Multiple Event Winners
 

By my count, there are 23 teams that won multiple events:

Did not lose an event:
1114 x3
2056 x3
111 x2
148 x2
195 x2
233 x2
254 x2
303 x2
525 x2
768 x2
987 x2
1503 x2
1676 x2
2471 x2
2815 x2

The following teams attended 3 or more events, and won 2 of them:
33
118
217
359
1918
2137
2337
2415

Congratulations to all the multiple event winners!

Let me know if I missed any.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Wow that's a lot of teams! Just putting my $00.02 in, I think it can be unfair for any one team to be allowed win more than one regional. They're already going to the championships, so why not give another alliance the chance to make it to St. Luis? Just my opinion here.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I'm inclined to agree with you, but the fact of the matter is: they won fair and square so why should a team that may not be as good go to championships? At the same time, the reverse is true.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

True, but there are many, many teams who have never made it to the championships. I agree with you, though. It's true they won. On the other hand, if a single team attended every regional in a state, and won all of them, then that would reduce the amount of teams making it to the finals. I guess both sides could be right.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I did not see team 359 Waialua on your list they went to 3 won 2 if you want to know:) :) :) :) :)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

If the team has registered, paid for, and traveled to a regional, then why would you want to deny them the opportunity to try to win the event?

Also, just to be clear: Any team that wins multiple events does not take spots away from other teams. Teams that are on the waitlist get the opportunity to go instead.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

my bad I have to look better sorry

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Cool. Glad to see two of those on the lists are Texas. :)

and honestly I'm fine with teams doing multiple regionals, if they got the resources to do it than why not. Back when I mentored and volunteered in Colorado, I loved powerhouse teams coming to visit, it helped me get my students to realize that we've still got a long way to grow. Also going up against a powerhouse team helped my team analyze what we need to do in order to become better because if we make it to FIRST World Championships, we want to go making sure we're prepared and that we don't flop.

And yeah, winning events doesn't take away the opportunity of attending FWC, there is an open wait list for all teams to get on.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I almost wonder, though, if instead those spots should be offered to the finalist alliance captain, their first pick, and their second pick, if the champion alliance has 1, 2, or 3 teams already-qualified (or pre-registered) for the championship.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Lets also keep in mind that those team who won in multiple regionals did so with different alliances at each regional... I'll even say it's a statistical improbability, given the alliance selection process, that we've had a single pre-qualified alliance win a regional this year (or any other year). It's much more likely that at least one team on the winning alliance had not yet qualified.

Of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure someone is going to come in and post a long list proving me wrong :p

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

There's 6 (possibly 7) seats in CMP awarded from each regional: RCA, EI, 3xRC (possibly 4xRC), RAS

GTREast:
RCA winner: 1114
EI winner: 1241
Regional Champion 1: 1114
Regional Champion 2: 1503
Regional Champion 3: 1482
Rookie All-Star: 3527

GTRWest:
RCA Winner: 771
EI Winner: 2809
Regional Champion 1: 2056
Regional Champion 2: 781
Regional Champion 3: 1547
Rookie All-star: 3739

Waterloo:
RCA Winner: 1305
EI Winner: 1334
Regional Champion 1: 1114
Regional Champion 2: 2056
Regional Champion 3: 3756
Rookie All-Star: 3756

Pittsburgh:

RCA Winner: 63
EI Winner: 771
Regional Champion 1: 1114
Regional Champion 2: 1503
Regional Champion 3: 3492
Rookie All-Star: 3504

Finger Lakes:

RCA Winner: 340
EI Winner: 578
Regional Champion 1: 2056
Regional Champion 2: 217
Regional Champion 3: 1518
Rookie All-Star: 3799

So, from these 5 events, and their associated 30 seats at CMP:

1114 took 4
2056 took 3
1503 took 2
3756 took 2
771 took 2
3799 took 1
1518 took 1
578 took 1
217 took 1
340 took 1
3504 took 1
3492 took 1
63 took 1
1305 took 1
1334 took 1
3739 took 1
1547 took 1
781 took 1
2809 took 1
3527 took 1
1482 took 1
1241 took 1

By the time 1114 won their RCA Seat, they'd already won 3 Regional Champion seats this year.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

In an ideal single elimination tournament, the finalist isn't necessarily the second best alliance. This wouldn't be very fair.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I say that the teams with extra spots for World's should be able to give them to whoever they wanted.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

That could end badly. Say Team A won a regional and wanted another. They could offer their spot to Team B as long as they promise not to pick a team they want.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Yeah. That opens the door to too much meta-gaming of the alliance selections.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

What would be kind of cool to see, is a dominant #1 seeded alliance (such as 1114/1503/1482, or 1114/2056/3756) call in a backup bot for Finals 2, giving a 4th team a seat at CMP.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I think that this comes up every single year... Like Eric said, they do not steal a spot from another team... In my opinion, these teams help other teams. In their second (or even third) regional win, they take teams in their alliance to a regional win and thus to championships.

Last year at Palmetto, the winning alliance (343, 1261, and 1398) were all already qualified for championships. Of the finalist alliance (1772, 2751, 1102) I do not think that any of them were pre-registered for championships. But, after the regional, all three (I believe) were invited because of their performance at the regional.

