Is it fair to hold Slots for Rookie teams.
 

Do you think it is fair for FIRST to holds slots in the regionals for rookie teams?



I would hope they didn't. If they did just think of the teams that could not get into a regional because they could not get onto a computer quick enough or find out late that they have money to go.


I think there might be some new teams this year but I am betting that there will be more leaving then coming in the nexts couple of years.

Not Just for rookies
 

I voted yes in the poll. I'd like folks to understand though, that FIRST is not saving spots just for rookie teams. Many of the spots that have been added after regionals have been listed as "full" have gone to established teams. I'm may have voted differently if this were not the case.

P.J.

Why save any slots. Is FIRST going to play this little game on who gets in and who doesn't. Change the rules as they go. If the rules were the regional have a fix number of teams, then that is it. If you plan on going to a regional that you know only have few teams in it. Then you show up and have many more team then when you expected. What is that saying about the game.


Just have the same rules for everybody. Or make new rules up, only before the signup is up.

Rookie Teams
 

I am not so sure that FIRST saves spots. However if they did, I would support the idea as many local rookies are just now getting organized. Having them travel for their only competition is a hardship for them.

Established teams can plan ahead.

The real point is the amount of spaces in a local competition as it relates to the number of local teams wanting to go to that competition. I see in the future the possibility of say .... two competitions at Great Lakes two weeks in a rwo. Teams will have to choose which week but not both.

Huh?
 

I am not aware of FIRST publishing any "rules" about how they would go about filling the regionals, or saying that they would not add teams to a regional if possible.

Personally I hope that all of the regional cooridinators are working right now to see if they can squeeze in a few more teams. As long as the regionals are not crowded to the point where you don't get many qual-matches, I say add more teams.

P.J.

I am not saying not to add teams.

I just want the teams that are on the waiting list to get in.

I do not want a rookie team to get in just because it is a rookie team.

If they wanted to play this game they should of started last year. They should learn what this is all about and when they should sign up. Just like a team that has been around.

They should have a mentor already line up to help them.

For you to tell me that FIRST will hold slots open because they are rookies I think is very wrong.

When FIRST made it, if you win a regional you can go to the National. How many teams would like to get the luck of the draw :( and get rookie teams as partners. Not all rookie teams are bad but are you willing to take that risk. I would rather have a team that has been around than a rookie team.


So is it right for FIRST to save slots?:confused:

FIRST has to hold slots for rookies...
 

Fran made a great point on my poll. Since you cannot go straight to the nationals, and if you pay the original entry fee you must have a slot at a regional.. If not, FIRST would be saying "thanks for the money, you have nowhere to go now". FIRST MUST have at least one slot at one regional for EVERY new team!! :)

Starting a new team is not easy at all as I know from experience. I think that it is fair for FIRST to try to get rookie teams spots in regionals. Some of the teams on the waiting list may be trying to register for a second or third regional so I can understand that FIRST gives some of these spots to rookie teams that have a hard time getting their act together. There are a lot of things to consider when starting a team that you may not have thought of so it's not as easy as just getting a mentor even though that does help. A lot of rookies also do not even know how to go about getting a mentor or help to organize themselves. Getting started is really the hardest part of this and I agree that they should be given a little slack.

I think FIRST needs to increase the number of regionals so teams can compete in 2 or 3 events to give there sponorship the recognition they deserve especially if they are going to limit the Championship.

I agree... Expand the regionals
 

In no way am I advocating limiting the regional attendance as a substitue to expanding the number and size of the regionals. Expansion of regionals (# and Size) is a preferred path. However, even with expanded regionals and little or no waiting lists, FIRST still needs to 'save' (or ensure there are in some fashion) spots for rookie teams, even at the expense of veteran teams being able to attend mulitple regionals.:)

These comments are directed towards Mike Norton.

Mike, I would take that holier-than-thou attitude and put it away somewhere. Please don't leave it here on this forum.

Last year (2001) we were a rookie team with little to no money. We didn't get registered for the regionals till about week 3. As it is, we are still in debt.

If all the "teams that had been around" took the same attitude that you have than they probably wouldn't have done as well in the regionals as they did. We were ranked 30th at the Western Michigan regional. A "been around" team saw what we could do and picked us for their alliance. With our help we scored some of the highest scores of any regional to date (two 565's). A 620 beat us. Guess the alliance. Correct, Team 71. This got our alliance a second place in the finals. We also got a Rookie All-Star.

