Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

This is even more reason why FIRST should have consulted the community BEFORE it agreed to anything. Now FIRST will have to choose to spite either the host cities or the teams. On one hand, pulling the bait-and-switch on the the host cities may be damaging to FIRST's negotiating power. On the other hand, the teams are the customers to whom FIRST is providing a service. There is a limit to how much your customers will put up with before they decide that the service is not worth it.

...

***The idea of FIRST causing geographical segregation is quite unpleasant, to say the least.

Alan, if you read CitrusDad's original post, this thread is a problem-solving one, dedicated to developing alternative proposals to make at the town hall meeting. One way you can distinguish serious discussion from venting is whether it includes emotionally loaded statements like spite, bait-and-switch, and segregation. Those words are fine if you want to let off steam, but they will cause the decisionmakers at the Town Hall Meeting to discount any ideas you have.

Please use this thread if you want to vent.

[MrRoboSteve]

EricH:

Looking at pit layout diagrams, a good number to use for pit size is roughly 250-300 square feet per team, depending on venue layout. There is generally an aisle in front of each pit that is equal in size to the pit, so that gets us to 200sf right there. Plus you need connecting aisles, and routes for robots to/from the competition and practice fields.

Pit admin, spare parts, and inspections runs closer to 1000 square feet at venues I'm familiar with. Full sized practice fields probably consume more than 4000sf each, assuming a 15' deep driver area at each end, 10' clear areas on each side, and space for waiting robots.

That said, if you assume no limits on money for event buildout, there are several locations in the US with NFL stadiums that would work for the event.

Thought exercise for those proposing a larger, single venue event

We can easily identify other options for venues that physically accommodate 600-800 teams, so we must assume that FIRST, with experienced event planners, can do the same. In fact, FIRST has the St. Louis location under contract for 2017, which is physically able to handle 600 teams, and has chosen to add a location in that year.

Since FIRST has proposed going to multiple events with smaller event sizes, there must be some other resource needed to put on an event that is not available at one location. Any thoughts on what that resource might be?

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

Alan, if you read CitrusDad's original post, this thread is a problem-solving one, dedicated to developing alternative proposals to make at the town hall meeting. One way you can distinguish serious discussion from venting is whether it includes emotionally loaded statements like spite, bait-and-switch, and segregation. Those words are fine if you want to let off steam, but they will cause the decisionmakers at the Town Hall Meeting to discount any ideas you have.

Please use this thread if you want to vent.

With all due respect, My post was a serious attempt to contribute to the conversation in a productive manner. I certainly must admit fault for the emotional nature of the endnote, but that is why separated it from the rest of the post.

Honestly, I chose the term "bait-and-switch" because that is how FIRST's actions would be perceived if they attempted to change the terms of their contract with the Host cities after it was signed. Also, perhaps "spite" was a bit strong of a word to have chosen, but I Don't feel that its use invalidates the rest of the post.

My intent when writing the the first section of the original post was to acknowledge the fact that FIRST will likely be unable to meet the expectations of both the FIRST community and the host cities at this point, and that compromise is probably the best course of action. The second section of the post was the compromise that I was intending to present to the FIRST community. My intent was for the idea to be criticized and possibly improved upon by others. Instead I was criticized for my word choice. I will do my best to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future.

-Alan