Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

For our school, yes, we would participate. We tried to talk our school into starting a FRC team this year and they were close to letting us start a team, but the vice principal told us no because 6-10,000 dollars was too expensive to justify for a single event on one weekend - he told us to look into cheaper competitions where we could play more. If we could have two events to play in for half the price, then I think they would let us play. So yes, we'd love to have the option the Michigan schools have this year and would take your offer. Seems like only Michigan schools get to save all the money this year, which doesn't do a lot of my friends any good who are seniors and wanted to play this year.

I don't think people are whining who think this seems unfair. I'm sure many Michigan teams would be saying this is unfair if the schools in Florida or California were getting such a discount and advantage. If it helped schools in Florida even it was unfair to all others, I'm sure I'd be supporting it and saying its a great idea or "just give it a try, it's a just a pilot". Guess it all depends on what state you go to school in.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Well while I do not speak for my entire team, and would have to talk it over with them. I personally would take you up on the offer if it was actually worked out and given to us. Even the traveling to MI from SC and back x2 maybe x3 could save us money and be worth while I would have to crunch some numbers to be sure.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Paul,

I think your question is somewhat unreasonable, and will result in a flawed outcome. I know that IF we (148) wanted to participate in this program it would result in another layer of costs for us. Whereas many teams local to MI can participate without any significant expense.

In my mind, a better pair of questions are:

1. Do you believe participation in this program gives a team an advantage (competitive, financial or otherwise) over teams who play using the traditional cost/event structure?

2. If this program were piloted in your state, would you participate?

Answering these two questions helps put the "fairness" of the issue in perspective (for me). I won't editorialize, everyone can form their own opinions.

A new set of questions to further frame the discussion (in my mind):

3. If this program were rolled out nation-wide in 2010, would it provide ALL teams an advantage (financial, or otherwise)?

4. Do I care that MI teams could potentially receive an advantage this year, if it helps proof a model which would provide an advantage to ALL teams in 2010?

Hmm... yep, that made me think some more.
Then again... my big questions are still:

5. Will this new model work at all (even in MI)?

6. Can this model be applied beyond the (great) state of Michigan successfully?

I imagine the answer to #5 will be answered emphatically "yes" this season. I have the utmost faith in the incredible teams and volunteers from the Michigan area. As many of you know, I have a lot of friends up there; you big dogs will definitely pull this off, and make it look good.

However, that still doesn't really make me feel any good about #6. I don't think proving that this model works in Michigan will really help us apply it down here in Texas.

I am not an "event" person by any means; my experience is primarily limited to team support. However, I've been around the block enough times to know that Michigan may be the "perfect storm" which allows this cool new model to function successfully. I question how making this work under ideal conditions is going to help us change the face of the program under NON-ideal conditions. I wonder how the powers that be will implement this elsewhere.

Some food for thought.
-John

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

One thing that I'm still not quite understanding is how so many people think this is an advantage???? I agree the point system is a good idea and allows for "fair" competetion (useing fair very loosely). Look at it from another perspective. A team that only goes to michigan events has to win twice to go to Atlanta, or come rather close to it. A team has to spend more money to get there; $14,000 compared to the regular fees, and although the new system benefits growth and stability, as far as leveling the playing field... we now play in the alps instead of the forest of Michigan. I agree this is a brilliant idea, but there seems to be a few ideas that were not taken into account when the structure was made. Now who will be the first to try and tell me off.....any takers.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

MI Team
Entrance Fee and two events $5,000
Regional Event $4,000
State Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Shipping ~$500
Total $18,500

Non-MI Team
Entrance Fee and one event $6,000
Regional Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Shipping ~$1,000
Total $20,000

This does not include travel for either team. If your goal is to compete with your robot as many times as possible for as little money as possible, then MI teams accomplished that. An MI team will have one extra comp under thier belt by the time they reach the WCs. Obviously this is just one scenario that could be played out. I see it as an advantage, however as many have said before it may be a necessary route to take for the advancement of FIRST in our great nation.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I understand that Michigan teams get to play more for less money, I was just saying that a direct shot to atlanta is more money, meaning one regular regional and Championships. I am all for the new system, I'm simply point out its flaw to quiet down the "Michigan teams have an advantage" side of the argument.

MI teams straight to Atlanta:
KOP + 2 Districts $5,000
State Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $14,000

Non-MI teams straight to Atlanta:
KOP + Regional $6,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $11,000

All I was saying is it is just the way you look at it. What is an advantage to some is a disadvantage to others.

You could also look at it in a way that a few of the power houses most likely are.
KOP + 2 Districts $5,000
State Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $18,000

Compared to last year:
KOP + Regional $6,000
Regional Event $4,000
Regional Event $4,000
World Championship $5,000
Total: $19,000

It is just the way you look at it... the grass is always greener when it isn't yours.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Matter of fact, fuzzy, a MI team can sign up for Atlanta during open registration and doesn't have to attend the state championship.

The numbers for that are:
KOP+2 events: $5,000
Atlanta: $5,000
Total: $10,000

I think what people are annoyed about, mainly, is the decreased registration fee (which appears to be only for MI teams) and then MI teams get 2 events. If we all get decreased registration (even if it only includes one event), there will be a lot fewer people annoyed.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

The grass is plenty green on this side:D
-I am meerly stating a possible advantage for MI teams if a teams goal is to be better prepared for the World Championships. One definite advantage that an MI team has that I can see at the moment unless something changes is the shipping aspect. On the last build day our team and many others are putting the robot in the crate ready or not because FEDex is going to show up between 11:00 and 5:00. Mi teams will be able to work later untill a FIRST MI rep shows up to watch them put it in a bag and seal it.

Disclaimer: I realize that this is a pilot and things can change.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I think the point of trying something new is to make it "better" overall. If it was perfectly equitable in all aspects, then why go through the work and risk/chaos of making a change. Overall the hope is that this will be a net positive that it will have some sort of national (and/or international) scalability.

The FEDex advantage for MI teams is intentional in that they are trying something new. Ever since shipping started, there were inherent in-equalities and additional hassles towards shipping. (For instance California is 3 hours behind EST and therefore has 3 more hours from the launch of the game than any EST team). My estimates have over 100 tons of excess freight going around the country. My team is persnoally responsible for 250 pounds of crate weight shipped over 1000 miles during a season.

Recognizing these "advantages" is a good thing as these are the positive aspects that will hopefully outweigh the negatives of the system they are piloting.
Recognizing the "disadvantages" is a good thing as these are either areas for improvement or items that will have to be thrown into the equation of whether or not this system is a net positive worth the efforts associated with change.
One really big disadvantage for MI teams that I haven't seen in this thread is a lot of key mentors applying a ton of personal time trying to figure out a better system for FIRST instead of trying to figure out how to build a better Chassis, manipulator, Chairman's award submission....

So will MI teams have an net advantage in 2009? I certainly hope so. Will these advantages be applicable to others in th future? That's the goal. FIRST is a really really good thing. Some feel that it can be great. Calculated experimentation with improvements is one route to greatness. What can everyone do? Stop worrying about the "fairness" of 2009 and continue working on making FIRST the best it can be. For those of you outside of MI, but near a district event check it out and provide constructive criticism or better yet help out. If you are reasonably close, come check out the State Championship. It should have the quality of play that we all can be proud of.


EDIT/Apology: It was brought to my attention that my comments may be veiwed differently than I intended. I will leave the body as is as an example. My intentions were to keep a constructive (positive and negative) dialogue coninuing as opposed to destructive comments. After re-reading Dave's original post and some help from others I repect, I realize that negative comments are of value because they are what some may think about this situation (which is what this thread is about).

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Is there an advantage to this competition structure? One hopes so, else why would we be trying something that is worse than what is already in place? But even so, it will have positive and negative impacts for individual teams. The question the pilot will attempt to answer is whether the positives outweigh the negatives for FIRST in Michigan, and then whether that can be scaled up to FIRST overall and remain positive.

