Is there usually this much frustration?

[mwtidd]

Where I have not been overly active in the CD community in past games, I see more and more threads popping up with people griping about this game. I understand that this happens to an extent every year, but I've never felt this sense of frustration among the FIRST community. Many of the concerns and frustrations are some of the most valid in years. Whether it be drastically inconsistent rule calling or horribly insufficient suppliers, the concerns are not unfounded.

FIRST charges a premium to host a superior high school robotics competition, running regionals that cost upwards of $300,000, but seems to be slipping on some of the more important things.

Again it is just my perception, but this year seems like the community is reaching a near tipping point. The politics within FIRST are getting pretty dicy. I didn't want to formulate a long argument, but more start a discussion with regards to what is happening within FIRST and the potential ramifications.

after flipping through the financial's for FIRST (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...bsite_Copy.pdf) i see nothing regarding salaries.

Again, I just wanted to start a discussion...

[Marc S.]

Please elaborate...

Are you saying something is wrong with the game, or how FIRST is financed

[Jim Zondag]

In Michigan, we produce our own events locally for as low as $10,000 each. We now run all 10 of our Michingan events for less than the cost of a single traditional FRC regional. FRC Events don't need to be expensive, but they will be if you use the standard model.
If you have an issue with event and program costs, follow our lead. These things can be changed.
The key to sustainable growth in FRC depends on 2 things:
1. reducing the price of entry.
2. increasing return on investment for participation.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

Please elaborate...

Are you saying something is wrong with the game, or how FIRST is financed

Well both, I didn't want to say too much, but it seems this year has seemed less professional than previous years.

At kickoff the initial crio updates first didn't exist and then were corrupted once I got them.

Then we had the banebots issues.

Now there's having CAN issues.

Only a chunk of the events are participating in the Twitter feed, which I was told my FIRST staff would be formally supported, and made many decisions based on that.

Inconsistencies across the board with regionals and rules.

Again if they focused less on throwing huge 300k events and focused on the actual business side to the organization, we may see a better result. If FIRST formally handled the distribution of KOP-related items (specifically transmissions) rather than letting some young tiny company do it, we may have seen a better result. rather than outsourcing the code development to a few people at NI and WPI, actually have a full-time team responsible for producing industry-standard software, with professional releases.
I would actually prefer to see FIRST invest in the staff to formally support it, rather than rely on volunteer work.

FRC costs 24 million dollars to pull off, however my fear is that too little of that money is spent on a formal staff and training. FRC is getting huge but it still loses 10% of its every year for many reasons, money being a huge one. There are other models (note Jim's comments) for having great regionals at a fraction of the cost and WPI is working on a model to reflect this for other areas. However none of this is done via investments by FIRST, its volunteer based. Actually FIRST to an extent has opposed this agenda to make it more affordable.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

In Michigan, we produce our own events locally for as low as $10,000 each. We now run all 10 of our Michingan events for less than the cost of a single traditional FRC regional. FRC Events don't need to be expensive, but they will be if you use the standard model.
If you have an issue with event and program costs, follow our lead. These things can be changed.
The key to sustainable growth in FRC depends on 2 things:
1. reducing the price of entry.
2. increasing return on investment for participation.

The Michigan model is awesome. It seems like the obvious choice.
I think FIRSTs ego is getting in the way of formally adopting this
(IMO they view it as a step back)

Its a shame that many of the actions to better FIRST and make FIRST more affordable, scalable, and achievable are not actually a product of the FIRST organization, but rather states and universities who realize the model has a lot of room for improvement.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by lineskier

The Michigan model is awesome. It seems like the obvious choice.

Actually... It is and it isn't.

Their event model, sure. It's low-cost, solves the volunteer problem a bit, and seems like it's just a little more relaxed and low-key, like an offseason.

Their district system model, just try and implement it in non-team-dense areas. MI, the Northeast, and maybe the Toronto area, I can see it working and working fairly well. But come out to, say, the Utah/Colorado/Wyoming/Montana area, and the district system won't be sustainable for more than a year. There just isn't enough density to do it. Even in, say, CA/AZ/NV, it's a stretch--and then HI has to go even farther to compete on the mainland.

I don't think it's FIRST's ego--they've stated that any area that wants to can go to that model. It's just that nobody's got the volunteer infrastructure and team density to do it in place yet outside of MI.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually... It is and it isn't.

Their event model, sure. It's low-cost, solves the volunteer problem a bit, and seems like it's just a little more relaxed and low-key, like an offseason.