All in all, they are already going to the regional... they have paid, and have earned the right to do their best at any competition that they go to. With multiple regional wins, the wait-listed teams get moved up (that may not have gone otherwise) and get to go.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

How can you say that these teams took multiple seats? Each team only gets to attend the Championship once in a year. It's not like they reduce the number of teams attending if they win more than one regional competition. On the contrary, by not using one of the slots being held for regional winners, they let more teams in from the wait list.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Alan, I realize that. I was merely pointing out the distribution of the slots associated with a given regional and which teams earned those slots. I'm fully aware that 1114 has opened 3 seats for waitlisted teams by being awesome.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Keep in mind that those teams that win multiple Regionals also have given their alliance partners a ticket to Championship as well. It has been mentioned that teams on the wait-list will get to go, and that is true as well.

As for the Michigan teams (where some of these multiple-event winners are from), teams are NOT automatically qualified for Championship OR The MSC by winning a district. Teams must compete for points, and at the end of the season, the teams with most points qualify for The MSC (plus Chairman's Award winners, assuming they don't have enough points to qualify).

Besides, it should be noted that these powerhouse teams are essential to FIRST Robotics. As far as I am concerned, FIRST would not be as successful as it is without powerhouse teams doing what they do best: winning. Seeing a team like 1114 win an ungodly amount of events makes one ask, "How can I make MY team compete at that level?" I talked about this a little bit when JVN posted about multiple-championship-winning teams getting an auto-in to the Championship event. While all teams should have the opportunity to compete, one must also recognize that the teams that win year-after-year will not ALWAYS be perfect, don't win the Championship EVERY year, and are part of the culture change that FIRST is attempting to create.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

While I don't agree with this within the current Championship qualification rules, I think the giving of points/spots could be incorporated into the district system. It would allow for teams to play within another region without claiming to points for that region. This could also encourage teams to host visiting teams in hopes the visiting team could share any points they won.

For example, if team 51 was good friends with team 78 and wanted to invite 78 out to Michigan to play. If 78 earned points at that event, they could give them to 51 or any other team they thought deserving at the event. This eliminates one of the negatives of the district set-up and would encourage teams to visit other regions as many teams do now. There could be some simple giving rules to avoid teams taking advantage of this system, for instance, you can't give points to anyone on your eliminations alliance, or rules of that nature.

-Eric

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Pre-qualified or pre-registered? The entire original #2 alliance at Philly was already going to Champs. When 2607 came in to replace 365 in the Finals, that added some new blood to Champs (I'm glad they can go on short notice).

Also you might want restrict the years range to those using the current qualification criteria. If I remember it correctly qualification for "Nationals" started in '02 but it was much broader (you had to get a certain number of points, including points for all awards) and there were significantly less teams. I am glad that my team has qualified on current year criteria every year, never relying on previous year qualification (like HOF, & last year National Champ).

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I dont see how that would happen. Teams that win multiple regionals or any other types of tickets to World's wouldn't want to win by "giving" the extra slot to another team. It would be like 233 giving another team one of their extra slots this week because all the regionals are done.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

If your team didn't make the Mike and Justin's top 25, don't feel bad. 10 of the 23 teams that won multiple events did not make the top 25.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I think the Championship should be a well championship. It think it should be like the MSC only larger. Each regional sends a Chairman's, RAS, and EI, the rest of the spots would be determined by points. Teams get points for everything just like we do in Michigan. This way the best of the best play for a true Champion. And if people who didn't make it want to go they could compete in a division 2 style tournament.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

On the subject of the spots of teams who qualify more than once, I think I've come up with a simple solution.

If a team on the Winning Alliance is already going to the CMP, then the Captain of the Finalist Alliance gets the spot alloted for the winner. If the Captain is already going to the CMP, then the spot is awarded to the first pick of the Finalist alliance and so on and so forth.

Thoughts?

(This still doesn't cover CA or EI award winners, but the concept could be expanded to them as well.)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I'd like to see everywhere adopting the Michigan model. District events, leading to a regional championship, which then awards seats at CMP proportional to the region's pre-district model size (although to be fair, Michigan should be sending more than 9 teams on merit, given the team-density. Michigan could easily support 4 or 5 regionals now, despite having only 3 when the district model started.)

Compare: 1075 attended 3 regionals this year, for the first time in our history. Total Cost: $5000+4000+4000 = $13000. Thats it for our season.
In 2010, we attended 2 regionals + championship. Total Cost: $5000+4000+5000 = $14000.

Take an MI team, 2337 for example:
They attended 3 districts, MSC, and Championship in 2011 Total Cost: $5000+$500+$4000+$5000 = $14500.

An extra $500-1500 cost, to attend 5 events instead of 3? Yes, please! Even more so, when you consider the caliber of MSC and CMP.

I could certainly see it working for Canada: Niagara District, York/Durham District, Waterloo District, Toronto District, Quebec/Eastern Canada District, and Western Canada District lead to a Canadian National Championship, replacing GTR.

I don't think everywhere has the density to support the model on a state-by-state basis, but MI, TX, NY, and CA surely do. I expect you could glom together a few states in the northwest to come up with a big enough pool of teams.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I like the idea of finalists having a shot at qualifying!
However, say: at a week 2 regional team A is captain of the #2 alliance and loses to teams B, C, and D in the finals. This is B, C and D's first regional and now they qualify for the Championship. In week 4, Team B wins another regional. Does the finalist from the week two regional or the week four regional qualify for Championships?

Every year, there are always a few great teams that don't qualify for the Championship, and its too bad. Maybe a ranking system of sorts to allow the top 10 ranked non-qualified teams to qualify would work.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I say the we get rid of buying one's way in and switch to a Michigan point style system for the whole world. Top teams go.