One thing I would note in the +/- figures given above, is that you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Or maybe valencias to navels. There is not a direct comparison of costs. If your only concern is getting to Atlanta in the least expensive manner, then Michigan teams come out ahead by $1000 (although they may have to pay shipping to get the robot to Atlanta, I forget how that works). MI teams pay $5000 entry for two district competitions plus pre-pay $5000 for the Championship; other teams pay $6000 entry for one regional competition and pre-pay $5000 for the Championship. If you want to get to Atlanta by the cheapest method of qualifying, the MI teams would have to pay the additional $4000 for the State Championship and gamble on qualifying, while the non-MI team would have to gamble on qualifying from their sole competition.

The real difference is what happens to teams along the way to Atlanta, and especially what happens to teams that don't advance anywhere. Teams that would have spent $6000 to enter one regional now pay $1000 less to get two districts.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Let me begin by saying I believe this pilot program is a necessary step for FIRST and I also believe MI is a great proving ground for it. I am just voicing some concerns so that when it possibly does go national I won't have any complaints. It is sort of like not voting and then complaining about who is in office. With that said I would like to point out one more difference that I see. It is both advantageous and a disadvantage to both sides I will let you all form your own opinions on the matter.

Practice Day:
•Michigan teams get 8 hours of their at home shop work possibly full or half practice field to themselves or nothing at all (team dependent).
•Non-Michigan teams get 8 hours of a shared shop if regional provides and a shared field and possibly a shared practice field if regional provides.

As I have stated there are advantages in this structure for MI teams and disadvantages for them as well.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

To quote Dean Kamen:

"Over the years FIRST has aggressively taken steps to invent new programs and reinvent existing programs to find new ways to take our message to ever more participants. The district event pilot in Michigan is an important opportunity to help reinvent FRC, our flagship program. It holds the promise of making FRC more accessible, thereby moving us closer to the day when every high school student has an opportunity to participate. Team members should be able to play more and play closer to home, all at a lower cost."

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Disadvantages there... Non-MI teams get MORE than 8 hours of shared shop/field/venue time. Practice day starts before 9:00 AM and ends at 8:00 PM.

The advantage could go either way in that case.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I forgot practice day was that long it is actually 11.5 hours our team just never had to use it.(knocks on wood) Thanks for the correction. I know that if our team had the choice to skip practice day and stay at home my vote would be we would.

Pros: Everyone on team can work on robot or parts and programming. Often when we travel not all team members come along. We could be more productive because of this.

Cons: We can not practice with or against other teams before qualifications on a full size field. We don't have a full size field ourselves so we will be missing out on that as well.

To each his own I guess. If your team had a full size or even a half size field or knew a team that could share then staying home on practice day may be benificial to you.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

It's an advantage and a disadvantage.

It's going to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

254 would gladly take 8 hours at home vs 12 at the event. We are fortunate enough to have access to mills, lathes, a CNC, etc. We could do WAY more at home than at the event.

The inverse is true of the teams that need the practice day the most-they don't have a huge shop to work at. They're lucky to even get a broom closet at their school. At the event they would have 12 hours to work with other teams who can help them, as well as the regional's machine shop.

At home they'll have nothing, plus nobody to help prep them for inspection throughout the day. That's what concerns me.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

OK, nobody should be fooling themselves here. This is a "pilot" program in the same way that the first flight of the Airbus 300 was a "pilot" test flight. The real, full deployment is going to happen after this "pilot" program and there is not a lot that will be allowed to stand in its way. This model is going to be continued, whether this first year works or not. It is going to be spread across the rest of the country, whether the other states want it or not.

Why do I say this? One simple reason: no one is actually interested in the "success" or "failure" of the pilot program. It appears that it has been pre-ordained that the pilot program will be a "success."

If this were a legitimate pilot program, a well thought out set of goals to be achieved by the pilot program would exist, and be readily apparent. The criteria for a successful experience would be carefully spelled out in a set of thoughtful, objective, and complete, test conditions that would determine whether those goals were achieved or not. Those test conditions would be well-rooted in a legitimate business model that looked at the appropriate areas of impact on the teams, the region, the state, and the national organization. The FIRST board of directors would know those criteria, and approve them. And the criteria would NOT be written by the people charged with executing the pilot, but by objective third parties who have no stake in the outcome.

However, those success criteria do not exist. And they don't exist because no one wants them to. Because if there is no standard against which you determine success, then you can never fail. Instead, history will be re-written retroactively when the pilot program is over, with the success criteria suitably defined at that time to correspond to the actual events.

Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.

Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.

-dave


.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

There's a good point Dave makes about this being called a "pilot". While the new structure has possible merits and I'm thrilled for the MI teams that will get to play an additional event and most likely more matches in each for a little less money, I'm not so sure what "success" will be measured against either.

I'm also concerned that no matter how successful in MI this might be that the infrastructure required to make this system scalable might not exist at all. How many volunteers will this require over a local "season"? How many fields, FTAs, robot storage facilities? How will this work in regions where the nearest "rival school" is already 3 hours away? Will this solution really change much for them? MI may be able to clear these hurdles, but look at the FRC strength that already exists there.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, I think this is an idea born in MI that may work for MI. Even with events and a slightly less expensive entry, I still don't know how many folks nationwide and globally are able to jump right into starting an FRC team and build a big robot. As an advocate for intermediate-sized programs, to me this plan is missing an integral piece that could get teams and communities interested in a way that initially costs far less in human capital and expertise.

Unless we can see a real "plan" with proposed goals and desired outcomes, I'm sure we'll be having much the same conversation after these events with little more than anecdotal information about who liked what and what some people thought worked, etc...

...just my little log for the fire
namaste

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

You are right.

I applaud what FIRST in Michigan is attempting. As John said earlier, there are great people in Michigan who will move heaven and earth to make this approach work -- in Michigan.

Whether it can work elsewhere is a proper subject for discussion by everyone who cares enough to commit time and treasure to the mission of FIRST. I hope the discussion will stay active, and gracious.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Top ten reasons FIRST in Michigan system with events being held at high schools is an improvement over the current FIRST model:
1) Expose more students to FIRST.
2) Expose more teachers to FIRST.
3) Allow your sponsors to “stop by a competition after work”.
4) Allow student’s parents to more easily attend an event.
5) Reduce the cost of participating in FIRST.
6) Increase teams ROI.
7) Reduce the time mentors have to be away from work.
8) Reduce the time students have to miss school.
9) Reduce expensive time consuming travel.
10) Money that was paid to event planners can now be used to sponsor more teams.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

And that list (which is even missing some big pros/advantages) is precisely why so many regions and teams will be at a disadvantage and consider this upcoming season to have two separate values and sets of rules.

I don't post much anymore, but I don't have a high pain tolerance and I want to stop biting my lip.

As someone said earlier, the entire point of this "pilot" is to provide a better value and return for the cost. And it does that, there is no doubt:
- no one can debate that two events for $5,000 is a substantially better value than one event for $6,000 or two events for $10,000
- no can debate that having 6 or 7 events in a state makes it easier and cheaper for more schools to participate in
- no one can debate that saving $5,000 gives teams a huge advantage in either time/energy/stress saved in fundraising or in the ability to build a practice robot, buy a new control system or attend an extra regional
- no one can debate having your robot in your hands during the fix it window, being able to drive it, being able to add parts to it and so on is much more advantageous than just working on parts and bringing them to an event

IRI and many other great off season events have already proven teams will have a great time and great experience at lower cost events, done in 1 or 2 days, that they get to bring their robots to. There's no question that it's a better deal and a better value, and there certainly isn't any "pilot" needed to prove it. It's all been proven already - which leads to the questions/concerns many have as to why this pilot is needed if it gives some teams these benefits but not others.

