2004 Championship Eligibility Criteria!!!

[Madison]

Originally posted by David Kelly
Thanks Aidan. I'm glad there more out there other than myself that have that much passion for FIRST.

All along, I thought working and thinking relentlessly about how to improve FIRST and the experience it provides displayed passion -- not complacency in accepting the things we're given.

But, hey, what do I know?

[JVN]

Originally posted by M. Krass
All along, I thought working and thinking relentlessly about how to improve FIRST and the experience it provides displayed passion -- not complacency in accepting the things we're given.

But, hey, what do I know?

I re-read Aidan's post... and I gotta say, I missed the point where he told us to be complacent, and accept things.

What I took out of Aidan's post (and you can correct me if I'm wrong buddy ) is that everyone should be more respectful with what they post. They should be thankful for what they get.

Constructive criticism is good, but how much of what was posted here can even be called that? Not many people in this program understand what it actually takes to plan nationals. The actual numbers involved. The resources needed.

To mindlessly make grand declarations of how things should be done is silly. Think things through. Back up your emotions with logic, and reason.

Maddie -
What DO, you know?
Because... personally... I'm an ignorant college kid when it comes to this stuff. I DO NOT know the "numbers". Do you? I don't know how 13 (or however many) people manage to organize and run 20+ regionals and a national competition. Do you? Have you sat in on some of those meetings? I haven't. Every time I attend a competition I am again awed by the sheer magnitude of it. To even imply that it's as easy as an off-season competition is SILLY. I was at IRI, I was at Battlecry... I loved both events, but neither matched the awe I felt walking into the Verizon center for the NH regional last year. Standing in the booth at Battlecry wasn't anything like standing in the booth in Cleveland, in Connecticutt, in Long Island, in Toronto. These competitions are something unique. The FIRST staff puts a TON of time and effort into these competitions, and making them a success.


So, I ask...

Have you hugged a FIRST staff member today?
Heck... I bet they'd settle for a pat on the back, a "good job" and a "thank you".




It is not the criticism that bothers me.
It is the criticism without any gratitude.
Show some respect for the people who make this possible.

It is a good system.
It has some flaws.
It will work well anyways.
We will work together to improve it.

John

PS - Maybe in the future FIRST should just post a horrible system. Like "only teams 1-100 get to attend nationals. Then... when all the whining is going on... they can replace it with their actual system. Who would complain?

Things could be a LOT worse, but I don't think they can get much better... I'm happy with what we've been given.

[Madison]

John --

I think the disconnect is that I don't understand where people have drawn the conclusion that not liking the new system or parts of equates to ungratefulness toward the FIRST staff. That's certainly not how I feel at all and my feeling is that there's nobody here who's angry with the FIRST staff for this system.

Rather, we all see a system that can be improved in some way -- whether it's because it doesn't focus on what we feel is important, or because it was unclear about some procedures, or because we're not eligible to go the Championship event.

Personally, I like the new focus on awards that we've been told to consider important, but haven't been treated as such. I don't like the classist system the tiers promote, but it's about the fairest classist system I can think of. I think there are places I'd like to see it changed, but I don't ever intend for that to translate to "Dave Lavery! You screwed up, you stupid moron!" or anything like that. Similarly, Aidan's post was, to my thinking, reinforcing a classist structure -- establishing the FIRST staff as being above those of us participating here on ChiefDelphi.com and in the FIRST community. I'm forever sorry that I'm not one of the greatest minds in the country, or even close to it, but I don't appreciate the implication that I cannot suggest improvements to this system because of that. Maybe I'm egotistical, but never have I considered the minds or accomplishments of any member of the FIRST Board of Directors to be greater than anything I or anyone else in FIRST could achieve. That, always, was my inspiration. This wouldn't be the first time I've been told, directly or indirectly, that I participate in FIRST for the wrong reasons, though.

I appreciate the work FIRST does tremendously and, as you well know, I can also empathize with what it feels like to work hard at something while someone else is constantly trying to undermind your ability to do that. I know, probably better than anyone here, what it means to be ignored for accomplishments and criticized for your faults. I agree that more can and should be done to let FIRST know we appreciate their effort, but that shouldn't come at the expense of voicing our opinions of how to improve this experience for everyone.

