pic: Growth of FIRST in Michigan

[gblake]

Originally Posted by mathking

...
I completely agree that we should be driving FIRST to push down the cost.
...

I would add that we should also be participating in alternatives that cost less per student. If there are students missing out because of costs, and if lower cost methods (that might or might not be a little less sexy, but are still very effective) of reaching those students exist, ...

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

...
We also have never and likely never will have a single team of the same caliber of the top dozen Michigan teams for a lot of reasons;
...

Wow , I'm sure some people feel that those are fightin' words.

Seriously though, are you using success in the on-field part of a team's total activities/purpose to measure "caliber"? There is a spectrum of opinions about that subject, and many folks feel that on-the-field-results isn't the right metric to use. I think the jury is still out on whether FRC teams in any part of the country are lagging, leading, or cooperating so hard they don't care, when compared to Michigan's many fine teams.

Blake

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by gblake

I would add that we should also be participating in alternatives that cost less per student. If there are students missing out because of costs, and if lower cost methods (that might or might not be a little less sexy, but are still very effective) of reaching those students exist, ...

Wow , I'm sure some people feel that those are fightin' words.

Seriously though, are you using success in the on-field part of a team's total activities/purpose to measure "caliber"? There is a spectrum of opinions about that subject, and many folks feel that on-the-field-results isn't the right metric to use. I think the jury is still out on whether FRC teams in any part of the country are lagging, leading, or cooperating so hard they don't care, when compared to Michigan's many fine teams.

Blake

Michigan has three hall of fame teams; the way things shake out in Virginia greatly hinders the chances of getting 1 any time soon.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Michigan has three hall of fame teams; the way things shake out in Virginia greatly hinders the chances of getting 1 any time soon.

OK, not on-the-field-performance. And, sure, three HOF teams have come out of Michigan, One in 2014, one in 2005, and one in 1997. Congrats to all three, and best wishes for continued success, but ... One of those was ancient history, one was long ago, and one was recent. At the pace the FRC landscape evolves, going back to 2005 or further is a loooong time.

Let me suggest this: If you were to start a clock now, I'm not aware of any obstacles anywhere outside of Michigan that prevent well-rounded teams from catching their own lightning in a bottle, before the next Michigan team does. The money coming from Michigan's government might make it a little bit easier for Michigan teams to be effective at satisfying the HOF evaluation criteria, but there is more than one way to skin that cat.

Blake

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am so confused by this answer. "CHS events" "draconian regs" "C&R form" "lessons learned from PNW" "more explicit responsibilities"

I really don't know what you are talking about...

Dr. Joe J.

Chesapeake Region = CHS
C&R = Consent and Release forms. Apparently CHS is required to complete a second, non-STIMS consent and release form that has the exact wording as the STIMS Version. I find the repitition annoying.

more explicit responsibilities = probably the reason for above. what they are I do not know. They have not been communicated to me when I asked about the extra C&R.

draconian regs = for me this was the power limit of 400W per team for the event. This struck me as entirely inadequate considering the popular 3-bank charger from AndyMark is rated at 500W. I have been assured there will be enough power for everyone. When I asked for specifications, they asked for how much we needed.


lessons learned from PNW = not sure, but I suspect the reasons for the item above.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Chesapeake Region = CHS
C&R = Consent and Release forms. Apparently CHS is required to complete a second, non-STIMS consent and release form that has the exact wording as the STIMS Version. I find the repitition annoying.

more explicit responsibilities = probably the reason for above. what they are I do not know. They have not been communicated to me when I asked about the extra C&R.

lessons learned from PNW = not sure, but I suspect the reasons for the item above.

"More explicit responsibilities" is the way I summed up the way FRC is administrated in a district system vs a traditional regional system. The district systems are run by 501c3s that operate interdependently with FIRST while RPCs are more directly agents of HQ. Things like liability insurance are probably under the wings of FiM, PNW, MAR, CHS etc., and therefore we require an additional form to recognize this fact.

Matt, the lessons learned from PNW comes from my research and communications with people in districts leading me to a variety of places. In this specific case it led to this presentation, which I think we can agree FIRST Chesapeake has taken the guidelines from PNW to heart enough that entire parts of this presentation have been lifted on to documentation we have been getting in emails.