What First is missing.

[nuggetsyl]

After reading the the thread on open build and several other threads about how to improve First it is more evident then ever FRC needs real competition. Competition would

Drive down costs for teams
Make friendly build rules
Improve the quality of awards handed out.

Monopolies are never a good thing. I love First but think an open market approach would solve many of the issues we see posted here on C.D.

[akoscielski3]

These aren't issues. They are people complaining because teams are better then them.

All these complaining threads and changing FIRST threads need to stop.

/thread

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

These aren't issues. They are people complaining because teams are better then them.

All these complaining threads and changing FIRST threads need to stop.

/thread

If FIRST really wants to expand and improve changes need to be made.

This is not a thread complaining that FIRST is unfair.

The OP is from a past world champion, I don't think they would ever complain about teams being better than them.

Competition is never a bad thing, lack of competition leads to complacency. Nobody wants FIRST to be complacent or stagnant. FIRST continues to change and has changed over the years, and its a good thing. Having teams express feelings on ways they feel FIRST can change for the better is not complaining, it's constructive criticism.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

These aren't issues. They are people complaining because teams are better then them.

All these complaining threads and changing FIRST threads need to stop.

/thread

Oh, so FIRST is good enough as it is?

FIRST is effective as a tool for a certain set of problems. What OP is saying is that we need other tools to address other problems. My problem is a screw, yours is a nail... do you use the same tool?

[bardd]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

My problem is a screw, yours is a nail... do you use the same tool?

If you're on my team, why not?


I don't think competition would be the best solution. FIRST is already trying to improve, and over the last couple of years (don't know about before) has taken our input to improve itself on a daily basis.
Competition in the market causes lower prices and more attractive advertizing, not necessarily impovement of the firm and/or product. I think that IF FIRST changes because of competition, the change would be more towards making the competition more attractive to spectators through games that are more fun to watch, which are not necessarily more educational to play. I think this competition, if it will be heavy and a threat to FIRST's spread (which is kind-of the definition of competition in marketing), might cause FIRST to lose focus on what matters to FIRST most: inspiring students to persure a career in STEM.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

These aren't issues. They are people complaining because teams are better then them.

All these complaining threads and changing FIRST threads need to stop.

/thread

I don't see how this relates to any of the issues he mentioned.

[Taylor]

What FIRST is missing is exposure. The type of exposure that creates top-of-mind awareness. The exposure that is enjoyed by major sports, created by massive marketing campaigns.

Newspaper articles, TV news features - they're all neat, and a decent starting point, but they're not enough. FIRST is missing the daily interaction with laypeople. The Make It Loud initiative is a step in the right direction.

FIRST is missing a fundamental change in its own philosophy. Celebrity on chiefdelphi does not equal celebrity in the real world. Having wild celebrations for two months - at college campuses during their spring breaks and an unoccupied stadium - then being largely dormant the other ten months of the year does not create the level of awareness needed to be what it needs to be. Districts and offseason events are a step in the right direction, but they're nowhere near as comprehensive as they need to be. I know of 20 offseason events, which is great, but really less than a tenth of what there needs to be - and I'm just talking about America.

What we have now is similar to the Indianapolis 500 or Kentucky Derby. It's a cool story once a year, but largely ignored and underground for the rest of the time. That is unacceptable.

When FIRST has its own magazine, we'll be on the horizon. When FIRST has its own television network, we'll be pretty close. When Vegas lays published odds on FIRST events, we'll be there.

Originally Posted by Taylor

What FIRST is missing is exposure. The type of exposure that creates top-of-mind awareness. The exposure that is enjoyed by major sports, created by massive marketing campaigns.

Newspaper articles, TV news features - they're all neat, and a decent starting point, but they're not enough. FIRST is missing the daily interaction with laypeople. The Make It Loud initiative is a step in the right direction.

FIRST is missing a fundamental change in its own philosophy. Celebrity on chiefdelphi does not equal celebrity in the real world. Having wild celebrations for two months - at college campuses during their spring breaks and an unoccupied stadium - then being largely dormant the other ten months of the year does not create the level of awareness needed to be what it needs to be. Districts and offseason events are a step in the right direction, but they're nowhere near as comprehensive as they need to be. I know of 20 offseason events, which is great, but really less than a tenth of what there needs to be - and I'm just talking about America.

What we have now is similar to the Indianapolis 500 or Kentucky Derby. It's a cool story once a year, but largely ignored and underground for the rest of the time. That is unacceptable.

When FIRST has its own magazine, we'll be on the horizon. When FIRST has its own television network, we'll be pretty close. When Vegas lays published odds on FIRST events, we'll be there.

Re-quoting because I think this is spot on exactly what needs to happen. Also I need to spread around more rep before giving it to Taylor again. Aaron, Gregor, wanna help me out on this one?

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Taylor

What FIRST is missing is exposure. The type of exposure that creates top-of-mind awareness. The exposure that is enjoyed by major sports, created by massive marketing campaigns.