..and if First still wanted rookies to attend (think Rookie All-star) then they could give a much bigger bonus to that award to greatly boost good rookie's points as opposed to a by. This would go a long way in making Worlds more competitive. Like MSC x4.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

You'd make all of Canada a single region? That's going to force some teams to travel far in order to get their two district-level competitions. The distance and density factors are extremely important inputs to a district model.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I would love for it to be like that but it is hard to do that for all of FIRST because most teams do not get more than 1 or 2 events, so this would make for alot of teams tied with points. Maybe the points would be something like half of your total match score for every match you compete in added together.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

The Finalists from the week 4 event would get the spot, as that is where Team B qualified for the second time.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I would indeed. There's a handful of Quebec teams (mostly spawned in 2010/2011 as part of Youth-Fusion-Jeunesse, a program driven by Bombardier and Bell Canada) that make the trek down for one or both of our Canadian regionals currently (WAT/GTR), and 1 or 2 teams from Western Canada (1482, GTREast Champions, from Calgary, AB and the now-defunct 1346, from Vancouver, BC). All other Canadian teams originate from within 4-6 hours drive of Toronto. The outliers being teams like 781 in Kincardine, ON, 1305 in North Bay, ON, and 1535 in Sault Ste Marie, ON.

In light of this, I think giving them a QC/Atlantic Canada District held in the Montreal area, and expecting them to travel to the GTA for their 2nd district as they already do is reasonable. Making concessions for a single existing team in western Canada seems silly, so allow 1482 the choice of competing in 2 districts in Ontario, or allow them to instead go south to Wisconsin, or Washington or Oregon. I think a Western Canada district is a bit presumptuous, at least until more teams form there. Since 1305, 781, and 1535 all already attend both Waterloo and GTR, I see no issues with them competing in districts in the GTA.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Also, does anyone have data on the geographical distribution of rookies in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons, as compared to 2007 and 2008?

I would hazard a guess that the district model in MI has spawned a disproportionately large number of teams there, because of the reduced cost. I know MI already has a disproportionately high density of FRC teams, what with the US Automakers all being based there.

EDIT: I also worry about the caliber of teams we're creating. FIRST has seen huge growth in the last 4 years. I've only noticed a handful of teams with numbers over 2500 (roughly 2009-era rookies) that have been notably strong on the field. This is that quantity over quality argument everyone keeps making.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

That's pretty commonly available information if you need me to point you at an existing spreadsheet so you can pick your buckets and do your sorting.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

If you wanted to make Canada East and Canada West, that sounds reasonable. The district system is weird in the way that while I think it can easily create more teams by having more events and more exposure, you need high team density to do it, or willingness to travel.

This is really terrible math-logic concept of approaching the district model, but in the last year FiM ran regionals, they had 3 regionals. By my logical reasoning, Texas and California can easily transition from regionals to districts.

However, between DC, VA, and MD, there were 3 regionals. This means that these areas would combine into the already delineated "Capital Region" where instead of a State Championship, you have a "regional" functioning like an existing state championship.

So Canada supports 1 super-regional=2 regionals. Therefore, it would need to be categorized with another existing regional to switch over to the district system.

Conclusion: Canada doesn't have the team density to go to a msc-style qualification yet, unless they tag in with Lake Superior or another Northern Regional.

What I'm trying to say is this: the district/state system ensures that the best teams move on, and only move on once (or twice with an RASA/EIA/RCA), it's just not feasible.

The system is fractured, and know one knows the answers. I'm confident that if they did, FIRST would have implemented them by now.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

BC should be in a Pacific Northwest Conference with WA and OR.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

We send 18 total (9 on merit alone, 9 from awards), which is equal to 6 from three regionals. I'm not sure if I think it should change, considering the open registration periods get a lot of additional Michigan teams there.

We certainly like the opportunity to play in such a number of events, too. It's not only great practice, but, as you said, the calibre of teams coming out of Michigan means that every competition is just as good as the last. Plus, keeping the Districts of uniform size (roughly 40 teams) helps to ensure you aren't qualifying a disproportionate number of teams from different districts.

It's an intriguing idea...the FIRST in Michigan folks have done a good job of planning in such a way as to keep costs down, and I'm sure that it could be done as you suggest: give CA, NY, TX, and Canada their own regions, and then give less dense groups of states divisions, as well. I personally like the District System, and wouldn't have it any other way; however, there are drawbacks to the system. The venues that MI District Competitions are held in are not as high-capacity as regionals (most being in High Schools), which might take away from some students' experience. At the same time, every MI team has the opportunity to go to AT LEAST two competitions each year, which is more than teams outside of Michigan, who, with less sponsorship, might only have the money to go to one Regional and then have their season end.

If we can succeed in making FIRST and FRC as widespread as Dean (and I, and probably anyone else involved with the program) would like it to be, I think the District system would have real potential. As it is, it works well for Michigan right now, and could probably be implemented elsewhere if the initiative was there.
I beg to differ, sir. From what I’ve seen from Michigan rookies this year, I have, on more than one occasion, remarked to certain mentors and students on our team: "This is the year of the rookie." I have seen numerous VERY strong rookies this season, teams that have produced robots more successful than even many veteran teams. I like to think that this is a sign of success of the culture change that FIRST is trying to bring about: teams are willing to mentor other start-up teams, purely out of the joy of seeing FIRST expand elsewhere. FIRST in Michigan even runs Rookie Conference Calls, a campaign spearheaded by Kyle Hughes of Team 27, RUSH, I believe, and worked on tirelessly by members of my own team. Our head mentors speak on the calls regularly, and student members of our team, including myself, have participated in the calls as well. Of the roughly fifty new rookie teams in Michigan this year, our team spoke with nearly 30 of them through the FiM Conference calls. Michigan is a breeding ground for lots of STRONG new rookie teams, and I warn you not to take them lightly.