At the Motorola regional, again a "been around" team picked us. We came in third in the finals. We also got our second Rookie All-Star.

Do I think it's fair that FIRST save slots for the rookie teams. My answer is YES!

If any of these comments offended you, I'm sorry.

Wayne Doenges

Yes this does offend me.

Yes your team was picked because it could do something good. Just think all the matches you were in and how well you help out in each match. If you were ranked that low that means you could not help the team you should of help.

It was not always the best robot winning. it is the robot that got paired up with good seeding rounds.

To give you example The team at the national that was rank in the top 4 in our group did not play in the first match knowing that he did not have the best robot.

I am saying If rookie teams want to get in. they have to do there homework before hand. You can not just jump in and say you want to play at the cost of others.

:p :p :p :p

Mike, your arguments are off base. You're arguing against bad robots, not rookies. I know from your previous posts that you're not happy with the direction of FIRST, but don't insult rookies by saying they are (in general) bad. Wildstang was a part of the WM alliance that Wayne mentioned, and we were lucky to have 535 on the same alliance. They played a huge part in the 2nd place finish.

Rookie teams do NOT play the game at the expense of other teams. Many of the rookie teams, believe it or not, actually help alliances instead of hindering them. Everyone is at the copmetitions to try their best and to have fun. It's up to the veteran teams to recoginze that some rookies (and experienced teams) don't have as good of a robot and to help them when possible.

Mike

Doing their "homework" and figuring out what FIRST is all about is one thing. However, as others have mentioned, actually getting the sponsorship and other means in place to make the ideas reality is something entirely different. FIRST has always said that one of their goals is to eventually expand to the point where every school in the country has a FIRST team. If they don't give an opportunity to those first year teams who are struggling up until kickoff to get things put together to compete, it would be counterproductive. After all, how good would it be for FIRST to be working with a team to get started, only to tell them, "sorry, since you didn't start early enough, you can't compete this year - better luck next year." Based on what I saw, at least 80% of registrations occur that first couple of days in September. The team I am currently working with was put together at the last minute their first year, even to the point of the engineers not meeting the students until Kickoff day. I feel that if FIRST did not hold slots for new teams, you would see the growth slow, and eventually stop entirely, as the growth to new events could not handle the # of teams that wanted to attend multiple events, so that by the time the new teams got organized, there would be no more room for them.

As far as this goes, what does it really matter? Based on what I can tell of the registration system this year, by the time the events get here, we will know exactly who and how many teams are attending, so what good will knowing the numbers before we even know what the game is help?

First, let me begin by saying I voted 'yes.' I think it falls directly inline with FIRST's goals to make sure rookie teams have a chance to compete.

I don't want a veteran team to take my spot as a rookie team just because they've been around longer. The purpose of FIRST, after all, is enlighten students to the possibilities of a career in science and technology. Apparently, as a veteran team, you've already been somewhat enlightened. . . what gives you the right to prevent another student from gaining this experience?

In fact, I'm in favor of quite the opposite of what you've said. I'd completely understand if FIRST chose to limit regional attendance as well, so as to allow for the phenomenal growth of the program.

While the FIRST community may exist year-round, perhaps you've forgotten that schools close during the summer? Often, it takes some time to work with a school to arrange to compete in the competition. Christina and I have been lucky as our school partner has been very well prepared, but we've seen schools who didn't know what the program was until just a few weeks ago. Now, they've become interested, and they're on a waiting list to get into a regional competition. They've paid their $5000, and so they'd better have a chance to play the game.

Perhaps you've become so engrossed in winning you've lost sight of why this competition exists. I do it for fun, honestly, but there's a nice bonus in getting kids excited about this stuff. Perhaps you need to really look introvertedly and figure out why you're here, and if it's for the right reasons. Winning and coming out on top is ultimately worthless, in my mind, because it doesn't have any relevance to the real fun parts of this competition - designing, building, and playing with a really big, expensive toy :)

I did not say every rookie team was bad.

I am saying if a team wants to get into to this robotic game this year and have not signed up yet. They could raise the money now for next year. and they could go and watch the regional in there area and then they would be ready to do it next year.

