Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

So, Michigan regionals: hate them or love them they are here.

I'll say this right now: it is not my intention for this to turn into yet another rant about why you do or do not think this is a good idea. There is a very simple reason for this: the time for conjecture is past when there are hard facts present that you could work from instead.

That said? I obviously won't be the only one writing here and so I'm pretty prepared to accept that this topic might get rapidly swept away. I'm just asking you guys, out of politeness, to respect these intentions and take the hypothetical stuff elsewhere.

FIRST has called the regionals in Michigan a test. I trust that any sort of remotely educated or intelligent mind understands the meaning of the word "test" in the scientific sense. It would mean that they are running an experiment, that they have defined clear and measurable definitions of success and failure in various categories, and that they will now take and study copious amounts of data to make an informed choice as to what their further action (if any) should be. FIRST hasn't published any such criteria to my knowledge to the public: but as the public will not be the ones making the decision I guess that is defendable. I am always one for freedom of knowledge and transparency, but I am trying to respect the fact that that belief is not always shared.

Some people go as far as to accuse FIRST of not treating this as a test at all but as a cultural introduction for the rest of us of an inevitable future. Others take FIRST at their word and believe this is a test. I do not want to go into who is right because in this case it does not matter: if you believe this is the inevitable future you should logically want to know about it and study it so you are properly prepared for it. If you think this is a test you want to know the results and study them so you can have an educated opinion on what the conclusion of the test should be (and also want this data in case they do decide to implement it). Either way you cut it: if you are anything short of entirely apathetic about this situation the logical response to do would be to study it scientifically...

...and to be honest with you I don't see a lot of scientific study going on about this topic. I see raging, I see whining, I see a lot of people patting themselves on the back, and I see a lot of mindless yes-men who agree without a lot of thought. I think that's awful.

So lets change it. Lets start asking the hard questions about this new system and going about scientifically determining the answers. Lets collect the information and begin going through it to reach some meaningful conclusions. Maybe somebody at FIRST will read it, maybe they won't. I think the data will be very useful to us if they do choose to roll this system out across the entire league in helping local areas avoid pitfalls and shortcomings: especially since FIRST does not seem to have much expressed intention of making whatever volume of study data they are gathering public.

I'd be a hypocrite now if I didn't contribute so I'll start it off.

The new regional system indicates a sharp increase in the number of regionals per square area. This would mean for the regionals to remain the same size you need more teams per square area. Are they getting enough new teams to make the regionals feel reasonably sized? I know there are many new rookie teams...the question is are there enough?

Are the new rookie teams full teams? I understand they have most of their funding out of the way but you can not just give a non-existent team funding and expect them to become a team magically. Do they seem to have reasonable mentorship? Do they look like they will be getting sponsors? Is the number of students on the team to a critical mass where the team is likely to continue even after a few graduating classes? In short: do the majority of these new teams look sustainable?

Do the new teams flood out the regionals and lower the level of competition? Are there enough vets around so that the spirit of "gracious professionalism" (man I hate using that term) is getting through? Gracious professionalism is difficult to qualify so I'm going to simplify some qualifiable indicators for the purpose of this talk: cheering for opponents, limited off-field destructive/hostile behavior towards other teams, cooperative behavior in pits (tool, materials, manpower, and expertise lending), and positive inter-team social interactions. These would probably be a few reasonable starting indicators that this mentality is getting through (and I am totally not claiming that those things alone would constitute gracious professionalism).

Are there sufficient volunteers to staff the regionals?

That's all I have for now: I figured I would post up my questions and then begin crunching whatever numbers are available for the new Michigan teams on the FIRST website. That might answer a few of the numbers-based questions.

If anybody else has any questions: please ask them. If you have available data from the Michigan regionals: please post it.

Reasonably, by the end of this, I would like the answer to this thread topic's question to be "Everybody."

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Now, my question is, how does the Michigan system differ from other regionals? Excuse my ignorance. I know Michigan's was labeled differently so I knew something was different but I don't know what is different. Perhaps you can shed some light in to this, so people can understand you better.

Thanks =]

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I don't have enough information to have an opinion. However, that was very well put and I hope that the posts responding to it are half as well thought out.

Thank You.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Michigan is "piloting" a new competition structure. As a brief overview Michigan's three former regionals aren't taking place this year, instead 7 District events and a State Championship are taking place. Michigan teams did not ship their robot but instead Bagged them and bring them directly to their events. The districts differ from regionals, instead of a Practice day Michigan teams have an 8 hour unbagging window.

2009 registration fees were $5000.00 and for that teams got 2 District events, for an additional $500.00 teams could attend additional District events. (Each district guaranteed teams 12 qualification matches) To attend the State Championship teams have to qualify based on a points system (first two districts attended). Michigan teams were REQUIRED to participate in this program, though they could travel to out of state events, out of state teams could not attend Michigan events. More infomartion & the Michigan Rules can be found at the FIRST in Michigan website. The FiM now has its own forum here on Chief Delphi FiM forum. The original Chief Delphi thread on the topic http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=68653

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Some initial Data from the build season:

I helped out with a rookie team this year that was lead by others that had some FIRST experience. They liked the new format as they were able to sign up for two events for less than the cost of 1 traditional event. They also liked that the events were close enough that they didn't have to pasy for busses and hotels (typically the largest part of the traditional budget).

As the events are just starting, that is all I can talk about. I will discuss more details once they are made available.

IKE "the YES man"

P.S. Michigan had to do something different because with 120 teams and only 120 comp slots, many Michigan teams had to travel out of state in order to get to play at all(other out of state teams would sign up for MI events because they knew "their" local events would not fill up until later). Many less organized, lower budget teams would miss the 5 minutes that were available before MI events filled, and then blow their entire budgets on Out of State Busses and hotels.

While I do not think this structure model will work everywhere (Katy finds many of the reasons), I made a counter proposal in the last thread that would work as a transistionary step.


All-
Also, the reason that you will not see a lot from FiM people is the attacks from a vocal minority showed them it was better to take their work off CD. This is the same reason why there are not a lot of official FIRST people on CD. While many say that words should not hurt anyone, these comments have made the people organizing the events stay away for CD which I personally think hurts all of us. These are Woody Flowers Award winners and FIRST outstanding volunteer winners who are tired of stones being thrown at them for "trying" something new. As Lil' Lavery stated in another thread about mean statements on CD, these are volunteers trying to help make things better. Nice post Katy as these are good questions instead of acqusations.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

This is how I understand the situation. With the amount of MI teams and the steady growth of teams, all 3 regionals in MI were full.

