Re: Huh?
 

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 7:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Unfair for what purpose? posted by Dan on 3/16/99 3:22 PM MST:



This is long, but stick with me.

How is going to more than one regional more educational than going to one? Neutralizing a funding advantage has nothing to do with education. In fact, I think limiting the number of regionals might lead to increased educational spending. Instead of spending all of the money on the extra entry fees, plane tickets to the regionals, and hotels, why not buy some computers for the school or donate the surplus to start a practical technology course at the school? That does more to further education than to take a team of a few students to 3 extra regionals. The point is, you can limit spending in such a way that it doesn't affect the educational value. (I do admit that attending one regional and the nationals is necessary to get the whole effect of the program).

And let me make another important point. If the competition is not competitive, it does lose its educational value (you'll have to follow me for a little while to understand why). When a team is not competitive, the students really become disappointed and start to lose interest in the program. Our team knows this from experience. Our first year in the competition, we seeded something like 5th at the Chicago regional and won the Rookie All Star Award. We then went to nationals and seed in the top 20, faired well in the tournament, and won the National Rookie All Star. The students were very excited and really got into the whole FIRST thing and learning about science and technology. They were into it before we were winning, but they became much more excited after they saw that we were good engineers and they could believe in us and what we were 'preaching'.

Year 2 (last year): Our robot never really got finished, we never got it to work properly, and we never got any practice with it. We went to our one (and only) regional which was the Great Lakes Regional. We missed most of our practice rounds trying to get our robot to work and spent all of our time between qualifying rounds fixing problems(does this ring a bell this year, Joe? (BTW, I was at Chicago scouting)) We lost every single match, seeded dead last, and went on to lose our two tournament matches within about 20 minutes of the start of Saturday morning. The students were devestated. They seemed to lose faith in us and what we were trying to teach them. So, one can preach the ideals of FIRST; that it is more about the learning experience and such, but if the team isn't at all competitive, the students really lose faith. We know that from experience. As a side note, we worked 72 straight hours after our regional to do a complete redesign. We ended up seeding and finishing the tourney around
the top 25 percentile at nationals (not too shabby).

In conclusion: competitive = good experience for students not competitive = students losing faith. We've been on both ends of the spectrum and know this to be true.

Granted that is a experience that is very extreme, but it does happen. If FIRST wants to continue to thrive, they need to make the competition competitive for all teams. Some companies suggest that their teams must do well to keep their funding. If the teams does poorly, they view it as an embarassment to the company. If these teams end up not being able to be competitive, these companies may withdraw from the program. This is a harsh reality that FIRST needs to address before teams start dropping out (and some have already). Believe me, if teams (or companies) aren't competitive, they lose interest. Not just from a financial standpoint, but it becomes difficult to find students and engineers that want to fill out the team. Look at the high schools that have great football teams. Everyone wants to go out for football. At my high school, they had to beg people to play. The same holds for FIRST (that may not be in spirit with the FIRST ideal, but it is the truth).

One more thing (I know I've said that before). Please don't think I'm 'crying' because my situation. I love my team and I think we'll actually do well. I also harbor no bitterness toward other teams that go to a lot of regionals. It is within the rules and perfectly fine. My argument is completely based on what I believe is best for the longevity of FIRST. Since our team has seen both the highs and the lows, I think I can comment better than most on how teams react to being competitive and non-competitive. Granted, every year some teams will not be competitive. There is nothing to do about this. However, if these teams start feeling that they will never be able to compete, they will lose interest. In summary, most important is the feeling amongst the team that they have a chance to play on a level field. This is what brings engineers back the next year.

To sum up my feelings: Our team may end up doing great and winning it all (who knows). Then again, we may not. But I know one thing, I would like to see all teams have the same shot at doing well. Even if we were one of the 'Goliath's', I would still like to see all teams have a fair chance. It's for the good of the future of FIRST.


: I have to disagree. There should never be a spending cap on education. This is not just a competition, winning isn't the ultimate goal. Tons of things are unfair if you look at this solely as a competition, but if you look at FIRST as an experience the word "unfair" doesn't apply.
: If someone wants to spend money on education why should we stop them? A more sensible thing would be to divert the multi-regional money to create more teams. :-Dan

: "As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more."

Re: Huh?
 

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Chris on 3/17/99 7:05 AM MST:



I have not had time much this year to follow through the information on this great web board, but yesterday I was looking for something else and came upon this debate.