/Whew, long post. Sorry, I had it all ready and queued up earlier, then CD went down. When I came back, I added to it. I apologize for the length =D

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Remember that regionals and districts do all of their own fund raising, and most registration fees go to FIRST, largely for KoP and other costs.

The district model is about cutting the cost of putting on an event, so you can have more events. With more events than Michigan teams can fill going to two events, one might as well allow teams to go to three. Indeed, there's incentive: more competition. Should make it cheap because (a) they can and (b) teams would already have added travel costs.

If regionals were cheaper to put on, then there would likely be more regionals. If there were more regionals, FIRST would have reason to decrease registration fees, because many teams would then be going to more than one regional, meaning inflow of money to FIRST HQ doesn't change (much).

tl;dr If there's more regionals, the cost of registration should go down. Do this by making regionals cheaper to run, like districts.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Location, location, location. Regionals are held in venues that have generally more restrictive scheduling and a much higher cost. There is little that can be done about that. The only way to significantly cut costs is a change in scenery. It seems like all-or-nothing: go the district route and compete at high schools, or maintain the status quo.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

You can have district-style regionals. They'd just be smaller, cheaper, and held in high schools. There's no need for the state structure that exists in Michigan. There's already plenty of regionals that are <40 teams.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

(Obvious full disclosure: I'm exceptionally fortunate to be on one of those two-time-champion teams.)

I think you're missing one of the big things about the alliance that won Palmetto--at the time, neither SPAM nor Triple Helix was qualified to attend Championship. I don't think (though I can't really confirm) that either were even registered. Do we just tell SPAM and Triple Helix "Hey, you've got a regional winner on your alliance, so we're stopping you at semifinals. Good game."?

If I'm under this policy, and the Petunia Regional is our first event but the Magnolia Regional later in the season carries more cachet, am I really contemplating giving less than 100% at Petunia just to give ourselves a chance at Magnolia gold?

If I'm us this year, at our home event (Palmetto), with parents and sponsors in the audience, do we shrug off our qualification rounds because we know we won't have a shot at a second title and can more or less pack up before lunch ends?

(I won't even go into the implications for Hall of Fame and original and sustaining teams, who are qualified automatically.)

Heck no! Some guy in denim keeps saying a society gets the best of what it celebrates. I certainly don't want to celebrate a system where teams are coming to an event prepared to go off half-cocked because of a well-intentioned but constraining let's-give-everyone-a-chance policy.

Currently, the waitlist does an adequate job of handling these extra spots. Eventually, FIRST will grow to the point that they can book Championship up entirely on qualifying teams (and even then with some anticipated fudge factor based on double-qualifying teams). After they grow beyond that threshold, who knows? But for now, I can't find fault in their system.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Of the 9 districts, at least 3 of them are held at college campuses. Two of those were formerly regionals (Detroit actually got bigger as a district than it was as a regional).

As far as the numbers go, you really should have a 50-54 team group in order to do the district model. This would then involve 3 districts of around 36 teams, and 1 Championship. Realistically, all teams could be invited to that Championship. This keeps most of the core of the District Model of plenty of teams at the event for the 24 teams in elims to have some options. All teams could have 12 matches per district and each team would get 2 districts. Yes there would be a lot of overlap, but it is what it is. As more teams join in, there would be a split-point around 60 teams. Every time you get another 20 teams, you really need to add an event. Eventually (again around 60-ish) it is difficult to increase the number of teams allowed into a Championship. At some point you have to make a cut. The cut is healthy as it gives teams an intermediate goal to shoot for. It is very painful for any team that is on the wrong side of such a cut. It is especially tough when teams are very close to the cut. From what I have seen, this has inspired teams to try harder the following year.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Canada currently supports:
Waterloo Regional (29 teams, event code WAT)
Greater Toronto East Regional (36 teams, event code ON)
Greater Toronto West Regional (36 teams, event code ON2)

In addition, Canadians also represented:
6 of the 44 teams at Finger Lakes Regional (event code ROC)
2 of the 58 teams at Buckeye Regional (event code OH)
4 of the 39 teams at Pittsburgh Regional (event code PIT)
1 of the 61 teams at New Jersey (event code NJ)
1 of the 66 teams at New York City (event code NY)
1 of the 64 teams at Virginia Regional (event code VA)
1 of the 51 teams at Wisconsin Regional (event code WI)
1 of the 53 teams at Boston Regional (event code MA)


Concur, BC and Western Canada should be 'region-ized' with the Pacific Northwest part of the US. Its significantly closer than Ontario.

EDIT: There are currently 80 Canadian teams registered for the 2011 FRC season, of a total 2065 teams, or 3.87%
By comparison, MI has 171 teams registered for the 2011 FRC season, or 8.28%

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I don't want to make this another "let's go to the district model" thread (but maybe there should be an official one), but teams get to win multiple events without necessarily spoiling the fun of other teams. You have two-six opportunities to win a blue banner (districts 1-3, states, division, nationals) and you can't whine that some powerhouse came in to wreck your region: they are in your region. Top teams still get points that go towards the big events, great teams get to take home the well-deserved spoils, ad the little guys get twice as many opportunities to run the robot.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Multiple event winners are what drive me and my friends to be better and achieve more. Its a little disappointing to still see so many folks complain about seats at the Championship still.