Even before the recession that has taken over the whole country, the economy in Michigan had been bad for years now. It would have been nearly impossible to raise funds from sponsors for another 'regular' regional in Michigan. And it would have been too much of a hardship for many teams to travel outside the state to compete.

Now Michigan can hold 8 events for the cost of 3. And every team can play in 2 events for the price of one and get more qualification matches per event, since the events are capped at 40 teams. This maximizes the cost/benefit ratio for the teams. And the "experience of FIRST" of learning/building/competing in the game is the (mostly) the same.

Can the system be improved? I'm sure it can. And I hope all the teams involved can have their say as they move forward.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I'm withholding judgement until all the events are over.

However, I do think that some things could have been/could be done differently, and the chief is the perceived "secrecy" until release. The next biggest? Starting in the same year as a new control system.

Other than that, I will keep quiet until the events are over and the data is in.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I got involved in the discussion before but I didn't think it was really going anywhere so I kind of set it aside for a while and I think it has done me some good.

I will be your biggest supporter if...

1) Gives me two events for the price of one.(Check) This is the BEST idea for change that I have ever heard.

2) FIRST in Michigan give points towards the state Championship to Chairman's Award and Engineering Inspiration Award winners.

3) Develop some sort of wildcard event or something so teams that can afford to travel to different events can do so. I will be sad if the days of 365,67 ETC coming to FLR are over. If this Pilot program goes through as is, I won't ever see those teams unless we all qualify for Championship. I think that would severely hurt the level of competition if everyone is forced to play in-state.


I appreciate what this thread is trying to do. I hope it can stay civil.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Why doesn't FIRST hold like 4 regionals? In Minnesota where our local regional is, the number of local teams grew by four fold over the last two years. In 2007, we had like 20~30 teams. In 2008 (our rookie year) they had around 50 teams and this year we have over 100 teams. We are holding 2 regionals at the University of Minnesota. I would personally hate this district thing and I feel personally fortunate to be in Minnesota with two regionals. Now, we only get to compete in 1 of the 2 because they go on at the same time, but that is how it is in Minnesota.

(I am not up for a debate because I don't know enough about the "situation" and how the district system is actually working out)

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I am from a Michigan team and I must say that at first, I was very uneasy about the new system. However in the last month I have become more optimistic and I am finding great positives in the new format.
In the last few weeks, my team essentially lost funding from our biggest sponsor. With the hardships faced by the auto industry, our automotive supplier simply could not afford to give us thousands of dollars. Fortunately our registration fees were paid, and they will still pay for small purchases. If we were still under the "Regional" format we would not have been able to go to our normal two competitions. With "District" events, we will still be able to attend two competitions.
I think that overall, the most important parts of the competitions will be unchanged. My favorite memories are exciting matches, playing Ultimate Frisbee with new friends, and simply, being around honorable teams and people. Will there still be exciting matches? Yes there will. Will I still be playing Ultimate Frisbee with people I met 10 minutes ago? Of course. And will the great people that make up FIRST still be there? Yes.
With the future economy uncertain and the cost of EVERYTHING rising, these District Events sound great to me. Yes there are bugs, but I am sure than can, and will be fixed. The most important part is that the spirit of FIRST will still be there, and everybody, big budgets and not, will be able to participate.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Rather than a discussion of the specific merits and issues with the michigan structure (which has been discussed ad naseum in other threads), I think Katy's point was to lay out a discussion of what constitutes success.
Regardless of whether or not FIRST puts out an official "criteria for success" of the Michigan district pilot, the community needs to weigh in on what should be considered successful. This is especially imperative since FIRST has not issued such criteria publicly.

This should, and HAS TO, be done before the competitions actually occur (I know that one has already happened) as to avoid any biasing. We are not asking for judgement now, but rather the guidelines to judge.

And Ike also raises a good point. Not only should the volunteers not be blamed (they should also have thick skin and realize its not their fault if the events do not pass the criteria), and the criteria should be written to help make it clear that the volunteers effort is not what causes failure.


Edit:
Some criteria from me.

1) Amount of matches played per team
2) Over-all cost for teams (including travel and other overhead)
3) Amount of VIPs per event (and any quantifiable reactions to their presence there)
4) Sustainability of teams (if possible to differentiate from Michigan economy)
5) Amount of matches that teams spent non-functional
6) If possible, a anonymous satisfaction survey passed out to Michigan teams comparing the two systems
7) Attendance per team per event
8) Amount of school support for teams (more events also means more school missed), in whatever terms quantifiable
9) Amount of volunteer hours required per event
10) Average time per match run compared to regional events

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Because, as someone already said - Michigan's economy can't support another regional event. There simply aren't enough big name sponsors in the state that has had the country's worst unemployment rate.

We're lucky in a way: the number of teams and how densely packed we are allowed this to happen. There are negatives to the system - don't get me wrong. Our regionals are one day "shorter". They're also cheaper to attend and cheaper to host, which are both pretty major positives.

So - as for defining success?

1. Do teams get to play more in this format than they used to?
2. Do teams get to play more cheaply in this format than they used to?
3. Do an equal or greater number of Michigan teams win berths in the worlds?

I think it's a checkmark for all the items - so far.

As for suggestions to improve, I have a huge one. I'm going to miss playing against all the cool teams from out of state - Beatty, Panteras, and others. I'd say after initial registration is completed for all Michigan teams, allow 5 more teams into each venue from out of state if they want, at 1/2 the price of what the Michigan teams pay (we pay $5k for two, let the out of state pay $2500 for 1).

Don't lock out the out-of-state teams. That's my biggest - and right now my only - complaint. I'm willing to bet good money that out of state teams would jump on the chance to pay dirt cheap prices to compete in the regionals.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

we competed in traverse city this weekend. we played 12 qualifying matches even though there was quite a few field problems. most of the field problems were communication errors. the competition level was a little down from a standard Michigan regional.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

As a member of the Board of Directors of FIRST in Michigan, it is good to see what others are thinking about our "test". Let me respond to some of your concerns from my point of view (and I do not talk for the Board, but just for me).

I have been involved with this since our first meeting in Francois' living room last April or May. Our every move has been monitored by FIRST and the FIRST Board of Directors. This has not been done in a secret as some have stated.

