Are 8 play regional reasonable?

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I can say that both venues this weekend had key volunteers pushing for 9 matches but the people who determine how many matches vetoed it. Also for some reason it was determined that both events had to have the same number of matches. North star was running ahead of schedule and had to routinely slow their pace, we easily could have had 9 maybe even 10 matches but since 10K didnt think they could with 3 more teams North Star got shafted.

These 2 events were just that 2 DIFFERENT events and should be run that way.

I'll take some credit here, and hopefully clarify the decision to play 8 matches. I was on 10,000 Lakes with 63 teams.

I'm apparently one of the people who "vetoed" 9 matches, though I don't recall doing it in a way I would consider "vetoing." I would also like to add that at no point did a key volunteer approach me and say "Bryan, we should really get 9 matches in," so I'm not sure where that information came from.

On Wednesday as we were generating the schedule here is what we put into the FMS:

• The public agenda for the event (which had the same amount of time allocated to qualification matches as most FRC regionals)
• A 7 minute cycle time (as presribed by FIRST, and corroborrated throughout the previous 5 weeks of competition)
• A 45 minute lunch on Friday
• 3 minute breaks for audience defense selection as generated by the FMS

The first time we did this, we put in 8 matches per team and our schedule ended up about a half an hour short on Saturday and a hair early on Friday.

At this point, the event manager joined the FTA and the scorekeeper and asked if 9 matches was possible. We changed the matches per team to 9, and the FMS informed us that doing so would put us 45 minutes late on Saturday and just a hair late on Friday. That is how we made the decision to go with 9 matches.

Here's the deal with the public agenda: One of the biggest responsibilities of FTAs and event managers is to keep the event running as close to the schedule as possible. Failing to do so has serious implications for teams. Some teams have buses that cannot wait or charge for waiting, some teams have multiple hour drives to get home, and the list goes on. Playing through lunch is not only terrible for the volunteers, but it is terrible for teams as well because suddenly they need to chose between lunch or playing matches as well. Playing through lunch is an absolute last resort- for situations like it sounds like UMass Dartmouth was in.

Additionally, ending 45 minutes late puts us at significant risk for an even greater setback. Replays, guest speakers like Dean Kamen, or broken defenses could easily make that 45 minutes and hour and half or longer. By sticking closer to the schedule we are able to be more confident that we can provide a good team experience.

And that's the real message here: Team experience at an event is about so much more than whether you played 8 or 9 official qualification matches. What you do at an event, the people you meet, and the teams you help. I would argue that if the only value your team gets out of an event comes from the number of matches you play, then you aren't getting the right things out of your events. Yes, I agree, more matches are always better. If I could give teams 12 plays at every regional event in Minnesota, I would. But I can't.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Yes, I agree, more matches are always better. If I could give teams 12 plays at every regional event in Minnesota, I would. But I can't.

Cool, so we've reached a consensus - More matches = more better for teams.

We've even agreed that we want what's best for teams. Yay! Progress.


So, you're telling me the primary issue is in the combination match turn time combined with teams. [1] What steps can we take to alleviate this?

- FiM runs two fields side by side, and I know some Canadian events have. Would that be a viable solution?
- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- I noticed you said that guest speakers were a problem, I understand the need for VIPs and what have you to talk. But would stuffing them into field breaks be a viable option?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here? [2]
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE
- I'm gonna harp on this one a bit, cut down the number of teams? Option? [3]




[1] Yes I knew this already

[2] My role primarily involves not being around the field much.

[3] This is really why I push districts - it lets teams play more, for less money and lets more teams take home hardware. Hardware is REALLY inspiring which achieves FIRST's Mission. Just this weekend we played with a team that had, in 20 years, NEVER made it to the finals of an event. Their kids were inspired. A chance they wouldn't have had in a regional system where a second play was 4k.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Cool, so we've reached a consensus - More matches = more better for teams.

We've even agreed that we want what's best for teams. Yay! Progress.


So, you're telling me the primary issue is in the combination match turn time combined with teams. [1] What steps can we take to alleviate this?

- FiM runs two fields side by side, and I know some Canadian events have. Would that be a viable solution?
- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- I noticed you said that guest speakers were a problem, I understand the need for VIPs and what have you to talk. But would stuffing them into field breaks be a viable option?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here? [2]
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE
- I'm gonna harp on this one a bit, cut down the number of teams? Option? [3]




[1] Yes I knew this already

[2] My role primarily involves not being around the field much.

