Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Back when I was a student, on my old team we just made sure we built a robust robot. We never let teams who went to multiple regionals phase us, some of the times it worked to our advantage to research the teams who were going to another regional before ours and learn their weaknesses and strengths ahead of time.
With the current team I'm with, the whole bag & tag, we're avoiding any events that require that because it's much more of a hassle for our team to transport our own robot because we only have so much transport space available to us.
One thought some of our mentors were wondering is if FIRST will eventually have like a "super division" for those teams who win constantly over and over again.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I agree with this statement except on numbers.

1075 has made do quite handily over the years on a budget less than $20k.

We have gone to two regionals since 2008, and for 2010, we're finally going to CMP. Additionally we've gone to offseasons every year since 04. Starting in 2007, we've gone to Kettering Kickoff (6 hours away, in Flint, MI) and Brunswick Eruption (10 hours away, in North Brunswick, NJ).

For 2010, we got a new sponsor for $8300 that we weren't expecting, which allowed us to add CMP to our list.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

With the time aspect, allowing teams to work on their robot until their first competition, it's not fair. Granted it's not fair when you compare the hours a team in the north puts in compared to areas that are warm and don't suffer with snow days, but each team is alloted the same number of weeks from start date to end date. I think it's fair in the terms of each team gets the same time for everything, and I'm not just saying this because we just about finish with the build, because there are those times we don't finish.

Well this is an interesting post and just my two cents. :)

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

You all have made some great points. I have been in this a long time and lead our team for nine years. The fact is that teams that work really hard do really good.

The problem is it frustrates me that we can't work on the robot at this time and teams that go to a regional can. Then you have to compete against them the next week and they have an advantage. Also students want to learn and try things and they can't.

Some teams are just small for many factors and there isn't anything you can do about it. They can't just get the money to go to another regional. Teams maybe small because of demographics, school support, business support, community support, parental support and many others. Some teams are in a good location and a supporting community and some are not.

This idea covers a couple facts. The more time you spend on the robot the more the students will learn. Shipping the robot cost money to FIRST and to the teams in overage fees. The idea also help level the playing field a little more.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I like the format of FIRST for a couple reasons:

1)It limits the pain to 6 weeks. For us coaches who have jobs and families that suffer from our time spent at FIRST, 6 weeks is about all we can do. (it can get very bad, coaches I've worked with have been threatened with divorce and actually stopped coaching)

2) Teams that have to ship their robot very early get hosed. Any local Atlanta teams can work up until the day of competition, whereas anyone who needs to ship their robot has to stop working weeks in advance in order to get their robot there.

3) It won't level the playing field. The best teams might have time to build two robots in parallel right now, but I'd bet some will build a second iteration of their first robot and be even more competitive than before. While smaller teams would be able to fine-tune their robot, the bigger teams would be proportionally further ahead because they're either more efficient, have more capabilities, or both.

If you want to work on something right until competition, join an SAE event :) I have never worked for so hard for so long as I did doing Formula SAE. I say that as a veteran FIRSTer from a very small, yet successful, team.

Edit: I just wanted to add that our build budget is between $2k and $3k each year normally. One year it was $900 and we were finalists in the South Carolina regional.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

The advantage I see from multiple regional contenders is in their driver experience. FIRST could easily level the playing field by forcing a driver team change. Fortunately, they made many of the midwest regionals on the same weekend, which also helps.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Forcing driver team changes is logistically impractical and would unfairly exclude teams with limited students to compete in more than one regional.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

It just wouldn't fit the real world scheme that well. Tight deadlines and unfair disadvantages are just a part of business. Part of FIRST is to prepare them for such a world and give the students a taste of it.

Also, there would still be practice robots would still be around for other reasons. They would still be prototypes and used for driver selection. Teams with lots of people would still be at advantage because they could rotate people to get more hours out of the day. The ability to practice with local teams would just make a divide between teams in big cities full of others and those in the middle of nowhere. There would still be a split on time due to other things such as snow. I just don't see it being worthwhile.

There are too many downsides, it just doesn't have enough good to balance out.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I voted no, because having a 14 week build season would probably cause half the mentors to quit, get burned out, or put undue stress on their marriages, families, and other relationships/commitments

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

+10

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I'm just reading this thread for the first time, and frankly, I can't agree with your argument, so I voted "I disagree."

How would you feel if you worked your hardest year in and year out to bring your team to the top only to be criticized by someone who apparently thinks you don't deserve what you have?

Teams don't just get rich...It takes a lot of work. The teams that put the most effort in deserve the most reward. FIRST isn't here to spoon feed new rules that intentionally bring down the teams that are the best to the level of teams that want to compete, but aren't willing to put in the same time and dedication.

One may feel as though they put as much effort as they can into their robot, but there's always someone who puts in more. If you don't have the time to put in as some other teams, that's fine.

You may not be able to beat the best teams, but you can certainly learn from them. And...by the way, FIRST's primary goal as an organization is to provide inspiration. If you put restrictions on the inspirational teams, they may not be able to achieve at the same level, and thus not be able to inspire people in the same way. I really look up to a lot of good teams and I would hate to see these teams limited by complaints of others. To me, this post is a takeaway from all the teams that truly put in the effort to achieve. The teams that put that effort in are the ones that inspire people, and the ones that truly exemplify what it means to be a model FIRST team. The teams that inspire are the ones that carry out the goals of FIRST and the ones that deserve the most praise.

And anyway...Does it really matter if the same teams win every year? I would say that the successful teams deserve everything they have. They have inspired me, and many others.

I'm not sure what the exigesis of your post was, but I have a quote from JVN that really shows what I'd like to say next "Never, NEVER stop striving to increase that output, and increase your inputs." He's basically saying that not all teams neccessarily operate on the same level, but if you increase your output given your inputs and if you're always trying to increase your inputs, you'll succeed. It takes time to grow a great team. It won't happen in one season. It takes time, dedication and effort.

Effort and motivation is what drives society forward, complaining won't get you anywhere. If you are dissatisfied with how you perform in relation to others, then try harder. If you don't want to try harder, then apparently you don't want it as much as the others, and thus don't deserve it as much. So take JVN's advice and keep striving to improve. Nothing is out of anyone's reach, and anything can be done.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

What is logistically impractical? I find it difficult to believe that teams which can afford multiple regionals would have less than 8 students. Finding 2-4 great drivers is a different arguement.

I have a very well funded team, but I'd rather fund more teams than attend multiple regionals. I find attending multiple regionals to increase my odds to win would be greedy. The money is much better spent on a new team.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

i like the format that it is in already... for one thing, a team who has a week one competition only has two weeks to work on their bot... another team might only be doing a week 6 competition... the second team will have an extra 6 weeks to work on their bot... to make all things fair, FIRST gave us a deadline and it is a really good idea because it makes teams have to work hard and use teamwork to get the bot done in time

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

did anyone ever think that maybe there should be a limit on the competitions you can attend? i know last year in Minnesota, a team from Wisconsin had already had a position in the nationals and won that privilege again in the 10,000 lakes regional. personally, i don't like that they were able to take this chance away from another team.
i think teams should only be able to register for one competition and one only. that way everyone has their chance.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

This may need to be looked at, but a limit of one is kind of harsh.