The primary reason to try this is to come up with a way to have more teams in Michigan and not run the costs up too great. With three full regionals, we needed another. If you have not read the papers recently, Michigan is in financial trouble...worse than many other states...so a new traditional regional was out of the question.

How could be make better use of the dollars that we did have? How could we grow in a down economy? One way was to cut the costs of the regionals and make them closer to home so we could cut or eliminate the costs of travel.

There has been much hard work to get where we are. We have increased the number of volunteers to staff seven Divisional tournaments and one State Tournament. And all the time, we are still being watched. Dean K. and Paul G. will be in Michigan for Week 4 to visit two of the Divisionals to see for themselves. Brandis University (I hope I spelled that correctly) has already created a survey that will be used at the close of the season...asking teams, parents, students, volunteers, etc., for their reaction. This data will be studied.

We do not think we have a perfect plan, just a place to start. Some have indicated their displeasure about not giving ponts for the RCA and EA awards. I, also, am not pleased with that, and I raised that issue during our discussions on points. Discussions have already started on how to handle this in the future.

Speaking for my team, we will play in three divisional events. These cost us $5,500. If this had been using the traditional FIRST method, I believe this would have cost us $13,000. GM has cut much of our funds this year, so we would have done well to go to one event, not three. Shipping costs are down, since our robot is in the corner of our shop in a "baggie" and we will take it, in the bag, to our competitions and bring it home.

As to the rookies--from what I have heard, most of the rookies have received help from the veteran Michigan teams. I don't know of any that have been left out in the cold (bad Michigan joke) to fend for themselves. And many of the rookies have received financial help from FIRST in Michigan to get started.

So, Please give this a try. Let us see where this goes. I think it has potential to be a way to improve FIRST. There are a lot of questions...like how would you do this in areas where you only have one or two teams? ...will we ever get to see our friends in nearby states until we get to the Championship? ...will those in nearby states be able to come play in Michigan if we were to do this again? ...and the questions continue. We must look at this "test" and then try to get the answers. Just like teams solve the problems of the game, I think the FIRST community will be able to solve this one, too---not FIRST in Michigan, but keeping the excitement and getting more kids involved while reducing expenses. Keep an open mind and help us find the answers to better FIRST.

Thanks.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Walt, thank you very much for the effort you and the other volunteers give.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are operating in total secrecy from FIRST HQ, but rather what some are saying is that we want to know what you would consider a successful season. You say you are going to study data and surveys, which is great news that I fully support, but what data exactly are you studying and what are the desired results you are looking for?

The qualm some of us have with the process is the lack of transparency thus far regarding the specific and/or quantified objectives of the program, as well as the implications of the system on the rest of the country and FIRST. None of us are saying we shouldn't give this a try, but we want to know now, before the events run their course, what constitutes success. It is the only way to objectively quantify and evaluate the impact of this pilot.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Lil'Lavery couldn't have said it better! As a matter of fact as it turns out "Big Lavery" said it better than ever I did or could have! This is a post well-worth reading and if I had known about it before starting this you had better bet I would have quoted it quite a bit. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?p=761241

Thank you Mike Q! Can you please go into some detail: do you have any more information about the field problems (the issue, count of number of times it delayed a match, number of times it effected match outcomes) etc. Do you have any other information that answers any other questions that have been posted so far?

As our discussion is continuing it is becoming apparent that we will need data in general to compare Michigan to! It is not fair to compare them to an ideal, we should compare it normal larger regionals. If you have data compiled from other regionals for comparison purposes please post it!

Also we're going to need some way to organize this data probably if we ever do get it in serious volume. A google doc...I am not sure how to make it so anybody can edit it. I guess I could paste in an invite and check "invites can be used by anybody" or something but that is somewhat awkward. Thoughts?

Dude! Does that mean party at Francois' house and we're all invited? I approve! Let's go make some robot policy! :p

No seriously, I do not think "a meeting in somebody's living room" particularly supports your proposal that this process was "transparent policy making."

Can we see this survey? Maybe it can help us create some of our criteria! Will we be allowed to see the raw unprocessed result data?

I don't think anybody is "not giving this a try." We just want to evaluate the try scientifically. We're engineers, what do you expect? :p

All trolling aside, I really appreciate the data you are bringing to the table for this discussion. You have a perspective and access to data that most of us do not. Whatever data that perspective provides for our evaluation we will be quite thankful for.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

This is how I have come to view the goal: more chances to play for a lower cost without lowering quality.
So, first some objective questions: Has this increased the number of times teams play? (I think this is relatively straightforward)
How many teams have had increased (non-robot) costs? How much have they increased? Remember, there may be teams that would only have gone to one regional and now have two sets of travel costs to pay.
Now, the subjective part: has the quality of play decreased?
Has the quality of "production" decreased?
If so for either of these: How so? Which district events? Is it acceptable? Is there ways to improve without raising the cost?

Questions for future consideration/upon expansion: can teams opt out into a different structure (prohibitive travel costs perhaps)? Some areas don't have enough teams to support a structure like this, what are the options for those places?

I want to say that I certainly like the idea. As a mentor on a team that spent under $500 beyond registration (granted we are rookies that started the year late), any chance to increase play time while reducing costs would be appreciated.
Oh, and after spending the weekend at Midwest, if part of any lower quality "production" is a lower volume on music that would be much appreciated as well! Without fail, I come away with awful headaches due to this (a lack of sleep doesn't help either), but I never remember ear protection until later.

Edit: I guess I type too slow as it appears most of this has now been said in one form or another.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I must first respond to this comment; In my mind, this was to blame on the new FMS, which seams to be kinda buggy, and inexperience operators(sorry if a operator of the FMS reads this but, really how much experience did the average operator have with the old IFI based system last year). I truly didn't have much hope for a smooth district. In a closing remark when the FMS was running at full tilt the 1.5 hours we were behind was made up by lunch/alliance selection.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

at the beginning of the day on friday before the first match there was about an hour delay. That was Definitely the longest delay about every other match or so there would be a 15 second to 1 minute delay. about every delay was because of communication between the robot and the field. by the end of qualifications the had it running good and we were able to get back on Schedule.

Thanks to all of the controls people at traverse city for all there hard work

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Wasn't the initial delay caused by teams not have their firmware upgrade to the required level?