[3] This is really why I push districts - it lets teams play more, for less money and lets more teams take home hardware. Hardware is REALLY inspiring which achieves FIRST's Mission. Just this weekend we played with a team that had, in 20 years, NEVER made it to the finals of an event. Their kids were inspired. A chance they wouldn't have had in a regional system where a second play was 4k.

In all seriousness and despite my bias from being someone who put forth the idea that I had never heard of before, Minnesota could lead the charge to run a regional/dcmp hybrid schedule. It's sort of a brute force way to give teams more matches but it opens the door to give some light training to volunteers, get teams used to unbag time, you could keep the venues and team counts you have, and you aren't increasing travel burden.

This is a solution that comes with a different set of problems, but the current solution in MN is obviously causing problems and the mainline potential solution seems to be a nonstarter for leadership. My question is, por que no los dos?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

This is a solution that comes with a different set of problems, but the current solution in MN is obviously causing problems and the mainline potential solution seems to be a nonstarter for leadership. My question is, por que no los dos?

Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?


Look, I understand you guys mean well, and want to make sure every team gets as many plays as they can possibly cram in. But there are a lot of other factors that come into play, and when you appear to be deliberately ignoring them, you really make people annoyed. Heck, I'm not in districts (though I'd really like to be), but I can understand why certain people don't want 'em, or can't go for 'em. Districts are not the end-all solution for "we aren't getting the value", necessarily. It depends on what your definition of value is--one of the Chilean teams spoke up a in another thread and pointed out that if CA went district, they'd lose their home regional, and that's not the first time that happened. That's not good for them, because they'd be traveling out here for two weeks--imagine doing THAT plus DCMP and maybe CMP! (For that matter, I'd love to hear from the AK team playing in PNW this year, as they've got a similar problem.)

BTW, L.A. could host a 72-team event. They've got the space for another 6 pits. That'd give each team... 7 plays. Guess what, they cap at 66 to try to help with the plays, and by teams/minute were the fastest regional to fill this year (third fastest by time). If they capped at 40 and there wasn't another regional around, you'd hear the complaining clear from the East Coast.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by EricH

Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?

From talking to MN teams this past weekend, it isn't as much of a problem as room for improvement. Most of these teams never knew about districts, and you don't exactly miss what you never had. I think there are other issues in MN that could be considered a "problem", but right now number of matches isn't one of them.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I'm 20.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

He is in training for LRI

I wish you the best of luck in your training! You'll be one of the youngest LRI's I've ever met.

I'm glad you're doing this, and I hope it sends a good message to the rest of the alumni around you, and across the FIRST Community that they too can be the volunteer positions they truly want to be!

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by bkahl

I wish you the best of luck in your training! You'll be one of the youngest LRI's I've ever met.

I'm glad you're doing this, and I hope it sends a good message to the rest of the alumni around you, and across the FIRST Community that they too can be the volunteer positions they truly want to be!

Hearing all of this has been very humbling. I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not the only student who has the abilities to do what I'm doing. I know some very talented people both at NDSU and the University of Minnesota. I'd also argue that I'm not the most technically skilled, nor the quickest learner. I very well could be the most addicted student to FIRST, but Cadandcookies might have me beat

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricH

Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?


Look, I understand you guys mean well, and want to make sure every team gets as many plays as they can possibly cram in. But there are a lot of other factors that come into play, and when you appear to be deliberately ignoring them, you really make people annoyed. Heck, I'm not in districts (though I'd really like to be), but I can understand why certain people don't want 'em, or can't go for 'em. Districts are not the end-all solution for "we aren't getting the value", necessarily. It depends on what your definition of value is--one of the Chilean teams spoke up a in another thread and pointed out that if CA went district, they'd lose their home regional, and that's not the first time that happened. That's not good for them, because they'd be traveling out here for two weeks--imagine doing THAT plus DCMP and maybe CMP! (For that matter, I'd love to hear from the AK team playing in PNW this year, as they've got a similar problem.)

BTW, L.A. could host a 72-team event. They've got the space for another 6 pits. That'd give each team... 7 plays. Guess what, they cap at 66 to try to help with the plays, and by teams/minute were the fastest regional to fill this year (third fastest by time). If they capped at 40 and there wasn't another regional around, you'd hear the complaining clear from the East Coast.