Personally, if it's not obviously so, I express my appreciation for this program by staying involved. In my life, it'd be so much easier for me to walk away with the great friends I've made and the amazing things I've learned, but since I do appreciate the opportunities FIRST has given me and thousands of others, I stick around and work my behind off on their behalf.

Y'know, we all do. At least, I thought we did. I thought we were all showing our appreciation by being involved and working with them to spread this great message -- not for them.

Edit: Also, as an unrelated note -- a lot of this thread and the discussion in it centered around confusion about the tier system and how it relates to rookies and teams who've never attended the Championship. I don't think it's a stretch to legitimately say that, as in the past, FIRST has a difficult time with technical writing. Improvement there could lead to less confusion elsewhere.

Edited again: I also wanted to mention that, since it may not be clear, I have very few objections to Aidan's post beyond what I mentioned above. Rather, the subsequent implication that, as people who challenge things, we do not have a passion for FIRST. That's nonsense.

[indieFan]

I have been following this thread from day one and continue to grow more and more frustrated and disturbed by what I am reading. I have responded here in what I hope is a coherent manner.

Many people are complaining that they have been "screwed" out of going to the Championships, esp. if they were an even numbered rookie team last year. Additionally, many of these complaints come from the people that are coaches or mentors. To these adults, I ask: What are you teaching the students you work with using what I see as a "Little League" parental attitude?

To the students that have been complaining that they will never go to the Championships, I have this bit of advice: Become a mentor after you graduate from high school. Not only will you have more of an opportunity to attend the Championships, but you will be giving something back to the program that gave you so much.

I do not view the Championships as the "ultimate" experience. After all, it was not the Championships that got me involved in FIRST, nor has it kept me in FIRST. It was an email from a college professor that I have saved over the years saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "I am getting involved in a high school robotics program. If you are interested, come on down." Out of the 50 or so students that email went out to, I was the only person that responded. That was 4 years ago when I was in my first year back in college. From that email, and my subsequent involvement in the FIRST program, I have gotten the following from the program:

1) An amazing mentor who
-a) lets me know of opportunities like the Undergraduate Research Program
-b) has me working on a CNC
-c) has let me spread my "wings" and come up with solutions to various design problems
2) The opportunity to quickly realize that the degree I was thinking of getting would not make me happy
3) The chance to realize that persistence can be a good thing
4) The chance to work and influence the next generation
5) The chance to work on dealing with a variety of individuals and/or situations
6) The opportunity for hands-on learning to make me a better engineer in the future years before a class in Senior Design
7) Some hope for the future of society

I currently work with two teams (since the rookie season of each). One is going to be a 4th year team and is odd numbered. The other is going into its second year and is even numbered. Neither team will collapse if it does not get to go to the Championships.

The goal for each team differs, but they are not attained by attending the Championships. For my second year team, there were six Saturdays that were used for designing and building, along with the weekend at the SoCal Regional this past year. My goal at the regional went from one of doing well at the beginning of the weekend to one of "I want one good round where the robot can be controlled by the students." We had problems with the programming, and after putting weight onto the robot, we had problems with turning. In our 5th round, we finally managed to move, and I was elated despite the fact that we weren't turning. The next day, we were able to modify the robot so that the students could control it the way they wanted to, thus acheiving my overall goal of "one good round". The students were excited to see all of their hard work over those six Saturdays and one weekend finally come together. This, to me, was what the FIRST program is all about. How, I ask you, would the Championships have changed/enhanced this? The answer is that it wouldn't have. Did that rookie team disband? No. Will that team say "we should disband since we can't go to the Championships this year?" No.

For the veteran team, the goal each year is to have a working robot in the box at ship time. Are we always 100% functional? No. Do we always manage to have a robot that can drive and do at least one task? Yes. Did the Championships change this when we attended last year and in 2001? Not to my knowledge. We accomplished the various designs that we set out for ourselves each year, or we reevaluated what we were trying to accomplish and made the necessary adjustments at the regional level.

