Texas Registration 2015

[Paul Richardson]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Steve... I hear you and can feel your passion and frustration...

The last season things started to come into focus for me as to what is and what works in FIRST FRC and I've concluded that there are only 3 types of teams:

A - Teams that are a _program_ with reliable and continual support and funding. Same as football and marching band.

B - Teams that exist because at least one adult _wills it_ to exist.

C - Rookie teams that may become either A or B or die pretty quickly.

The key thing, I believe, for teams to achieve at least B status is some early support and guidance from Tier-1 and Tier-2 teams that can lead to them playing Saturday afternoon Elims _instead_ of sitting in the stands after early-packing their pit.

I believe that even making it to the Quarters changes a team's "chemistry" and leads to create passion and anticipation in the returning students and energizes the adult mentor(s) who have to _will it_ to exist.

I think getting to State District model is a BIG priority--because it means more competitions for the same current single-regional $$ and provides more opportunities for these teams to play Saturday afternoon and have that positively affect the team's trajectory...

I'm interested to know anyone else's opinion on this...

Thanks!

--Michael Blake

I definitely agree that districts need to roll out to Texas soon. For 3320 that's basically an entire extra competition for free, since Austin would likely have a local event. Not only does two chances help, but you're also more likely to make eliminations at districts because of their smaller size. The other bonus to local district events is that it's easier to recruit students when you can guarantee they'll be able to attend at least one event regardless of extra funding (a kid on the fence probably won't commit to the team if only the core team members can go compete). You can also easily show your local sponsors what their money went to, or hook in a new sponsor in an afternoon.

3320 is firmly in your "B" category, although relatively well funded (the present issue for the team is recruitment and attendance). I'd also agree with how much making eliminations means to this team. Last year I told the students a few times before competition that I'd be surprised if their robot wasn't picked. Every time I said it they were noticeably excited, and packing up the pit after being eliminated wasn't a somber, defeated affair for once. If the team wasn't almost entirely seniors it would have been perfect.

There's even a pretty neat situation that demonstrates this "elim-boosted virtuous cycle" phenomenon quite well. Look at my old hometown of Calgary, AB, home of teams 1482 and 4334. By now there are plenty of teams in the city, but for years and years 1482 was the only team for hundreds of miles until 4334 popped up in 2012. 1482 only ever appeared in eliminations occasionally, and attended Champs a few times. For 4334's rookie year, their rookie team didn't build anything far surpassing what 1482 or any team had built before, but it was the right robot in the right place at the right time that year and they nearly won Champs. Not too long after that 4334 had jump started tons of local teams and their own local regional. It seems highly unlikely that this outcome would have occurred without their eliminations and Champs experiences.

The really important part is it also relies heavily on having the students and mentors who are capable and willing to put that momentum to good use. A lot of people thought 4334 was crazy for wanting to start a regional in a city with two teams during their second season, but I think they knew exactly what they were doing. When attending their planning meetings, I always got the feeling that they wanted to get as much done while the excitement of their last season was still fresh in everyone's minds.

We need that sort of thing to happen on a smaller scale to get teams over the initially steep difficulty curve of running a team.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Paul Richardson

I definitely agree that districts need to roll out to Texas soon. For 3320 that's basically an entire extra competition for free, since Austin would likely have a local event. Not only does two chances help, but you're also more likely to make eliminations at districts because of their smaller size. The other bonus to local district events is that it's easier to recruit students when you can guarantee they'll be able to attend at least one event regardless of extra funding (a kid on the fence probably won't commit to the team if only the core team members can go compete). You can also easily show your local sponsors what their money went to, or hook in a new sponsor in an afternoon.

3320 is firmly in your "B" category, although relatively well funded (the present issue for the team is recruitment and attendance). I'd also agree with how much making eliminations means to this team. Last year I told the students a few times before competition that I'd be surprised if their robot wasn't picked. Every time I said it they were noticeably excited, and packing up the pit after being eliminated wasn't a somber, defeated affair for once. If the team wasn't almost entirely seniors it would have been perfect.

There's even a pretty neat situation that demonstrates this "elim-boosted virtuous cycle" phenomenon quite well. Look at my old hometown of Calgary, AB, home of teams 1482 and 4334. By now there are plenty of teams in the city, but for years and years 1482 was the only team for hundreds of miles until 4334 popped up in 2012. 1482 only ever appeared in eliminations occasionally, and attended Champs a few times. For 4334's rookie year, their rookie team didn't build anything far surpassing what 1482 or any team had built before, but it was the right robot in the right place at the right time that year and they nearly won Champs. Not too long after that 4334 had jump started tons of local teams and their own local regional. It seems highly unlikely that this outcome would have occurred without their eliminations and Champs experiences.

