Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

FIRST try's to be fair to all teams but in the 9 years I have been involved in FIRST this has always bothered me.

Teams that have a lot of money have a big advantage.

1. They can afford to go to many events thus getting more time to practice and work on their robot.
2. They can build multiple robots so they can work on and practice with their “practice bot”.


Proposal:

Everyone keep their robot and work on it till they go to their first competition and then they take it with them to the competition.

1. Everyone will have the same amount of time to work on their robot.
2. Shipping costs will be less.
3. Teams can make changes and get better and learn more during the season.
4. Teams can practice locally with other teams.
5. There would be no need to build multiple robots.

I see this really helping rookie teams and small teams (which is most of us). If a team only goes to one event and it is a fourth week event they are tremendously disadvantaged because they are playing against teams that have been competing for 3 weeks. This way teams can watch and learn and make changes over the whole build season until they go to their event.

Students are most engaged in the robot at the end when the robot ships and after an event. Having the robot around this whole time will allow them to learn more and be more engaged.

Hope you support this please respond and if not please explain.

This is in no way trying to make the competition season longer. I would like to see the season shortend by a week or 2. I would like a 5 week build and at the end of the 5 weeks start the competitions. This is about inspiring kids and working with them on the robot so they can learn.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

This can't, and doesnt work for a number of reasons. Firstly, it gives those competing at later regionals more time than those in earlier regionals. Secondly, there are a number of events where its impossible, or impractical, or breaks union agreements for teams to bring their bots in. There are more reasons than just these, but they're not coming to mind at the moment.

Additionally, as it is right now, there was only 9 days between ship and wk 1 regionals.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I don't think you are reading this correctly. Everyone keeps there robot and takes it from event to event. The robot never leaves their hands. So everyone has the same amount to time to work on their robot.

All Michigan teams and some others are bringing their robots to events now. I believe the union reason can be gotten around. We bring our tools in right now. If you had to you could just pay the union people the hours of work they would have got. It can't cost that much money to move some creates around.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

You just ignored everything that was said in that post. Just because certain venues don't have unions doesn't mean others won't.

This is a competition run by a company, not by teams. We can't vote a change to the system. It is this way for a reason.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I also can't imagine that there really are rules that disallow you to bring in a robot, yet allow teams to bring in the pits, saws, tables, battery carts, etc...that I see at all the events...

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

If FIRST wants to be able to continue holding events in the same venues, they have to abide by the rules the unions give them. Everyone DOESNT have the same time to work on their robot. With your system it would make Week 6 Regionals FAR FAR more competitive than Week 1 regionals. They're bad enough as it is with multiple event teams having some on-field time. If their build season was 13 weeks instead of 6, it would be a completely different game. FIRST is trying to keep the level of competition at least somewhat similar from event to event, week to week. Yes, everyone would have had the SAME time to work on it, but later events have MORE time than earlier ones, and thats the problem.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Did you read the update from FIRST that implied this, right at ship day? There are union issues at at least one of the venues, and because of that, ALL of the regionals have to play by the same rules to be fair for everyone.

EDIT:
Furthermore, everyone seems to be getting hung up on the union comment. At many of the venues it is a non-trivial task to do team load-in of all the tools and such. If you add the robots to it too, it would take substantially longer, and you would lose extremely valuable practice time on Thursday.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

FIRST has always been open to trying different things. They want to expand on the learning being done by students. If they could find a true benefit in a system such as this why not give it a try to benefit those, who the program has bulit for. Last year the tried the Michigan Pliot system it worked. Now I believe they added to more bag and tag events. Yes, the current system isn't broken, but why not try it? It's a proposal, if you work in a company, everything starts out this way.

Just my one and half cents...

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Originally (in the 90's) the robot was brought in by teams. They have changed since then. There was probably a reason and there is probably a reason why it is still that way.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

From what I know, there are no week 6 events. Yet, think about teams who can afford to make practice bots. They continue to work on making there robot better as the weeks go on. They transfer what they learn from that practice bot to the real machine. Thus, they are working on the robot the entire season.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

We are the costumers. FIRST works for us we pay them. The venues work for FIRST. If enough of us want something, usually we can get it. This is a proposal for next year or after that. Union rules are contracts and contracts can be changed and altered.

