What would you do to improve the FIRST experience?

[Tim Sharp]

Originally Posted by nickbrickmaster

What would you do to improve the FIRST experience?

I know this has been discussed many times, and I don't have a solution, but if I had a magic wand I would find a way to lower the financial and logistical barriers to entry. The district system is a move in the right direction and the problem will probably become more manageable as FIRST continues to grow, but we spend a LOT of time raising funds for travel and logistics that could be better spent on team development and outreach.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

For anyone wondering, you can find out about the current scheduling algorithm here. You can also download it and try to create schedules for yourself.

Interesting, I never realized this information was available.

For the Citrus Dad, if you notice the Algorithm rtfdnow linked to is from 2008. 2007 attempted to sort teams so the best teams would play against each other, rather than only with each other. They essentially proke the teams into 3 tiers by team age (team number) and each alliance was made up of one team per tier. Since Average team performance tends to be higher in older teams, this lead to high performing, young teams seeding well ahead of older teams with similar performing robots. This was widely seen as a disaster by just about everyone.

If memory serves FIRST actually solicited algorithm suggestions during/after the 2007 season.

If you have a good solution to the issue then write it up, and submit it to first. I am sure they would be willing to listen.

I don't think anyone thinks the algorithm is perfect, but the luck of match schedules is part of the game.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

I'd like to start with a disclaimer that this is a personal opinion based on my experiences.

Move all of FLL to elementary school, and FTC to middle school. We've had a lot of success with this in Michigan and I think it creates a really smooth pipeline for students to flow from one program to the next as they age. A clear progression keeps students engaged with age appropriate challenges and results in high school freshman that are ready to hit the ground running when it comes to FRC.

Pair this with lowering the barrier to entry/cost of FRC through district systems as regions/states reach critical mass of team density and you have a great progression of programs.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Zagar

I have to agree with the ability to have more teams work together in the build season.

This was my first season with FRC, and Metal Muscle 1506 is incredibly fortunate to have the FIRST Center at Kettering which we now share with 7 other teams. All of the teams located in the FIRST Center learned from each other, worked together and were able to lend a helping hand whenever needed.

I know building such a facility is no small endeavor, but it would be incredible if FIRST were able to have more of these facilities around the country and the world. I know they are building another one soon in Grand Rapids, but wouldn't it be great to have more of them scattered around? Even teams that are not part of the Center could come in and practice on the field, talk about the robots, awards, designs and collaborate on everything FIRST.

+1^

This idea is a much better application of major sponsor funding, contrasted with another round of unsustainable rookie grants.* Kettering's program is an example that other tech universities and corporate consortia should emulate.
-----------

*Which go straight to HQ, funding neither team development nor local event improvement.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Reduce the registration fee for returning teams. Lower the entry bar to FRC so teams can have a little more cash to buy the stuff they really need.

Eliminate or restructure bag & tag so that all teams have out of bag work time between their events. The only teams that stop working after bag & tag are usually the ones that can't afford to build a second machine.

Emphasize the team experience from the top down. Without the teams there is no FIRST, but sometimes it feels like the teams are secondary to the organization overall.

[JamesCH95]

FIRST should hold events at locations where teams are not captive to the (generally very terrible) concessions. Sports arena food might be survivable for a 2-4 hour event, but it is terrible to hold teams hostage for 1-2 meals per day for 3-4 days. I am sick of feeling captive to venues that are looking to make money off of selling me and my team awful food at an insane price.

I guess some people think that it is more inspiring to hold events at venues that are more glamorous than HS gyms... but I'm not so sure the sacrifice to our health and wallets is worth it.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

For anyone wondering, you can find out about the current scheduling algorithm here. You can also download it and try to create schedules for yourself.

One thing to note about this season that is different than the previous seasons is that the FTA needs to get permission from FIRST HQ to run the scheduling a second time. In the past it was not unheard of to re run it if for example the LRI knew that it was likely that a team would not be through inspection in time to play in match 1 or 2. So the FTAs in our area would consult with the LRI before they ran the schedule and then generate another schedule if they felt it was a good idea.

I do think something seems to be broken with regards to the smaller event sizes used in districts. For example on my team at the first event we attended we played against one team 3 times at a 40 team event. Of course our luck was such that the team in question was a known powerhouse and ended up being the #1 seed. We did not play with them a single match. With a 40 team event and 12 matches there really shouldn't be a case where teams face each other 3 times and do not face off against other teams at least once.

So I do think that a recheck of the parameters used for the software to determine what an acceptable schedule is should be reexamined.

