lower budget teams" is annoying, to say the least. There is absolutely no reason that you can't go out there and build a robot that performs at least that well. It might not look pretty, but it can beat theirs. It's cheaper, but so what? Just go out there, and build a robot that can beat theirs. Anyone could have built 1114's design. No one did. Anyone could have built 330's design, and several did. The execution was what set them apart.

The time you spend on here complaining is time you could be spending figuring out how those teams do it and figuring out how to implement that.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Fuzzy1718 and others:
Actually, I am familiar with 1718 and they did build a great machine this year (and last year). Had they competed at various other regionals they would have been a top 3 machine, instead of a top 10 machine. Detroit and GLR are very tough regionals. If 1718 wants to win the easiest thing to do is go to a lower scoring regional (I won't name names). The harder thing to do is to rise up to the level of competition. I think you guys are there.
It is a 40 minute drive from Armada to Auburn Hills. Shoot me an email, you drive and I will buy you dinner and we can discuss our teams. I think what you will find out is that many of the "powerhouse" teams are that way more so out of years of experience and lots of determination than money. There is only 1 way to get more experience and it is not playing 1 regional a year and nationals every other year. Actually I will correct myself, there are several ways to gain experience. Talk to those "Powerhouse" teams (there are a lot within driving distance).
I hope you guys keep competing. IMHO you guys are one of the most impressive young teams out there and better than many veteran teams (from a competition perspective). Please keep up the good work. This team is actually one I specifically had in mind when discussing that if teams could only compete in their own neighborhood then 1718 would only get to compete with crazy tough teams (please read earlier thread).

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Folks,

What with all the brain power represented by FIRST and the participants in this thread, I am surprised at the number of posts that "talk" past one another or that discuss some off-topic aspect of a broader subject.

And, in particular I am surprised that no one other than Ike ( here ) has brought up the rock-bottom, essential nub of this discussion (if I missed anyone else I'm sorry). I believe that asking if something is "fair" is a 100% incomplete and ill-formed question. I'll assert that there is no such thing as something being "fair" without additional qualification.

Things/situations/actions/rules are only fair in some sense. Giving two children equal numbers of cookies is fair in the sense of giving everyone the same sized treat. Giving children equal numbers of cookies might be unfair in the sense that one child was given all the cookies with the most chocolate chips. Giving two children equal numbers of green beans is unfair in the sense of not recognizing that one is extremely hungry and malnourished and the other is well-fed. Etc.

This is a topic that comes up all the time in some branches of math and philosophy.

My suggestion to skippy is this:

• Assert/define the team characteristics or accomplishments that you think should FIRST should reward and what you think FIRST wants the outcome of the individual regionals and the total regional process to be.
• Describe the parts of the rules that you agree properly use those characteristics to increase the expected value of a team's reward; and
• Describe the parts of the rules that you think improperly use teams' other characteristics to increase the expected value of the teams' rewards.
• Point out that you think the rules are unfair in the sense of rewarding teams for ___ and remind everyone that you think FIRST does not intend to reward teams for ___.
• You are now able to argue/assert that the rules are not fair in the sense that they reward ___.

If you can pose your question in this manner, we can have a debate that just might stay on topic :) and just might reach a useful conclusion.:)

I suspect that much of that debate will focus on whether or not you properly express the team characteristics that FIRST should reward, and whether you (or anyone) can properly express what the outcomes of individual regionals and the total regional process should reward/recognize. The part of the debate that touches on whether the rules are fair in the sense of measuring what they should measure and rewarding teams that maximize what the rules measure will be the easier part of the discussion.

Blake

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I see no issue in teams competeing in multiple regionals. Competeing in multiple regionals allows the team to gain much practice in many very important areas: allows teams to trouble shoot and redesign robot components and compete to win multiple anual awards and titles. :D

Remember, competeing in multiple regionals requires a significant amount of moeny for entry, travel, room and board, food, all other incorporated expenses. The teams that compete in 2 + regionals are only able to do so through their prior fund raising and sponsorships. If they choose to spend their money on extra regionals why should we disallow this. :confused:

Personally if my team had the option to compete in multiple regionals we would have done so in a heart beat.