Their district system model, just try and implement it in non-team-dense areas. MI, the Northeast, and maybe the Toronto area, I can see it working and working fairly well. But come out to, say, the Utah/Colorado/Wyoming/Montana area, and the district system won't be sustainable for more than a year. There just isn't enough density to do it. Even in, say, CA/AZ/NV, it's a stretch--and then HI has to go even farther to compete on the mainland.

I don't think it's FIRST's ego--they've stated that any area that wants to can go to that model. It's just that nobody's got the volunteer infrastructure and team density to do it in place yet outside of MI.

It is also incredibly taxing on the volunteers.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually... It is and it isn't.

Their event model, sure. It's low-cost, solves the volunteer problem a bit, and seems like it's just a little more relaxed and low-key, like an offseason.

Their district system model, just try and implement it in non-team-dense areas. MI, the Northeast, and maybe the Toronto area, I can see it working and working fairly well. But come out to, say, the Utah/Colorado/Wyoming/Montana area, and the district system won't be sustainable for more than a year. There just isn't enough density to do it. Even in, say, CA/AZ/NV, it's a stretch--and then HI has to go even farther to compete on the mainland.

I don't think it's FIRST's ego--they've stated that any area that wants to can go to that model. It's just that nobody's got the volunteer infrastructure and team density to do it in place yet outside of MI.

You're right, sorry I should choose my words more carefully. However, by incorporating the model into high dense areas, and then holding bigger evens for the less dense areas, i think it would reach a happy medium.

Personally I'd pick 3 smaller events over one big event any day, but I know this feeling is not shared by many.

good call eric...

does anyone know the whole story behind the michigan model?

[Mike Betts]

Mike,

I'm going to sidestep the MI discussion and try to throw out a few ideas toward your initial query about frustration.

A lot of the issues we are having are due to how FIRST is growing. There are over 2000 teams this year (an increase of over 14% from last year). There are over 400 new (rookie) teams and some 48 regional competitions (not counting Michigan).

1. With an increase in regionals, there is inevitably going to be an increase in the "non-uniformity" of those regionals. As FIRST continues to grow, it will take some dramatic changes to maintain a semblance of uniformity. I'm not sure that FIRST has a plan as to how to do that...

2. With more teams comes more people posting. This website has "crashed" a few times this season just due to the large number of people using the site. The FIRST website has had similar bandwidth issues.

3. Along with #2 and a "normal" distribution of online personalities, you will have more "fringe" posters. These fringe posters can be more antagonistic, less knowledgeable and/or just more verbose. Note that not all of this fringe are students...

4. Along with #2 and #3, you have a greater number of pseudo "experts". These are folks who post their opinions as factual without citing the rules or demonstrating good, practical, common sense. Along with this, many hide behind the cloak of the anonymity that an internet persona can provide. Once again (and quite unbelievably), not all are students...

5. Now let's look at the rookies, second and third year teams and members of veteran teams who are new to FIRST... Their numbers are swelling as well... Yes, they sometimes ask questions that have been asked before or seem naive but that does not negate the fact that they need assistance. Yes, there is a bounty of material and websites to help them but that shear volume of material that they have to digest is overwhelming.

6. Lastly, the number of "veterans" seems to be slipping. Add to that the number of posts has increased to the point that we can not keep up (at least I can't).

These are some of the reasons I see why frustration is seemingly growing and, unfortunately, will continue to grow into the future as FIRST continues to grow.

However, I'd like to end this 4AM digression on an upbeat... The squeaky wheel gets greased. The righteous indignation and angst will continue to grow as FIRST grows but so will the number of people who take away a positive experience. Maybe they don't post as often or, when they do, their posts are overshadowed by the frustration in others but I believe their numbers are also growing.

Otherwise, what are we doing this for?

JMHO,

Mike

[theprgramerdude]

Originally Posted by lineskier

You're right, sorry I should choose my words more carefully. However, by incorporating the model into high dense areas, and then holding bigger evens for the less dense areas, i think it would reach a happy medium.

Personally I'd pick 3 smaller events over one big event any day, but I know this feeling is not shared by many.

good call eric...

does anyone know the whole story behind the michigan model?

I'd pick smaller ones too. This year, with the new Lake Superior Regional, we had 40 teams compete, compared to the 60+ at the Twin Cities ones. I gotta say, it was NICE, for all parts of the team. There was a lot less crowding going on, so it wasn't as much of a hassle to get around the place, there were more matches going on for each team, and each team seemed to be making some better relations with other teams than I've seen down in Minneapolis.

Does anyone know how many Michigan teams there are? Last I've heard, Minnesota is approaching 130-140 and growing.