I do agree that at all events you would have to be able to bring in your robot so that it is fair to everyone.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I see it as teams would just take advantage of the time, and most would sign up for the later regional's in their location. I feel as if though teams have enough time to build very well built robots in these 6 weeks and why change it if its been working. All i would say is to maybe for those who have harsh conditions and extreme circumstances be allowed more time to the equivalent of 6 weeks.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Also, I think theres some misconceptions about multiple event teams. There are only a handful of teams who attend 3 or more regionals. This number is probably less than 10 total, of all teams in FIRST. There are a relatively large number of 2 event teams, particularly in areas where two regionals are held within 2 hours of each other (GTR and Waterloo, for example). 2 Event teams probably comprise about 20% or so of teams in FIRST. The rest only go to one event. It would be interesting to see some actual numbers to back this up (yeah, I could do it, but I don't have the time). But its not really fair to say you're up against teams that have been playing for 3 weeks. You MIGHT be playing with 2 or 3 teams for which that is true. The majority of teams however, are in the same boat as you.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

My Advice: Spend less time complaining about FIRST's rules and spend the time fundraising and building a second robot. I think you will get much better results this way.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

There is no advantage to one team or another. We all would have the same amount of time to work on the robot. Sure week six would have more competition as it does now. But right now the teams that can afford to go to 4 events have a huge advantage because they get 3 days to work on their robot at every comp when everyone else got none because they couldn’t afford more competitions.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I also think teams have alot of misconceptions about the concept of a practice bot. Yes, some really big, really well funded teams build a practice bot that is functionally identical to their competition bot. These teams are DEFINITELY in the minority, and there are not very many of them. Many teams build a "practice bot" that is considerably different from their competition bot (perhaps its just a drivebase). This does not have to be overly expensive to do, as it could be built out of steel instead of aluminum, and you're allowed to keep the control system components, so the only major cost would be transmissions and wheels.

Honestly, some teams are really good, and will continue to be really good regardless of whether you let them build practice bots, keep their bots, or anything else.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

And these are the teams that win it all. EVERY YEAR.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

+1 to this sentiment. As I said, a practice bot does not have to be expensive.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

At your convenience, please introduce me to a team that win it all every year. There is only one team that has won the top event more than two times, and it took them a decade.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Going to multiple events is NOT why they win. These teams are GOOD. They spend most of build season prototyping, and designing, and perfecting their mechanisms before they build them. They have a very effective program, and yes, some of them have large sponsorships, but not all of them do. Going to multiple events helps, but how do you explain why these same teams consistently do well even when they attend Week 1 regionals?

Yes, there are perennial powerhouses. Yes, they're tough to beat. Yes, the competition is better because of them, because younger, less experienced, and less competitive teams strive to beat them, strive to follow in their footsteps. Don't ask them to back down to the level of everyone else. Get everyone else up to their level. They will help you, just ask them for help.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

These are the teams that fundraise year round so they can attend 3 or 4 events. Teams that do fundraise that much will likely put in a ton of time and effort into their robot. They will likely be the team that is never satisfied with their robot. They will likely be the team that are always thinking of new strategies. They win every year because they work at it not just because they go to 4 events while some teams only play once. In nearly all cases, they have earned whatever 'advantage' they recieve.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I don't believe he asked for them to back down, I think he asked to give every team a chance to have a shot to move forward, if its because of wintery storms or because of finical problems. Give everyone the chance to put a lot into there robot.

One and done teams may come to a regional with an unfinished robot and pay not get the chance to play. This would benefit them. Last year the No Robot Left behind was very successful. Every team got to the field, but why not strive to have very team play every match?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Teams was plural. I think you will find a correlation with the fact that the teams that go to more events win more.

The main reason that I am trying to support this is the fact that the students are ready to learn the most when the robot is getting shipped and around the time of the competitions. At those times the robot isn’t around much for everyone to learn from and work on it. I want the robot in the student’s hands more so they can work on it more and learn more about it and thus make a difference in their lives. At the events a couple students work on it while others are off scouting. I want everyone to learn from it.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Every team has EQUAL opportunities as it is now. Your proposed system does not in any way change the EQUALITY of the system. All teams are treated equally. If your team goes out, and gets the sponsorship dollars, and gives FIRST a cheque, they'll happily let you play at more events. These big ticket teams (I can think of two in the immediate area of 326, and two to four in the immediate greater toronto area), don't have the big dollars just fall into their laps and become great. They run a great program, and because of that, are given sponsorship dollars which enables their program to get even better.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Alright but in my experience in FIRST they may have more money and experience but it hasn't affected the regional outcomes the smaller teams give the powerhouses a run for their money so I would just say leave it as is.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Correlation != Causation. These teams don't consistently do well because they go to more events, they go to more events because they do well.