I feel compelled to make some comments

Unfair chances of top 20 teams being eliminated
Unfair chances of bottom 20 teams making it to the finals
Unfair advantages of teams with money
Unfair chances of teams going to more than one regional
Unfair chances of teams going to regionals with 6 vs 12 preliminary matches
Teams feeling like they lost because they came in last at the competition

FIRST has one tough job trying to make things fair
Face it, ladies and gentlemen,
THEY NEVER WILL BE SEEN AS FAIR BY EVERYONE
The more you try to make it fair, the law of unintended consequences will make something else unfair
Yes, FIRST can improve things
Yes you need great competition to have excitement and to make FIRST work
There will be great competition in the finals
Your great robot may not be part of that competition and it won't seem fair
There might be some mediocre competition in the finals too and that won’t seem fair
The attitude of people on your team, particularly the adults and their ability to find the things to celebrate, even when your robot falls to pieces in front of the world will do more long term than winning a trophy

Our team has been involved in FIRST since 1992
We have had inspiring years with great robots
We have had uninspiring years with poor robots
We have had uninspiring years with great robots
We have had inspiring years with poor robots and no trophies
I have been actively involved with FIRST for 8 years and give 10-15 talks per year on FIRST to hundreds of people
The things this discussion is concerned with here are not the important issues in my mind.
If you let them become too important, you will burn out.
Don’t get me wrong, I really love to see great competition, but it is ok if we are not in it (but I would just love it if we were).
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the way the adult leaders on our team approach FIRST is from student inspiration - the big picture, not the competition
If we have to choose between having a more competitive robot and inspiring students, we choose to have the less competitive robot

The role of the adult on a FIRST team is a really tough one
If your robot does not do well at the competition and you get angry or treat the situation as unfair, your students will get angry and see the experience as unfair - people will leave feeling like losers
I have to disagree with Chris' comment "competitive = good experience for students not competitive = students losing faith. We've been on both ends of the spectrum and know this to be true."
We have been on both ends of the spectrum too, and know that both can be a good experience
If you let people feel the disappointment that will come with a lost match or elimination (let people cry if they need to – I have had my shoulders cried on lots),
then help them channel their energy to move on, the experience can be made into a very positive one. I do think that this is a lot harder to do at Disney than at the regionals, but that is a different topic.

Maybe I am the eternal idealist, but I take to heart what Woodie Flowers says – robots will lose, but the people are all winners. Each team can come away feeling like a winner if they choose to.

Best of luck to everyone this year.

Elaine

Re: I feel so lonely :(
 

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 10:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I guess I'm alone on this one. Perhaps I should have kept my thoughts to myself. I guess I just figured if the NCAA enacted a scholarship limit (not at all popular at the time, either), FIRST could enact a regional limit. I guess I was wrong.

Don't be so sure.
 

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/17/99 6:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I feel so lonely :( posted by Chris on 3/17/99 10:31 AM MST:



Chris,

Don't be so sure you are all alone. You have expressed many important points. I am sure that many agree with you.

In fact, I agree with you in some respects and have plainly said so.

As to limiting regionals, I am sure that it will happen. The timeframe is probably the same year that the regionals become qualifiers for the Nationals.

Could you image the howls if a college tried to join two conferences just so that they could have two shots at winning a conference title and getting into the NCAA tourney?

I think it will happen.

As to competitive = inspiration, I think that there is an element of that but it is not the main component. Our first year out we too were not very competitive, but I think we managed to inspire more than a few kids just the same. It is a little easier to have credibility as an engineer when you're seen as Midas with the golden design touch, but there have been many times (Chicago included) where we looked anything but golden. Yet, even failure with grace can be inspirational.

Keep up your postings. I like to hear your opinions.

Joe J.

Amen!
 

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/17/99 2:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I now have to agree with Elaine. No matter what you do someone will always thinks something is unfair.

Elaine's comments made me think about our rookie year. We were ecstatic about just being part of it all. We were happy that our robot could score points. We never won a match that year, but it did not matter because we were enjoying everyone else's success.

We need to look at the bright side of things. For example, at the Motorola regional we played so often that I rarely got a chance to see other robots compete. I never did see all the robots compete. So, if there are less matches, it will just allow us more time to observe and cheer for other robots, more time to talk to other teams about what they did with their design, more time to enjoy the whole thing rather than just getting caught up in just our matches.

I feel better about only having 4 matches at the nationals already. Good luck to all and let the cards fall where they may!

Raul

Amen!
 

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/17/99 2:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I now have to agree with Elaine. No matter what you do someone will always thinks something is unfair.

Elaine's comments made me think about our rookie year. We were ecstatic about just being part of it all. We were happy that our robot could score points. We never won a match that year, but it did not matter because we were enjoying everyone else's success.