[Trent B]

Originally Posted by theprgramerdude

Does anyone know how many Michigan teams there are? Last I've heard, Minnesota is approaching 130-140 and growing.

According to the FIRST website there are 131 MN teams and 171 Michigan teams.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Trent B

According to the FIRST website there are 131 MN teams

In 2009, we launched our district system of 7 District Events snd a State Championship with a population of 132 teams. It sounds like MN is in a position where this is certainly possible in your state.

[topgun]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

In 2009, we launched our district system of 7 District Events snd a State Championship with a population of 132 teams. It sounds like MN is in a position where this is certainly possible in your state.

What is the minimum number of volunteers you need to run an MI event?

You said in an earlier message that MI commissioned their own fields. So you didn't buy 2 fields from FIRST? Do you have an FMS system or a different system? Where do you store the fields?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by topgun

You said in an earlier message that MI commissioned their own fields. So you didn't buy 2 fields from FIRST? Do you have an FMS system or a different system? Where do you store the fields?

We have 2 fields. Tardac generously arranges for construction of the mechanical components of these fields for the FiM organization (thanks Jack Jones!). They have contractors with government security clearances which meet the secrecy requirements set by FIRST in order to have access to the build plans. We see nothing until after kickoff. We get 2 sets of certified field controls from FIRST which are identical to those used everywhere else. We purchased two 24' long tandem axle trailers and have a complete field assembly in each one. We store the trailers at the GM proving grounds in Milford (Thanks to Tom Nader!). We move the trailers with Ram Diesel Heavy Duty trucks loaned to us by Chrysler (Thanks to Pam Williamson!). Volunteers transport the fields to and from the various Events (thanks Tom, Dave, Cindy....). Load, Unload, set-up, and tear-down are all managed by volunteers from the teams, many of whom are students. No roadies to pay, and it is a great way to get your team involved in the event management side of the FRC, which traditionally has been somewhat taken for granted (yet rather costly to outsource).

[Jim Zondag]

Their event model, sure. It's low-cost, solves the volunteer problem a bit, and seems like it's just a little more relaxed and low-key, like an offseason.

Have you ever been to one of our MI events? In many ways, they are better than a regional. The biggest noticable difference is that we play with the lights on. Ask anyone at AnnArbor this weekend if they think it was second rate.....Ask anyone at Troy next weekend. These are top notch events at <1/10th the price.

Their district system model, just try and implement it in non-team-dense areas.

I don't understand why people think that running low cost events have anything to do with where you live or how many teams are in your area. You have it exactly backwards. The BEST place for a low cost event model is in areas with low team density. Which is easier: starting a $150,000 event in the middle of nowhere, or starting a $7,000 event in the middle of nowhere?

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

It is also incredibly taxing on the volunteers.

While we may require a bit more help from volunteers, since we don't rely on any high priced staff from the East coast, we have not trouble getting people to come out and support us. Volunteers are exactly that: voluntary.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I don't understand why people think that running low cost events have anything to do with where you live or how many teams are in your area. You have it exactly backwards. The BEST place for a low cost event model is in areas with low team density. Which is easier: starting a $150,000 event in the middle of nowhere, or starting a $7,000 event in the middle of nowhere?

I guess you didn't read what I actually wrote.

I said the "district system model". Not the "district event". They are two different things that I am saying here.

The district event, or what I referred to as the "district event model" in my earlier post, is the event itself. I merely stated that it seemed more low-key, like an offseason. IRI is an offseason--but it's got some of the best competition. That's the part that is fairly easily scalable--you just need to change the event site to an appropriate venue, figure out your favorite A/V solution if you think you need it, settle the details of having a Bag & Tag instead of shipped event, and grab a few extra volunteers for crowd control (and other jobs that would need more volunteers than a normal event), and you should be good to go. I've never been to an MI event, partially due to never having been to MI. I've seen the webcasts, though.

The district system model is where your entry fee gets you two events, and all the rest of that stuff that can be expanded into later, as I understand the plan is/was. That's the part that is going to be really hard to scale. That's the part that a lot of places currently won't be able to handle. That's the part that you need a high team density for.

That's where the regionals should come in. As a given area gets a bunch of districts/district systems, have one or two regionals close to the border area between them. Suppose that Indiana (Boilermaker), Illinois (Midwest), and Ohio (no regional, but some teams) form a district "zone" like MI has. Place a regional somewhere around Chicago that is open to any team. That's your mixing area and a place for teams from, say, Wisconsin or Iowa, which have somewhat lower team densities, to come and play against teams from the district zones. Then when, say, WI and MN form a district area, keep that regional open to continue to serve as a mixing point for the various districts.