What would you do to improve the FIRST experience?

[George A.]

I would like to see a process to prevent district teams from competing in full regionals, as well as a system that allows cross district competition to count towards district standings.

My one gripe is that a team competing in a district can travel to a regional and win an award there and qualify for Championships. I'm not here to argue the merits for and against it, but it always left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth that a team A) can pay the same amount as tam B) and gets different competition because of where they are located.

Team A plays in a district event and as a result would get 2 district events (minimum of 12 Quals each) AND can go to a regional event.

Team B would get 2 regional events.

My issue is that Team A can make the semi finals at their districts, and win an award at each which is enough to qualify for District Championships where they then get another opportunity to qualify for the Championship. However, if Team B literally does the exact same thing then their season is over unless they miraculously get off the wait list.

But on top of that Team A can then go to a regional outside their district format and win a qualifying award to go to St. Louis. So either make is so that any team can compete anywhere, or that districts stay districts and regionals stay regionals.

To counteract the "teams like to play with teams from other areas" argument, I would allow districts to count for your standings no matter where you play. If a MAR team wants to compete in Michigan, or a PNW team wants to fly out to NE why shouldn't they?

At this point why not standardize the points gained from each district and allow them to collect the points towards their district standings? Have the first 2 districts count towards your standings at your "home championship" because everyone would be playing the same 2 events, and the same games.

[Taylor]

To improve the FIRST experience, I would improve the spectator (layperson) experience. Set up many displays all over the premises explaining the program, explaining the game, explaining the tournament structure. I would make "you are here" maps throughout the facility, highlighting key areas of interest (field(s), pits, restrooms, concessions, vendor/sponsor booths, etc).
As it was last year, the Championship event was not welcoming to the family-who-saw-it-on-a-bus-and-stopped-in crowd. At all.

[FarmerJohn]

FIRST needs to stop being so arrogant/selfish and admit that IFI has better lower and middle level robotics competitions, and an overall better competition structure. FRC tops all, but VRC is better than FTC in every way possible, and VIQ gives teams more out of their season than FLL does. And they both cost a whole lot less. If FIRST really cared about inspiring students they'd either try their best to actually make these lower and middle level competitions better or just tell students to do VIQ and VRC. If you're promoting an educational program whose alternative is better in every way, you're not in it for the students, you're in it for yourself.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

FIRST needs to stop being so arrogant/selfish and admit that IFI has better lower and middle level robotics competitions, and an overall better competition structure. FRC tops all, but VRC is better than FTC in every way possible, and VIQ gives teams more out of their season than FLL does. And they both cost a whole lot less. If FIRST really cared about inspiring students they'd either try their best to actually make these lower and middle level competitions better or just tell students to do VIQ and VRC. If you're promoting an educational program whose alternative is better in every way, you're not in it for the students, you're in it for yourself.

Could you elaborate a little bit about why you believe VRC is "better in every way" than FLL and FTC programs?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

FIRST needs to stop being so arrogant/selfish and admit that IFI has better lower and middle level robotics competitions, and an overall better competition structure. FRC tops all, but VRC is better than FTC in every way possible, and VIQ gives teams more out of their season than FLL does. And they both cost a whole lot less. If FIRST really cared about inspiring students they'd either try their best to actually make these lower and middle level competitions better or just tell students to do VIQ and VRC. If you're promoting an educational program whose alternative is better in every way, you're not in it for the students, you're in it for yourself.

Agreed. Having mentored both FLL and Vex IQ for the first time this year, I like Vex IQ a whole lot more than FLL. I like the field better(and that you can pack it in a box) and the fact that the game isn't just a mess of a bunch of random tasks. Having the students focus on one or two tasks and do them the best they can is more similar to Vex, FTC, and FRC style games. I also like how in qualifying matches, it's team based on not just solo play. I can't comment on Vex vs FTC as I've never done either.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog

Could you elaborate a little bit about why you believe VRC is "better in every way" than FLL and FTC programs?

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Agreed. Having mentored both FLL and Vex IQ for the first time this year, I like Vex IQ a whole lot more than FLL. I like the field better(and that you can pack it in a box) and the fact that the game isn't just a mess of a bunch of random tasks. Having the students focus on one or two tasks and do them the best they can is more similar to Vex, FTC, and FRC style games. I also like how in qualifying matches, it's team based on not just solo play. I can't comment on Vex vs FTC as I've never done either.

