What First is missing.

[TikiTech]

Aloha,

From what we have seen over the past years is that VEX is a wonderful starting program that allows basic programming and building skills to develop. These skills help the students to transition into FRC. Our program was started with the low cost underwater ROV competitions and then added the VEX program and then Botball. It was after our successes in these programs that we were approached to start a FIRST team.

I like the fact that the programs have different seasons which allow the robotics program to run thought the school year. There is little overlap and competition for resources.
I am saddened that the Vex and FRC world championships coincide this next year. This makes for some tuff decisions on which to attend if you are lucky enough to attend both. In my mind there would be no question which to go to.
There is NOTHING like a FRC world championships. It is by far the most student inspiring event we have ever attended. The amount of stories that the students bring back from ROV, Botball, and the VEX world championships is NOTHING compared to the amount from the FRC world championship ….

Back on to the topic.
Would another program competing with FRC be a good thing?

Many areas have a hard enough time supporting the existing FRC teams.
Having another program compete for students as well as sponsorship would, in the end, hurt everyone.
If a company has to decide on which to support, most sponsors will make the decision based on costs. If it is going to cost the company less to sponsor a non FRC team then it is a good business decision to do so and will still look good to the community. If they have a set budget of outreach sponsorships, then they could now support two non FRC teams for the same amount and it then it looks even better to the community to do so.

Would this cause FRC to make changes to be more competitive? Sure but at what costs?
Cheaper quality and fewer KOP items? Less scholarships available as participation drops? Smaller venues and less commercialism (making it Loud)?

Are monopolies a good thing? Sometimes…Do monopolies they still exist? Yup…

Are you old enough to remember the telephone system in America prior to the monopoly break up?…….
My service has never been quite the same

An open market approach will solve some problems but will just cause others.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by TikiTech

Aloha,

From what we have seen over the past years is that VEX is a wonderful starting program that allows basic programming and building skills to develop. These skills help the students to transition into FRC.

I'll ask the tough, sensitive question because its going to come up sooner than later, IMO. It already is to some extent with the overlapping of 2 major World Championships in 2014 which affects many including us directly.

What happens if VEX views this as the other way around? What happens if in the future, there is no need to transition at all? Hard choices which will force real competition.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Gizmo4

I think FIRST and sponsors should start not just focusing on inner city teams but other underpriviledged teams that live in areas that don't feature many willing or even engineering companies. There is a lot of scientist and engineer potential that is missed through that.

We are one of those teams. Small rural towns who have few local engineers who really want to get involved and no veteran teams within a 50 mile radius need a little more help to get off the ground and stay there.
We have been around for six years. Four years ago we were lucky and got connected with an extremely dedicated and fun loving engineer. This year we happened to get connected with another two who have found great fun and enjoyment with our team and FIRST in general. The company that employs our original engineer as well as one of our new ones has just been purchased and we do not know what the new owners plan to do with the plant. If they shut them down we could lose two phenomenal engineering mentors.

One suggestion that I have made to FIRST directly is how the top 8 alliances are formed. I submit that if you want more excitement from the mid-level, low-level, and rookie teams treat the alliance selection at competition like alliance selection at many of the off-season events. You may not choose from within the top 8 and/or if you have already won at a regional you may not compete as an alliance captain in subsequent regionals. To my way of thinking this would not be much different than Chairman’s as you can only submit it at one event. Before you start yelling that it is their reward for hard work take a breath and let me finish because I have the utmost respect for those teams and push my team to emulate their work ethic and dedication.

At our one event we compete against teams that attend 2, 3, and 4 events and many times they bring home those big blue banners from multiple events every year. I am at a school and in a town that simply is not yet willing to pay for two events even though we have been in qualifiers 4 of the 6 years we have been competing and our performance is consistently improving. Because we have not yet brought home a blue banner we get a lot of smiles and pats on the head saying ‘how nice for you’ etc. If I brought home a big blue banner there is no question that my community and school would step in and help pay for us to attend championships but until that point we still rank somewhere behind underwater basket weaving in the eyes of this football obsessed town (once again please forgive as my home lives and dies by two seasons, football and robots ) If alliance selection were shifted to ‘must pick outside the top 8’ and/or you cannot compete as an alliance captain if you have already won a regional I think a couple of things would happen:

1. More teams in qualifiers = more teams going home excited about their experience = more kids/teams in their local media = more support and widespread knowledge of FIRST
2. Lower seed alliances would not go into quarter-finals expecting to lose (i.e. #1 vs #8 which on the surface seems exceedingly unfair however it is by rights that #1 earned that advantage)
3. More new teams to championships = more local publicity for FIRST because I don’t care how small your town is when you have something this cool advancing to World Championships the entire town will jump on board