We need to look at the bright side of things. For example, at the Motorola regional we played so often that I rarely got a chance to see other robots compete. I never did see all the robots compete. So, if there are less matches, it will just allow us more time to observe and cheer for other robots, more time to talk to other teams about what they did with their design, more time to enjoy the whole thing rather than just getting caught up in just our matches.

I feel better about only having 4 matches at the nationals already. Good luck to all and let the cards fall where they may!

Raul

Re: Please don't put words in my mouth
 

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 3:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



Is everyone getting sick of me yet? I know I am.

As you see by the subject, please don't put words in my mouth. Also, please don't assume I mean something that I don't.

I've never really used the word "unfair" except when quoting Joe and in the paragraph surrounding that quote. I don't usually like that word. I only used the words "advantage", "disadvantage", and "level playing field". Whether the advantage, disadvantage, etc. was gained fairly or unfairly is another point, and is usually very subjective, as was pointed out by Elaine.

This is everything I've said in a nutshell (I think I should have written it this way to avoid the confusion in the first place - sorry):
Do I believe going to more than one regional is an advantage? yes
Do I believe going to more than one regional is unfair? no (I even stated this. If we could do this, we would)
Do I believe having every team go to equal number of regionals levels the playing field? yes
Do I believe going to only one regional as opposed to multiple regionals saves teams money? yes
Do I believe that the money would be better spent helping the schools and students than going to multiple regionals? yes
Do I believe going to only one regional as opposed to multiple regionals creates more matches per team? yes
Do I believe that students get more excited when they win than when they don't? yes (people are not ideal objects. They react emotionally. When we had our bad regional, we did everything in our power to fire up the students, and the engineers showed a good attitude, but nothing seemed to work.)
***Do I believe leveling the playing field is in the best interests of the future of FIRST? yes

That is all I said. People may agree or disagree with any of the above points, it is their right.

Re: Sorry for the implication
 

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 3/18/99 10:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Please don't put words in my mouth posted by Chris on 3/17/99 3:39 PM MST:



Chris - My appologies to you - all of my comments were not directed at you and I was not trying to imply so. I had read through many postings and stopped at yours. The response was a cumulative one. Sorry if you or anyone else took it that way.

I am really glad that you and so many other people feel so passionate about FIRST. My feeling is that you can keep the enthusiasm and the passion with or without a winning robot, but that is my opinion and I resect yours.

Best of luck to you and your team.

Elaine

Re: Sorry for the implication
 

Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 3/18/99 1:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Sorry for the implication posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/18/99 10:58 AM MST:



Alright. I'd like to post my $.02 here as well. I'm all for teams going to
multiple regionals. Wouldn't you go to more than one if someone handed you about
$60 000 for your robotics program? That's an awful lot of equipment to buy for
those of you that said that's what you'd like to do with that money. Give it to
another team - I wouldn't. Competitions (from what I hear, and if it's anything like
ASCE concrete canoe competitions) are a blast, and a great learning experience.
It's not like there is nothing to be gained from regionals. If this isn't about
winning, then why are we all so worked up about other teams getting more practice
and more of this and more of that. To me, going to multiple regionals is something
to strive for and aim for. It's part of building a strong robotics program.

Re: One more thing...
 

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 3/15/99 10:00 PM MST


In Reply to: One more thing... posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST:



Gentlemen,

You seem to concede readily that going to more than one regional is unfair.
You also (some anyway) seem to agree that too few qualifying matches are unfair.
Yet many seem to accept attending multiple regionals as an, you can't change life
sort of fact...yet you rail against the loss of opportunity provided by too few
qualifying matches....

Come come men...accept all unfairness...or.... change the unfairness that you are
capable of changing...Would we all willingly agree to attend only one regional?....I think
not...but we at team 23 would certainly consider it if everyone else would...

Should we all join in then and ask FIRST to amend the rules? to Limit all to one and only one
regional?....Should all those teams who can attend only one regional demand we do it?...what if they did.
Hmmmmm...so much to consider. Mind you, we are only now returning from "tuning" our robot after team 68
savaged us in the playoffs...mind you they lost since they were so intent upon wrecking havoc
on our poor little gladiator....they failed to see our partner, the mighty megatrons #314 mount the puck..
And we did not cry foul...we did not call in the refs...we dusted off our rugged little robo-warrior
and proceeded to the finals...We did this because we feel FIRST needs aggressive robot contests, action events and I could
give you about a hundred reasons why....


Regarding qualifying matches...