I'll field this one Wil.

To me this isn't a District/NonDistrict question. Districts don't work everywhere, for those of you who know me, you'll know the Novaks are... well practically family to me. Arkansas will never have the infrastructure to support districts and if everywhere goes to districts they are screwed. I don't think Districts are the final solution to FRC's scaling issue. I do think that for some regions they are an effective stop gap.

Now, for the reasons folks have stated (mostly volunteers and lack of nonprofit group) Districts aren't currently in the cards for MN[1]

My big objection is that two fold - 8 matches given our ranking systems = screwed up rankings. More matches give more time to equalize for a crappy schedule. I want teams that put in effort to be rewarded with high ranking. It's incredibly frustrating to build a great robot and be at the mercy of the draft because of a bad schedule. More matches helps.

My other claim is that, I don't think ANYONE would argue that less matches are better for teams. I'm already on the warpath about one aspect of customer service in FRC, I'd love to see someone else take up this aspect.

I admit, I mostly come at this from a team experience perspective - I want to see every team in FRC have an experience that makes them think "wow these folks are awesome and I want to come back" The vibe I've gotten is that the lack of plays is a serious pain point for schools, it makes the costs seem really hard to swallow when VEX and FTC offer most of the same experience for a fraction of the cost.




[1] I'd like to see a plan of attack on this, publicly.

[PayneTrain]

As a coach, I felt like we went to certain events that gave us mediocre match schedules and supplemented it with a mediocre experience because that is how the chronological and geographical cookie crumbled. This year, we went to events because we knew we had these options to find out what we liked, and we enjoyed most all of them very much regardless of our final performance. We got to watch our team develop into a machine as they played 70 regulation matches.

I will admit that despite us working with a stingy resource pool, we have tried to develop processes and a work ethic that propels our team forward and upward while holding ourselves to very high standards in the growth and development we want to chart. Sometimes the perception I have is that some people focus too much on the wrong things when faced with certain challenges and in doing so, almost willingly set themselves up to fail. This is an experience a team can have within a season and it is an experience I believe is applicable to larger scenarios in FRC.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

So, you're telling me the primary issue is in the combination match turn time combined with teams. [1] What steps can we take to alleviate this?

- FiM runs two fields side by side, and I know some Canadian events have. Would that be a viable solution?
- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- I noticed you said that guest speakers were a problem, I understand the need for VIPs and what have you to talk. But would stuffing them into field breaks be a viable option?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here? [2]
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE
- I'm gonna harp on this one a bit, cut down the number of teams? Option? [3]

Thanks Andrew, I think these are excellent questions to move the discussion forward. The intent of my post was to emphasize that the number of plays in qualifications is essentially determined long before anyone steps foot in the venue, so there's little we can do when the event starts to squeeze in an extra play or two.

Running two fields side by side was essentially the solution years ago when Duluth and Minneapolis both became double regionals. At this point we need more events (and more money to do more events).

Cycle times vary year to year, and is influenced by the game. A more complex game that might be more fun might require longer cycle times. Its a tradeoff.

I wouldn't say guest speakers are a problem, especially if you are close to on time. If you are already half an hour behind, they are one of the last things you want.

FMS connection times haven't been terrible for me this year. A little slower than last year, but not enough that tightening that would add a significant number of matches.

I think you hit the nail on the head that fewer teams is the key, the solution is identifying a path forward for getting there and getting more people to help in achieving that goal.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Thanks Andrew, I think these are excellent questions to move the discussion forward. The intent of my post was to emphasize that the number of plays in qualifications is essentially determined long before anyone steps foot in the venue, so there's little we can do when the event starts to squeeze in an extra play or two.

Running two fields side by side was essentially the solution years ago when Duluth and Minneapolis both became double regionals. At this point we need more events (and more money to do more events).

Cycle times vary year to year, and is influenced by the game. A more complex game that might be more fun might require longer cycle times. Its a tradeoff.

I wouldn't say guest speakers are a problem, especially if you are close to on time. If you are already half an hour behind, they are one of the last things you want.

FMS connection times haven't been terrible for me this year. A little slower than last year, but not enough that tightening that would add a significant number of matches.

I think you hit the nail on the head that fewer teams is the key, the solution is identifying a path forward for getting there and getting more people to help in achieving that goal.