Now, all of that being said I could be (and often am) completely mistaken and talking out of my backside so please feel free to take my comments as such. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching powerhouse alliances play all-out on the field. It’s exciting and fun to watch. Sometimes though, it’s tough to sit in the stands knowing that your one competition is done while you watch and try to appreciate the finals playing out before you between two alliances made up of multiple teams that have already won their way to championships.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

I can't recall which regional it was (I think MSC, as stated earlier in the thread), but I saw that setup before. Something like that plus the static "aerial" shot that we already get would be much better. 3 views minimum, then regionals with more resources/space can also add in the optional camera operators.

Originally Posted by launchloop17

What about the setup 2337 brough to a couple events. I was a sigle camera with a wide angle lens on a pole behind the scoring table:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...64&postcount=9
Here is a randomly selected video from that setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lOCOmD2keeY

I don't know much about the bandwidth aspects of it, but that hardware setup would be pretty affordable to have one for each field.

I like that. You can see everything, and the regional only needs to setup one camera.

I definitely think FIRST should try to implement some of these ideas and enforce a standard. It's the next logical step in their plan to spread the word.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

One suggestion that I have made to FIRST directly is how the top 8 alliances are formed. I submit that if you want more excitement from the mid-level, low-level, and rookie teams treat the alliance selection at competition like alliance selection at many of the off-season events. You may not choose from within the top 8 and/or if you have already won at a regional you may not compete as an alliance captain in subsequent regionals.

Now, all of that being said I could be (and often am) completely mistaken and talking out of my backside so please feel free to take my comments as such.

I prefer to say that you are attempting to repeat history (and should you succeed, the traditional "doomed" will apply in big, bold letters). I think I would much rather deal with powerhouses forming within the top 8/multi-regional winners than deal with teams throwing matches to drop out of the top 8.

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

This had about the same effect as disallowing picking within the top 8 would have. It's not necessarily difficult to intentionally lose a match and make it look like an accident--not that anybody necessarily would, but it wouldn't be surprising, at least to me.

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by EricH

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

And this I did not know should have read up on my FIRST history I suppose lol...thank you for the info on this. And I can completely see your point about match fixing. Having only had experience with the selection process for the past six years this seemed like a good idea when I first considered it however if past history has proven otherwise then it should be removed from consideration.

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by EricH

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

I should have explained better. In my head (like most things it always sounds better in my head ) they would be available for selection just not an AC. Maybe I have built up the position of AC as having more 'power'(?) than it really does because of the selection process. I don't want them out of the top 8 totally as they are extremely valuable partners and can absolutely help another alliance advance to regionals.

Originally Posted by EricH

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Interesting, I know District events are out there but have had no direct dealings with them or understanding of how they actually work. I have heard rumblings of Texas perhaps shifting to a District set up but no real concrete information. I will have to do some more research on how the District setup works because that would definately nullify the ideas posted above.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?

That would have a similar problem; teams would have an incentive to throw matches if they're the top seeded team and have a chance to drop down to rank 6-8 by losing their last match.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

I should have explained better. In my head (like most things it always sounds better in my head ) they would be available for selection just not an AC. Maybe I have built up the position of AC as having more 'power'(?) than it really does because of the selection process. I don't want them out of the top 8 totally as they are extremely valuable partners and can absolutely help another alliance advance to regionals.

In a district system, AC gives more points towards the district championship than 1st pick or 2nd pick (which are themselves on a sliding scale so the farther back you get picked the fewer points you get). So, yes, there is an advantage there. And they get to pick the broad strategy in any event.

But here's the problem. Let's assume, for a moment, that there's a previous event winner in the #1 slot, one in the #6 slot, and one in the #10 slot. That's a pretty conceivable scenario, I think. My question is this: The #1 team cannot make a selection. Who gets first pick? Well, you say, the #2 gets the first pick. But, are they the #1 alliance or the #2 alliance in the bracket? There is a bit of a difference. If they are the #1, then as I mentioned, how do you treat the #1 team?

What I foresee happening is mass confusion. Confusion and complication are never good unless you're actually trying to solve a very nasty puzzle. If you've ever seen someone try to pick a team that already declined, that's straightforward. Trying to deal with a high-ranked team that can't pick because they happened to win an earlier event...