Here's some of the stuff I want to see some day:

• Really high quality video feeds of every event, including organized archived matches, dual camera views (full field + one that tracks the action), and high resolution.
• A medium for viewing the video feeds that makes it really easy and fast to access info on the teams that are playing in each match to get some of the context and history that most viewers aren't aware of.
• Official stats kept for every robot in every match, and the availability of real time stats just like you get in a pro sporting event, like in MLB GameCast
• Nationally televised reality TV show that tracks the progress of several teams each year during the offseason, build, and competition seasons
• More exciting Einstein finals (no energy killing extras) that are ready for prime time
• Elimination rounds that are broadcast like a big pro game, with announcers who have access to a lot of info on the teams, replays shown of key plays, interesting statistics shown during down time, and bits of rules shown frequently (with diagrams and bits of animation)
• Automated Fantasy FIRST leagues that are easy to setup on Yahoo like other fantasy sports.

That would create something that people can follow in the way that people currently follow sports. The webcasts that we currently get are making some progress, but they still suffer from some issues that make them hard to follow unless you already have a decent idea of what's going on.

I'm not saying all of that is going to happen tomorrow, but if it did, I bet a bunch more people would get hooked on FIRST. They'd start out being hooked on the competition aspect, and some of those people would probably end up getting involved as volunteers or mentors or students.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I know of 20 offseason events, which is great, but really less than a tenth of what there needs to be - and I'm just talking about America.

There are definitely more than 20 offseason events but since they aren't listed on a single page like the regionals, it's hard to find them. Honestly I wonder what percentage of FRC participants (students and mentors) even know off season events exist?

It would be nice to have a central place to host information about offseasons that also has a place for teams to register and sign up volunteers. Something like robotevents.org but for FRC offseason events.

[James1902]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

After reading the the thread on open build and several other threads about how to improve First it is more evident then ever FRC needs real competition. Competition would

Drive down costs for teams
Make friendly build rules
Improve the quality of awards handed out.

Monopolies are never a good thing. I love First but think an open market approach would solve many of the issues we see posted here on C.D.

To clarify, are you positing that FIRST needs to have more competition among teams, suppliers, other robotics competitions, or some other type of competition?

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by James1902

To clarify, are you positing that FIRST needs to have more competition among teams, suppliers, other robotics competitions, or some other type of competition?

I think he's saying that FIRST needs direct competition from another robotics competition, because right now, there really is no direct competitor to FRC.

[Pendulum^-1]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

After reading the the thread on open build and several other threads about how to improve First it is more evident then ever FRC needs real competition. Competition would

Drive down costs for teams
Make friendly build rules
Improve the quality of awards handed out.

Monopolies are never a good thing. I love First but think an open market approach would solve many of the issues we see posted here on C.D.

Ummm....maybe. One thing I will say, though, is that the off-season events are a really good, lower cost way to get a lot more out of your season. And that, in and of itself, helps to drive down the cost, in that it gets FIRST thinking about alternatives (districts) to the mondo-big regional events.

FIRST and the vendors do need to keep thinking up better ways to give teams better return on the investment that each year represents.

FIRST also needs to get better information from those who are not in FRC. Many organizations have dropped out of FRC due to time or money cost, or looked at the barriers to FRC success, and have said, no thanks. FRC needs to determine a better path to transition these organizations into FRC, or else FRC growth will be stunted.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The publicly-stated goal of each of these organizations is to provide inspiration and education on STEM topics to those that have not yet "seen the light." You don’t do that by trying to convince those already converted that your particular phrasing of the message is better. You do it by reaching out to those that have never heard the message in the first place. A little less time spent on turf wars, and a little more time spent on reaching the 95% of students who are oblivious to your existence, might be wise.

AKA, competition between STEM programs is mostly counterproductive. The goal isn't to be the better program among programs, but to reach out to students and get them excited for science, technology, engineering and math.

Granted there is and will be some competition if another program is as good as or better than FIRST, but in the end the goal of my mentoring shouldn't be to promote FIRST, but promote STEM based learning though a program like FIRST.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

AKA, competition between STEM programs is mostly counterproductive. The goal isn't to be the better program among programs, but to reach out to students and get them excited for science, technology, engineering and math.

Granted there is and will be some competition if another program is as good as or better than FIRST, but in the end the goal of my mentoring shouldn't be to promote FIRST, but promote STEM based learning though a program like FIRST.

Yes, but I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. The point of programs competing against FRC is that we believe it'll make FRC --and potentially the other program--better at reaching and inspiring students, a goal they share. They needn't be better than each other, just better than they were. VEX and FTC positively push each other some at least for us at the local level (I'm not condoning FIRST's treatment of IFI). VEX IQ and FLL are shaping up for the same. Heck, we all benefitted from some of the reputable competition between two respected pillars of the FRC community this year: AM and IFI/VEXpro.

The point is, competition isn't about mentors promoting their program rather than inspiring students. I'd seriously hesitate to bring it to the mentor level at all. What competition can do is lower prices and increase service across the board, which is something (particularly lower registration fees) that could really help FIRST and its competition reach collectively more students.