The problem is, this pilot effectively sets up two different competitions this year. One set of rules and a substantially better value for teams from one state, and a different set of rules and a lesser value for teams from the rest of the country/world. This has nothing to do with "which teams" or "which state" is getting the advantage - this same issue would exist no matter where it was happening. If this was happening in Florida, California or New York - the issues would be no different, so I don't have any issue with Michigan teams wanting to save money or get a better return for their efforts. The price/value needs to get better for all teams in all areas - and anyone who has participated on an FRC team knows that.

The issue is that for the first time ever, there will be one set of teams getting a substantial discount over others, that's the part that makes little sense (especially since registration fees don't go towards paying for the cost of any FIRST regional events anyway). If this pilot was truly designed to give teams more plays at a better value, then it seems it should be done in states that don't have multiple regionals already (Hawaii, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc...), those are the states it could truly make the biggest impact and help the most teams who can't compete twice in the existing system IMHO.

One of the great things about FIRST is that is has always been one great community - my fear and concern for this pilot is that this upcoming season will now have a fractured community: FIRST in Michigan at one price/value, and FIRST everywhere else at a different price/value. Any pilot that can in any way potentially fracture the great community everyone has built in FIRST needs to be handled very carefully and in a way that is fair to all.

My 3 cents.

Hope everyone's having a great summer!

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Alright, when I posted earlier I hadn't read Beth's pdf about the shipping situation. Is this verified as true? Even without the pilot structure in my state is there any good reason for my team to have to ship its robot? It seems to me we could save a whole lot of money (not to mention the colossal headaches) for teams and FedEx, if the free FedEx shipping was just ued in situations where teams couldn't drive the bot to a regional. Santa, what I want for Xmas is the same cost (money and human) savings as MI teams, even if the pilot structure doesn't exist in my state. :)

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

One criteria that our team uses when deciding to compete out of state is whether an event is being held at a university. We do this because we like the opportunity to show our students out of state options. Our team has traveled to Purdue twice for this reason and to the Florida regional as well. On other teams we have traveled to VCU. Traveling long distances is justified to the parents by pointing this out to them. My question is do other teams do this and how do you think it will affect MI?
By the way MI has always been on our list.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Jason,
I can't speak for any other states. I agree this may provide more benefit elsewhere. This proposal came from the from the regional coordinators here in Michigan to FIRST in New Hampshire. No one here made any attempt to represent any region outside of Michigan. I have no idea if any other regiona has every tried to implement any kind of similar initiative. I think FIRST was wise in terms of how to proceed with this idea and properly manage risk. Some think this will be an improvement, others disagree. The only way to know is to test it. FIRST agreed to implement this in this region and partially isolate it from the rest of the league in order to properly test the concept.

Dave,
I think it is too soon to assume that this will be universally rolled out everywhere in the future. I'm not sure anyone other than the FIRST board of directors can comment on that. Many of the goals of this change are financially motivated and a fairly detailed proposal was approved by the FIRST board of directors. A "successful" pilot event based on the new event model was conducted last March at Kettering U. How can we claim it was a success?... A: We surveyed all the teams who attended and had universally positive responses, B: Event was conducted with all costs meeting targets far below a traditional regional, C: Delegates from the FIRST board of directors were in attendance and were very satisfied with the event quality.

So, if we please the participants, please the management, and can do it for under the projected budget, is it a success? I'm not sure what other measures to use. On the flip side, how exactly can anyone claim that the current system is entirely "successful". ROI is low, team attrition rates are high, and many Regional events lose money every year with no end in sight. Is this "successful?"

Who will decide if this pilot is a success in 2009? Internally, the FIRSTinMichigan project has financial goals, expectations on how the events will be conducted and how many teams we can help to fund. These will be our internal measures of success. On the outside, how will FIRST NH determine if it is a success? I'm really not sure. I agree with you that there must be some standards by which FIRST will measure our "success" in 2009, but I do not know how or if this will be done.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

That's the problem.

"Internal" goals are subject to change without anyone in the community ever knowing. Internal goals can be moved lower after everything is said and done, and success can be [wrongfully] claimed. This is more or less exactly what Winston Smith did for a living.

This is a non-profit organization were are all a part of. This is not a business that has to protect its property, products, and ideas. There should be no secrets or private internal goals. What is there to hide? It should all be publicly available with complete transparency about why they are doing everything, for exactly what reasons, and exactly what they want to accomplish.

As such, this "pilot" in Michigan should have a very rigid set of goals released to the public well before the season kicks off about what they attempt to accomplish. And these goals cannot just be unquantifiable goals, like asking everyone if they had a happy time. They need to be hard numbers.

For example, this would be the start of what quantifiable goals for this program can be:

• Currently, A% of schools in Michigan have strong STEM-related curriculum or FIRST teams. And due to B, C, and D reasons, we believe the current growth strategy will not work for expanding this presence. As such, we are currently looking at this district-level pilot program for meeting the above goals.
  
  The new pilot program in Michigan is being pursued to increase the number of teams in the state by a rate 30% higher than the average growth in Michigan over the past ten years, as well as increase the team retention rate by an average of 50%. The average growth in the number of teams in Michigan over the past ten years has been an average of E new teams per year, and the average retention rate has been F%.
  
  In order to successfully execute this plan, we currently will need to grow the infrastructure of the existing FRC program in G, H, and I areas. We currently have J number of volunteers in the state; five years ago we have K, and ten years ago we had L. Though measures M and N, we are looking to increase the number of volunteers available for these competitions, and to successfully train them to fulfill these positions as well as current volunteers.
  
  Also needed to grow this new program are large sources of new capital to fund these improvements. Over the past ten years, the average growth of capital to fund teams and competitions and the state has been O%. In order to successfully carry out this new district model, we will need to increase that by P%. This will require an aggressive campaign to bring in funds through measures Q, R, and S.
  
  In the case that these conditions cannot be accomplished by T date, our fallback plan details are U, V and W. In light of such happening, any new models of competition listed above will be put on hold until the conditions listed above can be satisfied.

As such, I also want an objective assessment of this new district-level competition as opposed to other avenues of growing the message of FIRST, and why they feel (and can prove) this new program is better, especially in regards to quantifiable goals, such as the cost per person to participate, average time necessary to have a competitive robot, etc.

FIRST is inspiring us to careers in STEM. So now it's time to use these skills to make decisions based on numbers and not on bellyfeel.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Hi Jim,

I understand what you're saying, and I applaud the people in Michigan trying to make this happen. The cost of FRC is WAY too high, there is no doubt about that. It should be cheaper to run an event and registration fees should certainly be cheaper (or at least some of the apx $200,000 in registration fees teams pay for each local event should actually go to paying the costs of that local event).

One point I was trying to make however is that "isolating" this as a "pilot" has already been done - in multiple cities by multiple groups for a number of years and it works. We all know the answers to the test: A lower cost structure for events is better for local volunteers/committees/sponsors, a lower entry fee is better for teams, getting to play twice for less than the cost of playing once is better for teams, getting to keep your robot and being able to make repairs & practice driving with it before events is better for teams, having more events in a region saves teams travel time/money and allows them to play more. This pilot isn't going to help prove any of those things - they are already proven. If the test is going to be given, it sounds like most everyone would like the opportunity to try it.

Michigan is certainly not the first, and it won't be the last, to propose models to lower costs for events and teams (most are just never made public). I've worked with regional committees in California, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii and other states who have wanted to cut regional costs, lower fees for teams and try different models in their area for many years - but they were always told those tests should be in the off season and that they wouldn't be allowed to deviate in a major way from the model all events had during the official season, that the FRC season had to have the same guidelines and requirements for all events and teams to be fair. Many off season event organizers, like IRI, have pitched their models to FIRST and had FIRST people come observe them - and they have proven the results of those "pilots".