Oh on gratz on the epic win.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I think it was because the teams didn't have there firmware updated. I'm not the most Knowledgeable when it comes to that type of stuff.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

That would be in another thread please! This discussion is about how we might evaluate the system and to collect data with which to evaluate it, not its theoretical merits! I find it incredible that anybody is still discussing the theory of such a system when there are hard facts available for the collecting! What does anybody's opinion on something count for against hard experimental data? We don't debate on why gravity should or shouldn't exist, we don't vote on astrophysics, and I'm stumped as to why we should try to debate our way out of this!

I'm not trying to pick on you here, I know other people are doing it, but please knock it off.

That is very important data! Since we do not have Thursday matches in this system maybe we need to make running the robot on the field as part of the inspection process.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I should say that i am sorry, i quickly went to say my view, of the delay that was made, and then jumped into a topic that i wasn't prepared to talk about, it will be deleted.



The delay that i know about;
Firmware upgrades; Well teams didn't keep up on the Firmware, some teams have issues with net connectivity, and at regional events were not allowed to broadcast wifi, so i don't think that extra Thursday would help.
Rebooting; The FMS was rebooted after every single match, is this standard procedure?
Communication; A catch all, a team gets disabled and goes starts autonomous code/Two teams press disable at the same time and disable the whole alliance/A team randomly goes in autonomous while the MC is on the field/ect.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

my questions

1: to Michigan Teams: Do you guys miss traveling out of state to compete; (this is mainly to those big teams that choose not to travel this year).

2: to teams outside of Michigan: has the competition dropped off a bit compared to last year, where last year Michigan Teams competed?

3: to Michigan Teams: how much has the competition level dropped compared from the regional last year to these division events this year.

4: to teams who are outside of Michigan and traveling to Championships: do you believe that the district system in Michigan gave these teams any advantage/disadvantage over the other teams attending the Championship Event? Do you believe the competition level displayed by the Michigan teams matched your expectations, or was it varied?

Success can be measured in different ways; better competition for everyone is good. this is just a simple matter of this question

is Michigan turning to Chinese ethics (quality < quantity)?

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

So, let's play the numbers game with this, starting with team growth:

How has Michigan's growth rate changed, relative to prior years and other parts of the US/Canada? (I don't mean to exclude the rest of the world, but the data is too small there) Are more rookie teams forming? Are more veteran teams being retained?

There is also a question of costs:

Can teams use smaller budgets because of cost savings? How much money that used to go to regional fundraising is now going to teams? Was the $1000 reduction in registration a factor in the formation of some rookie teams?

Now a question of publicity:

Is the travel divide between Michigan and non-Michigan teams significantly impacting the quality of given events? (Do recall that the Michigan boundary was established out of convenience of geography) Is the increase in local events helping teams get more press coverage? Is the glamor-reduction at events causing negative media coverage? On the topic of travel: what is the likelihood that a team will leave FIRST because of local competitions versus what is the likelihood that a team will start because of a local competition?

Now, to answer the questions:

Growth rates can be calculated by dumping data out of FIRST and meticulously sorting it, and then analyzed given economic conditions of the US/Canada. It can be done eventually.

Costs are tougher to determine - most teams don't publish their budgets. Event costs may be made available through FiM - as I understand, 7 districts are operating for the cost of one regional. In addition to cost, one must eventually consider the concept of "value" - how much bang did teams get for their dollar? Two local events for $5000 versus one event for $6000 seems seems huge.

Publicity will be much harder to quantify - counting news articles might not be feasible or even relative. Surveys might not yield enough data unless all teams respond (truthfully). Value of data might also become a question - are rookie team's inputs more important than veterans? How much do we care about what non-Michigan teams have to say?

What makes matters worse, is that these aren't even all of my questions. But its a start.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

After attending the Rookie Regional, and Traverse City I feel that FiM is a step in the "correct" direction. That is just my opinion, some criteria I feel need to be evaluated.

Are some events considerably weaker than others? Yes some events are going to be weaker, this could be due to timing, first week events are generally less competitive than 6th week ones. But I am talking about geographical areas causing weaker winners. The winners from one event should be roughly equal to the winners from another event.

Does it benefit teams? Do we see more teams playing at higher levels? Higher levels is based on the skill of the team in question, obviously I don't expect every team to be playing at the level of 217 but I expect gradual improvement through the course of the season, that would be a true measure of this tests impact. A team that barely moves their first event needs to at LEAST score one ball in their second, that is a measurable improvement and I feel we should all strive to improve between events.

Long Term, one concern I have is that because we are organized by geographical districts (more or less) we will become very separate. For example let us say that the next year 85 comes out and wins Traverse City AGAIN, Im sure BOB is a great team (in fact after playing with and against them I KNOW they are) but I do not want to get into a situation where the State Championship becomes what is essentially the same teams over and over. With luck this structure will allow teams that are not perennial powerhouses to gain some ground.

A small concern of mine is that the depth of field will diminish, by the 4th alliances third pick teams should still be picking teams they WANT not just whoever is the least crappy machine left (Not saying they do or dont now, just saying it is something I never like to see) If this situation occurs frequently then there is a failing in the system.

I have some concerns about the structure, but I feel the goals are in the right direction. Best of luck and I cannot WAIT to compete instead of just watch.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

FIRST is about inspiring young people to think about careers in Science, Technology, etc. How do you objectively measure the affect of the MI format on inspiration? In my opinion, it would be important to measure the format's affect on the expansion of the program (perhaps measured by the percentage of students in a region that have the opportunity to participate). This would take some time to do.

There is a concern about "quantity vs. quality", but what qualities are we talking about? If the new format led to a situation that drove students away from science and technology that would be a bad thing. If the average quality of the robots was diluted by a bunch of newbies and under-resourced teams, so what? This program isn't about us mentors and it isn't about the robots. The major learning benefits come during training, planning, and build - which isn't directly affected by the competition format.

As for the two day format, the lack of Thursday practice day increases the risk of schedule delay due to undiscovered field issues, and increases the liklihood of "no-shows" for unresolved robot issues. Those could be measured easily enough.

I don't think it is valid to associate field issues and the MI format. Any delays and communication problems at TC were apparently no worse than anywhere else. For the most part, they were associated with the new control hardware.

We were at Traverse City this weekend. Thursday evening check-in and inspection was a big help. We initially had communication problems due to firmware updates (thanks to Jim Sontag for fixing us up). Again, not specifically a MI format issue. It would be nice for teams attending their first event to be able to do a functional test on Thursday evening.