EDIT: To say that one thing causes another without any proof to back it up is meaningless. I could say that the decline in the population of pirates is responsible for global warming, the statistics correlate, but its obvious there's no causation there.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Did you bother to check this before you made your inflated accusations?

There were 12 teams on Einstein last year. 8 of these teams were from outside the state of Michigan. Of those 8, 6 attended 2 regionals and 2 attended a single regional. One of those that attended a single regional was a member of the championship alliance. I excluded the Michigan teams from this because the Michigan situation last year was unique, 2 events for the price of 1 plus a third for $500 leads to teams participating in many more events before Championships.

In 2008 7 of the 12 attended 2 events, 1 attended 1 event and 3 attended 3 events. Here's the interesting thing about the teams that attended 3 events, 2 of the 3 won all 3 regionals they attended. The other won 2 of the 3 and was in the finals of the third. These teams are not good because they go to a whole bunch of competitions, they are good because of their hard work and the organization they have built.

In 2007, 11 of the 12 attended 2 Regionals. The last attended only one.

The FiM system is an attempt to level this disparity. Michigan teams are getting many more matches for their money than other teams.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

These teams do NOT win it every year. Look at team 148 (Robowranglers) They do not always win. And team 971 (Spartan Robotics) They won their first worlds last year. ANYONE can win this game, that is what it is designed around.

FIRST is NOT about winning. This is not just some sport made for children to have fun and win, then cry about it when you don't. This isn't football here. This is FIRST! We are not here to win, we are here to LEARN! Dean Kamen said in his speech "Teaching needs to be left in the classroom." And he is right, teaching needs to be left in the classroom. But learning needs to be in the workroom. I have learned so much in my 2 years of FIRST, stuff that I never would have learned had I stayed in the classroom. THAT is what FIRST is here for.

Would you be more stressed during 6 weeks of build? or 12 weeks? I personally would be more stressed during 6 weeks. That is why every year I sit here and think "Wow, we built that in 6 weeks. And it does what we want, and it does it well." And then I look at 148 and think "WOW!!! And I was impressed by mine... You know what, lets work on that. Lets study this robot, and remember what they did in future years. So that we may someday, be as good as they are."

So please, instead of thinking "Why do they have to be so good and have so much money?!? It's not fair!", think "You know what, I want to be like them. I will strive to be like them." And then this thought will go through your head "but how do we do that???" Then consider this. You know what you have. and what you are capable of. Start there, and work with that.

-Rion

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Ok. I will retract the "every year" statement......

But teams that go to one event are very unlikely to win regionals. The more time you spend working on the robot the better you are going to do and the more you are going to learn.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Personally i think that something like this would destroy week 1 events because no one would attend them. People would want to perfect their bots more and know that by the first regional they wont be ready so they will register for later regionals.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I'm going to respectfully disagree here. There are MANY teams that go to one event that win regionals, and that still doesn't explain how these powerhouse teams win AT THEIR FIRST regional.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

You are correct that many more teams that win late regionals have attended a previous event.

For 2009 Week 5 Regionals (districts excluded) I counted 8/30 winners that were one event teams.

I would echo the point that correlation does not equal causation, however. Of these 22 winners that had attended previous events, I counted 21 that had been in the eliminations at their previous event. 13 had advanced to at least the semifinals. 8 had made it to the finals, with 4 of the teams winning their previous events. In a competition like this where it is all about the alliance you end up on and a little bit of luck is definitely involved, these stats tell me that these teams build good robots.

I am not going to deny that going to a second event helps show a team what works and what should be improved as well as giving the drivers valuable experience behind the sticks. What I am suggesting however is that these teams would have stood a good shot at winning these late events even if they had not gone to a previous event.

The other thing we have to take into account is that FIRST is already working on a solution to the "problem" of how to get teams more playing time. The FiM system you are participating in gets you 2 events for the price of 1. FIRST has opened up this system to any region that wants to implement it. This decision by FIRST was made late in the process of planning this year's events and their are many hurdles to implementing this system in other places, so no other regions have taken advantage of it this year, but hopefully we will see more areas shifting to this system.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Not to mention every team would have to find a way to safely move their robot from their home to competition. Any team that needs to fly would be in trouble and the chances of robots being damaged in route would probably greatly increase.

