[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

While the discussion of age cutoffs and the progression of programs is important and relevant, I feel it is drowning out another very important topic that is raised. It's been briefly alluded to a couple times already, but hasn't been really discussed. What degree of autonomy should the various region/district affiliates of FIRST be granted from FIRST HQ? Are they allowed to deviate from HQ's standards? In what areas and by how much?

While the expansion of the district format* will certainly make this an increasingly relevant concern (and we've seen some notable differences between districts in how they handle aspects of their competitions), it's not just limited to districts. There are other entities that exist in regional-format areas that run events, some "official" and some not. Should their organizing powers be limited to how they run events? How they administer funds/support to teams in their "jurisdiction?" And who determines their jurisdiction? Can they impose additional restrictions on the teams in their areas**? Should teams be given an "opt-out" standard from whatever organization runs their area***? Would these opt-outs allow them to opt out of a district standard? Can these organizations actively prohibit teams from registering or competing at events****? What burden of proof/explanation is required for any deviations away from the FIRST HQ standards? As you can see, this is opening quite the can of worms. There needs to be some sort of standard created for the delegation of authorities to these organizations.

I was thinking the same thing. I definitely want to avoid the incoherent mess that characterizes sports governing bodies at the local/school level. On the other hand, FIRST HQ doesn't always seem well-equipped to make big-picture decisions with the benefit of all the available evidence about local conditions—or at least fails to communicate the degree to which those conditions were considered but deprioritized in service of a perceived greater good.

My recommendation is that FIRST provide a list of what is and is not permissible for local governing bodies, and release it to the public—so that everyone knows who's not playing by the rules. The standards need to be equitable—and it will require some thought as to how that should be measured—and should be designed to be re-evaluated at known intervals. Part and parcel of setting out these standards is an explanation of why the standards exist—for example, if a particular vendor is required because of contract terms, then disclose that. Definitely spell out the powers of the local governing body here, and explain exactly why they're entitled to vary certain procedures, particularly when it could appear to be an advantage for some teams.

Jurisdiction is tricky because it's convenient to form organizations that follow neat administrative boundaries, and correspond to the same boundaries forever. So there's a natural urge to go state-by-state. But that's inequitable and frankly, laughable.¹ Representation by population of teams, participants or general population all have their advantages. Some geographic grouping is clearly desirable, but the optimal extent is unclear. I think the guidance should be that local governing bodies should make every attempt to adopt a structure that permits adjustment as the competition's needs change.

Changing game rules should, for the moment and the foreseeable future, be prohibited. Changing tournament rules should be something that FIRST formalizes and publishes in their rules, thereby proving that FIRST assented to the changes instead of letting them slip through.² There are precedents in other sports for different sanctioning bodies to establish slightly different rules, and it hinders interchangeability of players, facilities and statistics. Until such time as the FRC game doesn't change annually, there's enough uncertainty in the new game that adding more (due to the whims of a local governing body) doesn't seem wise.

¹ In the same way that apportionment of seats in the U.S. senate is difficult to justify, given the powers that the body wields and its legislative role.
² When (some years ago) FIRST Robotics Canada ran a regional with an extra playoff round, or another regional with byes instead of an 8^th alliance, those changes were not widely known outside of those events. They certainly weren't announced officially, and were clearly inconsistent with the rulebook. I don't know who at FIRST gave the approval to do that. They weren't bad changes, but the process was not ideal.