[BB] Bills Blog 07/08/11

[BJC]

How about only one trophy of the current size for winning team and giving them the option of buying more to be sent via mail?

Cuts cost, keeps trophy size, and still allows teams to get extra trophies to give to sponsors/ schools/etc if they so choose.

Edit: trophies bought for manufacturing and shipping cost: no mark-up.

[avanboekel]

Trophy sizes should remain the same (or be enlarged). Like mentioned before, the size of a robotics trophy should be the same as for football and other major sports.

On another note, did anyone else catch the possible game clue?

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

...Everything is up in the air...

The possibility of an aerial game is interesting.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

On another note, did anyone else catch the possible game clue?

The possibility of an aerial game is interesting.

Maybe a 2006 style high goal, or maybe taller robots

I hope they don't make the trophies smaller, maybe they could redesign it to be more impressive (possibly), larger (or at least the same size), and within their budget, whatever that happens to be.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

On another note, did anyone else catch the possible game clue?

The possibility of an aerial game is interesting.

I guess its time to start aerial game hype.

[buildmaster5000]

Well if we all want to look at FIRST's financial history, here is the 2010 annual report. The fact that we STILL pay $5000 and seem to be getting less and less is ridiculous. In the tough financial times we are in, the teams have to look for more sponsorships. Is it too much to ask FIRST to do the same?

EDIT: That is a list of sponsors, not any financial report i've ever seen before. Let's try this.

[Katie_UPS]

Edit: I clearly stepped on some toes with my original response, hence taking it down.

I didn't mean to disrespect Vex or Karthik of Jack Jones. I apologize.

However I'm not quite comfortable comparing trophies. FIRST and Vex, although similar, are still very different. Vex is controlled by a company that exists outside of the competition, and existed before the competition (IFI). FIRST is a company created solely to do FIRST. While Vex may do somethings "better", they also operate differently. Stemming off a company means that Vex is already directed by individuals who understand efficient use of funds and materials. FIRST is in a different situation, although by no means am I saying they're incompetent.

$.02

[dodar]

Is it just me or do those Vex awards look freaking awesome! They look so mechanical and yet they are so simplistic.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by dodar

Is it just me or do those Vex awards look freaking awesome! They look so mechanical and yet they are so simplistic.

I certainly bet they cost less than $600 too!

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I certainly bet they cost less than $600 too!

In all fairness to FIRST, the number of trophies whose cost exceeds $115 is extremely limited:

Championship Chairman's Award ($650, 1 team)
Championship Winner ($500, 3 teams)
Division Winner ($485, 12 teams)

All the other awards run from $60 (the standard regional awards) to $115 (RCA, CMP Finalist, CMP Engineering Inspiration).

I imagine it's more than possible for FIRST to lower these costs further using a different design, but it's not $600 bad for everyone.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Billfred

In all fairness to FIRST, the number of trophies whose cost exceeds $115 is extremely limited:

Thanks Billfred.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

However I'm not quite comfortable comparing trophies. FIRST and Vex, although similar, are still very different. Vex is controlled by a company that exists outside of the competition, and existed before the competition (IFI). FIRST is a company created solely to do FIRST.

Sorry for the off-topic response, but I wanted to comment on this. This statement isn't really correct. FRC/FTC are very similar to VRC. Let's take a look:

- FRC/FTC are run by FIRST, a non-profit organization promoting STEM education goals.
- VRC is run by the RECF, a non-profit organization promoting STEM education goals.

- FRC/FTC rules limit components you can use in their programs. Specifically, control systems are limited to a single supplier. FTC further restricts you to official TETRIX parts only (with a few additional materials allowed).
- VRC rules limit components you can use in their program. It requires you to use a control system from a single supplier. However, non-electronic parts are not restricted to the VEX brand (equivalent non-VEX brand parts are allowed, as well as a few additional materials).

- The suppliers of the control systems for FRC and FTC are for-profit companies. It is a reasonable assumption that these for-profit companies are able to exert some measure of influence on the FRC and FTC in exchange for their support & donations.
- The suppliers of the control system for VRC is a for-profit company. It is a reasonable assumption that this for-profit company is able to exert some measure of influence on the VRC in exchange for its support.

I think FRC/FTC/VRC are a lot more similar than many people believe.

[Bob Steele]

In our society... smaller seems to mean cheaper, less valuable...etc etc.
Downsizing trophies is definitely a negative.