Honestly I think it would just make better teams better. Teams with a lot of resources will be able to change their robot much quicker to adapt to competition. I can just imagine some of the changes I've seen at IRI in week 5 because of all the free time. The best example I can come up with is 1114's autonomous in 2008. By IRI they were lapping (sometimes even a 5th line) and knocking down both balls, giving them 32-36 pts in autonomous alone.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Every team starts out equal. If you want to make a practice robot, go out and fundraise. If you want to go to more than one regional, go out and fundraise. Its not that hard.


Last year was our first year of two competitions. We thought that that allowed us to have significantly more fun, and make us more competitive.

This year we are doing two regionals and two identical robots.



Fund raising is your friend

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Lets say my team and your team are each attending one regional event.

My team attends a week 1 regional. Your team attends a week 5 regional.

My team competes in week 1, finds out our design isn't the best for this year's challenge, isn't picked for the elimination matches, and does not qualify for the championship. Our "official" season is over after that one event.

Your team keeps your robot, and continues working as you watch week 1, 2, 3, and 4 regionals. Four additional weeks to build, with the added benefit of watching 4 weeks of competitions to garner strategy, find out which mechanisms work best, etc. Now you and all the week 5 teams have a chance to field far more competitive robots than anyone in week 1.

In essence, my team has a 6 or 7 week build season for one event. Your team has a 10 or 11 week build season for one event. How is that fair? Sure, my team could keep the robot after our regional and continue working through the rest of the season, but if we aren't attending any other official competitions, what purpose would that serve?

Changing the format like this would effectively make early week regional competitors do the gruntwork in designing mechanisms and establishing strategy. Any late week regional competitors could easily see what works and what doesn't, with potentially 2-3 weeks to revise and redesign their robots accordingly.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I did not expect to see this topic being posted by an engineer who works in the "real world."

Real world constraints and business type constraints is how I'd rather keep this competition.

Need more money? Fund raise more.

Very frankly,
Akash

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Where is it written that FIRST tries to be fair to everyone?

Why do teams that can afford more than one regional have to become handicapped?

Why do teams that build practice robots have to become handicapped and not build them?

If you handicap those who can and do, you are also handicapping the dreams of those who want to and work to achieve/attain those goals.

Inspiration grows with/through development and struggle. Inspiration dies when handicapped and/or quelled.

Jane

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Marc,

That is exactly the way the current system works for those of us that utilize the Withholding Allowance. The only thing this proposal changes is making the Withholding Allowance the whole robot instead of just 65 lbs. All teams competing at your Week 1 event are on a level playing field with each other and so are the teams competing at my Week 5 event. The fact that the two playing fields are not level with each other doesn't really matter does it?

I don't think I ever really addressed the initial proposal so I will do so here. I disagree with the statement that more would be learned by extending the build season (which is essentially what you are proposing). I am a strong believer in Parkinson's Law. Will team's spend more time prototyping if they have more time to build the robot? Maybe. Will this result in "better" robots? Maybe. Do "better" robots change anything? I don't think that they do.

I contend that there is an equal, if not greater, amount to be learned by working within the given time constraints.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Doesn't this go against one of things that makes FRC different from all the other competitions? 6(.5) weeks to design/build/program a fully functional(or as close as possible) robot that when shipped its no longer touched until the team gets to the competition. This is what makes FIRST such a great experience. When I go into companies and talk to them about what we do they are amazed at the all the technical aspects of the program. Then when I tell them that its just 6 weeks to do it their mind explodes(mine does as well).

FIRST alumni are that much more valuable 'cause they have experience working under a tight deadline. By allowing teams to keep back their robot tell competition would eliminate that all together. I know if i had the chance, all I would do is test theories up until competition started, and build my bot around what I was seeing during the real game.

Aside from if the current system is fair or not. FIRST is about delivering experiences that can't be found outside the real work place. Learning how to work with a team, on a robot, in the middle of the night before ship date is what makes FIRST FIRST.

Just my .02.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

This is essentially the arguement right here.

If we're honest, week 5 only teams might not build more than a drive train during the true build season. Why wasste the time when you have 5 weeks to scout out what works and improve upon it?

This year on my team we kept jokingly saying saying with 40 lbs of prefab and COTS we could build a regional winner/competitive robot on Thursday at a regional because we design so many COTS parts into our robot. When they upped it to 65 lbs we went from joking to a full day of saying, "Should we just assemble a robot from COTS and our 65 lbs on Thursday?"


No let me get on my soap box...

As a member of one of the teams referenced above in the "every year" category. There are certain things that the perennially competitive teams do other than build a second robot (we use the kit bot or old robots as a test bed not a 2nd robot because we can't afford to build one).