The really important part is it also relies heavily on having the students and mentors who are capable and willing to put that momentum to good use. A lot of people thought 4334 was crazy for wanting to start a regional in a city with two teams during their second season, but I think they knew exactly what they were doing. When attending their planning meetings, I always got the feeling that they wanted to get as much done while the excitement of their last season was still fresh in everyone's minds.

We need that sort of thing to happen on a smaller scale to get teams over the initially steep difficulty curve of running a team.

Paul... I agree 100%.

We need State District model in Texas no later than 2017 season. I don't know inside details but from what I've been told those who run the show haven't raised enough $$ yet that's required in advance of detaching from USFIRST and there aren't enough reliable teams to justify the move.

It's my understanding when you move to District model all USFIRST supplies is the game field and all revenue responsibility is solely on the state entity that runs the district. I'm assuming that'll be FIRST-in-Texas, but maybe another entity will be formed for that?

It's not clear if the potential UIL partnership, whatever it may morph into, is pacing moving towards district... but I believe it a mistake to take the foot off the gas if that's what's happening.

For the Alamo-FIRST region I'm working on developing a working-group of adult FRC team leaders to form ALAMO RISING which will be chartered with fact-finding and developing recommendations to USFIRST for sea-change caliber initiatives and programs so that Alamo region can provide a BIG chunk of success toward getting to Texas District... and maybe could be implemented in the other Texas regions too.

--Michael Blake

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

We need State District model in Texas no later than 2017 season.

Just curious, why by 2017?

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

Just curious, why by 2017?

Because it's a better model for Tier-2 and Tier-3 teams.

And it's the _best_ competition sandbox getting to mostly eliminating Tier-4 teams by increasing their game play... they move up to at least Tier-3 by having _more_ experiences and some successes.

We need it in 2016, in fact, but that's not realistic based on what I've been told, though I'm not on the inside of anything going on...

--Michael Blake

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

We need it in 2016, in fact, but that's not realistic based on what I've been told, though I'm not on the inside of anything going on...

--Michael Blake

We are actually one of the teams that would benefit greatly from the district model and one of our engineering mentors it a huge supporter of Texas moving to the district model.

That being said I am leery of implementing it before they have all the details ironed out which is what led to my question (why 2017). While there are models already out there that work it took them years to get to that point. The next question becomes will we lose teams in the process?

IMHO we need education for and buy-in from the current teams for the district model to work effectively for us. Especially if FIRST no longer helps pay for anything beyond the game field.

[Pjohn1959]

For those that want districts, all I can say is be careful for what you wish for....

Districts do have their good points. However,the major issue that Texas is facing is logistics. There are currently 4 regionals here, and with districts, there would be a necessity to increase the number of locations to hold events, to cover the 2 district event for the initial entry fee. There are enough teams here to have multiple events each week of the competition season.

Who and where would host these events? I know that high schools are now hosting in other districts to help offset the costs, but has anyone here tried to survey what schools could host a three day event, of which 2 would be during class time, and would require additional parking/storage/security for the attending teams.

We have several schools that host off-season events, but those are in the summer or on a Saturday only. This is a very different animal.

If this issue can be solved, then at least the ground work will have been broken.

PJ

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Pjohn1959

For those that want districts, all I can say is be careful for what you wish for....

Districts do have their good points. However,the major issue that Texas is facing is logistics. There are currently 4 regionals here, and with districts, there would be a necessity to increase the number of locations to hold events, to cover the 2 district event for the initial entry fee. There are enough teams here to have multiple events each week of the competition season.

Who and where would host these events? I know that high schools are now hosting in other districts to help offset the costs, but has anyone here tried to survey what schools could host a three day event, of which 2 would be during class time, and would require additional parking/storage/security for the attending teams.

We have several schools that host off-season events, but those are in the summer or on a Saturday only. This is a very different animal.

If this issue can be solved, then at least the ground work will have been broken.

PJ

District events are only 2 days and could potentially be saturday/sunday

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

District events are only 2 days and could potentially be saturday/sunday

You do have to do field setup the day prior to teams arriving so normally Thursday or Friday afternoon.

We have big enough high schools that can do it, we just have to get enough sites signed up.

One of the reasons for the increase in off-season events is to get schools used to hosting events before the move to districts. Spectrum is 100% behind districts and ready to host as soon as we make the move.

Districts don't have to be at schools, many of the large school districts in Texas have large event centers. We also have county arenas and things that often don't exist where current district models are held. Many of these sites aren't big enough for a regional but are the perfect size for a district event.

