Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Wow, Now we are being compared to politicians....when do we get the perks? Where is my private jet and my limo? When do I get to go to Camp David? :)

Try to remember all this is being done by volunteers, not paid politicians.

For anyone who bothered to listen there was information about this presented at an earlier time. There was an open discussion on this concept at the South East Michigan Feedback forum I attended on May 14th, 2008. It seems that some of the teams who chose to skip this meeting are the ones who are voicing surpirse.

Again, As soon as the details of this proposal were appoved by FIRST, it was made public. This was not done in October, December, or even January, as with other past FIRST changes.....this was done in JULY. It was very deliberate to get this out as soon as humanly possible.

Prior to some of the preliminary approvals, there was not much to discuss in public. As Jason Morella revealed earlier in this thread, other cost reduction proposals have been made in other areas in the past, and these ideas never went forward. Who knew about these? Probably only the originators since the ideas died on the table.

If someone had called a state-wide meeting in May to discuss this (OH Wait, someone did!), who would have come? I'll tell you that the teams who would have come were the teams that were there. Anyone who complains about not being included needs to remember that there is a big difference between having an opnion and being involved. Everyone has an opnion, and many opinions oppose one another. The group who worked on this plan attempted gather data and opnion from many teams and many sources. I assure you that this is not a single idea simply pushed through. It is the output of the results of evalutating HUNDREDS of ideas and many, many hours of discussion and data analysis. Many of the decisions behind this were very data-driven. To quote Jim Licinski of Google - "Data beats opnion every time".

Anyone who thinks that the status quo is fine, and that nothing needs to be changed; you are wrong. The current situation is that the Michigan Region does not have enough regional capacity to support our current volume of teams. There is not enough sponsor money to fund the events we currently have, let alone to add more if the traditional regional cost model is used. Lst time I checked our state economy was 49th out of 50, so finding a big pile of new sponsor money is unlikely, and believe me, people are trying. Many teams in our state want to expand their involvement to more than one event and they cannot without prohibitive travel costs since there is not enough local capacity. All of this is a problem even with zero growth. No one from FIRST had a solution, so some very dedicated people here devised one.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

In addition to what Jim said, Michigan had the experience of the Kettering Rookie event. This proved that a dedicated band of volunteers could put on a quality event. Maybe not all the bells and whistles that you get at a full-blown high-cost regional. But a quality experience.

I was not involved in any of the planning, but heard of it a few weeks before it was announced. It was not a state secret; I was not sworn to secrecy by those who I was talking to; no one said "If I tell you, I'll have to kill you." You just use your normal discretion, not blabbing it to the whole world until all the details have been finalized.

Because I was not part of the planning, I don't know this for sure: but those who took part in making this happen surely would not be so remiss to have not asked the Kettering participants what they thought. In fact, the mentors of at least two of those rookie teams have posted here. It wasn't done in a smoke-filled back room, by only the elite of the elite.

Also, if anyone paid attention, many of the aspects of this program were included in the survey that went out to all teams. Every team had an opportunity to put in some form of input.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I know when we answered the questions we didn't think that the answers would only be applied to one state. If we had I'm sure us and many others would have answered a bit differently. I for one would love to see the rest of the non MI teams get a break on no shipping. I know that not everyone can implement the district events in thier state like MI can but why exclude the rest of the nation from taking part in the "pilot" program. I am sure this is a question for FIRST but does anyone have any ideas?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

A bunch questions that someone, somewhere might be able to answer:

Is this a "pilot" for an ongoing change that affects only Michigan, or is there some plan or expectation by FIRST to roll these changes out into other parts of the country or world?

If these changes will in the future be effected outside of Michigan, which teams and volunteers outside of Michigan provided input into the model that you are planning to use? When and how was this input solicited?

If these changes will not affect teams outside of Michigan in 2010 or beyond, what plan is in place or being formed that will provide teams elsewhere with comparable return on investment? Who is responsible for developing that plan and what resources are available to aid in its development?

Do you have criteria by which success of this "pilot" will be judged? What is that criteria? What data was collected from the Kettering Rookie Event in 2008 to determine its success and how does that data measure up to data collected at other, more typical events? Who was sampled to collect that data -- teams alone, sponsors, friends, family, strangers? What level of exposure did they have to FIRST before their experience at Kettering?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Comments in Red.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

A problem exists. A solution was needed. You can make committees, do studies, talk about it and discuss it. Eventually a decision needs to be made. Does this sound familiar? We do this every year when we build robots. Not every body’s Idea can be used and not all ideas are the best but you eventually have to decide and move forward. These plans were not taken lightly and no matter what plan you make somebody will not be happy. I have not seen a better detailed plan out there yet and this plan may not be the best but I think we all can live with it and trudge though. As with any Idea you must try it to see if it works and fix what don’t. How can you make it work for every team? How can you be fair to every body? How can you make this program work? The answers are not easy!!

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

The problem is, that at least for the majority of the constituents in the FIRST community, there was no knowledge of "doing studies, talking about it and discussing it". One day an email blast showed up saying this was what they are going to to do, and it caught the majority of people in the FIRST community off guard. Catching people off guard with "surprise" radical changes to a program - even if they may have the best intentions in mind - is never a good public relations strategy.

I don't think anyone here is questioning the need to try to reduce the cost of FRC. The main problem here is that people do not like the lack of openness and transparency of the process used to arrive at this idea.