But these groups were never told there had been a shift and that they could run regionals in their states differently during the upcoming official season. I've heard from a number of committee members from different areas that they were stunned to see FIRST allow such a different model in one state without ever telling them they could offer those opportunities to the teams in their area. Trust me, if that was known, many states would be happy to do such a model this year.

Again, let me repeat, I applaud the efforts of the volunteers in Michigan to get a better return on the investment for schools and teams. It's the right thing to strive and work for. FRC will only be accessible to the majority of schools and students if the cost is lower. I just wish the same savings and opportunities were being offered to all teams - or at least to all teams with only one event in their state or region.

There's no doubt the FRC cost structure will change in the coming years, I (cough) agree (cough) with Dave - it will happen - with or without what is being done in Michigan this year. As IRI, Kettering and many others have already proven - a reduced event and team cost model works and is a good thing for teams, if made available to all teams.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Jason,
I didn't know that other areas had made any serious attempts to implement low-cost strategies before. As I said before, none of the planning for this was deliberately done in secret, but until the idea got approved by FIRST, there was nothing to talk about publicly. Any other similar past proposals are catagorically the same, no news until it becomes news.

Perhaps the difference here is timing; after multiple attempts from various areas, combined with the current state of the US economy, FIRST finally agrees that the time is right to try something new. One thing I will say, this was not easy, and it took a long time to convince FIRST that this pilot should be allowed to proceed. We have the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as our leaders.

The local situation here is as follows: in 2008 we had 3 regional events. All of these are at capacity and cannot be increased in size. We have recruiting and growth targets for adding new teams which cannot be met without adding another regional. Our Regional Event planners already have diffiiculty finding the funding to run the exisiting events on the traditionaly cost model and it looked very unlikely that we would be able to properly fund a 4th event. Hence the pilot: for the same event support costs from our sponsor base as our current 3 events, we are now going to do 8! Ambitious? Yes...Risk Free? NO!....More Sustainable in the long run? Absolutely!

"A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not why ships are built."

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

More discussion questions in response to Dave's suggestion to talk MORE.

Please do not take these as a slam on the pilot, these are serious questions.

Questions, that would probably have been addressed had there been some level of communication in the planning phases of this venture. As a Michigan team leader, I must object to a "no news until it becomes news", (translated "need to know basis") position. We are supposed to be a community, and secrecy, deliberate or not, only serves to undermine that sense of community and creates a greater potential for friction.

It was posted that "The new system will definitely be much better at promoting the best robots"

Does this mean we are moving to where the "robot" and the "robot competition" is what will matter and count most for teams to "advance" to the championship? One of our Founding Father's once said "it's not just about building robots... that we get the best of what we celebrate..." where are we now headed and what will we be celebrating?

Look at the proposed points system for ranking and advancement to see what appears to be the FiM Vision.

The proposed points system for State qualification ranking is ALL about ROBOT FIELD PERFORMANCE. Why not consider total package scoring something like FLL, or FTC does while we reinvent here and demphasize the machines?

Here are a couple eye brow raisers:
#1 Alliance Captain = 16 points
#1 DRAFT PICK = 16 points (Why is this = to #1 Seed? Other than the assumption that a strong team, yet still not the #1 seeded team, will get picked first from wherever they are in the standings and benefit equally even though they had lesser points, by talent or luck?).

It even assigns points based off of the Elimination Rounds, with adjustments made to individual teams points by WHEN they were picked. Should draft pick even count for points as it is a decision solely made by teams and subject to, potential manipulation for points?

While Judged FIRST awards.... earn a whopping 5 points for a technical award, and 2 points (equal to a match win) for other Judged Awards!! Something looks amiss on the values. Do we as a FIRST Community concur with this, esp. if this indeed our future?

We can argue that it's essentially the same today, but look at the outward message this point system presents. Success in FiM is about building the best robots. Granted, that has always been implied, but now there's no redeeming gracious option in the system.

What about the team that bombs their first event, then Win's the 2nd- but doesn't have the points to go to State? Or the team who never Wins, but gets the points? (I haven't done any of the math, but I'm sure analysis would be worthwhile and interesting) Maybe FiM has something they can share? Or if that team that bombed the first, Wins the 2nd, then actually qualifies for State, but realizes they have no shot at the CMP, and/or has no $$$ to go. When do the tallies come out? So that the next in line might go. Who keeps track and issues the lists?

I'm assuming that a serpentine draft will help balance some of this point distribution though, right? Or, are they planning top-down each round? It really does begin to matter more for State Quals now, and it's not just an impact on a winning alliance.

What is the plan for current Chairman's Award teams? Will they still get the automatic qualification to the Championship? How do they impact the 18 teams from the State if they Win an event and get a ton of points? Or are the final point values going to be calculated after taking the CA teams out? What about the teams they won, or lost with?

How about the State Championship events? Should they (Past Chairman's, or Winner's) be able to go to State and diminish the chances of others qualifying for the Championship if they are already going to Atlanta?

Perhaps FiM should "pilot" them not getting the automatic qualification as well? Or if they do have an automatic qualification, does FiM plan to bar them from competing in the state championship and "suggest" their teams provide the "volunteers" for the State event?

Is there going to be financial assistance made for teams that need to cough up $4000 in a few days if they qualify in week #5 for State? Remember, everyone's budget is expected to drop dramatically.

What if the same team earns a spot at the CMP? That's $9000 in a short time, and two trips back to sponsors and almost 2X of what the initial cost was. I don't know about all this... esp. in tighter times and for smaller teams.

Why only 2 Rookie All-Stars to the CMP, when the State used to send 3? This opportunity can significantly boost a new team, the kinds of teams we are supposed to be helping with all this

Only one Eng. Insp?

We're still planning to send 3 Chairman's...

3 Winners...

9 Top points/field performers...

I highly advise ALL teams to look this pilot over very carefully and critically. Don't let anyone else do your thinking for you.

No one questions the need to improve. Are we sure we have the right vehicle to get there and are keeping to the objectives of developing people along with robots? If we can work through some of the questions and questionable aspects now together, why wait a full season to test & see?

Perhaps FiM will host some official discussion soon. I think it would be well worth the time.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Now knowing that the initial idea came from michigan teams ALOT is explained. I guarantee (I don't know anything for sure just my thoughts) that the planning was mostly done by FIRST's "Elite" members (if you don't know what I'm talking about then email me, my rep can't take another huge hit) and had lttle to no imput from "newbie" FIRSTers.
As far as the comments about everything being public and little done in side deals, all I can say is get used to it. Everyone builds up FIRST so much that many think that it is the utopia that we all dream of, the fact is most of the stuff that gets done happens through smoke and mirrors. The same is true in the real world of every day life.
There was a post earlier that made a comment about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) I think the new system's designers' hearts were in the right place, but not everything was thought through or is this the smoke and mirror effect again? If everything is a strict need to know basis and a "small" group put this idea together, Then FIRST is no different the the current government. (I know that a lot of people won't like that comment, but hey not many like me and in my eyes it is the truth)
I guess what many want to know (especially me) is who put the idea out there and was the mastermind of it. often who puts something together shows in how it works and for who it works. Those who did put it together probably don't want to come forwards due to all the heat, but would you rather like people to draw their own conclusions? That can turn ugly very fast.

I know that my rep will probly go down after this, but it needed to be said. I admit I don't want the new structure to go away, I even like some of it's ideas, I just think it needs to be revaulated and the whole community needs to have a say and know what is going on at all times. No more of the smoke and mirrors B.S. that FIRST pulls and now FiM is trying to pull.