I could write a book about why VIQ/VRC are superior to FLL/FTC. Alongside the reasons listed above, teams get to compete more for less money. If we make the assumption that time involved in the program is related to inspiration (a very safe assumption, since FIRST is always promoting spending more and more time in their programs), VIQ and VRC provide more inspiration per dollar due to the greater amount of time invested into the program by the students through increased match count and number of competitions and the decreased cost of competing. Then you get to the quality of competitions. In the VEX programs, the focus of the competition is the experience of the teams and students, and they spare no expense when it comes to making things easy and accessible to teams. FLL/FTC, on the other hand, are a little less team focused. It seems that FLL/FTC care more about the quantity of teams competing ($) than the quality of each team's experience. Then you can look at the games. FLL is a mess of missions that relies on perfect programming (or perfect parents) to succeed. All age groups compete together so the younger students rarely come out on top of the older ones. VIQ, on the other hand, is less software intensive, which not only makes it more accessible to younger students, but also makes it more difficult for someone other than students to do a majority of the work. Elementary and middle schoolers are separated so that nobody is competing against someone with years of experience that they do not have. The games are simpler and involve more practice and iteration and less lining up in base carefully. FTC games are, as I've experienced, unorganized and imbalanced, and it doesn't seem like the game design committee has ever competed in an a enjoyable game before. VRC games are straightforward, easy to explain, and easy to watch, plus they're designed by a group of people who know competitive robotics inside and out. VRC is also separate by age groups so that high schoolers and middle schoolers don't compete together. I'm sure other people have examples as well, but these are my experiences.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

I could write a book about why VIQ/VRC are superior to FLL/FTC. Alongside the reasons listed above, teams get to compete more for less money. If we make the assumption that time involved in the program is related to inspiration (a very safe assumption, since FIRST is always promoting spending more and more time in their programs), VIQ and VRC provide more inspiration per dollar due to the greater amount of time invested into the program by the students through increased match count and number of competitions and the decreased cost of competing. Then you get to the quality of competitions. In the VEX programs, the focus of the competition is the experience of the teams and students, and they spare no expense when it comes to making things easy and accessible to teams. FLL/FTC, on the other hand, are a little less team focused. It seems that FLL/FTC care more about the quantity of teams competing ($) than the quality of each team's experience. Then you can look at the games. FLL is a mess of missions that relies on perfect programming (or perfect parents) to succeed. All age groups compete together so the younger students rarely come out on top of the older ones. VIQ, on the other hand, is less software intensive, which not only makes it more accessible to younger students, but also makes it more difficult for someone other than students to do a majority of the work. Elementary and middle schoolers are separated so that nobody is competing against someone with years of experience that they do not have. The games are simpler and involve more practice and iteration and less lining up in base carefully. FTC games are, as I've experienced, unorganized and imbalanced, and it doesn't seem like the game design committee has ever competed in an a enjoyable game before. VRC games are straightforward, easy to explain, and easy to watch, plus they're designed by a group of people who know competitive robotics inside and out. VRC is also separate by age groups so that high schoolers and middle schoolers don't compete together. I'm sure other people have examples as well, but these are my experiences.

It seems most of your areas of concern center around the competition aspects. How would you compare the non-competition aspects of the programs? The Core Values and research projects are a central aspect of FIRST Lego League, and you are seemingly not considering them here.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

FIRST needs to stop being so arrogant/selfish and admit that IFI has better lower and middle level robotics competitions, and an overall better competition structure. FRC tops all, but VRC is better than FTC in every way possible, and VIQ gives teams more out of their season than FLL does. And they both cost a whole lot less. If FIRST really cared about inspiring students they'd either try their best to actually make these lower and middle level competitions better or just tell students to do VIQ and VRC. If you're promoting an educational program whose alternative is better in every way, you're not in it for the students, you're in it for yourself.

I am a huge fan of the V** programs, but FTC does have at least one significant, positive difference from VRC, and there are other more debatable differences.

If you want to design and create custom parts, FTC offers far more opportunities. Designing and creating more custom parts doesn't equal more inspiration (at least not in my book); but it can equal more fun. It can also equal less fun, and/or a barrier to entry. YMMV

My bottom line: Let's not ascribe malice to either program, or attempt to kick either to the curb. Both encourage students to stick their toes into STEM waters at low-ish cost, and with low-ish mentoring requirements. If both tripled in size, they/we still would only be nibbling at satisfying the total North American (not to mention the rest of the world) needs.