Our students don't seem to care about missing the out-of-state travel experience (not that we had money to go to a second event anywhere with the standard format!). Anything that involves getting out of town, staying in a hotel, eating in restaurants, and hanging out with other friends is OK by them.

I like the MI program. Anything that gets us into 3 competitions for less money than 1 is alright by me. Last year, we only had money for one regional. Our robot was badly damaged on Friday morning, and wasn't fully back up until Saturday morning - that squelched most of our "competition season". It wasn't particulary inspirational. The MI format would have helped us a lot.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I haven't read every post here, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents at what I'm seeing that I like from the Michigan events that may be overlooked.

Our team participates in two regionals every year, both an hour away from our school. Convincing our school's administration, students, teachers, and parents to drive an hour to watch a robotics competition is extremely hard. District events would give us more local competitions, so we could get much more interest from our local area.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Yes, this is correct. It could have been easily avoided if the teams understood the requirements BEFORE entering the arena. Our driver station firmware was also not up to date, but we caught it before opening ceremonies.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

One success already, and I realize this is only anecdotal, not firm facts.

I heard one of the host coordiators say the Traverse City District cost $7,000 to put on. Compare that to the estimated $150,000 - $250,000 it would have cost to stage another regional; that's a real success right there. Most of this was due to the hard work of the organizing committee and the support of the community. For example, we volunteers were fed very well by a different catering company every meal. The caterers also sponsored the event; our exellent lasagne supper cost the committee $2.00 per head.

I still share some of the concerns brought up in this thread, and a few others. I'm willing to withhold judgement until sometime after the season is over.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Withholding judgment until all the facts are in is wise. Not figuring out your result categorization criteria until after the event is data mining not experimentation. I wasn't trying to ask you to judge, I was asking you how you plan to judge when it comes time.

Some small number of facts can be sifted from the opinions and congratulations http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=75311 My short summary so far of these facts runs: (current through post number 8)

Michigan Feedback: (broken up by category and then tallied by how many times said)

• Event Quality: votes are equal, lower,
• Venue: smaller venue easier keep track of team members
• 4 refs too few?(2), poor reffing

Possibly Everywhere Feedback: watchdog error? (1918), field reset slow, score-count method bad (disagreement among counters), score count method questionable

I think that's interesting stuff. I take the ref stuff with a grain of salt personally as very few people as, a general rule, go home saying "man those refs were awesome!" but I mostly want to leave you guys to make your own conclusions from whatever data is available.

Checking out usfirst.org it seems that the qualifier matches are not listed. Can somebody who is going to Kettering make a note to themselves to try to bring home this data for study? Does anybody have this data for TC, maybe in their scouting database? It would also be great to know how many robots are not making it onto a field per match. That is really important stuff.

This is up http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html It looks like that 12 qualifiers number was pretty accurate across the table at TC. How did they even it out for the two 11's? Anybody know?

The number 12 looks pretty good compared to 8 in NH http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html, Ohio http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html, Midwest http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html, Oklahoma http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html or 7 in Kansas City http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html, NJ http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html and DC http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve.../rankings.html

I guess this pretty well provides a piece of an answer for everybody who asked "will teams play more under the new system." Yes, TC seems to be a regional and a half of qualifier on-field time for half the price.

I need to find a better way to process that data. I think it can answer the other questions too. :(

edit: holy crap guys! That 12 matches per team was with thirty eight teams. How on earth did you guys do that?

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

This is not that difficult, even at official FRC regionals, if you have less than 40 teams.

UTC New England regional had 35 teams in 2005, and every team had 12 qualification matches.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

You're totally right. It seems that I was momentarily struck with a total inability to do basic math. I estimate 76 matches from TC. That's not too far outside of some other ones (at a glance BAE had 62, Buckeye did 78...etc

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

The average FIRST event has 70 - 80 matches. This means there are 480 slots (at an 80 match event). 480/40= 12. This was by design and not by accident or some miraclulous feet of efficiency.

One thing that is impressive though is this means you are playing every 6-7 matches on average which puts the pace on par with actually quite similar to playing Saturday afternoon. Ask anyone who has attended the Detroit regional in the past. The good news is you play a lot of matches. The bad news is you better be fast at repairs because you are playing every 30 minutes. With a 10 minute request queue, this only gives you about 20 minutes to fix things. Can anyone say "I need a hacksaw, 4 feet of aluminum, a riveter and 2 drills STAT!"

Oh and that was 5 match break on average. Sometimes you will play and then play 3 matches later. By being on the field you are actually late to queuing.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I am pretty sure I saw the matches listed on Friday night - but I can't verify that for sure. If they went missing, that is not an indication of anything wrong with the Michigan district model. BAE qual matches are missing too: http://www2.usfirst.org/2009comp/eve...chresults.html That's a FIRST website problem, not a Michigan problem.

Edit: TBA has them http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...hp?eventid=237

If you don't show up at the field, you haven't played all of the matches you're assigned to.

Plus, all those teams get to go to another district event and play another 12 games - for $1000 less than going to one Regional.

76 matches. Originally scheduled 11:30-12:52 and 14:00-18:52 on Friday, 9:00-11:12 on Saturday. Field problems pushed 9 matches from Friday night to Saturday morning, even going about an hour late on Friday. There was a little over an hour slop time in the event schedule on Saturday which was taken up by the longer running of the seeding matches. Elims started less than 1/2 hour late.

All the rest of the stuff you cited is subjective opinions. Walt mentioned the survey that has been commissioned. What other kind of documentation do you want?

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I can see the elimination matches now, but not much else. I'm not trying to say the lack of data was Michigan's fault.

Yes, I understand that. The "not showing up" was hopefully going to be a different metric, namely how well the robots were holding up to the pace of that sort of regional setup and also how ready the teams were for competition. I didn't think that was reflected in the data online from the usfirst website. Are you saying it was?

Its pretty epic...

Yeah, grabbing facts from random things people say seems a pretty non-scientific way to do things, but I am at a loss for the most part as to how to find any data on the non-numerical aspects of this without a webcast or some plane tickets and free weekends. I would really love to get my hands on something better if it is available.

The survey sounds really promising. I guess the real answer to "what other sort of documentation do you want?" would depend a ton on what is and is not covered in that survey. Really right now I am searching for sufficient facts to answer the questions that have been asked here. Here are a bunch of them.