Fair isnt really the issue here. Since all teams have the opportunity to compete in multiple regionals then YES it is fair. Ability to do so is a different issue. :rolleyes:

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I've got much more out of FIRST ever since I stopped and realized I can gain so much more from trying to improve my current team's situation rather than complain about teams who have more.

I really don't think there is a single powerhouse team that hasn't earned what they have (sponsorship, members, experience, wins, etc...).

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

As a mentor for a team that attends only one regional and has only once in its 9 year existence competed in Atlanta, let me say the following:

1. Why are we so concerned with everything being "fair?" Life is not fair. FIRST is meant, at least in part, to help students succeed in life. Part of life is learning that everyone is not on an equal footing. Some teams will always have more resources than others. The challenge for teams with fewer resources, like ours, is to learn how to (a) increase those resources; and (b) work within the resources you have. It is possible to succeed without the biggest budget or most mentors. Not every team is the New York Yankees (who I love, btw).

2. I have nothing against teams who attend more than one regional each year. Ultimately, it is our goal, when finances permit. It's simply smart tactics to get as much drive time with your robot as possible. We are working toward that goal first by trying to get financially stable to attend two events at least every other season (either two regionals or a regional and the championship). That way each team member, in theory, has the opportunity to go to a second event twice in their high school career. This is especially difficult for us as an inner city team, as we cannot ask student's families to contribute financially. It simply isn't feasible. What we can and are now asking students to do, however, is to fundraise. They did this quite effectively last year, raising almost $3,000 in just a few weeks to help get us to Atlanta when we qualified.

3. I don't understand the whole thing about teams competing in multiple regionals taking up spots in Atlanta. As I understand it, any vetern team can register during the appropriate time period. There is then a wait list for situations where all the spots reserved for regional champions, EI winners, Chairman's winners and Rookie All Stars are not taken up, as would be the case when a team wins multipe regionals. So how is a multiple winner taking up space that someone else could occupy? Maybe someone can correct me on this point if I am mistaken.

Those are my three main points. Intersting thread.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

The purpose of FIRST is to simulate a real world professional scenario. There will never be a time in the real world where every company is placed on a level field monetarily or experience wise. Like wise first is the same way and teams that work hard enough to be able to compete at multiple regionals should be rewarded for there hard work. Also if they are good enough to beat all of the teams at the regional why limit them. It should be taken as an opportunity for other teams to find ways to win. Also why don;t you divert the money from the extra regional to the championship. You can buy in just like all the other teams.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Getting past the "life isn't fair argument" which honestly, for the most part does not change someones opinion...

We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public community.

Just because your a "low budget" team doesn't automatically give you an excuse to go out there and complain that other teams have more money than you. How much real solid effort have you put into getting a sponsor? Believe me, I understand how hard it is to find a sponsor (especially in an area where FIRST is EXPLODING), but it isn't impossible, and it shouldn't be an excuse as to why you didn't get to go to Atlanta or you didn't win a regional.

Try and get past the squabbling that boils down to your team has more money than mine, and try to look at it is a challenge to say, i want my team to have as much money as yours, how can i do this. Maybe if winning competitions/getting to Atlanta is your end goal, the first goal should be to get your team financials established so that you may be able to compete at multiple regionals, and maybe then you will find yourselves in the ATL.

Hope it helps,
Brando

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

That was my point exactly, Brandon. I hope you didn't view my post as complaining about "big budget" teams. I don't resent them at all. I agree, as I stated earlier, that if a team has a smaller budget they have two options, which can work in tandem: (1) raise more money; and (2) learn how to do more with the money you have.