I am asking that everyone look at what it is exactly that you expect you or your students to get out of this program. I have a feeling that many of you will find that you can achieve the same goals by attending one regional, let alone two, if you can step back just a little bit.

Thank you FIRST for the extracurricular education you have provided me with.

indieFan
Coach 599
Asst. Coach 1070

[T967]

Like the new system. Now you gotta work harder to get to nationals on a consistant basis.

[Andy Baker]

Originally posted by Bob Steele
With the new post by FIRST those of us who were 1st year teams last year are officially screwed. We have been put in the same category as the teams that went to Nationals last year...

"Tier 1 Last attended Championship in 2003, or
never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003"

Therefore (...) "These slots will be based on the number of years since a team last attended the Championship. " is false.

Teams attending last year (hence 0 years since last attending) and Rookie teams from 2003 who DID NOT go to Nationals.. (1 years since last attending) are treated exactly the same...

I totally agree with Bob. Rookies seem to be getting penalized if they did not attend a Championship in their rookie year.

Hopefully, this is a clerical mistake by FIRST. I started a thread here to give some constructive criticism.

Andy B.

[Jeremy_Mc]

Originally posted by indieFan
Many people are complaining that they have been "screwed" out of going to the Championships, esp. if they were an even numbered rookie team last year.

I think you're missing the point of our argument.

It's not that we're getting "screwed" out of a chance to go, it's that we're being placed in a much lower tier than people who have never gone otherwise. These other teams had a prequalified chance to go and for whatever the reason didn't. I/We don't understand why we're being placed MUCH lower than these teams that have had ample chance to go before and have opted not to.

It's not that we want to tear the system apart nor do we think it's a bad one. We have one qualm with one quirk in the system.

Simple enough.

Originally posted by indieFan
For the veteran team, the goal each year is to have a working robot in the box at ship time. Are we always 100% functional? No. Do we always manage to have a robot that can drive and do at least one task? Yes. Did the Championships change this when we attended last year and in 2001? Not to my knowledge. We accomplished the various designs that we set out for ourselves each year, or we reevaluated what we were trying to accomplish and made the necessary adjustments at the regional level.

But can you honestly say that after attending Nationals, you weren't twice as driven to go back? I think that a `taste` of the Nat's is something important to give rookie teams. I realize this is pretty much an idealistic wish and will probably never be realized.

If they WERE given this chance, perhaps they shouldn't compete in the main divisions. I believe the suggestion of creating a rookie division at nationals is a good one. Then again, I think that suggestion is a bit unfair to the FIRST staff and honestly a bit unrealistic, but I also believe that placing rookies below Tier 1 is a bit unfair to the rookie teams.

Anyone who is giving backlash to `complainers`, please don't make them seem ungrateful, spiteful, evil, or stupid. Most of the people objecting to the system have had a much more expansive argument than "THE NEW SYSTEM SUX0rZZz. IM GOING TO QUIT." or "WE GOT SKREWED MAN" and have made some intelligent points that need to be addressed.

I must agree with M. Krass that this classistic system is does not fall into my favor, but it is fair to a point.

[Aidan F. Browne]

[A little wordy again - sorry - if you want to jump to the gist of this post, skip to the bold text]
I am concerned that I did not get the point across that I intended to in by previous, wordy post. I'm also concerned that some felt I was addressing all posters to the thread -- my bad for not being more specific. I'm am confused though -- I went back and read my post and am not sure exactly where folks are pickup up any of the following:

"People need to forget that FIRST isn't this 'holyer than thou' organization that we can't touch."

"All along, I thought working and thinking relentlessly about how to improve FIRST and the experience it provides displayed passion -- not complacency in accepting the things we're given."

"I think the disconnect is that I don't understand where people have drawn the conclusion that not liking the new system or parts of equates to ungratefulness toward the FIRST staff."

I did say "I have no problem with people discussing their opinions. I have no problem with people making suggestions. I cringe when I hear a bunch of unappreciative whiners telling FIRST what they should do."

