Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I'm not a big fan of this idea as it sits on paper. It seems good but then in the same respect it doesn't. You're essentially dumbing down two regionals and letting the teams compete at these instead of one normal regional. At the same time the teams are competing against local teams so the diversity is lost. I love going to regionals and meeting people who live hours and states away, but here you'll meet the people in the town next to you. I think this has good intentions but may not fair as well as many seem. In reality, all FIRST is doing with this is trying to make more teams in a state and a time with struggling economies. Almost all of us here know how hard it can be to get sponsors when you're the only team for miles and times are good, now imagine if they're are 5 teams in the same 10mile radius competing for sponsors, how will that work?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I agree. And we enjoy having you guys at Wisconsin every year. That's something that makes regionals better than any state competition. It's awesome seeing a Canadian team coming down to Chicago. It's fun seeing a Michigan team go to Canada.

Another example:

This year at the Minnesota Regional, 44 of the 54 registered teams were above 2000 in number. 30 of them were rookies. The only veteran teams (5+ years in FRC) were 93, 525, 876, and 877. Not one of them is from Minnesota.

These 4 teams (in addition to 1816, the second oldest Minnesota team) held the regional together. They were in the pits helping other teams, they supplied loads of volunteers, they made up over a third of those in attendance. Without these four, I have no doubt that the regional wouldn't have gone as smoothly.

Minnesota will likely see a growth in 2009 equal to, if not larger, than its 2008 growth. How does ONE competition have a chance in hell to operate smoothly with the oldest team at the regional only 3 years old. Now lets figure out how a state like Minnesota could operate 5 or 6 competitions, most of them with no teams over 2 years old.

Don't get me wrong, the 2nd and 3rd year teams in Minnesota are some of the most mature 2nd and 3rd year teams in the country, but regardless, situations like this seem a little ridiculous.

FIRST thrives on veteran teams growing rookie teams into veteran teams. Look at what they are doing for testing the NI control system: just that.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Excellent points Chris. I'd be happy to find out the pilot turns out to be awesome and have to eat my words.

I just hope the effort to give teams 2 regionals instead of one doesn't result in two watered down events instead of one good one. Without a practice day, most teams will probably get half a regional's worth of competition out of their first event.

You're right though. It is too early to condemn it to failure.
If this became widespread, certain regions would comprise more than one state, I'm sure

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I think the best thing anyone who will be directly involved in the new system can do is employ some teamwork, some intelligence, and some creativity and just try to make 2009 the best year yet for FIRST in Michigan. If the new system doesn't work out, at least it won't be for a lack of effort.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Yes the cost of entry is high, do I believe that should change? no. There is a reason the cost of entry is high, because FIRST is such a superior robotics program when compared to lower-cost alternatives. That is why FIRST is special, by focusing on making it more 'approachable' and cheaper you are reducing the qualities that make FIRST a special program. Yea its really hard to build a robot with a team of students and engineers in six weeks, and yea its really hard to find the money to fund a team, but that's the challenge: running a successful FIRST team is hard work. For me that's just how I like it, make it more challenging.

To lower the cost of entry, in this case allowing teams to enter two mini-regionals, too much would have to be taken away from the experience of FIRST. I'm not saying don't try it, I'll be watching Michigan just as closely as everyone else, I'm just worried about the direction here.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Definitely. I'd say that the Northeast/New England would probably be one region, while the area of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the rest of the northern Great Plains would be another. Then more regions could spin off. (Note: Regions are only meant to be examples...)

As for the "if it becomes more widespread, how do teams from different regions interact" question, we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I've attached the pdf I received in my email a few hours ago. It seems to detail more information which many have requested in this thread.

I'm still... composing... my personal opinion

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Just to be clear there are not a large number of differences between the district format and a regional format. The biggest change is Thursday has been reduced to an optional 4 hours, with the other missing 8 hours allotted to teams to use off site.

The crew running the event, the tournament structure, the awards, the field, will all be within the within the normal bounds of regional events that are currently being run.