I looked into the usfirst.org team profiles for the rookies but those are filled out so early in the season for them that I fear it won't be terribly useful. I guess we need some data on rookie teams. That can be hard numeric sort of data. For better or for worse the rest looks somewhat hard to boil down. Volunteer numbers might be able to be calculated from other data such as delays but since there are a lot of problems which can't be fixing by piling more volunteers on I don't think that's a valid metric. Perhaps we can get numbers on the raw number of volunteers and raw number of man-hours and compare it to other regionals of similar size? That will tell us if they are getting at least as many, but it won't say if that is enough.

1 and 10 look pretty well answered for TC thankfully. 6 can be hopefully covered with the existing survey. Not sure how to do some others. Ideas?

1 and 2 are pretty self-evident, 3 I actually don't understand what that means.

These ones are all quality things. No bright idea has come to me yet as to how to tackle them.

Alex outlines his questions and how to solve them (the ones he knows how) really well. I honestly would be quoting his entire post word for word here if I tried to summarize so here is the link back again. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=25 I haven't gotten a bright way to solve the ones he doesn't know how to solve yet.

I guess the easy answers are: rookie team statistics, attendance, guests lists, matches where robots did not show up, matches where robots never drove, volunteers (in man hours and in a head count).

Are budgets for various areas of FIRST published? Anybody know where? Do any teams want to publish their budgets from this year and last year? I don't expect there to be enough teams that agree to do it to get a reasonable idea of how most teams act...but maybe it is worth a shot.

The rest needs some way to boil it down...and if you can think of a good way please tell me. You're right though, collecting piles of anecdotes is not good practice.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Some of this has been covered a bit as I was waiting for permission to post such a big post. Thanks for your permission Katy.

===============================================
Since this thread is about metrics and analysis, I will include some of the analysis that went into figuring out the structure. This is some of the quantitative goals and overview of the analysis that went into it.

Goal: Improve Competition quality: Analysis was done on using several scouting databases on the major metrics that improved team quality. The number 1 metric was play time. Teams that attended 2 or more events began building more competitive robots. This was measured by analyzing W/L and picking selections at Regionals, Regional Awards, and then picking order at the Championship. FiM wanted to make it affordable for more teams to compete. If you want you can do the analysis yourself. The data is on FIRST databases, and many teams have historical scouting data.

Goal: Higher match density: More matches give more play time. The typical timeframe for a FIRST event allows for 80 qualification matches. This gives 480 slots. At a 60 team regional you get 8 matches. At a 40 team event you get 12. More matches reduce the "luck (both bad and good) factor". This also gives teams more opportunity to try different things which should improve Saturday afternoon strategies. This also gives more opportunities for teams to get running. This was best demonstrated at last years pilot Rookie event (all Rookies) where every team was able to compete except 1 Rookie team that attempted a complicated crab drive and would not accept vetran assistance. Once you are "running" at the 1st event, you have another event with another 12 matches to compete at.

Goal: Less time off work for Mentors, less time away for from school for students: This was accomplished by converting the "Thursday" practice day to an 8 hour fix-it window for teams. This allows teams the same amount of time to prep machines, but let's them do it at their leisure. As a mentor this makes it much easier as I will only have 2 days away from work (2 fridays) for two events instead of 4. Because the events are closer, I can drive to most events after work instead of 1/2 a day of travel. This is also less time off school for students.

Goal: Lower costs per event. This has been covered a bunch.

Goal: Qualification points system. As/if FIRST grows, they would like to come up with a more robust point system that qualifies teams for the Championship. Currently most teams buy slots. This is a big budget advantage. The points system was analyzed using the data mentioned above in order to figure out "robot" quality. Feedback is good on this, but would ask people to do the same analysis that went into this. I.E. if you have "ideas" about what a point structure should look like, run historical data through it and see how it plays out. I will caution that most people focus on teh wrong end of the curve worrying about who comes out on top. The real issue is not who is on top, it is about coming up with the "fairest" cut point. In MI this was distinguishing the 60th from the 61st. Most worry about who the top 10 are. Who cares, the top 60 get to play. Being team number 61 is the worst spot (actually 61 will probably get in as some other team won't be able to attend, but you get the point). Ask any team that distinguishing the 24th best team at a comp from the 25th is the hardest decision to make.

Goal: Better community support at events: This is better attendance by parents, and friends of competing students. Our team is doing 1 event 20 minutes away and 1 event 2 hours away from the school. I will ask someone to take attendance and give this as a relative metric. In the past twice as many parents have attended the closer events than the "far" away events. Teams will need to measure this as it is often difficult to distinguish a Parent in a T-shirt from a mentor. Same with friends in the stands. If other teams outside of MI would take this data too along with distance from Home where the event takes place, and team size. This would be a good metric to compare. Teams that do more than 1 event woud definitely be good data.

Goal: Growth: Pull up a team map and you will notice that teams are where events are and additional events go to areas of high team density. This is an interesting effect best demonstrated by Minnesota. Minnesota made an event and had a ton of Rookie teams. Because there were a lot of teams, they needed another event.

================================================== =======

I cover these as these are engineered successes. There was criteria and analysis set up for most of these, and they are designed to succeed from the start. If you set up a criteria of more matches and give teams more matches, then congratulations you succeed with giving teams more matches.

A lot of the open ended items are quality metrics. These are often less tangible. Especially early on. Coming from Chrysler, I can tell you that only relying solely on metrics is a bad idea. There were some (not all) cars that on paper had the "right" numbers to be a success. These metrics were developed by well intended, smart people, who quite frankly missed the mark. Our best recieved vehicles by the public were often held to certain metrics that we knew it must achieve, but then held to a quality standard evaluated by strong evaluators who knew what was right thing to do from experience and talent. Ask a bean counter to design a car and you will have the lowest cost highest profitability vehicle ever designed that will tank in the market. Ask a racecar engineer to design a minivan and you will have the fastest best handling minivan in the world with no cup holders, no radio and no interior. Ask a customer what they want in a vehicle, and they will highlight what they don't like about their current vehicle, but will forget to mention things they take for granted (like a rear window diefroster unless their current vehicles is broken). Ask someone who is passionate and capable about making a great car for the customer to make a car they want, give them the support they ask for, and you will get a great car.

