View Single Post
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-09-2013, 01:42
Ed Law's Avatar
Ed Law Ed Law is offline
Registered User
no team (formerly with 2834)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Foster City, CA, USA
Posts: 752
Ed Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond reputeEd Law has a reputation beyond repute
Re: FRC Blogged - Frank Answers Fridays: September 20, 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
Because as far as I can tell, this particular item was NOT initiated by FIRST. It was initiated by NASA offering to sponsor FRC teams who met a certain set of conditions, to a certain amount for a certain purpose. (IIRC, it was even MORE limited than "any U.S. team who wins EI" at one point--it was more like "A U.S. team who wins EI at X Regional(s)" for about a year IF I recall correctly.)

If you're going to say that it is then FIRST's job to look for funding for that purpose in that amount for teams that do NOT meet the conditions, then I have a suggestion for you. Ready?

--Please make the same suggestion regarding the Boeing grants. After all, not all teams have Boeing mentors, so teams with Boeing mentors have a distinct advantage in raising funds.
--Please suggest that FIRST ask that JCPenney help fund all teams. Currently, it's nowhere near that.
--Please ask FIRST to make it so that EVERY team gets a NASA grant or equivalent. After all, teams that do get those have an advantage over those that do by a few thousand dollars.

Do you see where I'm going with this? A sponsor has placed certain conditions on a portion of their gift. This gives an advantage to some teams that meet those conditions--less fundraising. You want FIRST to apply (read: apply for) a similar gift to teams that don't meet those conditions--so why not go all the way and apply that to all grants so all teams are on a more even footing? (I'm not even going to pretend it'll be an even footing--too many other variables involved.)

Now, if teams that are not getting this advantage (even if slight) want to do something about it, their best bet is to find their NASA equivalent (or other big sponsor or potential sponsor) and very politely ask if that sponsor/agency would be willing to meet or beat NASA's funding offer. (I do recall that at one point, there was some sort of grant aimed at Israeli qualifiers--don't remember who gave it, or for how much, or if it's still there.)

Of course, there's the other alternative--but do you really want to hear the howling that will rise if NASA starts pulling sponsorship out? EI winners' registration, webcasts, NASA Grants, NASA house teams, NASA employees who volunteer their time and effort... Anything pulled because it gives an advantage to teams who are able to use it, which is most of those, is an opportunity for mass complaining from those teams and teams that sympathize, along with counter-complaining from teams that think those teams had it too easy.
I perfectly understand what you are saying and I agree with you and what NASA did. It is very nice of them. Can you explain this? Once upon a time, Michigan teams were not eligible to apply for NASA grant. What was our sin? It was because FIRST told us that teams outside of Michigan cannot compete in Michigan district events even though we wanted them to fill the empty slots. I thought people in Michigan pay tax to the US government also. Where do you draw the line what conditions sponsors can put on who they sponsor? When does it become discrimination or unfair? Many great sponsors only sponsor teams where they have a presence (office, plant) or have an employee who mentors the team. These make perfect sense to me.
__________________
Please don't call me Mr. Ed, I am not a talking horse.
Reply With Quote