I absolutely support open discussion. I have never been a believer in complacency. I have always been a proactive problem solver. I do believe there is lots of room for improvement in a variety of aspects of this or any other organization. I do believe that FIRST wants us to help them improve the organization.

The message I was trying to send (and I'm afraid might not have gotten through) was this:

There is a time and place for constructive criticism. Reactionary criticism (even if it is meant as constructive) is rarely taken that way. Over the past couple of years, this is growing to be a larger and larger problem. I can tell you for a fact [do not ask me to justify it - you just have to trust me here], that there is a feeling among the FIRST staff that they cannot make a move without being flooded by complaints and criticism. That in itself is bad. None of us mean to do that to them, but as a group, that is what we do to them. I am not saying that CD is the only source of that - they get lots of emails and phone calls too - but CD is one of the sources.

They want our input on how to make all the processes better -- they know they need our help in making it better - but they need to get that on their own schedule -- when they ask for it. Or if they don't know to ask for it -- after an appropriate amount of time. Where is their positive feedback about their decisions? Where? I rarely see it. Am I missing it? And please don't tell me that the fact we show up is enough feedback in itself.

Let me summarize this way: what is your own personal ratio of input to FIRST? that is: (criticisms and complaints) to (thanks and support) Hopefully its somewhere near 1:1; 2:1 wouldn't even be horrible. I'm afraid that the average is more like 10:1 or even 100:1.

I'll tell you this -- Woodie's ratio is more like 1:3.

[Jeremy_Mc]

Originally posted by Aidan F. Browne

I might be out of line in saying this, but what the hey...


They want our input on how to make all the processes better -- they know they need our help in making it better - but they need to get that on their own schedule -- when they ask for it. Or if they don't know to ask for it -- after an appropriate amount of time.

Perhaps I'm a little confused, but you're assuming we should hold our criticisms until an appropriate amount of time has passed?

What is an appropriate amount of time? After registration and all the slots are gone and everyone who isn't happy with the system is sitting there saying to themselves, "Man, perhaps I should've said something!"?

Please elaborate on an appropriate amount of time. When FIRST posts something to their site that is viewed by all the teams, I would think they're not hoping "maybe they won't see this major update!". I'm sure they're ready for feedback...however positive or negative it may be.

Which leads to my next point:

Originally posted by Aidan F. Browne

Where is their positive feedback about their decisions? Where? I rarely see it. Am I missing it? And please don't tell me that the fact we show up is enough feedback in itself.

I realize that CD is covered in what appears to be supremely negative feedback to FIRST, but doesn't the sheer number of people who give their input give you a feeling that FIRST is doing something right? There are ALOT of kids involved, and if each kid didn't have atleast ONCE nice thing to say to FIRST, I'm sure they would've quit by now! The same if for FIRST...I'm sure if no one EVER said anything nice to them, they'd probably cut back their activities a good bit. I'm sure what you're fishing for here is everyone suddenly taking a turn and thanking FIRST graciously for allowing them to be involved in their program...but that's not what this thread is about. They have a whole forum for that... If you'll notice, MOST people put "i think this system is [insert positive comment here], but [insert objection here]" or vice-versa. Agreed, there are a number of people who are merely complaaining about where they fall in the system, but there are also a lot of people who are offering FEEDBACK, which i'm SURE is what FIRST is looking for.

I don't mean to pick you out of all the posts, but it was the last one and I didn't feel like navigating the jungle of posts to find more references.

I really feel like I'm being too negative in this post.

So for something positive: I must say that I support this "awards emphasis" system 200 times over.

[Argoth]

Now i have stayed shut up on this thread for quite a while(which is probably a good thing),but then i read this post and saw it beutifully illustrate two points that have been the basis for many of the negitive posts. Sorry to use you as the test subject M. Krass but it had to be someone. In your second paragraph(the first paragraph below) you said "whether it's because it doesn't focus on what we feel is important" and waht you may deam important is not necessarly important to say delphi or my team. EVERYBODY who is on a team is prejudice, be it for or against their team, so any rules that anybody on a team is going to be prejudice in some way.