Also 359 wasn't on the list. They have also won RCA in 4 different states.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

And in Michigan any district after the second on doesn't count for any points.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

The way I see it is that most teams that win multi regionals are "professional" teams where the students never touch the robot during the build season. These teams I have a problem with. Also these teams have very deep pockets and can go anywhere to compete.

Just my opinion.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Kinda tired of this blanket response. It couldn't be that these teams work harder or have more dedication and actually earn those multiple wins.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

... You might want to put a little research into this topic and the teams that are "multiple event winners" before making claims like this.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, and maybe claims is the wrong word, but if you look up some of the discussions that have been already been had about this topic, of which there are many, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Stop by our pit area at Newton and talk to the students on our team. They may change your mind.

EDIT: Actually, for our team to be caught up in a sweeping generalization with the awesome teams listed in this thread is actually pretty cool. A highlight of the season in a strange sort of way...

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Be cautious when you say things like this. If teams ARE run that way, I don't know of any that have come out and said it. There are teams where mentors are more involved with the build than other teams; however, I don't KNOW of any teams that admit to being run that way. Even teams with the most minimal student interaction with the robot, to my knowledge, has students doing something or another.

Sweeping generalizations like that are dangerous and not conducive to the mission of FIRST. If those teams feel that the best way to Inspire and Recognize in Science and Technology, then so be it. On our team, the robot is probably between 50% and 80% student-built, with mentors that guide generally, but also do machining and building work alongside the students. We won two district competitions this year.

Winning as frequently as a lot of these teams is not about who builds the robot, it's about the resources the team has, be they student resources, mentor resources, sponsor donations, or facilities (which also falls in with sponsors). One must also recognize, though, that ANYONE can have a winning design, and even teams that are rumored to be what you call "professional" teams have off years.

I couldn't agree more. Perennial powerhouse teams like 67, 148, 217, 1114, 33, and 27 ALL adopt a very student-active build policy. Some teams, like 148 and 1114, just have the resources (ahem, IFI) to reduce the amount of fabrication done on-site. That doesn't mean that the students put any less effort or time into the design or assembly of the robot, just that all of their cuts are done right the first time ;) (I can't tell you how many times I have had to re-make a part because of a measurement or operations error that I made in my inexperience)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

1114 --build process well-covered elsewhere on CD. It's not mentors-only.
2056 --1114-mentored, would they really go mentors-only?
111
148 --See the note on 1114, and JVN's blog.
195
233
254 -- They only look mentor-built.
303
525 --NOPE.
768
987 --NOPE.
1503 --Student built.
1676 --Don Rotolo and crew will happily show you what a student-built robot can do.
2471
2815 --Billfred'll be more than happy to tell you that you're wrong there.

33--Student built.
118
217--Copioli is getting tired of defending against this opinion, judging by some of the posts he's made on the issue. It's false there, too.
359--I don't think I've seen more than a few mentors in their pits. EVER.
1918
2137
2337--MENTORED students built that.
2415--they've posted as student-built, too.

If you want to call out a bunch of teams for being mentor-built, bring some evidence. As it is, the teams that I specifically made a note on have posted on CD that they are not mentor-built, or I've seen them in action, or the vein of their CD posts as a group indicates student building. Some of the others have a strong CD presence, but have not been as clear--I invite them to assist in pointing out their process.

Oh, and 330 won 2 events last year, and I'll tell you right now: Students had at least one hand apiece in that robot, from Kickoff to IRI.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

On a lighter note:

Looks like Newton and Galileo have the most multi-event winners.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Man, you must be one busy guy traveling across the country to visit all those different teams during build season!

I'm not even on one of these powerhouse teams and I'm really tired of these posts, I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be for those students that are on these teams to constantly be accused of being nothing more than decoration.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Don't get me wrong: all of the divisions will be very competitive...but, man...Galileo and Newton look REALLY tough. Expect serious fireworks in the finals on those two divisions during the eliminations. I could be wrong, but I think that those two divisions will see the most competitive eliminations matches of the four.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Very, very wrong. In terms of raw fabrication, this year had the most student involvement of any year in 2815's history. From the start of the kit frame assembly to putting on the racing tape at Peachtree*, our kids were leading the way.

Is our robot the definition of perfection? Not even close. The lion's share of those issues were solved by our kids working shoulder-to-shoulder with the mentors. It's through hard work, a lot of luck, and the tremendous assistance of 2415, 1771, 180, and 2363 that we were able to be in such esteemed company. (And don't get me started on the budget jab.)

But that said, I want to be on the level of sophistication of teams like 67 and 148. In the words of 16-time wrestling champion Ric Flair, to be the man, you've got to beat the man**. I don't want the man to be someone that shuns the gym and trainers out of some misguided idea of how things ought to be, I want the man to be working hard with the pros to up his game and sell out the Georgia Dome!

By working with professionals, we can spend more of our time testing and optimizing our designs and use less time figuring out how to re-drill a half-inch hole in our 1" box tubing arm tower that was done crookedly***. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

[Citation Needed]

I've had the pleasure of visiting both 33 and 2337 during the build season this last year. 100% sure you are wrong on those counts. I also am pretty sure that the reason 33 has "deep pockets" is because they worked their stingers off to raise money.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I read this yesterday and had to wait till my thoughts cooled down to answer this.

My team is a team where everything we do during the build season AND competition is done by students and supervised by mentors. Our robot this year was designed by students and mentors in partnership.