Now you can bash what i have said here, since everyone is so good at it, or put yourselves in someone eleses shoes and view it with a new light, although half of you probly stopped reading after the government bit. Let's see... if you read the whole thing put robot in size 5 font at the top of your post.

let the bashing begin,
Fuzzy

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I'm not going to bash you Fuzzy. I agree with most (not all) of what you said, though you could say it in a less confrontational tone. I don't know what the rep thing is, but don't feel bad for questioning things that don't look right. I agree with those that think challenging things that don't seem right and asking questions and having open discussion is good (when done respectfully). You should not be afraid to post views that question and challenge decisions made by FIRST or any other organization, that's the only way mistakes can be fixed. The point that "Michigan has the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as leaders"(including a board member) who can get things pushed through that benefit their teams and not the rest bothers me very much. That doesn't sound like something the FIRST I've been a fan of would allow and is what disappoints me most. School hasn't started yet, so don't they still have time to fix this and make sure all teams get the same benefits for the same price?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy" :)

I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.

Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Jim I will have to disagree. The fact that you can pocket more money is a plus. The fact that you (with all of the experience) have more time with your robot is a plus. The fact that the elite are not helping the less fortunate at events on practice day is another plus for the elite. The better (elite but not necessarily) robots get a better chance at qualifying for Championship is a plus.

I am not saying that it was designed for this purpose (knowing some of those involved I believe it not to be the case) but it seems to outsiders to have the illusion of elitism.

I will have to agree with a few of the people who have put thoughtful posts in this thread. WHY were many of the Michigan teams not informed and or consulted and why must they follow the few who left them out? Why is FIRST allowing Michigan teams to have benefits that others do not have and if they are going to give some to us why have they not released this info to us.

FIRST does read these threads. FIRST chooses not to respond. FIRST does not care what you or I think. FIRST has come to think of themselves as untouchable. FIRST counts on their volunteers to make things work yet keeps them all in the dark as long as they can. The problem is that volunteers have the choice to continue or not. When they leave you do not get them back because they find other causes to help at. Volunteers include teachers and mentors. How many teams have left FIRST and returned? Very few.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I do get a little tired with the whats fair and teams having advantages discussion.

I learned a long time ago that FIRST isn't fair and never will be. There will always be teams with huge advantages over others. Some will always have more money, more experience, more mentors, and ..........

The only way to make it fair would be to make all teams play to the lowest common denominator and nobody wants that.

I think what we need to concentrate on is will be new system better than the current way FIRST does things. It would be nice to have some definable metrics to go with.

The other thing is will this be portable to other parts of the country or if it works well does it need to be how everyone does it?

If the leaders in Michigan can raise the money to make it cheaper for teams to compete then good for them. Other states or groups should seek to do the same thing not put MI down for what they accomplished.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Don't worry Jim, no one with even a small amount of intelligence would believe you would orchestrate such a massive overhaul just for personal gain.... And this is coming from someone who doesn't exactly agree with this pilot program (well, not the program, but it's lack of publicly stated measures of success).

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

This is of GREAT concern. You make a valid point Steve. FIRST, at least in appearance, seems to gradually be taking the outstanding volunteer, corporate and collegiate support for granted to where the support has become more of an expectation. (There were some VERY disappointed schools and scholarship winners at the 2008 CMP!)

Some of this is probably because of how large FIRST has become so fast. I know we used to get bored at some of the old speeches at events, but they at least showed that they cared and openly recognized the importance of the volunteer base. At least we could feel good before we dozed off... :) As Volunteers, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the folks involved are also involved in other organizations outside of FIRST and after the good-byes are done, would be full bore into another worthy cause with FIRST being but a chapter.

FIRST as a whole cannot afford to lose, alienate, or ostracize any of its quality people or even start down that path, because you are right, once a team folds, they're pretty much done. However, Volunteers can and often do move on and pop up somewhere else, often starting new teams. I wonder how many new teams came from off-shoots or folded teams with an experienced volunteer or two at the helm? I can think of more than a few in my local area, 1243 included.

HOPEFULLY FIRST IS PAYING ATTENTION!! :mad:

Back to Michigan...

This announcement has been out for about 15 days now, and given the concerns being raised, I would think someone at FIRST or FiM would at least organize a call before people begin to develop more, or deeper resentments to this plan, (or toward one another) based on what could be partial facts, speculation or just simple misunderstandings.

Do "They" merit a thousand lashes with a wet pool noodle? Well... probably at least a few for this whole silent approach and for the appearance thus far of not having a representative cross-section involved in the planning. But, we don't know any of this for sure- because of their silence. Hopefully they will soon present a decent reason, or at least their logic (flawed or not in our opinions) and we can move into the next phase of change.

What we DO know is that a group of very well-intentioned FIRST Volunteers put a whole lot of time into developing a competition structure to help elevate FIRST. How they arrived at this... I'm sure we'll find out - IF FIRST or FiM steps up, realizes that the approach/roll out was miscalculated, removes the gag order, and facilitates open discussion I'm thinking the hot-button things will work out, or at least that anything totally unbearable can be worked out... afterall isn't this kind of problem-solving part of what we are supposed to be teaching and learning?

The genie is already out of the bottle, time to deal with what we've got before it starts to get out of hand.

FIRST ARE YOU LISTENING?? :confused:

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I've worked with different FIRST staff members over the past couple of years and they care. Very much.

Bashing FIRST or making demands for FIRST staff to respond in the CD fora is not a great way to expect a response.

There are fora set up in the FIRST website. That might be a place for consideration when addressing FIRST concerns/questions in general.

Or create a different thread to address FIRST concerns, separate from this Michigan initiative, for discussion among the CD members. It doesn't make any sense to me for Michigan to be drug through needless mud or fire when folks can air or vent their general views regarding FIRST somewhere else without causing harm or hurt feelings with the folks of Michigan.

As to this thread, Michigan has created a process and a plan. They apparently have a strong basis/foundation of support in order to implement this plan. It is not perfected but it has a solid beginning or these community leaders would not be moving forth with it.

Maybe/perhaps other regional areas/states/countries are ready today, August 14, 2008, to implement a similar plan. My bet would be it takes some time to make something like this happen, getting organized and ready to move forward.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Jim I wasn't talking about the teams, I ment the leaders and mentors of the old teams and those who have just been invovled with FIRST for a long time. On a side note when someone says something don't jump to a conclusion based on previous posts. I also didn't mean to come across as blameing them for deliberately creating a structure for pesonal gain. I know that MOST people involved wouldn't do that. Just the fact that it was such a small group involved and knowing how things in FIRST seem to get done (although nothing is ever made public so I can only guess) it was most likley the same old group of people. By having the same group of people not everyone was represented. By not having everyone represented it appears in my mind to be unintentionaly made to favor certain teams, once again NOT ON PURPOSE, BUT BY ACCIDENT due to a common point of view. After reading an e-mail from a friend of yours some of that isn't true, but regardless everyone still needs to have a say in fixing the problems not just a select few.
As far as the rich getting richer comment, those are not my words they are someone eleses a few pages back, neither he (I think) nor I ment it in terms of money but rather who qualifies for states and who wins districts. The advantages are there, you just have to look at it from the flip side.
That being said, the "tone" of my last post was without a doubt deliberate, due to the fact that it is easier to understand what a person is saying when they are angry with you. Am I against the new system no, it just needs to be tweaked. If you ask for more than you actually want/need then you will get what you actually wanted/needed.

fuzzy

P.S. If anything Jim I'm the leftist radical in most minds and I'm fine with that.:D

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I agree 100%. Everyone should have a voice in how this program is run, not just the people with the most experience and the greatest insight on how to run a program. After all, everyone has an opinion.

If I had to choose a group to determine programmatic direction, I would certainly select a balanced group of people who have lots of experience, and people who do not -- to ensure everyone gets the chance to put their stink on things. Every opinion carries equal weight. Right?

-John

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

In the interest of clarity and in taking Jane's point to heart, let me start by saying that this announcement basically sparks two conversations - and rightfully so.