I suggest, respectfully, that FIRST comes up with an engineering activity.
Have teams submit ideas and fully fleshed out business plans for making new trophies for FIRST. This plan would take into consideration a number of factors including aesthetic appeal, shipping costs, cost to manufacture and the use of environmentally friendly materials.

In my opinion... it is much easier to explain to trophy viewers that there was a design change...than to explain why the "new" awards are smaller versions of the older ones.

The time has come for a design change in the trophies... a design specifically made to be able to be made less expensively, transported easily and cheaper and yet still look great.

I am sure we are up for the challenge.... and the best thing is that it is just another way to bring mentors, students and manufacturers together for more opportunity for inspiration of students.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

In our society... smaller seems to mean cheaper, less valuable...etc etc.
Downsizing trophies is definitely a negative.

I suggest, respectfully, that FIRST comes up with an engineering activity.
Have teams submit ideas and fully fleshed out business plans for making new trophies for FIRST. This plan would take into consideration a number of factors including aesthetic appeal, shipping costs, cost to manufacture and the use of environmentally friendly materials.

In my opinion... it is much easier to explain to trophy viewers that there was a design change...than to explain why the "new" awards are smaller versions of the older ones.

The time has come for a design change in the trophies... a design specifically made to be able to be made less expensively, transported easily and cheaper and yet still look great.

I am sure we are up for the challenge.... and the best thing is that it is just another way to bring mentors, students and manufacturers together for more opportunity for inspiration of students.

Two steps ahead of you.

(Anyone else of the mindset, throw in a comment on Bill's Blog directly. Considering the relative officialness of BB compared to CD, a group of respectful opinions there will likely have more effect than a bunch of discussion over here.)

[Tristan Lall]

Since I'm not a sponsor who ostensibly receives the 2^nd trophy, I'm all for just handing out one (full-sized one), and offering duplicates for sale.

Who owns the IP rights for the trophies? Could FIRST just bid them out to some place that is less expensive?


Actually, I thought the background check question was more interesting. It seems like an overreaction to a non-issue. FIRST's event volunteers generally interact with students in public places at the events, and are in contact with them for such a short period that the actual risk of harm is minimal. You might as well demand a background check of everybody waiting at the bus stop.

Besides, background checks only identify previous offenders—so they're by definition a half-measure.

And once a background check comes up positive, now FIRST is in the even more difficult position of having to justify why that particular offence makes that person unsuitable for the job. It would, for example, be unconscionable to reject someone convicted only of sodomy (under consensual circumstances, among adults, in the Lawrence v. Texas sense) on the pretense that they might be an ephebophile and therefore a threat to FIRST's students. But someone is going to scream "sex offender" (as if they were all the same), and raise a panic. FIRST should not put itself in a position where its policies, combined with misplaced societal fears, force it to suborn that reprehensible witch-hunting behaviour.

To use a less inflammatory example: can someone convicted of tax evasion still function as a safety glasses dispenser? Would FIRST's background check policy exclude such a person, and if so, how isn't that a mockery of that person's civil rights? They were convicted, paid their restitution or were incarcerated and released, and their offence has no reasonable connection to their volunteer position. Although in most jurisdictions, and especially given that it's a volunteer position, FIRST couldn't be held liable under employment law, that doesn't absolve them of a moral duty to avoid stigmatizing someone who has no obvious reason to do FIRST or its participants any harm.

What's more, now FIRST and the volunteer co-ordinator are responsible for safeguarding sensitive information. Although convictions are generally a matter of public record, FIRST shouldn't put itself in a position where the release of this data, and a subsequent overreaction could devolve into defamation or some other tort.

So save some money, and let the teams set their own policies for background checks. After all, it's the teams that are bringing the largest number of strange adults to any given event, many of whom will have a much greater opportunity to be present with minors in compromising circumstances.

[J93Wagner]

I have heard multiple complaints in this thread alone that FRC has been costing the same and quality has been going down. On the surface this seems true. As far as I know, most teams have been paying $6000 per year in registration costs. And we also know that apparent quality has also been going down.

However, I'm not sure that teams have really been paying the same. The reason: inflation. That said, courtesy of Wolfram Alpha, in today's dollars, teams in 1995 would have paid $8702.72 in registration costs compared to the flatline $6000 today. Which is about a 30% decrease in real costs. And, well, you get what you pay for. Also, for anyone who was wondering, I input "$6000 (1995 dollars)" into Wolfram Alpha.

And to anyone who wants to put forth alternative ideas on this topic. Please tell me. I am interested in hearing them.