What First is missing.

[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.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers.

This holds true not just for the webcast but for event production quality.

That is my biggest beef with the few district events I have been to. (and it really is just a FEW, so please don't hate on me for that statement. I haven't been to the ones I've heard described as 'well-done', so I am not going to speak for those events.) One I was at in person felt like a badly-done offseason event. It just wasn't the event quality I'm used to from FIRST.

Yes, districts are great because of their lower expense and their ability to give teams more matches... but if the events are disorganized and unimpressive, then nobody from 'outside' is going to watch, online OR in person.

[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.

[Michael Leicht]

One big thing that is missing from FIRST is Mentor training. Yes I understand that FIRST has a conference at Championship and there may be other outlets for mentor training but as a mentor who spends most of his time in the pit make sure things are running smoothly. I barely have time to check out what is going on and what other teams have done. There needs to be a better outlet for mentors to get trained without having to burn more PTO. Because it takes a special understanding and knowledge to design and build one of these robots and not knowing the technology or resources leaves teams in the dust.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by MikeL303

One big thing that is missing from FIRST is Mentor training. Yes I understand that FIRST has a conference at Championship and there may be other outlets for mentor training but as a mentor who spends most of his time in the pit make sure things are running smoothly. I barely have time to check out what is going on and what other teams have done. There needs to be a better outlet for mentors to get trained without having to burn more PTO. Because it takes a special understanding and knowledge to design and build one of these robots and not knowing the technology or resources leaves teams in the dust.

I agree. Being a team coach who is a true NEMo and has never been to championships it has been difficult to navigate my way through many things.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by MikeL303

One big thing that is missing from FIRST is Mentor training. Yes I understand that FIRST has a conference at Championship and there may be other outlets for mentor training but as a mentor who spends most of his time in the pit make sure things are running smoothly. I barely have time to check out what is going on and what other teams have done. There needs to be a better outlet for mentors to get trained without having to burn more PTO. Because it takes a special understanding and knowledge to design and build one of these robots and not knowing the technology or resources leaves teams in the dust.

Several areas have teams that do mentor workshops during the summer or fall. Scott Rippetoe (1477) and myself started a summer one in Houston last year and we are working on one for this summer. Maybe you could get together with teams in your area and do the same. HQ can't solve all the problems, that the best part about FRC we can do a bunch things ourselves.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

FIRST could include a LTE hot spot with the field. Then FMS always has internet and you can stream HD video (assuming you're not in some remote location with no LTE). Even if this costs $10,000, that's nothing.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Cory

FIRST could include a LTE hot spot with the field. Then FMS always has internet and you can stream HD video (assuming you're not in some remote location with no LTE). Even if this costs $10,000, that's nothing.

Or they could just include some way for the fields themselves to record in like 720p or 1080p and then upload each match like how TheRoboShow did for the Orlando Regional.

[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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Libby K

This holds true not just for the webcast but for event production quality.

That is my biggest beef with the few district events I have been to. (and it really is just a FEW, so please don't hate on me for that statement. I haven't been to the ones I've heard described as 'well-done', so I am not going to speak for those events.) One I was at in person felt like a badly-done offseason event. It just wasn't the event quality I'm used to from FIRST.

Yes, districts are great because of their lower expense and their ability to give teams more matches... but if the events are disorganized and unimpressive, then nobody from 'outside' is going to watch, online OR in person.

I'd also encourage some regionals to look into raising their production quality. Let's just say that one of the events I was at recently (within the last several years) should have been the premiere regional but was run worse than most district events I've been to... or most off seasons.

[who716]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

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.

I never thought of it that way, but you are right with a big team you do have more cost to cover.. And in some cases I do remember that those huge teams can't afford to bring all there members.

In that case your right its not much easier