Strategy, Scouting, Picking, Continuous Improvement, Reliability.

Ask Wildstang, Hot, Thunderchickens, Pink or any other teams that made Einstien multiple times in the last 5 years since we started the 3 team alliance era and they will tell you those 5 things I mentioned above get you there. That's how a team can gop from not being picked at their only regional to winning a Championship division (my team in 2008). Most teams don't pay attention to the details. The perenniel powerhouses on the other hand pay attention to every detail and stratagem because they get treated differently by teams that go up against them because of their reputations. It forces them to be more creative and ready for more being thrown at them.

My $0.02.
Pete

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

What's stopping any team in FIRST from going to more than one event? Building a practice robot? Nothing they can't change.

One of the things about FIRST that's different than the real world is that almost all instances of "wealth" among teams are earned every single year. While in life, there are people that don't lift a finger a day in their lives and inherit millions (Paris Hilton types), in FIRST that really isn't the case. Every team has to fundraise, and few single corporations give the $60,000 a year or so that it costs to run a team that goes to 2 events, champs, practice bot, the whole 9 yards.

What I always see is people carrying this abhorrence of the wealthy and embarrassment of riches into FIRST without really understanding why people think all of those rich snobs are disliked by them or others. It's not (shouldn't be) jealousy, but that "I'm doing all this hard work and that jerk didn't do anything to earn it" that seems to generate these sentiments. This is a concept that doesn't exist in FIRST.

Motivation aside, your suggestion isn't a bad one. It's what VRC and FTC have done for years now.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Let me get this right...

- Some teams work really hard to get extra funding.
- They then use that extra funding in conjunction with more hard work to build a practice robot.
- They then work tirelessly perfecting their systems and driving until their fingers bleed.

So, you're saying there's a correlation between hard work and success? Who woulda thunk it?!

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Right! I hadn't considered the Withholding Allowance, especially the 65 pounds of this season. I'm from the olden days where once the robot shipped, all you could do is fabricate a few pounds of exact duplicate replacement/spare parts, no upgrades or additional components. More recently we had the "fix-it" windows, where teams were only allowed to work on robot related things within hours corresponding to active regionals.

I like the idea of a concrete deadline everyone must adhere to. Sure, multi-regional teams have more practice and extra hours to work on their robots. However, as has been mentioned many times already in this thread, fundraising can go a long way in making any single regional team into a double or triple regional team. Of course, that's easier said than done, but where there's a will, there's a way.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Part of the reason FIRST gives teams 6 weeks to work on the robot is because that is similar to how the real world works. Personally, I think a tough deadline is part of the challenge (if you can overcome this by building a second robot, then this is also a great challenge, and requires you to overcome obstacles other teams will not have to overcome).

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Or not.

It can also be about teams setting down a timeline and working within that timeline to get the product made. I read and hear stories of all the late night/all night frenzied build sessions in the shops. Ok. If that is how that team functions and the facility/mentors can handle the late hours - that's fine. Teams that work with shorter hours with a more time-managed plan can do that, too, and perhaps learn about those constraints in the process.

We can see in threads in CD, on a pretty regular basis, that teams will find ways to push the constraints/rules/guidelines to the max - trying to eek out whatever benefit they feel they can. Teams also complain. A lot. If teams compete in the 5th week with full access to their robot up until that time, the teams that competed before that 5th week will not sit quietly by and accept that those teams had so much more access to their robot than the earlier competitions did, I can just about guarantee that. And - I think we would see folks hitting burnout at a lot faster rate. Burnout at a higher faster rate would be very bad for FRC.

Jane

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.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

How is that fair?

If I want to go out and fundraise to compete in more than one regional, then how can you fairly stop me?

Let teams compete to the fullest level that they are willing to commit to. Never limit what a team can do, it's not fair to those that put more effort in. It's far more inspirational to compete more then once, so let teams do it. You learn a lot more by competing multiple times. If you only want to compete in one regional a year, nobody will stop you, and if people want to compete in more than one, then don't try to stop them either. If you want it to be fair, go out, fundraise, and compete in more regionals.

Team's that earn two spots in nationals, don't take spots from anyone. If a team wins two regionals, then that's just one more team that gets off the waitlist later, so they didn't take anyone's spot.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

but see, it only takes one competition to make it to nationals. the way i see it, if you are a wonderful enough team to make it all the way, great for you, but finish practicing at home. other teams are at competition to secure their spot and if you're there just for practice and ruin another teams chances, i think that is hardly fair and definitely not an example of gracious professionalism.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I disagree, primarily because of the stress it would put on mentors over a 2x build season.

