Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann
I can say that both venues this weekend had key volunteers pushing for 9 matches but the people who determine how many matches vetoed it. Also for some reason it was determined that both events had to have the same number of matches. North star was running ahead of schedule and had to routinely slow their pace, we easily could have had 9 maybe even 10 matches but since 10K didnt think they could with 3 more teams North Star got shafted.
These 2 events were just that 2 DIFFERENT events and should be run that way.
|
I'll take some credit here, and hopefully clarify the decision to play 8 matches. I was on 10,000 Lakes with 63 teams.
I'm apparently one of the people who "vetoed" 9 matches, though I don't recall doing it in a way I would consider "vetoing." I would also like to add that at no point did a key volunteer approach me and say "Bryan, we should really get 9 matches in," so I'm not sure where that information came from.
On Wednesday as we were generating the schedule here is what we put into the FMS:
- The public agenda for the event (which had the same amount of time allocated to qualification matches as most FRC regionals)
- A 7 minute cycle time (as presribed by FIRST, and corroborrated throughout the previous 5 weeks of competition)
- A 45 minute lunch on Friday
- 3 minute breaks for audience defense selection as generated by the FMS
The first time we did this, we put in 8 matches per team and our schedule ended up about a half an hour short on Saturday and a hair early on Friday.
At this point, the event manager joined the FTA and the scorekeeper and asked if 9 matches was possible. We changed the matches per team to 9, and the FMS informed us that doing so would put us 45 minutes late on Saturday and just a hair late on Friday. That is how we made the decision to go with 9 matches.
Here's the deal with the public agenda: One of the biggest responsibilities of FTAs and event managers is to keep the event running as close to the schedule as possible. Failing to do so has serious implications for teams. Some teams have buses that cannot wait or charge for waiting, some teams have multiple hour drives to get home, and the list goes on. Playing through lunch is not only terrible for the volunteers, but it is terrible for teams as well because suddenly they need to chose between lunch or playing matches as well. Playing through lunch is an absolute last resort- for situations like it sounds like UMass Dartmouth was in.
Additionally, ending 45 minutes late puts us at significant risk for an even greater setback. Replays, guest speakers like Dean Kamen, or broken defenses could easily make that 45 minutes and hour and half or longer. By sticking closer to the schedule we are able to be more confident that we can provide a good team experience.
And that's the real message here: Team experience at an event is about so much more than whether you played 8 or 9 official qualification matches. What you do at an event, the people you meet, and the teams you help. I would argue that if the only value your team gets out of an event comes from the number of matches you play, then you aren't getting the right things out of your events. Yes, I agree, more matches are always better. If I could give teams 12 plays at every regional event in Minnesota, I would. But I can't.