Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Holy Expensive Batman!

Raw Materials, Fabrication machines/tools, Shipping, Labor & Profit = $700 per trophy!??? :ahh:

If I could sell a few hundred at that price (>50 Regionals + Champs), I could invest in the tools and raw materials, work for 2-3 months (or weeks?) per year, and make more money than I am now.:cool:

Separate Topic:
First - No one needs to consider this statement to be a reason to try to re-emphasize to me how important some folks believe trophy size is; that has already been pointed out. However ...

There are at least two kinds of people in the world, and I am the kind that thinks large gaudy trophies are absurd.

I would rather have a small, tasteful Nobel Prize medal hanging in my trophy case than any of the cheesy, over-the-top, towers of inexpensive plastic, sawdust, pot metal, and glue that crowd most school trophy cases.

Display a modest-size, well-made, and elegant trophy in a large, well-lit, and otherwise empty space that matches its importance; and I predict it will get noticed and appreciated.

Blake

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Seeing that water (as fun as it would be) has been more than likely ruled out, it makes sense.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Since I'm not a sponsor who ostensibly receives the 2^nd trophy, I'm all for just handing out one (full-sized one), and offering duplicates for sale.

Who owns the IP rights for the trophies? Could FIRST just bid them out to some place that is less expensive?


Actually, I thought the background check question was more interesting. It seems like an overreaction to a non-issue. FIRST's event volunteers generally interact with students in public places at the events, and are in contact with them for such a short period that the actual risk of harm is minimal. You might as well demand a background check of everybody waiting at the bus stop.

Besides, background checks only identify previous offenders—so they're by definition a half-measure.

And once a background check comes up positive, now FIRST is in the even more difficult position of having to justify why that particular offence makes that person unsuitable for the job. It would, for example, be unconscionable to reject someone convicted only of sodomy (under consensual circumstances, among adults, in the Lawrence v. Texas sense) on the pretense that they might be an ephebophile and therefore a threat to FIRST's students. But someone is going to scream "sex offender" (as if they were all the same), and raise a panic. FIRST should not put itself in a position where its policies, combined with misplaced societal fears, force it to suborn that reprehensible witch-hunting behaviour.

To use a less inflammatory example: can someone convicted of tax evasion still function as a safety glasses dispenser? Would FIRST's background check policy exclude such a person, and if so, how isn't that a mockery of that person's civil rights? They were convicted, paid their restitution or were incarcerated and released, and their offence has no reasonable connection to their volunteer position. Although in most jurisdictions, and especially given that it's a volunteer position, FIRST couldn't be held liable under employment law, that doesn't absolve them of a moral duty to avoid stigmatizing someone who has no obvious reason to do FIRST or its participants any harm.

What's more, now FIRST and the volunteer co-ordinator are responsible for safeguarding sensitive information. Although convictions are generally a matter of public record, FIRST shouldn't put itself in a position where the release of this data, and a subsequent overreaction could devolve into defamation or some other tort.

So save some money, and let the teams set their own policies for background checks. After all, it's the teams that are bringing the largest number of strange adults to any given event, many of whom will have a much greater opportunity to be present with minors in compromising circumstances.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

I have heard multiple complaints in this thread alone that FRC has been costing the same and quality has been going down. On the surface this seems true. As far as I know, most teams have been paying $6000 per year in registration costs. And we also know that apparent quality has also been going down.

However, I'm not sure that teams have really been paying the same. The reason: inflation. That said, courtesy of Wolfram Alpha, in today's dollars, teams in 1995 would have paid $8702.72 in registration costs compared to the flatline $6000 today. Which is about a 30% decrease in real costs. And, well, you get what you pay for. Also, for anyone who was wondering, I input "$6000 (1995 dollars)" into Wolfram Alpha.