But Mr. G, it's all in your perspective. From the perspective of many teams, you are one of the haves, not a have-not. For the last 3 years you have not been watching on the sidelines on a Saturday afternoon at regionals and districts - in multiple events each year. You've been to CMP about every other year, and have been in the finals on Galileo. I know the teams you are speaking of, who do seem to win something every year. But to me it seems like you're firmly in the second tier. And there's a lot more tiers below you.

I say this not to offend in any way, and I'm sorry if it is taken that way. We felt similarly about my daughter's team - "All those other teams are better, have more, can do ..." But then I found out that there are hundreds of teams that build a robot, go to one event, and go back home. Sometimes when complaining poverty, we don't recognize the riches we have.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I think your missing the point of competing. It is not to win and going to the Championship. It is not just about winning. It is about enjoying all the time and effort you put into your robot and your team. Yeah, winning is nice (not that I would know...yet) but I think if your main goal is to win and advanced to the Championship, you will be dissatisfied more often than not. Those teams that have put in the extra effort to fundraise to attend 2x regionals, should have the right to enjoy all their hard work.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

If you're competing because you want to get to Atlanta, prepay and get a spot that way. The events are designed to stand alone as a fun, inspirational experience; they aren't just gates to a more inspirational experience.

Though I'll freely admit when I was in FTC, I hated competing against a team who already qualified, and then I joined the other side of the coin and my opinion changed. So take that as you will.

I think it's important to make the distinction that each individual event is a competition, not the FRC program as a whole. Then again, I could be off base here. I'm in the minority somewhat of supporting a non qualification only Championship Event...

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

i understand where you are coming from, and i'm not trying to say the only reason for competition is to win. that is far from the truth. what i'm trying to say is that it's not about the spotlight either. i just think there is better ways of practicing. but to be honest with you, if our team was wealthy enough to do that, we definitely would, but the major question is "is it the right thing to do?"

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Ok, I've discussing this issue with some outsiders to FIRST and heres a quick run down of what some others on the outside thinks.

-Anyway to bring the competition level up altogether as a whole would be great.
-Not all teams can nice high level support in a down economy.
-Reguardless teams will be better in a 5th week/Championship, then week one.
-Where are big money teams, who already go to 3 regionals and have practice being hurt in this system?
-If it saves money why not try it?
-There will be disadvantages to every system (Like BCS for college football).
-Change is sometimes not a bad thing.
-It's a suggestion, it can be changed.

None of this outlines one side or another, there just comments from others. Those including two highschool teachers, a high school athletic director and few others who know of FIRST from being invited to see an event in the past.

The one the strikes me the most are the last three. There is no perfect way for FIRST to be run to make everyone happy. There may be many others out that that have had there own idea of how FIRST could change for the better. To do agree, that the 6 week deadline does put pressure on a team to work together to get it done. Yet, the robot is not the only thing in FIRST that has a deadline on.

Mr. G, has a suggestion that he feels would make FIRST better, why don't others just suggest ways of taking that idea so that it would work. Like in anything in a business, sports and congress, a bill in its original form is sign less that 5% of the time. It goes through many revisions until there is a agreement. Who knows he's idea may lead to something that does help all teams in long run, but it doesn't mean his idea is the right way.

So instead of saying why its doesn't work, use cooperation to maybe come up with something that does help everyone. Those who have finical issues, to those rookies and small teams where its just hard to get the money to participate. Working together is the way to go. Disagreeing you nowhere.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

How are you fundraising? I don't consider finding sponsorships, fundraising, but if you're selling 10k in cupcakes .. I won't argue with you.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

You cannot fund another team with the $4,000 you would save from not attending multiple regionals. That's just not enough money. Money also means nothing without mentors. We don't need more teams. We need sustainable teams.

What if FIRST worked this way? If you attend your first regional and you don't qualify you're SOL. How is that fair? This hurts the average team more than the top teams. The top teams will qualify anyways, and the average team will have 1/2 as many chances to qualify.

I suggest everyone refer back to the speech where Dean said "FIRST is not fair and shouldn't be" or something to that effect. Life isn't fair, neither is FIRST. You have to do your best with what you have while striving for all that you don't have.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Money is money, what does it matter if it is from a sponser or from selling goodies?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I'm curious what your basis is for this distinction. With the amount of time and effort we put into seeking sponsorship, I often wonder if we wouldn't be better off selling something instead.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I believe you've missed the point, you can't see the forest for the trees.
It doesn't matter if the build season is 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or half a year. The point of FIRST is not about the build season, or the robot, or the competition. Its about what happens during the build season, the learning that goes into the robot, and experiences people have at the competition.