Here's some food for thought. Not a single mentor maintained the robot at an event this year. Our pit was entirely student run.

We also don't have deep pockets, comparatively.

I think you need to do some research before you go making accusations like this.

-Nick

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Where do you think these pockets came from? How did they get their money?

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

This.

Teams have to work HARD to get the sort of sponsorship that gives them "deep pockets," and, in many cases, students are the ones taking the initiative, making calls, and giving presentations in attempts to get sponsorships. You can't possibly begrudge a team for having lots of money; companies don't just throw money at teams.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Take the blinders off.

Without pointing fingers, I spoke with enough mentors and students over the years to know first hand that many of the "studs" are mentor built. The quality of the work proves that students did not do the fabricating. These teams inspire students by bringing them into their company to watch them build the robot.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I'll handle these two sentences separately.

1) So what? If I had a nickel for every hole our kids had to walk with a drill bit, I could probably bankroll our next season. We relied on the USC College of Engineering and Computing's machine shop for a few tasks (mostly involving press fits and a little bit of lathing), and we intended to send our arm tower plates out to Colite International for cutting.

(An aside: we botched some crucial measurements on those plates and didn't catch them until too late in the process, hence we used the box tubing on our robot. But even though we're obviously rolling in cash, we cut down the plates and used them as cross-bracing.)

Drilling a hole straight is a useful skill...but being able to know where to drill the hole is more important to a budding engineer (which is what we're trying to develop here). Next year, I would love to get back to where we were in 2009 and 2010, making much better use of the machining resources that USC and Colite have made available to us. Time our kids don't have to spend fixing fabrication errors because we involved mentors and professionals is time they can spend on a dozen other things to perfect the robot. (Heck, maybe we won't even need the racing tape.)

2) So what? If the students are inspired at the end of the day, the team is doing their job and doing it well. How they go about it is none of my business, nor yours. (That said, a team where the students do positively nothing is highly unlikely to be inspiring to others as every team on this list that I've encountered is.)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35999

That is a multibody hex shaft machined from solid roundstock,by a student, on crappy machines.

I also made a lot of parts (still less than the students). It's a fun rivalry from over who can make the more difficult and ridiculous parts on our crappy machines.

We also get a lot of parts outsourced, both designed by students, and designed by mentors.

There is a difference from students working with mentors, and mentor built. All the elite level teams I have first hand experience with are a collaboration, and the students seem to get the best experience that way.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I've always been amazed at the number of students who have egos so big as to demand they're the ones who need to do everything, yet in the exact same breath insist that they themselves are incompetent designers and builders.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

We have a CNC mill in house, with which we machined our drive tubes this year, along with our arm uprights. All of the machining and machine programing was done by a HIGH SCHOOL Senior who taught himself the machine.

That being said, the parts machined in house are of the same quality that they would have been if we would've had them machined by our sponsor.

Interestingly enough, I've seen a few Mentor Built robots that were of a lower overall quality level (Both Performance and Construction) then robots built by students.

In any case, it doesn't really matter who does the fabrication. Lets look at Vex for an example: The kids don't make the parts, yes the do modify them, but for the most part they're working with pre-fabricated components. The Students still "build" their Vex Robot...

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

HAHAHA

Wow, I have never met a mentor in FIRST who doesn't belong here, until now. Congratulations sir.

You are ignorant beyond belief.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I can't say that a college student calling a mentor out on a public forum like Chief Delphi makes the said student any better.

---

Please maintain a sense of who is always watching what you post on Chief Delphi. I'm not implying there is some big FRC brother watching what you post, but other teams, existing and potential sponsors, your school or other organization, regional FIRST boards, and most importantly, the children you work to inspire may read what you print and they can be affected, positively or negatively, by what you say.

---

This old drum has been beaten many a time: FIRST provides intentionally vague guidelines on mentor-student relations. Simply because, at the end of the all-too-short time period a kid has on an FRC team, you want them to see how awesome your profession is. You want them to recognize how important pursuing STEM careers are compared to the shady financial industries and potentially corrupt political positions in the world.

---

I can't stress enough how important it is to carefully walk (or type) the fine, honest line between passive and aggressive speech on CD. While honesty is something that is appreciated and well received here and anywhere else in the world, attempts at self-righteous statements or condescending, black-and-white interpretations of FIRST are not meant to be shared anywhere, especially here. When you link your team number into the boards, you become a spokesperson for the team, whether you like it or not.

Whether you are 14 or 41, please think before you type (and feel free to read over it a couple of times)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Really? You're going to say he doesn't belong here because he thinks differently than you? Real classy.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although I come from a team where students and mentors work in tandem on the robot, I can see where his argument comes from; through his eyes, the purpose of a FIRST team is solely to build engineers that are not dependent on their mentors. There are many teams like this; teams with little resources becoming frustrated at the older, established teams because of the amount of resources and students they have. A lot of students on these established teams appear to do nothing during competitions, which looks like dead weight to members of these "everybody is an engineer" teams. But FIRST is so much more than engineering; FIRST teams are fully functioning businesses. So all that "dead weight" is really what keeps that team afloat so they can continue to inspire

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Maybe the part where he bashed the skill and workmanship of every student in FRC was the part that set him off.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

So, you're saying I never spent weeks in front of a computer CADing and giving part prints to STUDENTS to read and make parts from?

Coming to champs? I cordially invite you to come to our pit at any point during the event and you will find only students working on our robot. Also, have a look at photos from http://picasaweb.google.com/patfair

That's our public gallery. Have a look.