[jee7s]

If my count is right, I think we're at a net gain in the Alamo Region. I know Greater Austin had 100% retention and additionally picked up 1 team (5503 in Smithville). Combine that with 7 other rookies from the Alamo Region that have registered for Texas Regionals and I think we're in positive territory.

Based on conversations I've had with others, I know there are district model discussions going on. While I do respect that those having those discussions are respecting others' time during build season, I just wish they were more out in the open.

Regarding funding, if I understand things correctly, the way the District model payment scenario works is this: FIRST licenses the game to the District and collects registration fees from teams. Districts need to gain sponsors, resources, and money to fund their events. The District Championship is funded much like a regional event. So, until we have 3 fields along with the transportation logistics in Texas, District Model is rather no-go, IMHO.

Some specific responses:

@Paul Johnson:
Spot on. Nobody should be looking at Districts as a panacea. Speaking as a MAR alum who was still decently involved with MAR teams as the transition to District took place, I can say there was a lot of concerns on how to get all of those extra events running. Bear in mind that a lot of volunteers FRC has in Texas are dedicated, but asking them to volunteer two days on separate weekends isn't the same as asking for 4 days on one weekend. If we scale up to what the other Districts are at, we'll need a lot more help or a lot more time from those who already help.

@Robin Segrest, @John Schneider & @Allen Gregory IV:
Devil is in the details as always. One big hitch is venues. I know we have high schools that are big enough to handle these types of events, but do we have the venues in the right places with the right people to sponsor them. For example, TRR was held at the Austin Convention Center because we outgrew Anderson High School. Unlike the northeast and Indiana where there are large basketball gyms in every highschool, Texas tends to have large football stadia instead. Keep in mind that where we could swing it in the Anderson Gym with 36 teams and a $200 registration fee, we really can't have that kind of space problem if teams are paying $2000 for the event.

@Michael Blake:
I think you're forcing a system of tiering and ranking on teams based on your observations that is both rigid and absolute. There are many more mitigating factors that impact teams, and particularly impact the move to the District Model. Not every team will see a net benefit, and the model will present challenges and benefits for every team.

Take for example a tacit promise in the District Model: You get two events for the price of one and they are in daily driving distance. For example, in MAR, FRC 41 can attend the Bridgewater-Raritan event in an adjoining school distrct, and then attend one in North Brunswick or Clifton or Mount Olive. All of these schools are within 30 minutes drive of Watchung Hills. Do we have 24-36 teams within 30 minutes drive of each other? Maybe, but not all are.

So, if we were to have 8 events, where would they be and what would it mean? Does it mean that teams in Houtson and SA need to go to the Valley for a second event? Does it mean Houston needs two events to get all of the teams their the two plays they are promised? Does it mean Roscoe needs to book 6 days of hotel instead of 3? Does it mean a team from Texarkana that's late in registration finds themselves with an event in Edinburg as their only option? What about teams that qualify for District Championship on the last week of District events? What if their school board requires 3 weeks to get a trip approved? Are those teams just out of luck? These are the types of details Robin speaks to, and need to be hammered out.

It's not just about plays on the field and experience in the game. It's about justifying trips, setting budgets, and not spending money you don't have or can't raise. There are often complex administrative, and yes, political, situations in schools that make it relatively easy to go to one regional event, but much more difficult to explain the need to go to two events and then the need to get registration, buses, and approvals on two weeks' notice to go to a District Championship event, where you may need to go through that all over again if you qualify for FIRST Championship.

Oh, and I haven't even touched the UIL stuff....
My only three comments now are:
1. If getting UIL support means that schools receive significant benefit over non-school or non-UIL teams, this presents a significant issue for parity between teams. UIL may also require teams that are comprised of multiple schools or of schools combined with local organizations to split into multiple teams. (+1 AllenGregoryIV)

2. If UIL runs competitions during competition season that are not regional events or otherwise progress a team toward the FIRST Championship, we are all in for a huge headache, logistical and otherwise. (+2 AllenGregoryIV)

3. UIL support may have significant negatives in the existing FRC community. Fundamentally, that risks throwing a bunch of money at schools to start teams that are a) not equipped to do FRC, b) not properly cultured for Cooperition, and c) not properly cultured for Gracious Professionalism. Kinda sounds like 2009 & 2010...throw cash at schools to start teams. Those teams are generally lost and miserable. Those teams don't come back. Stat of the moment: of the 50 FRC Rookies in Texas from the 2009 season, only 12 remain.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by jee7s

@Michael Blake:
I think you're forcing a system of tiering and ranking on teams based on your observations that is both rigid and absolute. There are many more mitigating factors that impact teams...