Conversation 1 - How this affects Michigan teams, FIRST in MI this year, FIRST in MI in the future.

I stated earlier that it appears that this kind of structure fits a place like MI fairly well because of the number of teams and the strong volunteer base of committed people like you, Jim. However, it would appear from reading here (and from looking at a map) that in places like Western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, the new structure may actually cost teams more money and headaches than what they are used to. Is there any way to come up with a mileage/travel formula to help these teams out? Is there any way to grant exclusions on a geographic case-by-case basis? Does MI have grant funds to subsidize travel for those most affected by this "mandatory" change?

Conversation 2 - How it affects people and teams in all of FIRST now and in the future.

Personally, I'm having a real hard time swallowing a few things every time I read the pdf announcement Dave linked to as well as the FAQ. It has nothing to do with teams and volunteers like you, Jim. I applaud all of your heroic efforts to make a new FRC system work in your area. As you stated, some things get done at a "board level" that none of us get to know about. We're all just the poor schleps that need to turn our lives upside down to make it all work.
A. This announcement assumes that the way to help solve the STEM crisis in the country is by creating as many FRC teams and events as possible. While this can be part of the equation, it's a little disingenuous for anyone to state that there is a determination "...to assist the national goal by establishing FIRST high-school robotics programs in 15% of the public schools in the US by 2012." ... and in the same statement purposefully ignore Michigan FTC team numbers. If I'm a Michigan FTC team I'm part of FIRST but I can't compete in MI, nor am I recognized by this wonderful new entity that supposedly wants to solve the STEM crisis in my state and nationally. Come on! This sends a very uneasy message all across the country IMHO. When I think about STEM and the need in our nation and I think about how this pilot might roll out to the rest of us in the future, I shudder at the thought of exhausting energies solely in one direction when smaller robotics platforms achieve the exact same goal in oh so many ways.
B. Which brings me to my next thought. I've spent a little time "working" for FIRST as a senior mentor, so I put on my "FIRST hat" just to think about how I might apply this kind of system to my own state in the future. The only answer I can honestly come up with is, "I can't and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to discuss it with my RD." PA doesn't have nearly enough FRC teams and has a huge black hole in the middle of the state (Harrisburg is barely an FRC infant). Simply put, there's just no way to make this work well in my state at any time in the foreseeable future and if my state is ever asked to implement such a structure for FRC, we'd almost be forced to abandon that "other high school program that's already growing" to try and get it done as key volunteers can only do so much in a year. So I thought, "If not in PA, where else could this work?" California? New England if you combine states? NY/NJ with REALLY small events? In no way do I see this FRC system being "scalable" as the announcement alludes to and I shudder to think what might happen if this Michigan model gets rolled out to the rest of the country after it's a success - because I know it will be in some ways just because of the Jim Zondag's of the world.
C. Does creating more FRC teams and more importantly, more plays per team, necessarily translate into more students pursuing STEM careers? No, not necessarily. We all have had times with our FRC teams where some students who would have been great to have on board, but they just wouldn't commit the time to the huge FRC animal or maybe they were intimidated by it. Personally, I currently have four students in my robotics program all of whom got themselves into summer engineering camps at universities on their own. They now want to be engineers more than ever (two weren't even considering it before Dawgma came into their lives) and none of them would have ever been involved if it weren't for FVC/FTC.
D. How about the shipping and other rules differences? Can these be applied to all teams regardless of competition structure? If not, why not?

Moving forward, I think it's especially critical that we all keep our eyes on the real ball here - the individual student and truly working at that critical STEM need in the most efficient way possible. Many of them might not even give a crap how many "official" events they go to, who knows? I'm especially concerned that given no publicly stated goals or "success measurement criteria" for the pilot that this is a system that could be forced upon the rest of us by those "board decisions" someday.

Namaste, Michigan FRC teams, mentors, and volunteers. Keep going to make this experiment the best it can be in Michigan. There are positives to learn about for the rest of the FRC world - like streamlining inspections, lowering shipping costs/hassles, lowering registration costs (even by $1,000 as Ken's numbers show). However, let's be cautionary as to how we think about this for the entire FIRST community and why we really do what we do.

If we concentrate too much on the competitions, the league, the number of plays, and which robot wins and how they qualify I bet we'll be the next great American experiment gone wrong - just like the majority of high school sports programs and their "fans". Weren't these programs at one time in our culture's history supposed to help teach everyone about "life" much the same way FIRST does now?

I feel better having put all of that out in the open, please take no personal offense. I'm as passionate about achieving FIRST's real mission and promoting its ideals as everyone else here. Rest assured I get up every day with those ideals in mind and I try to live my life accordingly, just like so many of you who have done this way longer than I have.

-Rich

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I believe Fuzzy might be more concerned not with granting spots on the planning committee to the "proletariat" commoner teams unfamilar with such dealings, but instead in seeing that those "in the know" teams and officials sought out sufficient input from numerous teams across the Michigan landscape who were not a part of the planning. Perhaps he is suggesting there should have been/should still be a series of "town hall meetings" that might have led to realizations such as "Oh fudge, we never thought that this plan as it is constructed might be problematic for Upper Peninsula teams," for example?

If such input was not openly sought from "the masses" during the development process, then I feel some of his concerns (and those of others) have merit, regardless of the abrupt way in which they were publicly communicated.

But I'm just a *lowly* Ohio State Buckeye fan....who am I to suggest what people from Michigan think? ;)

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

You nailed what I ment right on the nose. I don't think that there was much info sought out from the masses, some but not much. Hey I wasn't invovled with the planning, no one in my area was invovled, so I can't be considered a creaditable source. From the sound of things very few were asked for input though. It would be nice if someone who was involved would come forward and say who was a part of the planning.

As far as the way I said things, it got all you guys to read it didn't it.:cool:
Best way to deal with a politician, make them mad enough to trip over there own words, so you can actualy find out what they are saying. Since everyone I have talked to about the subject has acted like a politician and side stepped my questions. Why not use the same tactics.

Fuzzy

Sorry not everyone side stepped, one person said he helped with the point system, and I thank him for answering fully and not dancing around.

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.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I couln't agree more Steve W.

"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be.
Now put foundations under them."
Henry David Thoreau

MI you have convinced FIRST to allow you to run this ambitious "pilot" program. Perhaps you can convince them to allow the rest of the FIRST community to particapate by using the self ship method at least. Although a $1,000 less entrance fee may build a stronger foundation.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

While thinking a lot about the district-level competition model and how it would effect teams, I had an idea earlier today about how it might prove to be expandable across the country, while still being a compromise solution between those teams who think more local events is the answer and the teams who believe the inspiration comes from fewer, yet larger Regionals.

The first 2-4 weeks of the competition season is local, district-level events limited to teams within 250 or so miles (actual distance varies by region). The last 3-4 weeks of the competition season is Regionals, exactly as they are structured now (free for any team to apply to). There may be an overlap of 1-2 weeks in the middle of the season.

Each portion of the country can also decide when their Regionals grow to capacity whether they would like to create a Double or Super Regional, start a new Regional, or start two district-level events. The ultimate choice should be up to the teams in that region (law of supply and demand) - let them choose/vote on what they would like most.

With a team's initial registration fee, they can choose whether they want to apply that towards two local district events or for a single regional and bypass the district-level events. Teams can only sign up for a maximum of two local events, but have no restriction on number of Regionals (other than the number of weeks in the competition season).

For regions with a lot of teams, and not enough full-scale regionals to support them, allow about 1/2 of the slots at that regional to be "open" for any team from any state to apply to. The other 1/2 is for the teams who win local district-level competitions (winning alliance, EI, and Chairman's) and receive a spot to compete at that regional.