One other thing about metrics. If you have a Pass/Fail system, you must be very careful. 2 very dangerous outcomes occur from this.
#1 if something comes very close to achieving its objects, it still is a failure because it did not achieve its objective. Should we have ended the Space program after the first launch "failure". What about Apollo 13? From a mission objective it was a disaster. Many consider it a success because much was learned, and the crew arrived home safely. Pass/Fail is very binary and can cause you to throw away valuable ideas that just need development.

#2 People will only agree to metrics that are too easy to achieve. This can dramtically lower the standards. I have a lot of friends in the education system that feel that "no Child Left behind" dramatically reduced their ability to effectively teach because it promoted "by funding" unethical practices of promoting students not ready to move on to the next grade. Persons in charge felt it was morally better to pass a child not ready to move on, than to loose funding for the dozens of others that were ready. By lowerin gthe standards of success they then lowered the level of achievement and many students found out they didn't need to work as hard and thus could simply pass by attendance.

Dave Lavery was absolutely right when he said that this is preordained that it will be a success (earlier thread this past summer). Mathematically speaking there are already way too many successful features for it to be a complete failure. I understand his concerns of predetermined success, but I also understand some of the efforts that have gone into making it a success.

We are all very good at being critics and stating opinions. Many of us are good at measuring things and pointing out what is wrong. Some of us are good at analyzing data and seperating real trends from statistical anomalies. Even less have the foresight to see these anomalies and account for them in their designs. Few of us (CD) community go into the level of design detail required to create something truly original, elegant, and robust.

In my eyes, there is very little that distinguishes a great artist, athelete, or engineer/architect. Finding a loophole in an already great system (FIRST) that will allow more to achieve more for less requires the same formula as a great work of art or a beautiful building. Some excellent vision of something that not everyone else can see, mixed with a healthy dose of hardwork, passion, and skill. Like many other things created by man, there will be flaws, room for improvement, and of course controversy. Best of all opportunity to create something even better.

For those content to be critics, I would ask that you be a good critic. Go to a district event and cover it with the attention of any good critic. Obserrve both bad and good and give them both the attention they deserve. For those not content to merely criticize (this thread is looking to be productive), the real works of art will come from the persons who figure out a self-sustaining model that will work elsewhere. The FiM model will not currently work in its current form for many areas. Figure out and test what will.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

One concern with the MI format is the short time between the announcement of the "qualified" State Championship teams (Sunday?) and the required accept/reject for the event (Tuesday). The same thing applies for State teams qualifying for the Championship event.

If were to qualify for State or Atlanta, it would only take us about 2 seconds to decide that we want to accept. It would take a lot longer to arrange funding, travel, lodging, etc. I understand that we can send "conditional" purchase orders and checks to FIRST, but we need $ to cover them if needed. This means we would need to raise funds and make arrangements in advance if we thought we had an outside chance at qualifying. It seems appear rather presumtuous and conceited to raise funds for something we haven't earned - kind of like building the trophy case before the game. A lot of teams will do a lot of work and raise a lot of money for nothing. Maybe they can carry it over to the next season.

With the traditional system, qualifying teams know their fate at the end of each regional, and there are a couple of weeks between the last regional and the Championship.

It would be nice, at least at the State level, if there was an estimated qualifying point total for receiving an invitation. That would give teams a better "heads up" about their chances.

Perhaps a useful metric for evaluating the MI format would be the percentage of qualifying teams that are able to participate at the next level of play.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I think it is about top 50%.
IF you didn't play saturday afternoon at your first event, you better play at your second event or win some awards.

If you win or are runners up at your first event (especially if you are a first round pick), start fund raising.

If you were a late pick at your first event and get knocked out early, and you are a late pick for your second event and get knocked out early, you should still be on the bubble. If you won over 50% of your matches in Qual, you are probably good. If you lost most of your matches in qual at both events probably not.

As one possible method, you could take the total amount of available points and divide by the total number of Michigan teams. This is the average points value. Take your performance from your first regional and project how well you need to do at your second regional. If you achieve this value, I think you are garaunteed to go (mathematically speaking). Since there are some teams doing 3 events and the third event doesn't count, the upper 50% should actually be lower than the Average points value. Also since some teams will win really big (a couple awards plus a possibly a couple events), this will also drive the 50% mark down.

Why not raise funds and book mark it for next year if you can. If not, bu an extra control system for a practice bot.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Actually, I think the bogey number would be based on the median scores, not average. The average point total for a district event would be around 24 (about 950/40). However, the numbers would be skewed toward the more successful teams. A team with a 6-6 record that was a late pick for eliminations and got eliminated in the quarter finals without winning any awards would only earn about 15 points, but would likely be in the top 50%. Factor in the reduction for 3-event teams and decliners, and the 2-event bogey could be in the mid 20's.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Thank you! This is the kind of transparency and openness, with clear and concise goals, that if posted back in the fall [side by side with the announcement of the FiM tournament structure] most likely could have avoided a lot of the backlash.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

One concern I have seen raised is that these smaller events will not get the media coverage that traditional events have, 397 just received a phone call from the person that our mentors stayed with in Traverse City, she said that between the news and radio there has been a nearly constant stream from the competition TODAY. What started as a small interest piece by the stations, who have traditionally not been covering the events, caused people to call in to the stations and ask for more information. Perhaps we have been looking at this wrong, FiM has gotten regionals into areas that traditional regionals were impossible, doing so has allowed new areas to see and hear about FIRST through their local news stations. Living in between Flint and Detroit my entire life I saw news of the events because they were in the coverage area of my local news stations. I know there are parts of the country where there has never been a FIRST event within 100 miles, this competition structure allows local news to cover these events because it moves them from the big metropolitan areas into the more rural areas and local high schools.