I also believe that trying to make it more "fair" for teams won't lead to the outcomes that you're looking for.
It's the diversity of teams that make FIRST competitions so interesting to watch, and participate in. Every year, people wonder "What's Hammond, Wildstang, Simbotics, etc." up to?

In another thread, someone was advocating for more separation between powerhouse veteran teams and rookie teams, to make it more fair. None of the rookie teams wanted to be separated, because some of the best experiences they had were from competing against, and with veteran teams.
If I can find the post, I'll quote it here.

From 3 years ago...

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Asking versus earning.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

We need more teams. You could probably quote Dean for saying that at each kickoff.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Because pursuing local companies, contacting them, organizing robot demonstrations at their facilities, inviting them to regional competitions, and placing their logo on your robot, T-shirts and banners is no work at all. The teams with 25k+ budgets didn't work for those sponsorships right? The money just fell in their laps?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Think something that was mentioned in the original post hasn't been talked about. What about those kids who come to learn?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Yes. See this thread from 2008 on why.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...le+regional s

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

No, we need sustainable teams. If you give a team a check for $6,000 and say "Here, build a robot", that's a team that will probably be overwhelmed and drop out a year or two later due to inadequate funding and mentor/teacher support. That is entirely counterproductive to FIRST's goal.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I think there may be another aspect, and If I missed it having been said I apologize. First is a very intense and time consuming venture. I think we may need to consider balance of activities.I do not know what subject load other students have on other teams, but for my students it puts a strain on their studies. Once ship day comes, much time is used catching up on school work and preparing for AP tests. From my point of view as a sponsor & teacher my life pretty much goes on hold for 6 weeks. Like many others, I have other commitment and pass times in my life. If teams kept their robots for extended periods of time the commitments of the students and coaches and sponsors and mentors would be extended and I believe many teams would have trouble keeping active sponsors and mentors, who volunteer their time, for an 8, 10 or 12 week period. My $.02.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

If in fact you are suggesting that teams with corporate sponsors don't earn what they have, then I am totally speechless. To me, that is completely disrespectful to teams that have a solid economic base for their team and strive to be able to fund themselves. Asking for money and getting it doesn't mean it isn't earned. Getting companies to sponsor you is not as simple as asking and getting. It's asking AND earning, but even if money did just land in people's laps, it's still disrespectful to tell them straight up that they didn't earn it.

I'm sorry we are having this difficulty with the intricacies of language. I would classify any form or raising funds as fundraising (hence the name).

Half of debating is understanding other people's language. A lot of time can be spent deciphering a slight difference in interpretation.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I suppose writing on a piece of cardboard and sitting on a corner with a cup is also work.

The benefit of FIRST doesn't come from the competition. My company sponsors many teams each year, but we'd rather fund more teams than fund multiple regional trips.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

No, teams competing in week 6 will have an extra month to work on their robots while teams competing this week will be done. FIRST is not about the robots, it is about inspiring students to pursue careers in forms of engineering. If it is all about the robot to you, I would recommend that you re-evaluate why you are involved with FIRST.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

The Week 5 teams play the Week 1 teams when?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Some of those teams will become sustainable, but throwing $6k to an already established team will not create a new sustainable team. Also, those students will have learned something that year and it wont' be about failure.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Cory, I don't think anyone heard you. Hey out there, did you not see that there would be a huge drop in mentors if it went longer. In many cases that means that their financial aid will disappear as well.

Has anyone thought that if the season was longer that the better teams will improve 10 fold? Teams get out what they put in. It's a fact that cannot be denied. Deadlines are also a reality in the real world. I am sorry kids but if you think that the real world will wait by while you miss deadlines and say you want more time to complete, you are living in a dreamland.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

All language requires interpretation, so please don't start quoting Webster.

We're probably at opposites of the spectrum here. I run a team that is completely sponsored by my company. I actually spend time recruiting students each year. I won't spend money on a second regional.

I judge the success of my program, not by winning a regional, by how many students I progress to the next level of FIRST, college.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

A few in Atlanta, but nearly 300+ teams do not get past week one events.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Okay, so their less capable robots don't interact with more capable robots. The problem here is?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Because the week 5 robots were in their shops getting fined tuned for competition for weeks while week one teams had one week to get ready to compete. How is that fair?