What do you see? Students working hand in hand WITH mentors, in OUR SCHOOL machine shop.

I rest my case, again.

-Nick

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Akash's words may have been a bit harsh, but not totally unjustified.

The poster above essentially insulted any team that has won multiple events, and any student who took part in the construction of a professional looking robot.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is the place to share it. That being said, CD isn't the place to belittle teams, and team members for the hard work they've put in.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Our robot is not exceptional quality.. We just hide our mistakes under black honeycomb.

As a student who has spent the last dozen weeks working in Chrysler (Yes, the work doesn't stop after build season ends) I resent your comment.

If you're going to be in St. Louis I invite you to check out our pits.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

None of us appreciate this sentiment. The implication of your post is that students are not competent enough to build a winning robot, and that anyone who thinks that these students ARE capable is delusional. I'm sure that's something that nobody likes to hear, especially since I think overwhelming opinion is that this is the other way around.

Whether you consider our team one of those "studs" or not, I invite you to come take a look at OUR pits. Mentors and students work side-by-side to make repairs on the robot. And I can tell you for a fact that our robot was mostly student designed: I personally tended to the CAD and some of the fabrication of our gripper. A good friend of mine was responsible for the arm. I will admit that our minibot and deployment this year were built mostly be mentors, but with student support, and our recently redesigned minibot and deployment are 100% student designed.

Please, let me ask you again, to not make such polarizing generalizations. But also remember that even mentor-built robots are not illegal: FIRST allows teams to design and build their robots in whatever way they feel best allows them to Inspire.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Let's keep this civil, folks.

1) Bringing baseless accusations up after they've been shown to be baseless does nothing except make people mad.
2) Saying that those who don't agree with you are ignoring evidence does nothing except make people mad.
3) Not presenting evidence to back up 1) and 2) does nothing except entrench opinions against you.
4) Calling someone unfit to be a mentor does nothing except make people mad.

I was extremely steamed when I first looked at this thread today (I hadn't looked for the best part of a day). There's a reason I waited to post--posting when you want to bite someone's head off isn't exactly a great idea.

I have already stated my piece on the whole "these teams have no student involvement" thing a few posts back. I now only have one more thing to add:

Moderators, please close this thread. Leaving it open can serve little to no useful purpose, in my opinion.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I say Delete this whole argument then lock the tread.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Teams with "proffessional looking" robots are also sometimes merely teams who have great sponsors who are willing to lasercut or CNC Bend parts at little to no charge. Teams (like mine) work for these sponsorships. Our Captain called every fabrication company in the southeast (literally) in order to find a sponsor. Also this is the first year we have even tried to find one of these amazing sponsors and our robot this year is the best one we've ever had.

Also our robot is student designed and student built with our college age mentors merely checking the CAD drawings and refining them. I by no means put us up there with the quality of teams like 1114 or 148, but we have a highly competitive robot this year which was designed by us that led us to two regional wins.

If teams work to get the resources to make their robot more competitive then why take away from them?

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Macdaddy549
I must respond to your post. And if you see, this is my first post. I will remain anonymous for very specific reasons, but reading your post made me question a lot in what you claim. I understand this has been a well hashed out topic, and also it really bears no merit to follow up on. But being a Father of a student that has taken FIRST Robotics with open arms and ran with it for seven years, I must respond with facts that I have witnessed first hand. Every year in January I watched my child take on the rules and regulations of the "new" game and input idea's, input physical help in the way of hours and hours of construction, design concept ideas and watch the creation of a new robot.

I have pictures of my child asleep underneath the robot being built after daily classes, then nights after eight to ten hours of construction. I have taken meals to team to ensure these kids got what they needed. There is no deep pocket here my friend, nor is there a "mentor" telling me what to cook for the team. If you can back up your involvements with building up a new design robot, then you know the absolute frenzy to get that robot ready for ship day. That is usually a very long day for the team. Everyone, team member, teachers and mentors are all working towards that one goal.

I have supported them in every way I am capable of, and witnessed many students grow out of a shy inverted student, into some pretty decent team players. Mentors have always played an important role in FIRST, but I haven't witnessed the accusations you claim.

Every year I give up my child to FIRST from January to April gladly. I know that he/she is in good hands, learning important life skills and passing the gracious professionalism onto the younger members of the team.

Ok Macdaddy549...... A lot of people up here have given you their opinions, now you have mine.


P.S. I only edited my bad typo's...the content and my intentions have not been altered.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I'd like to bring up a rather old quotation, from a kickoff workshop in Manchester, back in 1998...

"I think they mean well, and I understand what you’re saying, there needs to be a balance, but I heard people saying, 'well sure that other team did great, but that's because the engineers did all the work. The kids didn’t build the robot.' I have to tell you, FIRST is not an educational institution. Its okay if the kids build the whole robot, its okay if they don’t touch it." -Dean Kamen

He goes on to talk about how FIRST is meant to be inspirational, and not necessarily educational, but I think that about sums up the point, that it simply doesn't matter who does the designing or the building, as long as the inspiration is there.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

This thread has definitely strayed away from the main topic. I agree that this thread needs to be closed cause it's going in a negative direction, going completely off topic, and regardless of what side everyone is on, this subject that's being argued is always a heated and frustrating one.