Originally posted by M. Krass
John --

Rather, we all see a system that can be improved in some way --
whether it's because it doesn't focus on what we feel is important, or because it was unclear about some procedures, or because we're not eligible to go the Championship event.


Edited again: I also wanted to mention that, since it may not be clear, I have very few objections to Aidan's post beyond what I mentioned above. Rather, the subsequent implication that, as people who challenge things, we do not have a passion for FIRST. That's nonsense.

On this second paragraph i just wanted to say that they never said they were the only ones passionate about FIRST because they weren't challanging it, but they were saying that they WERE passionate because many people here are just simply bashing the new system, SO I want to challange anybody and EVERYBODY that if you don't like this system, design your own scoring system and work out all the logistics of it, send it to FIRST and see it they accept it. Otherwise you have four choices.

1) You can either continue to whine without till you see it has very little effect except to piss people off, and when you see the competition won't change for a while you will have to "cowboy up" in a hurry

2)you can accept the new system for what it is.

3) You can quit(just rember no quiter ever won and no winner never quit)

AND 4) YOU can make your own robotics league so you can truly appreciate the work and if you do put a thread here so people can say what they think of it (just to let you see how it feels)

I also want to thank FIRST for the great job they have done even though i am from a rookie team i have watched the comptition for years. I will shut up again. Sorry so wordy

[Jeremy_Mc]

I was just thinking...what if a team opts not to go to nat's this year?

Do they remain in Tier x? Or are they moved to another one? Wouldn't this clog up Tier 6 after a bit?

Or maybe I just missed this in the FIRST post...

[Ricky Q.]

Then next year they are in the Tier that applies to them. If they last attened in 2003, they move to Tier 2 next year.

[Scott Duhaime]

I think they move up an tier.



I think this system is a good start for FIRST to address the growing problem of limiting teams at nationals. Nationals is "growing up" with FIRST, we it started it could be a giant party where all the teams shared their expirences with each other and it was the center for all the was FIRST. But as more and more teams joined not everyone can take part of nationals, but at the same time the regionals start to become a little of that same expirence.

Two years ago FIRST started to limit nationals with the odd/even system knowing that it was only a temporary solution. Now we sit in the next phase of the solution, I think in a few more years we will see another change. I would like to see another level of competition added between regionals and nationals ( possibily the mega-regionals) like a regional championship (regional as in Mid-west, western, eastern, southwestern, ect..) and have nationals be the ultimate competition.

To say that FIRST isn't about the robot or that competition doesn't help FIRST's mission is crazy. FIRST stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition in Science and Technology", what better way to inspire kids to do well with science and technology than to have think of a strategy and design and robot using what they have learned in science and the technology they are presented with to make the best machine possibile. I for one can tell you that I was pushed like that and even jumped ahead in my high school science class to learn anything that could help our robot design. Even the chairmans award and engineering inspiration award both are about the robots, maybe not what it did for your team but how your team used it to continue FIRST mission. That to me says that it's about the robots.

Certian parts of the new system i disagree (i.e. 10 year teams) with however I can see why FIRST may have done it and I stand behind their judgement. I can understand people being upset and ranting on and on, but there is a point where you need to stand back and look at what you have said, I am guilty of it too (after cleavland last year ) as are probably many others here.

- Scott

[Michael R. Lee]

When we found out about the original Championship qualification rules (odd/even), we balked. But that was a quick fix to the issue. A lot of us balked because well, we're not g. I was lucky enough to be on a team that automatically qualified that year and so were a few friends that I met the previous year.

And here they've come up with a solution, I say a solution. And I challenge you to come up with a solution yourself and post it here. Can you? Would you? Then you go tell FIRST what to do. Those of us in GEU110 (Engineering Design here at NU) there's this thing called the engineering design process that we're learning about. And part of it is evaluation and design analysis (not necessarily together). It may change or it may not.