Tell students, adults, and sponsors about both and let them pick the one that is right for them. Don't attempt to make the choice for them, graciously and professionally let them choose the one that best suits their circumstances.

Blake

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Taylor

As it was last year, the Championship event was not welcoming to the family-who-saw-it-on-a-bus-and-stopped-in crowd. At all.

Oh man, don't even get me started on the whole name badge fiasco last year. Is that a thing this year still? Because I really hope it isn't. What a waste of time.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

Oh man, don't even get me started on the whole name badge fiasco last year. Is that a thing this year still? Because I really hope it isn't. What a waste of time.

My family and I went as spectators on Saturday last year. Me, two boys, very pregnant wife. We had not registered - we didn't know we were supposed to as non-participants. They literally did not know how to handle us. We almost just up and left.

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by George A.

My one gripe is that a team competing in a district can travel to a regional and win an award there and qualify for Championships. I'm not here to argue the merits for and against it, but it always left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth that a team A) can pay the same amount as tam B) and gets different competition because of where they are located.

This is definitely an area where teams in a District system have an unfair advantage. I agree that keeping District teams from competing at a Regional would mitigate this, but I'm curious if there's a middle ground somewhere.

• How would your opinion change if District teams competing at a Regional were not eligible for the three qualifying awards (Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All-Star)?
• What if a District team on a Regional-winning alliance generated a Wild Card Slot? In the current system, they are essentially taking up two Championship slots, one from the Regional and one from their home District's allocation. It seems like a Wild Card would be a reasonable way of awarding one of those slots to another deserving team at the Regional.

[George A.]

Originally Posted by Jake177

This is definitely an area where teams in a District system have an unfair advantage. I agree that keeping District teams from competing at a Regional would mitigate this, but I'm curious if there's a middle ground somewhere.

• How would your opinion change if District teams competing at a Regional were not eligible for the three qualifying awards (Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All-Star)?
• What if a District team on a Regional-winning alliance generated a Wild Card Slot? In the current system, they are essentially taking up two Championship slots, one from the Regional and one from their home District's allocation. It seems like a Wild Card would be a reasonable way of awarding one of those slots to another deserving team at the Regional.

I actually feel like that's an amazing middle ground and one that wouldn't be too entirely hard to implement.

I realize that it is in the rules now that a team competing in a district can go to a regional after they have picked their first two plays (which I suppose is an unfair advantage as they have to wait until window 3 and see which regionals still have openings), but at the end of the day for the same $9000 they get 3 plays with exponential more opportunities to qualify for Championships over a non-district team which only gets 2 plays and only has a small handful of ways to the championships.

Having them ineligible for the "Big-3" (CA, EI, RAS) would mitigate this a bit and give more chances for local teams, and if a district team would allow for a non-district team to take their spot to Championships I think it would be a big step in the right direction.

[jweston]

Originally Posted by Jake177

This is definitely an area where teams in a District system have an unfair advantage. I agree that keeping District teams from competing at a Regional would mitigate this, but I'm curious if there's a middle ground somewhere.

• How would your opinion change if District teams competing at a Regional were not eligible for the three qualifying awards (Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All-Star)?
• What if a District team on a Regional-winning alliance generated a Wild Card Slot? In the current system, they are essentially taking up two Championship slots, one from the Regional and one from their home District's allocation. It seems like a Wild Card would be a reasonable way of awarding one of those slots to another deserving team at the Regional.

Definitely like the idea of making district teams ineligible for qualifying awards at regional events. The wild card slot feels a bit weird, but maybe if there was no reward except recognition (i.e. no World qualification) to tempt district teams to compete at a regional, maybe a district team regional win would be less likely to happen. Hard to say.

I see regionals as the equivelant of a district championship for geographical areas that don't have enough FRC concentration (yet) to make a district model work. Teams in regional areas have no opportunity to get into a district championship. It doesn't seem right to have district teams take advantage. District teams have a lot more opportunity to gain extra experience and unbag time at district events over regional teams. Plus district teams potentially have another opportunity at their own district championship.

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by jweston

The wild card slot feels a bit weird, but maybe if there was no reward except recognition (i.e. no World qualification) to tempt district teams to compete at a regional, maybe a district team regional win would be less likely to happen. Hard to say.

I wasn't trying to suggest that a District team on a Regional-winning alliance should not qualify for a Championship slot. I don't think that would be fair. They would receive a slot from their home District's total allocation, as they currently do, and the slot they earned from the Regional would become a Wild Card instead of essentially going unused.