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 :)