I understand your guys’ complaints about not being able to go. Last year, I chose as an individual whether to go or not to go to Houston. I chose not to go cause of a whole bunch of reasons. Did I want to go, yeah? But I also had to be somewhere else at the same time. Did it bite, yes it did. But I had fun doing what I was doing so it all balanced out in the end. Yeah, I missed some of my FIRST friends who went, saw a FIRST friend who didn't go. And I'll agree with you that one of the best places to get people hooked on FIRST is the Championship Event. But how big can they possibly make it? We maxed out Disney, and they have pretty big parking lots (trust me, being from FL, I know how important that sales tax revenue from all the tourists are) and not to mention there are an extensive number of hotels on property and in the Orlando-Kissimmee Area.

But you also have to understand the magnitude and scale of putting on such an event. And putting one on at that magnitude isn't easy. Have you ever walked all around the Epcot Parking Lot, just not through the tents, watched the film showing them (of course at x time) of them setting up the tents and all? It’s a lot of work. Did you hear the guy from Disney telling us how many pounds of hotdogs, hamburgers, etc... that we all ate? To FIRST I would like to say this, it’s the same thing I said to the adult mentors I've worked with for the past four years of high school and in its essence: "THANKS FOR EVERYTHING GUYS."

And one more thing, all our concerns/complaints, they were probably brought up at the meeting when they were drafting this new criteria.

[Madison]

Before I begin, I wanted to mention (to Aidan, particularly) that I probably could've chosen what I quoted originally more carefully. Beyond what I outlined in my recent post, there's nothing about what you wrote that I disagree with. I apologize for the confusion. What I object to is going down the road that suggests that those who are silent with appreciation are, in any capacity, more passionate about FIRST.

Originally posted by Argoth
Sorry to use you as the test subject M. Krass but it had to be someone.

No need to apologize. I'm here to learn just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean I won't refute what you say.

In your second paragraph(the first paragraph below) you said "whether it's because it doesn't focus on what we feel is important" and waht you may deam important is not necessarly important to say delphi or my team.
EVERYBODY who is on a team is prejudice, be it for or against their team, so any rules that anybody on a team is going to be prejudice in some way.

That's precisely what I said. We all see methods of improving these criteria because we're each approaching them with unique ideas about FIRST and goals for its future. In context, I simply meant that everyone is approaching their criticism of these criteria from varied perspectives and that those perspectives and influences should not invalidate the subsequent criticism. Rather, it's important that we recognize the motivation behind some criticism as much as we understand that criticism -- they both speak volumes.

On this second paragraph i just wanted to say that they never said they were the only ones passionate about FIRST because they weren't challanging it, but they were saying that they WERE passionate because many people here are just simply bashing the new system

I don't see anyone bashing this system. I see people expressing their opinion of the criteria and displaying some of the motivations that helped form those opinions. Even if someone can't eloquently illustrate their discontent, sometimes knowing that they're discontent is enough to effect change.

The comment I quoted was dismissive and silencing of those who have voiced their frustration or concern about these new rules. If you've read some more of what I've written in other parts of this site -- such as in this week's Question of the Week -- you'll see that I feel very strongly about being respectful of and appreciating the many different reasons that people have for participating in FIRST. Any statement that suggests some ideal philosophy over any other is, in my opinion, a disservice to this community and to FIRST.

1) You can either continue to whine without till you see it has very little effect except to piss people off, and when you see the competition won't change for a while you will have to "cowboy up" in a hurry

You're new to FIRST, reasonably, so I can understand why you might feel that way -- as it is indicative of the sort of behavior you'd expect in any other organization. The reality is that FIRST does listen in some capacity and that they have done many things at the suggestion of participants. If they didn't, I wouldn't participate.

AND 4) YOU can make your own robotics league so you can truly appreciate the work and if you do put a thread here so people can say what they think of it (just to let you see how it feels)

I've been involved with FIRST in varying capacities since I began in 1999. I have been a small cog in the machine that makes FIRST people and it's difficult, thankless work. I know that what I've done is only a fraction of what's going on across the country, but I do appreciate the work that these people do for FIRST. Honestly, I've experienced far worse criticism than this and, really, it wouldn't bother me in the least. You can look at it two ways, I think;

1. - People are unappreciative and don't really care what you do for them.

2. - People are so passionate about what you've done that they want to do everything they possibly can do to make it the best it's ever been.

There are two sides to every coin.