About the game. Lets look at it. I can teach kids year round about robotics. and do it in a way so everyone can have fun. This is a game. just like a sport game but better here you use your head. If My team does not do well I lose funding. It is hard to sponsor a losing team. If you win the kids do get more into it. You can go on and on about how FIRST is trying to help everybody and I can go on and on showing you how they are hurting the game. If the game fails so does FIRST. There are more games out there and cheaper to go to.


Look I have always LOVE FIRST they have been doing a great job. I have gotten a lot of kids now into this field. I am just hoping they do not hurt themself

;)

Are you trying to suggest that efforts to get more kids involved in this program is somehow *NOT* beneficial? While I agree that it may not be in the best interest of established teams, FIRST doesn't exist to cater to your team, or others like yours. It exists to get students excited about this stuff - plain and simple. Just as I serve as a mentor and role model for my team, other experienced teams should serve the same purpose for rookie teams.

When I explain drive trains and gear ratios and classical physics to my students, I do so using tools graciously provided by veteran teams like Chief Delphi and the TechnoKats. We teach the kids the basics, and then draw upon the vast base of knowledge within this community to take them to the next level.

Elitism is bad, and you're exhibiting quite a streak of it, it seems. Your sentiment that, somehow, schools and students interested in participating should be prevented from doing so solely because you have the benefit of experience, is both unfair and not within my understanding of the goals of this program.

But, that's just me. We all have our own reasons for being here, and I'm fully aware that we're all not here for completely altruistic reasons. I'd be the first to admit that. But, there comes a time when we've got to step outside of ourselves for a moment and try to regain our focus and understand what the program is trying to do.

Mike first of all CHILL !
You need to take a step back and think before you type. Sponsors really dont care about winning. Even though it might boost participation, winning isnt everything.

I do not agree with FIRST if they are going to hold spots for rookies. This is because, if there are not enough spots then just tell the venue that you are moving. There are plenty of places to hold a regional. I know that it does take a long time to plan a regional, but FIRST should have figured for growth this year. But if the regional size cant be increased then rookies should get a spot automaticaly.

Well...
 

Although I am not on a new rookie team, I imagine it must be tough for them. For instance, they have to decipher rules and a new competition, but they must also worry about gaining intrest from kids and adults, and also obtaining funding for participation.
As a matter of fact, I would like to congragulate all those hard workers on the brand new teams, for trying hard to get everything up and running. I do think it is fair for FIRST to hold spots for rookie-teams or young teams at regionals because this is giving them some slack that they may need and atleast is an attempt by FIRST to make sure they get to play.

This statement doesn't make sense to me. How can a rookie team do their homework before hand, if they are a rookie team and have never competed before? I know, Mike that you said they should sit out and watch for a year, but then they would still be a rookie team who never competed. I believe it is the veteran teams job to teach and enlighten new teams. After all your team must have been a rookie team at some point, where did you get help from during the competition your first year? Also, look at any team who has received 'Rookie of the Year', I am sure that each year there are many more teams judges could give this award too, but this award shows that even rookie teams are awesome. Congrats to anyone who has in fact received this award, because I am positive you worked extremely hard to get it.

I think its saying that FIRST is doing its best to make sure as many teams as they can fit in get to play, that was just a thought I had.

I think a contribution to the failure of FIRST (hopefully that will never happen) will be when veteran teams simply give up. I think this is why FIRST is holding spots for veteran teams, to show people they are just as important as rookie teams. And I don't think FIRST purposely makes rules to hurt veteran teams, I think the FIRST HQ people are trying to do what is best for the FIRST teams and their participants.

These are my thoughts hope they make sense to all,
Mike

Mixed signals.....
 

Nate Im a little confused by some of the things im reading, not only from you but others. You said.

"FIRST has always said that one of their goals is to eventually expand to the point where every school in the country has a FIRST team. If they don't give an opportunity to those first year teams who are struggling up until kickoff to get things put together to compete, it would be counterproductive. After all, how good would it be for FIRST to be working with a team to get started, only to tell them, "sorry, since you didn't start early enough, you can't compete this year - better luck next year."