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Life isn't fair. Consider these inconsequential instances of unfairness preparation for the real world. Seriously, none of this really matters in the big picture. The ironic thing here is that some of the people who campaign for the "It's not about the robots!" platform are in fact making it all about the robots. If it's not about the robots (and it isn't, completely), then it does not matter what week teams go to regionals, how much money they have, how many times they compete, if the students or mentors build it, or any other petty argument that pops up on Chief every few months.

The only thing that matters is that teams are inspiring their students

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Did people just fail to see this post entirely?

You people also do realize how thick headed and arrogant engineers and engineering oriented students can be right? Don't get too worked up in this argument.
+.02

Clearly "fair" is one of the most arguable words in the English language.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

The 3 adults on our team get threatened with this every year and somehow manage to stay married. Good luck.

I have always hoped of a shortened build season. I was hoping with the suggested change that FIRST could remove one week and go right from build and into the competitions.

I agree that the FIRST season is to long. I idea behind FIRST is to inspire students. But shipping a robot to an event and then from event to event when the students are most interested in learning from it and working on it makes no sense to me. Why are the rules setup so that a team can't work on a robot if they can't afford to go to an event when teams that can afford to go to most events can work on their bot.


A lot of money is wasted shipping a robot around the country when team are going there anyway and can take it with them. If teams need to ship there bot to an event because they are flying they still can. I have never had the liberty to fly to an event in all the time I have been in FIRST.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I will let you in on a secret....Don't tell anyone.....If you sign up early enough anyone can go to nationals.

You do not have to qualify to get there. FIRST states it that way to make a lot of people like you think it is a special thing to get into nationals and it is not. It is only special if you earn it, but you don’t have to earn it to go. If you had to earn it to go they wouldn’t have as many people going because it is a lot to work to plan a trip for 50 people in 2 weeks.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Citation please.

Also, you are from a team that consistently attends the CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT(not nationals), what would you know about the "specialness" of this event? Maybe you've just lost touch of what attending the championship and being with caliber teams really means. I'm also from a team that consistently attends, whether we "earn" a spot or not, it is still very special to our team.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

From a non-technical point of view, I have always seen the beauty of FIRST as the insane six weeks where everyone is stressed and freaking out. The 6 week limit is part of the experience and the learning process and shipping the robot holds this to be true. I think taking away that part of the experience takes a lot from FIRST as a whole.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

just my two cents, but the six weeks is also set in place to give a sort of realistic view on what it might be like working on large group projects in a real job world. you have time lines you have to meet, no exceptions.

one quote, that woodie has said many times over the years is: "We're given a problem too big, a time to short, a team to large, a budget too small, but we have to make it work because that's exactly how it happens in the real world"

((those may not be the exact words, but it's to the point enough))

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

Surely this has been said already, but here is my opinion (to back up my vote): The 6 week build season is an unreasonably short period of time for the necessary tasks. This is FIRST's greatest value, since having a tight timeline brings out the very best in engineering work, and allows flaws in the process to be spotted easily.

A recent Harvard Business Review article talking about business transformations advocated providing a too-tight timeline for a major corporate overhaul or initiative as a way of keeping people focused on the task and quickly identifying those who were not committed to implementation.

There are parallels in an FRC team; you want people to focus intensely on the task and not lose interest, and not let the process just grind on and on forever, by having them perceive insufficient tme to complete a task; and you want anyone not really committed to go away and stop consuming resources from the team - i.e., the slackers and posers.

Without that, FRC is just something else in the curriculum, prone to attracting those just looking for a "vacation" and the chance to play with expensive stuff, having little if any commitment to anything.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

I believe he meant it as, FIRST writes it to be like going to the super bowl. Trust me he knows how special it is reguardless. Last year we did have to earn our spot to go to nationals, and we did, but for finical reasons couldn't attend. Going to Atlanta is special, yet FIRST makes it seem so hard to get to when it really isn't.

I think that helps explain his comment...

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

We didn't go last year. If you read my post I said it is special if you earn a place to go. If you just go then you aren't anymore special then any of the other teams that "just go" I said nothing that the "Championship" weren't a special event. They are a great event and wish our team could afford to go every year.

Re: Vote to change the format of FIRST.
 

WoHo 100 posts in 10 hours. Man we got some people fired up on this one.

Hope everyone has a great time at their competitions and are safe. We all need each other.

What are those steps?

shock/denial/anger/acceptance

I think we have hit the first 3, but will we ever make it to the third. Maybe some year. Remember change is good.