And to anyone who wants to put forth alternative ideas on this topic. Please tell me. I am interested in hearing them.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

No offense, but I just went through two years of furloughs (coming in every single one of those days for robotics) and now our State mandated pay cuts, increased health care costs....i.e. our portion, and continued furloughs when our current governor did the George Bush "Read my Lips," No More Furloughs.
Our pay has NOT kept up with inflation.

Instead, the attitude is to do MORE with less to allow our students the same, if not more, opportunities with participation in FIRST. :)

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Really to me, as long as they dont take away or change the blue banner, IDC. Every major sports team wins their respective championship even all the way down to high school sports, they get a banner. Our school actually put our blue banners up in the school gym next to the 3 football state championships and the basketball championship banners. All of those being recognized as equals means more to me than adding some trophy to the trophy case at the school.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Sorry for the off-topic response, but I wanted to comment on this. This statement isn't really correct. FRC/FTC are very similar to VRC. Let's take a look:

- FRC/FTC are run by FIRST, a non-profit organization promoting STEM education goals.
- VRC is run by the RECF, a non-profit organization promoting STEM education goals.

- FRC/FTC rules limit components you can use in their programs. Specifically, control systems are limited to a single supplier. FTC further restricts you to official TETRIX parts only (with a few additional materials allowed).
- VRC rules limit components you can use in their program. It requires you to use a control system from a single supplier. However, non-electronic parts are not restricted to the VEX brand (equivalent non-VEX brand parts are allowed, as well as a few additional materials).

- The suppliers of the control systems for FRC and FTC are for-profit companies. It is a reasonable assumption that these for-profit companies are able to exert some measure of influence on the FRC and FTC in exchange for their support & donations.
- The suppliers of the control system for VRC is a for-profit company. It is a reasonable assumption that this for-profit company is able to exert some measure of influence on the VRC in exchange for its support.

I think FRC/FTC/VRC are a lot more similar than many people believe.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

In our society... smaller seems to mean cheaper, less valuable...etc etc.
Downsizing trophies is definitely a negative.

I suggest, respectfully, that FIRST comes up with an engineering activity.
Have teams submit ideas and fully fleshed out business plans for making new trophies for FIRST. This plan would take into consideration a number of factors including aesthetic appeal, shipping costs, cost to manufacture and the use of environmentally friendly materials.

In my opinion... it is much easier to explain to trophy viewers that there was a design change...than to explain why the "new" awards are smaller versions of the older ones.

The time has come for a design change in the trophies... a design specifically made to be able to be made less expensively, transported easily and cheaper and yet still look great.

I am sure we are up for the challenge.... and the best thing is that it is just another way to bring mentors, students and manufacturers together for more opportunity for inspiration of students.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Two steps ahead of you. :)

(Anyone else of the mindset, throw in a comment on Bill's Blog directly. Considering the relative officialness of BB compared to CD, a group of respectful opinions there will likely have more effect than a bunch of discussion over here.)

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

I agree with you on the sentiment of trying to do more with less. However, as the real price drops and FIRST is receiving less revenue per team in registration costs, if FIRST tries to account for that through cuts, quality is going to inevitably drop over time. The drop for one year may not be noticeable but over a period of years it is going to start to stand out.

Granted, maybe there are some things should've been cut a long time ago, but once all of those have been cut, the only things left are those that really affect the core experience of FIRST. Then if further cuts are made the quality will go down. I think we are really starting to see that now.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

I certainly bet they cost less than $600 too!

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

In all fairness to FIRST, the number of trophies whose cost exceeds $115 is extremely limited:

Championship Chairman's Award ($650, 1 team)
Championship Winner ($500, 3 teams)
Division Winner ($485, 12 teams)

All the other awards run from $60 (the standard regional awards) to $115 (RCA, CMP Finalist, CMP Engineering Inspiration).

I imagine it's more than possible for FIRST to lower these costs further using a different design, but it's not $600 bad for everyone.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

Thanks Billfred.

Re: [BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11
 

I was very honored to set off TSA alarms with this trophy in my suitcase. I have big feet. It is big!