Jeffrey... I don't know where you get "forcing a system of tiering" as I was just giving my _opinion_ as to how things work/are... ;-)

But, what is _your_ model of what the team landscape looks like? You can't manage what you can't measure, right?

--Michael Blake

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

But, what is _your_ model of what the team landscape looks like? You can't manage what you can't measure, right?

I don't try to manage it. That's not my job. I just try to support it and help those who want my help.

Regarding the measurement, quite simply, I don't try to measure it. I think that it is frankly impossible to apply rigid seemlingly objective measures to something so subjective as organizations of people and the relationships between them when they do not have identical goals and aspirations. To do so judges the "success" of a team based on what is collectively (or subjectively) thought to be "success." I'm very Ayn Rand on this point: The smallest minority is the individual, and I know each individual FRC team has their own goals for what they consider success. That's the great part about FRC, it's so big, so challenging, and so complicated that you get to (and rightly should) make your own definition for success.

Do I look at the teams with successful track records and rows of blue banners and hope to learn about how to make a better robot? Sure. But if I were to look at my own team's win-loss-tie record and judge them, I wouldn't be elated. Even if I tried to judge on field performance aside from WLT, I could certainly make arguments that we weren't a success because we didn't play every aspect of the game.

But, I can look at my alumni who visit every now and again and see how the team has impacted the career they have chosen. I've seen them come back and freeze in awe at our facilities today that we didn't have when they were on the team. I can look at our track record of teaching our students skills. There are all too many students I have dealt with who didn't know how to use a drill properly who now know a fair amount about design and fabrication. Are they engineers yet? No, but that's not what I'm after. I'm just glad that they got off on the right foot into a career that I hope they will find rewarding. (BTW, that career isn't always a STEM career.)

I can look at my team's contributions to the local FRC community and to the Manor and Austin communities. Just yesterday, I was modifying parts for one of our sponsors on our "new" 15 year old Haas Mill. We've been to the F1 track for events. We've been to Capitol Hill in DC, and members of our team testified before the Texas Legislature. We've gone from a portable classroom to a 3000 square foot shop and classroom facility. And, we did it without needing to pass a special bond measure. We've inspired at team (4610) to take on the FRC challenge fully, and they've inspired a team (5503) to do the same. Do you have any idea how involved 2789 is in TRR and the Austin Kickoff? All those social events in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the planning committee, the workshops, the Field Elements. Oh, and the President of the United States visited us. We didn't visit him. He visited us.

Do we have a Chairman's Award or Engineering Inspiration Award to show for this? No. Does that mean we didn't do it? No. Are we a success? I think so.

But, these are things I know because I'm on the team. There's more beyond what I'm mentioning here, too. However, I'm often surprised at teams, some relatively seasoned, who don't know half of what I just mentioned about 2789. I, therefore, as an honest thinker must conclude that what I know about a team from the outside is a mere fraction of what they are on the inside. For me, it's superficial and unfair to judge another team based on what I see. And for them to judge my team without walking in our shoes is equally bad, IMHO.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by jee7s

I don't try to manage it. That's not my job. I just try to support it and help those who want my help.

Regarding the measurement, quite simply, I don't try to measure it. I think that it is frankly impossible to apply rigid seemlingly objective measures to something so subjective as organizations of people and the relationships between them when they do not have identical goals and aspirations. To do so judges the "success" of a team based on what is collectively (or subjectively) thought to be "success." I'm very Ayn Rand on this point: The smallest minority is the individual, and I know each individual FRC team has their own goals for what they consider success. That's the great part about FRC, it's so big, so challenging, and so complicated that you get to (and rightly should) make your own definition for success.

Do I look at the teams with successful track records and rows of blue banners and hope to learn about how to make a better robot? Sure. But if I were to look at my own team's win-loss-tie record and judge them, I wouldn't be elated. Even if I tried to judge on field performance aside from WLT, I could certainly make arguments that we weren't a success because we didn't play every aspect of the game.

But, I can look at my alumni who visit every now and again and see how the team has impacted the career they have chosen. I've seen them come back and freeze in awe at our facilities today that we didn't have when they were on the team. I can look at our track record of teaching our students skills. There are all too many students I have dealt with who didn't know how to use a drill properly who now know a fair amount about design and fabrication. Are they engineers yet? No, but that's not what I'm after. I'm just glad that they got off on the right foot into a career that I hope they will find rewarding. (BTW, that career isn't always a STEM career.)