Since none of the money paid to FIRST goes to actually supporting and running the local Regionals (who have to rely on their own sponsorship fundraising), it technically should be free for a team to compete at a district-level event and win a spot and (and compete) at its corresponding regional. However, if a team wins two district-level events, they can only use their "free" regional once, since both of the district-level events should be feeders for the same Regional.

The Championships would be structured the same as they are now: a large amount of "open" registration in the fall, with enough spots left over for the winning teams at Regionals. Winning at district-level events does not qualify a team for any spot at the Championships, however a team may use their initial registration money for two district-level events and also register for the Championships during the open registration period.

Obviously this is still an idea, and is not perfect, and is completely open for debate. But what it does do is initiate a compromise solution where everyone gives a little, yet ultimately benefits as many teams as possible.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Those are some good ideas.

The Michigan model took 3 regionals, converted one to the state championship (in week 6), and will have 7 district events (weeks 1-5). At a 3 into 1 ratio, that would mean if expanded continent-wide there would have to be 13 or 14 championships. It would be quite difficult to schedule all of them in week 6.

We may end up seeing some transition years until some areas of the country get enough teams to support a district/championship model. I'm not sure that choosing/voting whether or not to change is the proper concept - let's try "consensus" - but there would be some way to decide which regionals stay as traditional regionals while others convert to the district/champ format. It could be that some events could be hybrids - championships for those who advanced from districts, but also open to other teams on a open-registration basis.

Assuming, of course, that all goes well in FiM and the program will be expanded.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Gary is coming up with very similar numbers to what I am.

I have been doing a little analysis the last couple of days with team distribution and district model. I will post something up when it is a little more refined, but as some initial numbers to think about.
First off, driving to a local event only makes since for Mainland teams. Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and other countries may not see any easy benefit from this. They have always been special cases anyway, and would require a special solution.
1350-1500 Mainland teams would require 2700 to 3000 district slots to have 2 plays. With an average district event hosting 40 teams this would reuire 68-75 district events. Depending on goals of proximity/availability of Regional Championships there will need to be 12 to 24 Regional Championships (Similar to Michigan's State Championship). 12 would be if 50% of teams would have slots to compete, 24 would be if nearly 100% would get to compete (assuming 60 team events).
Michigan is trying the 50% of teams will get to compete in the State Championship model. Since this would correlate to 12 regional Championships, this could then turn 25 regionals into district events and would free up funding for the addition 40-50 district events require for that model. This would mean with no additional funding (and assuming funding can be dispersed) district events would need to cost 1/3 a regional event.
If nearly 100% of teams are to get to play at a regional Championship, then that will require 24 Regionals and 12 regionals will turn to district events and would require an additional 55-60 district events to be created. This will require a 1/5 regional cost for a district event.
Either model would require either a lot of new venues or, repeat events at key venues.

If FIRST (and these are all hypothetical) wants to go with 100% availability to regional championships, then it would probably be more reasonable to do 25 traditional regionals and 25 district events. If 12 regionals were turned into 25 districts, this would require districts to be 1/2 cost of a regional. It would also only require 12-15 new venues. The districts would be warm-ups, and maybe only the winners of it qualify for the Championship. At the Regionals would be the traditional 6 slots (winners, chairmans, Rookie Allstar, Engineering Inspiration?). This would then lend itself to further expansion of district events. I personally like doing 3 events and then the Championship, but this could be a reasonable 2010 interlude to gaining enough district events. With this model there are 225 qualifying positions for the Championship as opposed to 222 (6x37). This might be the way for the smoothest national transition for a district model. This model would also be more scalable for the non-North American teams that have a regional since then they could do a second district event possibly at the same venue.

Looking at the map (use http://www.usfirst.org/whatsgoingon.aspx), teams are created near events, and additional events seem to be created near teams (exceptions would be Minnesota and Oklahoma where this seems to be a simultaneous effort). Not a big surprise.

Keys to success for this kind of expansion would seem to be:
Cost structure: Is 1/5 and/or 1/3 and/or 1/2 even reasonable (from the number I have heard, I think 1/3 is reasonable and 1/5 may be doable).
Venues: I think that smaller universities with engineering programs benefit from this. If they can donate gym space, this could work. I know that Wayne State, Eastern Michigan, Kettering, and Grand Valley get a lot of attention from our students. I have found several engineering schools that have great programs but don't get the coverage that some of the big schools do.
Location, location, location: If these venues can align with strategic locations between current venues, other areas of the country may see growth like the upper Midwest and East/West coast have seen. Part of why there are so many teams in Michigan (esp. SE Michigan) is that you don't need to stay overnight to go to every regional. Having at least 1 event that is a reasonable drive from home is a huge benefit from a cost structure. New Englanders know this, CA knows this.

We may need to return to Dean's previous assignment and instead of creating teams at Colleges and Universities, Bring in the Dean's of Engineering and say, how would you like 600 motivated interested local students visit your University every spring right before they apply for College's. Would that be worh a weekend at your Co-Rec or fieldhouse?

$0.02 more cents for the pot.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

One minor detail there... MI championship is Week 6. Teams might not know if they are going until Week 5. They might have already paid for one regional outside MI in Week 2 and attended.

That is a good point, but it'll be kind of hard to enforce.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Not really. If they sign up for another regional then they cannot compete at the Michigan Championships. If they sign up for Michigan Championships then they cannot compete elsewhere. Easy !!:D

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

The first one, yes, that is easy. The second one is not as easy, for the reasons above (and the fact that registration for said event starts around Week 5).

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

How many teams are going to be allowed into each district event?
It seems that there are about 25 in most of the events now. Has anyone calculated the average time between matches? It looks like it will be very quick turnarounds.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

The number I heard was somewhere around 40. That may vary by location if there are physical limitations at the site. For instance, this means Wayne State would have to add 6-8 teams more than they have had in previous years. But since they wouldn't have to store shipping crates, the pit area could be expanded into the walled-off section east of last year's pits, part of the snack bar area.

Total capacity would be about 140 teams. There are currently 93 teams signed up.

24 teams, assuming 2 3-team alliances, would require less than 4-match cycles (else the same 6 teams would always be in every 4th match). For 40 teams, you could theoretically average about 6 match cycles, but the program would most likely have to be set for a 3-match or 4-match minimum turnaround time. 12 matches per team on a 8-minute match cycle would take 10-2/3 hours total time to run matches - about 8 hours on Friday and 3 hours on Saturday morning? Certainly attainable.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

This was a good move. Travel costs were too expensive

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I'm not sure if anyone else has brought up this point as I haven't read all 200 some posts but I didn't see much discussion of Chairman's...

In order for your community efforts to be rewarded you have to have a viable robot able to get you to the State Championship? Since when?

Does anyone else question the reasoning here?

I understand the need for the simplification, as a Chairman's submission at every district is not a possibility, but are only teams who have competitive robots able to get them to the championship allowed to make their chairman's presentation? There has been no correlation between the two in the past. Yes, teams that win the Chairman's award generally are experienced and a great force to be reckoned with on the field, but that is not necessarily the case, and every team has their off year for the robot...

To me the Woodie Flowers submission is even more of a necessity for district competitions. Mentors who win this award aren't necessarily from highly experienced or strongly competitive teams and deserving mentors' teams may not make it to the championship. Are we tossing them aside because there team wasn't good enough? Are all of the submissions statewide judged regardless of whether or not the team is attending?

I know the district system isn't perfect and our criticisms won't have the blessing of foresight until summer but I guess we'll see how this ends up. I simply hope no deserving team or mentor is passed up because they did not have an amazing robot.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

The actual rule for the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award for Michigan (I do not know why it is not in the manual yet as several sections for the WFA are missing) has nothing to do with the robot performance.

Basically, you nominate your candidate at one of the Michigan districts you will be attending. At each district, all of the nominated candidates from that district will be called to the playing field to be recognized as nominees.