At the event I spoke to several people who had no affiliation with FIRST teams in any way, they seemed fascinated with what was going on around them. Just thought I would share these interesting bits of information, I do not have any way of quantifying the coverage but in most cases any additional publicity is good.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

---

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

It looks great, not merely pretty good. Actually, 3 teams, including mine, only got 6 matches. Yes, I realize that if we were good, we would have earned more. But, for $6000 and six weeks of busting tails, we got to use our 'bot for a total of 13.5 minutes. I'll save you the math: almost $450 per minute to compete. :( Just as we finally got things working well, we called for our crate. Very discouraging for our second-year team. It was pretty hard to learn much in such a short time. So.... this MI format sounds intriguing. I'm looking forward to hearing more on the results of this concept.

mt

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Another success anecdote:

At lunch Saturday at TC I was approached by a man who had driven up from Manistee. He asked if he could pick my brain while I was eating. He was connected in some way with the school system, and they were looking for things that could be family participation events, beyond sports. He immediately had realized that FRC was too big for what they were looking for, but I told him about FLL. He thought that sounded interesting. Except for the half dozen teams in Traverse City, there are no other FLL teams in the northern Lower Peninsula.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Yep, those are the exact numbers FiM is trying to fix. So instead of $6000/12 you have $5000/48 (24matches x 2) or about $100/minute. Also since the venues are smaller there is higher probability of playing in the elims which is at least another 2 matches.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Now, that is just without elimination matches, out of 40 teams 24 play in elimination matches (24/40 ~50%) That is qualification matches, so we take the 2 elimination matches and multiply by the average number of matches played by all teams, we are now at 13 matches per team. 12 teams move on after that, semifinals add 4 matches (2 QF and 2 SF) which we then multiply by 25% (12/40 = ~25%) so we are now at 14 matches. Finals matches add 6 and 8 teams make it to them, this adds yet another match on average. This is an average of 15 matches per team. Using this number we can then get the cost/min number for the first two events down to $88. And for the third regional down to $16.5. Keep in mind that this is the AVERAGE, your mileage my vary.

Just some interesting numbers for perusal.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

No, my math still stands.

12 match minimum/event x 2 event minimum x 2 minutes on field time i.e. 24 matches x 2 minutes = 48 mintues play time MINIMUM (assuming your trailer doesn't fly off). In reality if you include auton, then this is actually 54 minutes and as you pointed out, there is a high likelihood for more (less that 16/40 or 40% of teams will only see this much) .

And if you did the optional third district for $500 (after everyone had two the opened up registration), then you have a minimum of about 75 minutes of field time or... $73/min. This is a much better ROI than
$450/minute.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Of course you are right, I forgot that... This is why we should check our units kids... :o

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Our team just got back from Traverse City, and honestly, I hope they never hold one there again. Don't get me wrong, to all the volunteers and people who worked their butts off to make this regional go: thank you. We need more of you. But holding a full scale FIRST event in a high school gym... should not happen. The pits were like prison cells with how small and intensely crowded they were because there was not enough room. The school had one bathroom with one toilet for the event. Our team lost an hour and a half of work time because they hadn't laid down coverings on the gym floor. The sound system was literally two feet from the blue alliance wall. I dont mean to sound whiny, but it felt like an FLL event.
FIRST events need better organization and better facilities than that. FIRST in Michigan was created to promote the organization as a whole in our state, but by lowering the quality of the events and forcing all MI teams to attend only lowers the quality of the FIRST experience and hampers its mission. The idea of FiM was worth a try, but needs to either be overhauled or scrapped next year.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

How about a Canadian perspective??? As a N.Ontario team, Michigan was actually our closest regionals. The two Ontario regionals are 8 and 9 hrs away and run $20,000 for each one we attend. Michigan sites were only 5 or 6 hrs and about $5000 cheaper in the long run. When we heard Traverse City was adding an event we were ecstatic - only 3 hrs and another $2000 cheaper. Then we heard about the closed doors - bummer! Now were are off to Milwaukee and Mississauga with a total budget of about $45,000 for these two events. We miss coming into Michigan and the new experiences offered there and the great competitions. Sadly, the $10,000 we normally spend in Michigan while we are there will end up going elsewhere - there are plusses to having out-of-state visitors come to see the events.

Also - we went to see the final Day of Traverse City and here are my perspectives...
> control problems - likely bugs in a new system. We saw improvements even over the final day, and this will likely improve by the final weekends.
> competition quality - improved with each match - by the final elimination games, the autonomous modes were far improved and scores were climbing and the games got very exciting - I expect this to continue to the final weeks.
> A new venue? T.City handled it great - looked like it was well run (glitches notwithstanding) - they should be proud to do such a great job for a first try.

The new changes are a bummer for our team, but you still have a great program there, and improving with every run. Well done Michigan. Sorry we couldn't sneak across the border this year...

Mentor - The Knights of Alloy - Team 1535

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

Try not to treat one data point as a law of nature. FRC events can be done very well in a high school gym. Come to IRI sometime and see.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

First off the system in Mi has helped our team. We had money for only 1 event, we played 7 or 8 times packed it up and went home. Now we are going to get 24 matches at least triple the playing time. Sure we had to spend some money to travel but it was worth it. We asked a local GM dealership (thank you Vic Canever, they even paid the for the gas!) to loan us a van to haul the group that was able to go and other parents brought up our robot and supplies. Our hotel suite that we stayed in goes for $300.00 in the summer cost us $79.00. We fundraised for the meals we purchased (cost of $200.00).

Most of the issues at TC were not because of the event itself, I guarentee these issues came up or will occur at the "big" events. I was asked to write a list of things that need to be fixed for next year and I have. I was told by the committee that there is another gym next door that they plan on using for the pits as well. I think just a better design and some planning would fix that. Some pits had more than enough room but our team ended up with a 6x8 pit. That can't occur again, but we made the best of a bad situation and had fun!
Here is some footage taken by a local station. I did see several come into the pits and interview.
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/video.aspx?id=267073

Gary there are some FLL teams in Nothern Mi. I know I convinced the team from West Branch last year to start 1 up and they did. There was also a new FLL team on the 2nd floor that picked my hubby's brain for quite a while and in fact he offered to help them out if they ever need it.

I do wish they had made the Kettering or 1 of the other areas that have hosted 1st. Then had the groups that have had no experience come to those and watch how it was done. it would have made things a lot easier for them in the long run. The group of us at kettering have been doing this for 10+ yrs. We could do this in our sleep by now.

All in all though, I thought it was great! :)

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I guess I only consider West Branch to be halfway "Up North". :rolleyes: I buzzed through the Michigan FLL site and missed seeing that one.

There are a lot of FLL teams in the UP. But except for Traverse City and West Branch, I can't think of any between Midland and Mackinaw Island. Potential for lots of growth there.

Re: Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?
 

I agree that good events can be held in a High school gym, but like i said in a different post pertaining to TC, it felt like a off season event. It was in a gym and it was very bright inside and it didn't have the same "feel" as a "normal" regional.