[jweston]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

FIRST should hold events at locations where teams are not captive to the (generally very terrible) concessions. Sports arena food might be survivable for a 2-4 hour event, but it is terrible to hold teams hostage for 1-2 meals per day for 3-4 days. I am sick of feeling captive to venues that are looking to make money off of selling me and my team awful food at an insane price.

I guess some people think that it is more inspiring to hold events at venues that are more glamorous than HS gyms... but I'm not so sure the sacrifice to our health and wallets is worth it.

I have to agree with this. While I appreciate the efforts of FIRST to provide accommodations, the food concessions, particularly at large events, is one area that has been problematic. The food is often very expensive and hard on us older folks and students with medical conditions. Also the logistics for delivering food and seating haven't historically worked well for us.

In many cases, exclusive concessions is a stipulation of the hosting arena. That creates a difficult choice. Sorry. I don't have answers to that. But the delivery logistics and seating could be handled better at large events.

[techhelpbb]

I'd love to see metrics on the purchasing habits from the large FIRST vendors.
My recent foray into making gears for Vex gearboxes leads me to wonder what teams without resources and tools are to do when they can't get the COTS parts they need.

I think we should do away with bag & tag at the least. I agree with others it's driving cost and because we can build other robots I don't think it's stopping people from evolving their design after the bag.

There's a host of technical issues I'd love to see solved but the best thing I'd like to see is a more critical focus on common issues. For example there are a substantial number of forum posts on video co-processing and it often drives misinformation because all of that is free form. I'm not convinced, for example, that if next year's field is more flat that we will see accumulated work from this year and with this much testing you'd like to see some lessons learned narrowed down.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Lower the cost of FRC events and increase access (Districts is one solution)
FLL increase access to more events, 1 QT is not enough

Amen!

Jim Zondag points out that although FRC has scaled up, the registration price has not scaled down. This is a shame. Lower registration would help a lot to keep FRC growing.

Regarding your second point, NorCal does not have QT slots for all the registered teams in our region. Last year, we had nearly 20% more teams than available QT slots. Eight of our FLL teams didn't get in to a QT. Apparently, it is fairly common for a region to have more teams than QT spots, at least according to FIRST HQ.

We're switching the 24 FLL teams we started in the past two years to VexIQ because it is cheaper for our teams and easier to host an event, among other things.

-Mike

[Michael Corsetto]

I'd like to see more FRC sponsor money go towards FRC Teams and STEM initiatives, and less money go towards ShowReadyProductions and Venue Fees.

I think re-allocating hundreds of thousands of dollars of sponsor money could make the FIRST experience better for many struggling and disenfranchised teams.

-Mike

[Conor Ryan]

I think every robot on the field should play in every match for the full match.

I wish there was a way to help teams in queue for a match guarantee they will be able to connect to the field and operate appropriately. Too many times do teams have operational issues due to something that was entirely preventable.

I bet you cycle times would go up too!

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

I think every robot on the field should play in every match for the full match.

I wish there was a way to help teams in queue for a match guarantee they will be able to connect to the field and operate appropriately. Too many times do teams have operational issues due to something that was entirely preventable.

I bet you cycle times would go up too!

Too bad the test fields are not real fields.
In the sense their equipment is a fraction of the real field control equipment.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I'd like to see more FRC sponsor money go towards FRC Teams and STEM initiatives, and less money go towards ShowReadyProductions and Venue Fees.

Big shows in big venues were an important step toward making FIRST loud enough to be heard, back in the day when new Regionals were filling in the gaps on the map. Now the gaps are smaller.

Today, investment in building team competitiveness pays off more. Look at Robo Zone. Nearly all their remote footage is shot in high school gyms. Michigan's big show is just the last of 22 events this year. More competitive teams create more engaging shows. TV can bring new people into this tent, and that will grow the tent, faster than spending more money on the tent itself.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Big shows in big venues were an important step toward making FIRST loud enough to be heard, back in the day when new Regionals were filling in the gaps on the map. Now the gaps are smaller.

Today, investment in building team competitiveness pays off more. Look at Robo Zone. Nearly all their remote footage is shot in high school gyms. Michigan's big show is just the last of 22 events this year. More competitive teams create more engaging shows. TV can bring new people into this tent, and that will grow the tent, faster than spending more money on the tent itself.

Richard,

Totally agree, it was a necessary FIRST step (ah, get it?)

The district model has shown that we don't need to spend so much money anymore to host effective events.

Even if some areas take many more years to transition to districts (looking at you, CA and MN), I hope we can collectively continue to ditch the large venues and expensive union labor fees at Regional events. This will allow regional RPC's to redirect local sponsor money back to teams that need it to stay alive or grow to a new level.

-Mike