All of the nominees from all of the districts will be judged for the Michigan State Championship WFFA. There will be 1 WFFA winner from Michigan, not 3. I will not go into the reasons why on this forum. If you really want to know why, then you can discuss it with me during the 2009 season. However, all of the former WFA (it was unanimous) agreed that this was the best approach for Michigan and FIRST.

Agian, it has nothing to do with the robot for the WFFA, including Michigan.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

No. The current plan has a separate category of awards called "FIRST Culture Transforming Awards", which includes Chairman's, Rookie, EI, Woodie Flowers Finalists, Enterpreneurship and Autodesk Visualization. Winners of these awards at Districts will advance to State without their robot. (Unless the robot also qualifies by scores.) The teams will be judged separately at State for advancement to Atlanta: 3 State Chairman's, 1 State EI, 2 State Rookies, 3 WFFA's.

The whole thing will be similar to how the WFFA worked in the past. Regional WFFA's advanced to Atlanta, whether or not their team qualified.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Must teams that are judged, sans robot, for "culture transforming" awards pay registration for the state event? I hope not.

I guess the days where a Chairman's Award submission and presentation are made by members of my robotics team is coming to an end and, instead, I need to start treating that group as a separate organization. I can't, after all, bring 40 kids to an event wherein only 3 of them will present to judges for ten minutes and then have absolutely nothing to do for the rest of event.

My kids were thrilled to win RCA last season and the best part about that for any of our mentors was watching and being there with them as they went out onto the field. I think that moment might lose some of its impact when I have to leave 90% of my team at home because they weren't involved in our entry.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Three things:

First:
Why can't you take 40 kids when only three are presenting? I think it would be a wonderful show of team unity if the the entire team were to be present to support the CA presentation team. As a coach, I would be pretty upset if my team didn't want to go the the competition even though we weren't competing. Given that CA is the most prestigious award, my team would be going - robot or no robot.

Second:
As to the "nothing to do", why not have them volunteer for the competition or help out other teams or watch a fun competition w/out the stress (albeit fun stress :ahh: ) of competing?

Third:
I believe that any team that is organized enough to win a District Level Chairman's Award would also manage to be one of the over 50% of MI teams who qualify for State's. If they're not, see first point above...

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

We could not justify time away from class for most of our students unless they were participating actively in a team activity. Watching a competition or volunteering at a competition are not, in my mind, important enough to warrant the time away.

Traveling to an event, even for a single day, represents a significant expense to our team. We are responsible for funding and arranging transportation and meals for many of our students -- so even something as simple as visiting an event might represent hundreds or thousands of dollars of additional cost.

All of this, of course, completely ignores my fundamental disagreement with eliminating mediocre or bad robots from competition. While I agree somewhat with ideas that a field of proven competitors increases accessibility by the public of FIRST programs, I also believe that students benefit tremendously by seeing the caliber of work of other students, mentors and teams.

How can you congratulate a team for doing the stuff that matters -- ostensibly the role of the Regional Chairman's Award -- while at the same time telling that they can't play along with the stuff that doesn't matter? If it's not about the robots, why not just let them bring it along and have some fun with it?

Or is it really about the robots?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I like how the new structure makes it cheaper for teams with hotel fee's and traveling costs, but i really liked traveling out of state last year :D

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

That would depend on exactly where in MI you are located, correct? I would imagine some upper peninsula teams may incur quite a travel expense getting to their second event in-state.

This is one of the reasons why I hope and pray that my state, PA, does not go the district route any time in the near future. With a big gap in the middle of our state, we'd be straining our relatively young teams in Pittsburgh and really hamstringing many of our veterans in the Philadelphia region who have been great supporters of closer regionals (than Pittsburgh) in other states. We simply have no volunteer or team base in the middle third of the state.

If the district model works in MI, for MI, without stretching volunteers, schools, or resources too far, then great for MI. However, I will continue to wonder what other states this model could logically work in. Unless you have a somewhat even distribution of teams and volunteers throughout the entire state, it's hard to imagine that you'd be doing much good for all of the effort, but I've been wrong many times before.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

In response to Rich's point, I think a big mistake in rolling this program out, if it is to be expanded to other areas, is calling the new event at Ypsi the Michigan State Championship. Michigan had the critical mass of teams available so that all the districts would be in one state, and so the championship happened to be the state level. If the district-qualifying-to-championship model gets spread to other areas, it likely will not be at the state level in most cases. For Rich's concern, perhaps there would several districts which make up a region in E-PA, NJ, DE, MD, and maybe VA. There certainly would be enough teams in that area to create a Mid-Atlantic Championship tournament. It could rotate around to various sites which currently have regionals in the area. The other regionals would be district sites, and an equal number of other district sites in smaller venues could be created.

The point about the UP (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the teams in the northern Lower) having increased travel costs to go to two district events is valid. It would also happen in states like ID, KY, NM, NE, MS, and at least a dozen others - states with only a few teams in them, adjacent to states with more teams and an existing structure that could be converted to districts. But the teams in those adjacent states would have to travel just as far to get to their first district as they do to a regional today, and then travel again to get a second district. Unless on the state level, such as been done in OK and MN, a big push is made to get new teams established and create a district in their own home state. We still have the problem of vast distances for some states, particularly AK and HI but also some other western states, plus the international teams.

Any new structure will not be ideal, no more than the existing structure is ideal. We won't know which is better unless we try. I've expressed some of my concerns in other posts. I'm hoping the concept will be given a fair trial, and that everyone will be open to suggestions for improvements if needed.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

One of this program's biggest benefits was the reduced travel cost and assuming we have to travel to two district events in NY(Presumably one in Rochester) and the other in NYC? and then a Northeast Championship Event in NH? That's a lot more in travel then we do now going to FLR and Championship.

I think we all need to work on something that will work everywhere, not just MI. I think the MI Pilot will work there, I think if all the MI teams agree on the point structure then that's OK for them. I think we all can agree that there are changes that will need to be made to see if this system will be beneficial anywhere else.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Not ALL Michigan teams agree, nor were they all consulted in the planning stage. The plan was apparently mentioned as a possibility at some meeting to which not all were able to send representatives, but details were not discussed at that time. Michigan teams who were not part of the planning group found out about the change at the same time it was announced to the rest of the world.

We've been attending one Regional, GLRC, at Eastern Michigan U, right in our "backyard": No travel expenses. In order to participate this year we will have to rent a bus and/or other vehicles. This will probably cost $1,000 - $1,200 even though we are going to the closest two events possible. (so much for saving $1,000)

The idea of a district system has a lot of merit, but the roll out could have been less traumatic. I wish that FiM had made a greater effort to let ALL the teams know of their plans much further in advance. A year to plan and raise money would not be too long.

I hope that any future program changes will be considered by a wider group of leaders and input about logistics and costs will be sought from all teams. Every team is important, even if they haven't fielded a champion robot. The students still learn a lot and go on to be engineers. That's the real point of all this isn't it?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I can WALK from the Cass tech regional to the Wayne state regional. My team (2673) is the Cass tech team and we wont even be leaving our zip code. :(

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Does anyone know where the sample Michigan District schedule is?
I know I saw one and now I cannot find it.
I have searched Chief Delphi through search and do not see it.

Carolyn

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

http://www.firstinmichigan.org/

and specifically http://www.firstinmichigan.org/stati...se_city_agenda

(I think the agendas for all the events are pretty much the same)

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Thank you so much.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

As some early feedback, I have been helping with a Rookie team this year. Their team leaders have helped other teams in the past (the other team number is around the 500s, so they have been around for a while). They are very excited about the new format as they can afford to go to 2 competitions for less than the price of 1 (when they were on other teams). Also because the 2 competitions are close enough, they can use school busses and do not require overnights at hotels.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

It's funny how things turned out.

Don't knock it 'til you try it, folks.