I can look at my team's contributions to the local FRC community and to the Manor and Austin communities. Just yesterday, I was modifying parts for one of our sponsors on our "new" 15 year old Haas Mill. We've been to the F1 track for events. We've been to Capitol Hill in DC, and members of our team testified before the Texas Legislature. We've gone from a portable classroom to a 3000 square foot shop and classroom facility. And, we did it without needing to pass a special bond measure. We've inspired at team (4610) to take on the FRC challenge fully, and they've inspired a team (5503) to do the same. Do you have any idea how involved 2789 is in TRR and the Austin Kickoff? All those social events in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the planning committee, the workshops, the Field Elements. Oh, and the President of the United States visited us. We didn't visit him. He visited us.

Do we have a Chairman's Award or Engineering Inspiration Award to show for this? No. Does that mean we didn't do it? No. Are we a success? I think so.

But, these are things I know because I'm on the team. There's more beyond what I'm mentioning here, too. However, I'm often surprised at teams, some relatively seasoned, who don't know half of what I just mentioned about 2789. I, therefore, as an honest thinker must conclude that what I know about a team from the outside is a mere fraction of what they are on the inside. For me, it's superficial and unfair to judge another team based on what I see. And for them to judge my team without walking in our shoes is equally bad, IMHO.

Jeffrey... that's _awesome_ info about 2789, I didn't know that about your team!

So in my way of thinking I'd put 2789 as a Type-A team [UPDATED/changed to Type-B per Bobby Garcia's post below] - "A - Teams that are a _program_ with reliable and continual support and funding. Same as football and marching band."

And "A" teams have a lot of latitude as to what their activities and purpose for existence can be--hence the entire spectrum of team personalities that exist in these A program teams.

I'd _love_ 3481 to be a Type-A and to see what our personality would settle into, and we're incrementally moving there, but the bottom-line we're still Type-B - "B - Teams that exist because at least one adult _wills it_ to exist."

--Michael Blake

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by jee7s

If my count is right, I think we're at a net gain in the Alamo Region. I know Greater Austin had 100% retention and additionally picked up 1 team (5503 in Smithville). Combine that with 7 other rookies from the Alamo Region that have registered for Texas Regionals and I think we're in positive territory.

Jeffrey... I was told by a reliable inside person that Alamo-FIRST had a net-loss of 10 in 2014 and at least that much net-loss in 2015.

I can't find any other place to definitively confirm... I'm hoping Andrew Lynch could weigh-in since he seems to have valid useful numbers.

--Michael Blake

[philso]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Not only that but UIL also normally requires schools to compete independently in all of their events. A large number of Texas FRC teams are from multiple schools or entire districts (1477, 118, 2587, etc).

3847 might be in the strangest situation. Strake Jesuit one of our schools is a UIL school, St. Agnes Academy our other school is not in UIL.

Originally Posted by jee7s

1. If getting UIL support means that schools receive significant benefit over non-school or non-UIL teams, this presents a significant issue for parity between teams. UIL may also require teams that are comprised of multiple schools or of schools combined with local organizations to split into multiple teams. (+1 AllenGregoryIV)

I am not sure how many schools 1477 and 118 draw from but 2587 draws from 6 different schools from at least two different school districts. I think one or two students are the only ones from their school participating in FRC. Another school only has 2 or 3 students on our team. Some of the home-schoolers have been core members of the team. Breaking up these teams would not "just make a bunch of smaller teams" but probably end the FIRST experience for many of team members. It is likely that many of the schools will not have enough committed team members, parents, teacher/sponsors and mentors to reach critical mass and survive. The surviving teams would likely be shadows of their former selves. Would the 118 reveal video still be as inspiring? I hope so but I wouldn't bet on it.

Originally Posted by jee7s

3. UIL support may have significant negatives in the existing FRC community. Fundamentally, that risks throwing a bunch of money at schools to start teams that are a) not equipped to do FRC, b) not properly cultured for Cooperition, and c) not properly cultured for Gracious Professionalism. Kinda sounds like 2009 & 2010...throw cash at schools to start teams. Those teams are generally lost and miserable. Those teams don't come back. Stat of the moment: of the 50 FRC Rookies in Texas from the 2009 season, only 12 remain.

You mention "culture" twice in this paragraph. If UIL takes over FIRST in Texas, it would have to be with the understanding that the current "culture of inclusion" is maintained if not expanded.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by philso

You mention "culture" twice in this paragraph. If UIL takes over FIRST in Texas, it would have to be with the understanding that the current "culture of inclusion" is maintained if not expanded.

Phil, you have far more confidence in the integrity and consistency of politically appointed competitive athletics organizations than I do.