If there truly was an open and transparent process, there would have been announcements made for everyone in the FIRST community that they were seeking alternative ideas for growing the program, including possible radical changes to the competition structure. Then hold a series of open "town hall" meetings across the country explicitly for this idea, open up a special forum on the FIRST website for those who cannot commute (whether due to work, price of gas, etc), and for all of the "behind-the-scenes" meetings post minutes (including the topics of discussion, the general points of those for and against the ideas, and how the board voted on such measures). Then, take several competing ideas, refine them into workable competition models, and put these ideas on a ballet for every FRC and FTC team from the 2007/08 season to cast a vote.

You know, the stuff that a democracy is supposed to do - listening to all the people with complete transparency of the process, and letting them decide on the ultimate outcome.


On a somewhat related note, a previous post mentioned how the economy in Michigan is not doing that well, and trying to increase sponsorship is difficult. From a mathematical point of view, if you get $50k in new sponsorship money, you can either give $10k to 5 FRC teams of about 20-30 students each, and reach a total of 100-150 students. Or you can give $1k to 50 FTC/Vex teams of 10 students each and reach a total of 500 students.

While in no way am I saying that any existing FRC teams should stop FRC and go to FTC/VRC, what I am saying is that if the ultimate goal is to get a STEM presence in as many new schools as possible, there are cheaper methods than FRC. At this point, we must ask ourselves what is more important? Spreading the "branding" of FRC or spreading STEM in general?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

artdutra04:

Comments on communications.

Redirected to proper communications thread.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Great idea. Too bad MI isn't allowed to participate in FTC :rolleyes:

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Well, since there are MI FTC teams I'm guessing they are "allowed" to participate. However, since there are no official MI FTC events and since the newly formed non-profit in Michigan is concentrated on FRC and since the press release flat out ignores the existence of any FTC teams in MI, I'm guessing these efforts, no matter how cost effective at achieving the mission they may be, will go entirely unsupported. I suppose all of this is somehow connected to the larger FTC announcement made last year that was discussed here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=26
The link to the FIRST announcement is now only a blank page, but perhaps someone here still has the verbiage.

Again I don't begrudge MI FRC efforts here, but it is puzzling why one of FIRST's programs is just left out of such an important statewide endeavor.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I am surprised that people in Michigan would be surprised that this would upset so many people. I am also surprised more people do not recognize teams all over the country are in funding trouble and need things to be cheaper, not just teams in Michigan. If this was being done in other states I am sure Michigan teams would be very upset and feel it was not fair, especially with the economic issues you point out. It seems clear that part of the problem is that no one at FIRST has a solution as you point out and it seems clear that giving a huge financial discount to some teams and not the rest is very unfair. I feel bad for the Michigan teams who seem to be defensive and feeling like they have to circle the wagons and defend a policy that does not deserve to be defended. People from FIRST should be defending this policy, not leaving it to teams in Michigan to defend it. FIRST should be creating policies to help all teams, not that benefit a select group of teams who seem to have more influence then other states.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

they are trying to find the way, and they hope they have found it. but if it does not work than they dont want to mess up all FRC teams, they are gambling with the michigan teams, keeping you safe.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

What exactly is being gambled here? The problem I think most teams have that are outside of MI is that we are suffering financially as well. We all want the same compensation for our money as every other team in FIRST. The district events will do just fine in MI and teams getting the robots to events themselves will work (we put ours on its side in a jeep liberty you don't need a trailer). There is nothing being gambled the details were worked out for success in MI by whomever and I applaud them for this. I can't speak for MI teams that claim they were left out and I am done pointing out the inequality of this program. Life is not fair and FIRST is not fair it wasn’t completely fair before this and is a little more unfair for some now. However just because the phrase “life is not fair” is true doesn’t mean we should do things that are unfair and then hide behind it as an excuse. I don’t discourage innovation or change to the system, as long as it is done with everyone’s best interests in mind. I still enjoy doing this and learn something new every year. Along the way I along with others inspire students to greatness and will continue to do so. All I ask is to give me and my team the same opportunities do this as all the other teams in FIRST.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

This will be the first time that all of these changes will be coupled into a single season. While most of the items have been "tested" seperately, there are many old practises and new ideas being tried out simultaneously. As you can tell from some very vocal protesting, a national switch may have caused panic and many teams/volunteers to quit. Those are some of the gambles/risk of this new format.

The shipping vs. bagging the robot item probably could be spread to all teams in 2009. I was told that was how they used to do it in the past.

Low cost entry for 2 events relies on low cost events which relies on setting up district events which relies on district event planners and funding. This takes time and a lot of experience/planning. My recommendation would be for areas that don't have post season events to travel to one and/or plan on having one or two in 2009. Getting the local contacts for putting on such an event is a great way to get ready for a district style event.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Lower cost to all teams by $1000.00 and allow to take the robot to the events rather than shipping would do a lot to appease the upset people. Major cost savings to all teams and no major impact to system. When I say no major impact to the system I am presuming that FIRST can afford to lower costs by $1000.00 as they set the presidence with the Michigan teams. The fact that FIRST will need to have more fields to accommodate MI's events and yet lower the cost per team shows an excess in funds in the FIRST budget or else they could not afford to do it. The fact that Michigan can get 2 regionals for the price of one is OK with me as they are getting the sponsors to foot the bill with lower costs by bypassing FIRST and their protocols. I believe that Michigan teams that compete at their state championship should not be allowed to compete at any other regionals. If however they do not attend the state championship I see no reason that they cannot compete at other regionals.

These ideas may not be fair, that's OK, but things can be a bit more balanced by following the above guidelines.