Although I do have to quickly say, regardless of how teams run themselves, I adore powerhouse teams cause they help set the goal of where my teams want to strive for. You can't become a Powerhouse overnight, it's something that's earned and worked for. Sometimes my team gets bogged down by the lower number but then I remind them how many years they've been at this. Some people just need to learn that you can't really have a concrete opinion against a team if you haven't gone through the build season with them and experienced those struggles and obstacles with the students. Talk is just talk, no one knows how every team runs and operates unless they were physically on the team, even then, we all need to show our Gracious Professionalism so that our students follow that example.

Remember, all the students involved are still just that, students - no matter what team they are on. It really does get me when someone says "I hate Team #____" cause of "whatever" cause bottom line, they don't understand the team and the only thing you can truly fault a student for is simply joining a team.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

What is it with Americans, who celebrate mediocrity and want the losers to have an equal chance? Please. Work your butt off for six weeks, keep doing it until you have taught yourself how to be excellent, and go and instead of waiting for a handout.
In fact, the extreme lack of mentors being ALLOWED to even touch the robot is causing some internal strife: Mentors want to have fun, too. 99.6% Student built. (The missing 0.4% relates to using the table saw. For safety, no kids, sorry).

But getting back to the OP's topic, 1676 is a 2-event winner, not in "the top 25", and on Newton. We've won our last four events, twice as top seed, and most recently one loss from being top seed.
Are we ready for Einstein? Not sure. You'd have to ask the students on the drive & technical teams. From outside - mentors are on the outside this time of year, we'll help if asked - it looks pretty good. 1114 is a threat, as usual, but you never know...

One last thing: That money does indeed come from somewhere. Stop by and we can chat about how we do it.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Maybe I should have said "in my opinion" some of the multi regional winners are mentor designed and built.

It's understandable that not all teams have access to a machine shop in school or have any CAD experience. This is where (Inspiration) comes into effect. Corporate sponsors invite students into said company to be inspired. Here they brainstorm with engineers over this years game and come up with a concept of what the robot should be capable of.

After the engineers design on cad it's off to the machine shop to be fabricated. With a little luck the teams sponsor has a machine shop in house. Here the students follow and watch their design take shape.

Once of of the shop the students can NOW assemble all the parts.

Never did I say all teams are mentor built.

and to Akash Rastogi you have no class
FRC #3553 (Rambots)(FRC #11 Alumnus)
Team Role: Mentor

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Closer. But still, I did give quite a list of teams that don't fit that bill--they're student designed, with sponsor building off the student designs or students building their own designs with mentor guidance. Well over half of this year's multi-event winners, in fact, are not built with even the level of mentor involvement that you attribute to them. Speaking as an alumnus of a team that has been a multi-event winner in the past, that most recent assessment certainly does not describe our design/build process, in any year I've been on/around the team.

I would figure that if someone were to compile a list of every multi-event winner in every year, and compile a list of mentor-built teams (if such a list could be compiled), there might be one or two teams that are on both lists. MIGHT be. I don't think there would even be one team on both, personally

Yes, it is your opinion. But when an opinion runs completely counter to facts that have been posted, quite publicly, about a number of those teams, then maybe it's time to relook at the opinion. Or, maybe it's time to provide evidence to support your opinion (and I do mean evidence, not "You know this is happening"-type statements).

With respect to mentors calling each other out: Take it off the open forum. All of you. You can do it in private. You can do it to each other's face and in person. But please keep it off of CD's public forums--we don't need to hear it, and all it does is reflect badly on everyone involved. Do your students really need to hear/read your, shall we say, less-than-complimentary statements? I don't think so! If y'all take that sort of thing outside, the debates go so much more civilly. Thank you.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

The veteran teams will remember that every year Dean gets up on the stage and says "It's not about the robots". Do you think he's talking to hear himself? After writing multiple letters to FIRST, attending forums for years, and hearing " it's not about the robots" I'm getting the message. In a game designed to not just make it improbable, but make it a penalty to score for the opposing alliance, part of the metric used to determine the top 8 is the losing alliances score. I would rather use the flip of a coin to decide between 4 or 5 teams with identical won - lost ratios. So back to the question " to allow or not multiple region/district champs " FIRST doesn't care what you decide. Personally I can't imagine watching American Idol or (UGH) Dancing with the stars if the contestants stood before the judges and were told that their performance was exceptional, but the team/person that competed before them didn't do well, so even though they performed admirably, they were eliminated along with the poorer performing team/person, because "it's not about the (insert talent here ) so we don't have to strive to be fair to the contestants" I wil not demean the Chairmans Award. It is the highest award that FIRST has, but that is not an excuse for having no concern for fairness in the design and intent of the contest that is the center of why mentors and students go to a championship. If you gave an award and no one attended is it truly worth anything. the grumpy old guy

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I realize I'm reviving this thread from the dead a bit, but apparently I called the wild card system 2 years ago :P

EDIT: Also, sorry for dragging the tail end of this thread up again. Hadn't read the whole thing when I posted, forgot that it had devolved into another dead horse beating fest.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

469 - competed in 3 MI district events and won all three!

Great bot, amazing drive team with some good luck can reach new heights!

:)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

This thread is a couple years old FYI

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

1983 3x Seattle, Ellensburg, Spokane

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Joe,

I believe you meant 1718 in place of 1918 and 2054 won Gull Lake and West Michigan (2 of 3)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

That list was from 2011.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

If you had looked at the date on the post, you would have seen that this thread was from 2011. For this year, you are correct, but for that year, quite the contrary.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

What's more amusing to me is that despite the 2 year difference, not much else on the list immediately jumps out as being false in 2013

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

This is because this list is from 2011.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Ah i'm sorry D:

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

MY bad!