I also suspect that there may be a few "questionable" finals wins due to teams not wanting to lose their AC eligibility.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

In a district system, AC gives more points towards the district championship than 1st pick or 2nd pick (which are themselves on a sliding scale so the farther back you get picked the fewer points you get). So, yes, there is an advantage there. And they get to pick the broad strategy in any event.

Actually, this is false. In both MAR and FiM, the AC and 1st Pick of any given alliance receive the same number of points: 16 (A1) through 9 (A8). It's only the 2nd pick that's different within the alliance: 8 points (A8) through 1 point (A1).

This is because statistically, being the 1st pick is actually slightly more indicative of future success than being the 1st alliance captain, etc. This makes sense, and actually contributes to the issue you're explaining--what draft advantages would really come out of forced skipping? Particularly as more regions go to districts or other points-based systems, this has the potential to be not just confusing, but at least superficially invalidating.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by EricH

What I foresee happening is mass confusion. Confusion and complication are never good unless you're actually trying to solve a very nasty puzzle. If you've ever seen someone try to pick a team that already declined, that's straightforward. Trying to deal with a high-ranked team that can't pick because they happened to win an earlier event...

I also suspect that there may be a few "questionable" finals wins due to teams not wanting to lose their AC eligibility.

I agree completely, mass confusion is never a good thing even when trying to solve nasty puzzles . As I said I don't have any experience with district systems and while 6 years in FIRST sounds like a long time it really is not in the grand scheme of things. Many of the ideas that I suggested would require much more thought than I have put into them.

I suspect that many smaller teams who don't hang around may be leaving FIRST because they feel like they cannot win or even run with the powerhouses. I personally have had parents who have been involved with my team for multiple years come to me and ask, 'How long do you expect the district and town to continue to support the team financially if you never 'win'?' It doesn't take too many parents with that attitude to put the idea in the head of someone who makes funding decisions that for a non-winning team this is just too expensive and that is what I am truly afraid of not just for the smaller teams but FIRST in general.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

I suspect that many smaller teams who don't hang around may be leaving FIRST because they feel like they cannot win or even run with the powerhouses. I personally have had parents who have been involved with my team for multiple years come to me and ask, 'How long do you expect the district and town to continue to support the team financially if you never 'win'?' It doesn't take too many parents with that attitude to put the idea in the head of someone who makes funding decisions that for a non-winning team this is just too expensive and that is what I am truly afraid of not just for the smaller teams but FIRST in general.

This is a great example of a double standard. Most high schools in the United States have a football team. Sometimes new schools are built or schools without football teams decide they want one, so a new team is formed, and they hire a coaching staff who may or may not have experience, and buy uniforms and equipment. And usually, like most rookie FRC teams, they kinda suck. Does anyone question the district for spending the money to do this because the team doesn't win? No, and when I have seen school districts cut sports, it's an outrage. That question should not exist for FRC teams, because like football, there's more to it than winning.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

This is a great example of a double standard. Most high schools in the United States have a football team. Sometimes new schools are built or schools without football teams decide they want one, so a new team is formed, and they hire a coaching staff who may or may not have experience, and buy uniforms and equipment. And usually, like most rookie FRC teams, they kinda suck. Does anyone question the district for spending the money to do this because the team doesn't win? No, and when I have seen school districts cut sports, it's an outrage. That question should not exist for FRC teams, because like football, there's more to it than winning.

This precisely. I came from a school with a football team that went 3-37 in the 4 years that I was there. They went 2 seasons without a win. Yet, they were never denied any funding, (and actually got increased funding), and people always praised the individuals on the team. Granted, the football teams do bring revenue to the school through the games, but even then, if the team is winless in 2 seasons, there is still an outrage at cutting any funding to the program.

[WaterClaw]

Personally, as far as the original argument was saying, I have to say that cutting the prices would help rookies who still are trying to gather a ring of sponsors. No one should show disaproval over some one wanting lower part prices. It would allow rookies to actually try out their ideas with efficiency. The only casulty that I think veterans are objecting to is quality of parts. That's probably why the very next post that followed objected.

[who716]

The only thing I can think of that I think would make first better would be an equalizing chip between really large teams like 80 students to small teams like 7-15 students. Don't get me wrong I'm not talking a competitive advantage I'm talking more on the side of funding as raising money because I can imagine that raising money is a lot easy with 80 students then with 15

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by who716

I can imagine that raising money is a lot easy with 80 students then with 15

It may be true that they have more students available to organize some sort of formalized fundraising plan or system, but think about the costs. A team this large has enormous travel expenses. You have to factor in transportation, lodging, team meals, etc...

I wouldn't say it's much easier.