This makes little sense because we now know that this is impossible because if that dream came true where would the competition be held?. Florida is already full acording to FIRST thats why were limited this year to just over half of last years National total. FIRST cant handle 530 teams, how are they going to handle 10.000. not including overseas teams.
Also The " sorry you cant play because you didnt start early enough" is already happening because if your one of the original teams from 1992 ( you get to go).
Regardless of winning a regional. I voted NO because it should be FIRST come F.I.R.S.T. serve.
If this is a competition and only 60% of all the teams registered in the Regionals are able to go to Florida due to the lack of space then the top 60% of the winners should go on their effort and merit. If a team who has won a place in the top % cant go to Florida for what ever reason then the next team in the lower 40% get to go and so on.
Every one has an equal chance, veterans and rookies. Veterans can have bad luck and rookies can have good luck, this to me seems the fairest way for all. None of this even/odd stuff.
Dont be mad at me folks, I just want to see the competition as even as possible.
nick237

Clarification
 

My understanding of the original post that started this thread was that it was referring to FIRST saving positions at regionals, which is what I was referring to in the quotes that you mentioned. While I understand the point that you made of if everyone could go, where would the competition be(referring to Nationals as far as I can tell), I also feel the same as many others have said since the announcement about nationals was made. The regional events are even more crucial now, and for many rookie teams, may be the only chance they get to participate this year. So, the point I was trying to bring across is that if the decision is between letting a veteran team attend 3 regionals(just an example, not looking at any specific team number here), or letting that same veteran team have two regionals, and saving the slot at the other regional for a team that doesn't get formed until mid-November, I'm all for saving the slot.

Hope this helps to clear up what I meant...

Re: Mixed signals.....
 

This is not true. The Championship Event(Nats) has only been downsized by 15%. Not half as stated.

-Nate

Ah, now I see what you were saying and it does seem to be fair but it should still be first come first served. Many teams will feel thier only chance for the Nationals is to play in as many regionals as possible. if there is no limiting rule then alls Fair.
I think a rule should aply that once a team has won the right to go to the Nationals then they cant win the right twice. If they win another award that would let them go again then that right would be passed on to the next team that would Qualify but has not won the right because of being second?
This just gives hope to another team that might be having a run of bad luck or some mechanical problems.
Only one team chairmans award can be submited at any regional, no team can submit more than one and their submission is judged at only the regional that is chosen by that team. no other regiols would alow another chairmans award to be submited.
This should go for all the other awards that alow a winning team to go to Florida.
Just my 2c but these ideas do make it fairer for all the teams.
Nick237

FIRST has experienced a very strong response in registration for our events this year. However, we remain committed to welcoming new teams and returning teams, and encourage all those to register who would like to get involved. Please contact us at frcteams@usfirst.org, or call, if you would like more information.


I am wondering why they posted this. If all the regional are full with a waiting list. How on earth are they going to put more teams in. Or are they just trying to over fill to get more money? If a team can not go to a regional why build a robot? and once again why should a rookie team get in before a old team. I can see if they are in another regional. I am staying if a team has not got into a regional yet and is on the waiting list why should that team take a back seat to a rookie team.

They are probably planning to bring teams in from the wait-list. It is entirely possible that FIRST is purposely showing lower capacities for some regionals than they can actually hold. If so, this is most likely to allow rookies and veterans who haven't registered for a regional to attend at least one event. I cannot believe that FIRST would ever allow a rookie team registering for a second regional to get preference over a veteran team that is not signed up for any regionals. I don't think that would be "gracious professionalism" by any standard.

Also, are more regionals in the works? It is possible, though somewhat unlikely, that FIRST, after seeing the mad dash for regional spots, is planning to create more events to allow every team to register for one or two events.

Finally, we may see some teams be asked to choose between regionals. If a team has more than three (or even two) events, they may be asked which ones they really want to attend, and then be limited to a certain number. It isn't the best solution, but when faced with some teams registered for four events, ond others not registered for any, FIRST may have no choice but to limit attendance.

Like Jeff said, the only explanation can be that they are reserving spots for the rookies so they have a chance to register for a regional or two. Maybe FIRST even expected teams to register for more regionals than they used to because of the restrictions on the championship and so they did this to make sure rookie teams could get spots. Makes sense to me, FIRST realzed their growth rate could be stunted by teams over-registering and they did something to help the rookies. Who knows, there could even be rookie-friendly rules in this year's competition.

We'll just have to wait and see. There's another month and a half before registration ends, and I'm sure FIRST is not getting as much credit as they deserve.

Oh, BTW, I voted yes on the poll. I also think anything over 3 regionals is pushing it. Our team is going to 2 regionals and nationals.

I highly doubt that more events are on the way. Based on what I've seen working with them at events in the past, they start planning events almost a year in advance. I highly doubt that they could bring another event together at this point.