As for the life's not fair argument, I think the poster immediately after my first post said it better than I did. I think in today's society sometimes people feel entitled, that they should have all the same things others have. It takes work; if a team with a smaller budget wants to have the same budget as a larger budget team, you have to get out there and, as John Housemann used to say in those commercials, "earn it." Nothing worth getting isn't worth a little hard work.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Exactly, I read a great proverb that was quoted in a book I'm reading ("the World is Flat") that is perfect.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

FIRST is a tool that is partly responsible to teach our students about the real world along with inspire them to better it through math and science. Well here is a two very basic economics principles. Business isn't fair. Companies will always try to look for a competitive edge. Just like teams will always try to find a competitive edge. Do you tell a company they can make one product in one industry and not allow them to make a product in another industry if they can afford both? No. You let them make both. So if a team wants to go to a regional and compete at that regional let them. Our robot is our product. Competitions are our industries. So go out and try to maximize your profits.
The other principle is that of competition. Economically its better for two companies to compete. Competition is what makes us better. If a winning team wants to compete against me go for it. It will make me better for doing it. Competition is what pushes us to do what we haven't done before. Competition causes us to push the limits and grow. I don't know if it can get any more real world than that.

Just my $.02

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I beg to differ - The situation certainly isn't black and white, but before matches announcers constantly and emphatically point out who won regionals and how often they did, particularly the closer the competition gets to "The Einstein Field!!!!".

We/FIRST very often, very much, measure a team's success by their regional wins. And we should.

Sure, there are other awards and other metrics we use, and I sincerely hope they are more coveted by most; but to say that "we" do not measure a team's success by their regional wins is a bit disingenuous. We give teams those big banners to take home and hang so that they and others associated with their team can revel in the rewards of a job well done and be proud of their accomplishment. We don't take a picture of them holding it and send them home with a stack of wallet-sized prints for each team member to tuck into their wallet/purse.
We send them home with a great, big, banner!

FIRST's actions certainly tell us that wins on the field are not the only measure of a team's success in FIRST; and that is a very good thing.

But, FIRST's actions also tell us that wins are certainly one measure of a team's success in FIRST; and I think that is also a good thing.

Blake

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.

Yes it is a vicious cycle...but it is what it is.
Sponsors want to have their name seen, hence the more places your bot goes the more happy the sponsors are.

And don't think for a min the kids on the team that have many/big pocket sponsors have a easy road.

Double the pressure you feel and you have an idea what it might be like on a mega-team.
Everyone watching what you do, you always on the go it seems.
And theres many people to answer to when things don't go right and your bot has a bad event.

By the same token... I'm sure any die hard FIRST nut would trade places in a heartbeat. Instead of bashing or resenting teams that can go to many regionals... why don't you study them. See what they do and how they do it to attract the money and sponsors.

-p :cool:

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.


I totally agree. We have found it exponentially easier to get press coverage, support from the school, and from sponsors since we started performing better, especially after winning our regional last year. That said, the attention and support is continuing even though we didn't even make eliminations based on the fact that we did win two awards: Woodie Flowers for one of our mentors and the Johnson and Johnson Gracious Professionalism Award. The school, in particular, has viewed these as victories in equal important to actually winning the competition.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

i think any team is able to go to multiple regionals. its all a matter of fundraising and how much you want to put into first.

this was my teams rookie year and we built a twin, went to 2 regionals, and had a free ride to georgia. all paid for by sponsors....

so it is fair. if a team is willing to work hard to get money then nothing should be holding them back from getting as much out of first as they possibly can. sure, some teams get lucky and come upon big money but everyone can do that. you've just got to keep looking and use time wisely.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I see your point but this argument doesn't make any sense...

If teams were limited to "local" regionals then the powerhouse teams would just beat the little guys over and over and over again indefinitely... (think 254 at SVR)

However, if you allow teams to move around, the stronger teams will invariably go where the competition is fierce - allowing the weaker teams a chance to show their stuff (and giving the big teams a bigger challenge).

Make sense?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Blake,
You have completely missed the message of FIRST.

Yes we send people home with GREAT BIG BANNERS, but that is to prove that the competition isn't just for show.

The whole idea of FIRST is to realize that even though we crown a champion at an event, a teams makeup and how they can give back to themselves and the community is what really matters.

Yeah we can look at a team and say they have won 10 regionals in the past 5 years, but the goal and the point of FIRST is to say that yes that team can build a great robot, but can they win with gracious professionalism too.

Being a member of FIRST is supposed to teach people that winning is certainly something, but it isn't everything. Winning on other levels like inspiration and outreach are just as important if not more.