What if the qualifying matches were all independent? NO ALLIANCES...every robot for itself?
Then the top eight chose an alliance partner for the playoffs...and we had say two sets of playoffs?
And then the winners of those duked it out on the big mat ? The number of playoff sequences would be a function
of the number of teams...let's use that 20% you guys are kicking around???

Think about it and let me know your opinions, please.

Anyway...take it from us.. we were a 28th seed team picked by a 7th seed team....God bless
the Megatrons #314 and "Doc" . This combination went to the finals...is somebody going to try to
convince us that all the better robots were still in the pits???? I don't think so
Philly was rugged...I think the coming regionals will be even more so...

Good night crazy friends.

Mr.B

or we could just get rid of the puck . . . ;-)
 

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 11:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: One more thing... posted by michael bastoni on 3/15/99 10:00 PM MST:



First off I'd like to comment on the regional situation. As I am from a west coast team, this is the first year I've been able to attend a regional competition. It was amazingly helpful. In fact, I can see how doing a few more would be even better for my team -- but we can't; we don't have the cash. Some teams (Delphi) do have the cash. Here's what I've got to say to them: "I envy you!" I am so completely jealous, but I'd never look to take that away from a team. It'd be like telling them they can only learn so much before we cap it. Silly.

Now for Mr. B. I think by introducing the "alliance" into the competition this year, FIRST has added a whole new dimension to the game. During the regional it was made obvious that good strategic teamwork could easily make the difference between losing and winning a match. The GRT 'bot (for example) has a large aluminum arm that we have used on many occasions for defense. In fact, some of our highest scoring matches were those where we kept the opposing alliance busy while our ally was free to graze the playing field and pick up whatever floppies were lying around. Teamwork is everything. It would be a HUGE change to eliminate that part of the competition. I feel it would be even more drastic than saying "oh never mind, there's not gonna be a puck anymore". Maybe not for everyone, but for enough teams to make the difference.

These are just my opinions. Opinions can change. I'm very interested to hear more thoughts on these issues!

Back to physics homework!
Daniel
GRT Student Co-Captain

Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds
 

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:52 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



If, as has been stated, there will be only 2 stages (meaning 4 fields) at the Nationals instead of the 3 stages they had last year or the 4 stages people have been asking for, then it seems to make sense to increase the size of the playoffs.

With only 4-5 qualifying matches it is very unlikely that the true 8 best teams will end up in the playoffs even after 8 allies have been chosen.
But if the top 16 teams make the playoffs and pick 16 allies, than I feel there is a pretty good chance almost all of the deserving teams will be in the top 16 or be chosen.

It just seems obvious that if regionals (30-50 teams) have the top 8, than the Nationals (with 200 teams) should have the top 16 pick allies.
Even with only 2 stages and 4 fields, 16 alliances in the playoffs is very doable. I hope FIRST decides to at least increase the playoffs to 16 alliances if they can not increase the qualifying matches to at least 8.

Jason

Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds
 

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, CHAOS-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:23 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



: Nothing like a topic that strikes the heart of everyone.
Perhaps what needs to be considered for the future is the design
of the game. Back a mere 5 years ago in Ramp and Roll, scoring
was done as you played. The score was known the instant the game
finished. If the future games were quicker to score, then there would be
far less down time between rounds and therefore time for more rounds.
If I recall, in Ramp and Roll, 33 teams in THE Regional each played about
5 rounds each on a Saturday in about a 4 hour period.
: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to "write your congressperson."

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds
 

Posted by brian beatty, Engineer on team #71, beatty/hammond, from hammond schools and beatty machine.

Posted on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



Joe: While I agree with most of your logic, I tend to disagree with your overall conclusion. Yes, more qualifying rounds will tend more accurately determine who the best 8 machines are on that day. Yes, I wish there were more rounds just because it is more fun than 4 or 5 rounds. Without going into a thesis on your mathematics, yes, there is a chance(almost a certainty) that at least one of the teams in the top 8 is not a top 8 team. But, here is what I think will happen.

1. 5 of the top 8 teams will be top 16 teams.
2. Of the 8 picked teams, all will be in the top 16 teams.
3. Of the 3 non-top 8 teams, they will be in the top 30%.


In conclusion, this elimination match(quarterfinals) will be the toughest, most competitive one seen to date. Compare this to last year, an early loss meant relegation to the loser's bracket, which then meant your team needed to be a Houdini to pull one off( just ask Wildstang, Baxter Bomb Squad, and some team that won three Regionals but can't remember their name). Sorry Joe, while I dearly wish for more matches, you will see many teams that should be in it resurrected from the "loser's" bracket that under the old system would never have got the opportunity.

Sincerely,
Brian Beatty