Low cost does not mean there are a ton of cut corners but merely finding ways to maximize the usage of the resources we have (local sponsors donating more of the items etc...). Even reducing the length of Thursday was not to cut costs but rather to allow for teams to attend more events while missing the same number of school days.

As many have mentioned there are some technical issues involved with the shortened format but aside from that I’m not sure where the idea of the district event being a stripped down regional is coming from. What parts of a regional are missing that so degrade the quality of the event?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

As I'm sure you're aware, the budget for a typical regional event is typically somewhere between a quarter- and half-million dollars. I'd like to believe that there's not much pork there and that regional planning committees are practicing due diligence in making sponsorship dollars go as far as possible.

You are now suggesting that Michigan will be able to support more than twice as many events as last season at the same level of quality of regional events. Whereas before, regional planning committees in Michigan might have to raise, say, $750,000, it follows that the 2009 season will require $2,000,000. I am skeptical that you'll be able to make up the difference -- $1.25M -- through donations and support from local businesses. Necessarily, and admittedly, you are using venues, high school gymnasiums included, that do not have the same cache as those used by many other events.

There is appreciable benefit in generating interest in our progam when I am able to tell people that our competition will take place in KeyArena, Seattle's basketball stadium. It is more challenging to get people to understand the scope and value of the program, I think, if I instead have to invite them to the Franklin High School gymnasium.

I don't see how you can possibly provide experiences that are of the same caliber as today's regional events without a comparable budget. If you are able to provide an experience that matches the event we have here -- held in a large stadium, lighting trusses, gobos, television cameras, DJ, projection screens, professional presentation, etc. -- for such a significantly smaller cost, well, what the Hell is my regional planning committee doing wrong?

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I would guess that this has already occurred and is continuing. The news is hitting the wires now but there has had to be a lot of ground work, teamwork, intelligence, creativity, commitment, and courage to implement this type of change. It is a pilot program for one season and it is innovative. For an entire state to be involved on this level means FIRST is making an impact and like it or not, we have to heed that.

We can't hold back the tides of change, just like we can't stop time. A pilot program can try this out, test it, and then go from there. The FIRST community can rally around this state and these FIRSTers and support the effort, the initiative, the pluck, and the commitment of the volunteer leadership and all of the teams that will be a part of this.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

24 matches for the same low cost of $6000? Sweet! If only they threw in a free bonus practice day, I wouldn't only be sold, I'd move to Michigan!

That said, the loss of the practice day makes me worried, especially if they plan on having a lot of rookies. In the five years I've been involved with FRC, the practice day has been instrumental every single time. That would set me on edge if I lived in Michigan. Using IRI as an example is pretty invalid in terms of practice, as all those robots have seen at least one full event, and I'd bet a pretty good portion of them have seen multiple events.

Also, the way I read it, Michigan teams pay the full fee and have no chance of qualifying for Atlanta unless they pay another $4000 to play at the State Championship, right? That seems to me like it could potentially be a pretty hard sell to a school, and cost some deserving teams on low budgets (especially rookies) a trip to Atlanta.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

I want to know if they talked to all the teams in Michigan. I'm pretty sure they didn't, being the lead on my team i have not received anything from FIRST to see if my team would like to be involved in this new pilot program. But still I and i think lots of teams would like to know if anybody knows if this program is mandatory for Michigan teams to participate in. I certainly hope not as it is just going to be a bigger expense for my team to have to deal with.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

How? $5000 for KOP and TWO regionals? Two regionals for the price of one? That doesn't sound more expensive to me.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

They are located in a rural part of the state and it is easier for them to compete in Wisconsin than in Michigan. By requiring teams from Michigan to participate in the pilot, his team will now have to attend two events that are further away than the regional they've been attending and they will thus incur additional travel expenses.

Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
 

Eric,

If you check out the pdf I posted, it says that it is mandatory for all Michigan teams. Thus, your money will automatically go toward 2 Michigan district competitions and if you do want to go to Wisconsin (the cheaper one according to your posts), there will be an additional fee.

(all I know about this is what I read in that pdf and my interpretations from it...)