These have gotten a bit buried, but Bryan had two really great posts. I hope everyone reads them

I'll add that there is also not space at the current MN venues to run two fields side by side for a single regional event. Maybe expanding to Ridder for pit space or something, but it's usually in use.

Originally Posted by FRANKlybored

Now let's take a look at some of those other "columns in a spreadsheet" about event quality/value:

• What does the event physically look like? Is there inspirational value in playing in larger, sometimes iconic venues with more production value?
• How many teams are students interacting with? Is there inspirational value in the diversity and reach of teams at an event?
• What is the team experience like due to quality of volunteers? Is there customer service value in not spreading volunteers too thinly over consecutive weeks, and recruiting volunteers (particularly key ones) of lower caliber out of necessity?*
• How comfortable is the event for a teams due to scheduling? JAMMING 10 matches into a schedule that should really only have 9 is not just stressful and tiring for volunteers, it can also be stressful and tiring for teams. Besides the five drive team members that are participating in those extra matches, the rest of those teams need to be present, in the stands and in the pits - and running schedules too long (and neglecting time for delays on the field) isn't fun for anyone. There gets to a point where it goes from fun to frustrating, and at what gain? A match?
• Many other considerations that I haven't touched on, especially regarding team geography and cost of attending more than one travel event.

Some opinions here, but here are my answers:

• No. I like the lights on, and smaller more numerous venues that make the competition more accessible. DCMP and CMP are opportunites for production value. Others may disagree.
• No. I find that 60 teams at an event is too many to take in. Scouting is more unwieldy, you see barely two thirds of them in matches. At 40 teams or less you get to know everyone. Others may disagree.
• This is part the cost of switching to districts, and the benefits of districts motivates building the infrastructure to cover these costs. It's about the teams, build the system to support the teams.
• Another argument for districts. More events with fewer teams at each allows more match play without this strain on the system.
• An important consideration for sparsely populated areas. MN has fairly high team density across the state though, similar to MI outside cities.

If we want more play time, the answer is easy. More events, fewer teams at each event. It's a challenge people are working to solve, with many tradeoffs involved, and lots of infrastructure to build. I really hope the volunteers aren't seen as incompetent, they do a wonderful job.

[plnyyanks]

I can try and answer some of these...

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here?
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE

1. 6 minute cycles is as low as I've ever seen them scheduled (and probably 5 and a half is as low as is realistic, and only in the the ideal case). 2014 is the last year I can think of (example) where that was doable because there was basically no field reset. Give it 3 minutes on average between match start and green lights. A robot takes ~60 seconds to boot up and connect. Add another minute to get 6 robots on/positioned and 6 robots off, and there's 5.5 minute cycles (with a 30 second buffer for troubleshooting/intros/whatever).
2. The main lesson I see, simple fields (2012, 2014) means fast cycles. If the field reset portion can be done in 2 or 3 minutes, then it won't be the blocker in cycle times. The more frequently it takes longer than that, the more likely it is to be the part slowing the event down. As an interesting aside, this year, once the reset crews got in their rhythm, it could go super quickly (at NYC, we had at least 10 sub-7 minute cycles, so it's definitely doable).
3. The current control systems are definitely slower to boot up than others from the past. I spend most of my events fieldside, and many of the robot-based connection delays are due to miswiring (forgetting to plug the ethernet cable back into the RIO after tethering is a big one), forgetting to turn the robot on, or something that is solved with a reboot (add 1 minute on to the cycle time). I actually don't think it's that bad, but minor delays can really add up when you tack on 1 minute per robot reboot.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Tanis

guest speakers like Dean Kamen...

Can confirm that Dean slowed down the event. He was trying to leave for well over a half hour, but of course he couldn't pass up a single autograph. He was absolutely mobbed in the pit area with well over 50 people surrounding him. I served as a "bodyguard" and did my best to hold back what felt like hundreds of crazed children in the most GP way I could manage. It was an interesting time.

[Road Rash]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Team experience at an event is about so much more than whether you played 8 or 9 official qualification matches. What you do at an event, the people you meet, and the teams you help. I would argue that if the only value your team gets out of an event comes from the number of matches you play, then you aren't getting the right things out of your events. Yes, I agree, more matches are always better. If I could give teams 12 plays at every regional event in Minnesota, I would. But I can't.

As a newcomer to FRC, I see value everywhere in the experience I saw at the Wisconsin Regional this year. I was inspired enough to become a parent mentor for next season.

YMMV