Hey FIRST - We're going to need a lot more regionals!

[dlavery]

You guys have it all backward.

Mega-regionals are NOT the wave of the future. As it is, the existing regional competitions are:
- very expensive for corporations to sponsor,
- very expensive for the teams to attend,
- very difficult for the FIRST staff to organize,
- very difficult to find appropriate venues,
- almost impossible to staff with judges,
- almost impossible to staff with volunteers,
- require a major (and not yet sufficient) effort to get everyone trained,
- generate big headaches when arranging the production and top-level quality of the event, and
- require significant increases in the distributed FIRST staff of Regional Coordinators to manage.

Why in the world would anyone support something that takes each of these traits, and exacerbates them? Mega-regionals are not the way to go, and should not happen. Things need to move the other direction - toward "Mini-regionals" (aka "district competitions")!

Mini-Regionals are:
- limited to no more than 20 teams
- cost-capped at a maximum of $500 per team to attend
- designed to physically fit in a high-school gym/basketball court (including play field, pits, and audience)
- organized and produced entirely by a local committee
- require no participation by FIRST Manchester staff
- have a limited award structure, so no more than five (5) judges are needed
- audio-only (i.e. require only audio amplification),
- do not have large-screen projection video systems,
- without a formal "team social" event, unless one is organized by the teams
- designed to be set up in one day or less, and
- distributed all around the country - not just in a few locations that require expensive travel arrangements.

In other words, these are relatively small, simple, low-cost events that are easier and cheaper to produce and attend. Think of them as similar to many of the off-season competitions staged by teams, but incorporated as part of the formal competition structure supported by FIRST. Accordingly, many more of them can be conducted during a competition season. On any given weekend, there could be one or two DOZEN Mini-Regionals going on, instead of just two or three regional competitions.

If done in sufficient numbers, there could be a Mini-Regional competition within one or two hours drive for every team in the country. The competition schedule would be arranged so that a team must attend a Mini-Regional before attending a Regional competition. Almost every team could have the option of attending multiple Mini-Regionals at a total cost that is only a fraction of the cost to register for a single Regional Competition. The Mini-Regionals might not have the flash and polish of the Regional Competitions, but that it compensated for by the fact that teams can afford to do multiple Mini-Regionals. The competition, and the competitiveness, are the same. And I might dare say that the ambiance of these smaller, more intimate events could bring us back to the infectious spirit of cooperative competitiveness that perfused the early days of FIRST (and which many feel is somewhat diminished in many of the current events).

This whole thread started with an incorrect assumption about the need to win at a regional to get to the Championships, and a derived need for more events to allow more "winners." While the logic is wrong, the conclusion - there should be more competition events - is correct. But this must be combined with the oft-heard refrain from the teams and sponsors that "the competitions are too expensive!" Put these two together, and you end up with just one result. We have to make more INEXPENSIVE events available. Mini-Regionals are the way to go; Mega-Regionals are monolithic money-pits that we and FIRST cannot afford.

-dave

[Erin Rapacki]

I understand your point Dave, many people mistook my thread over the summer:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...nd+for+FIRS t

although I wrote it with the exact intent you are presenting now... it's rarely the solution that's incorrect, it's the problem.

[Raul]

Originally posted by dlavery
You guys have it all backward.

This whole thread started with an incorrect assumption about the need to win at a regional to get to the Championships, and a derived need for more events to allow more "winners." While the logic is wrong, the conclusion - there should be more competition events - is correct. But this must be combined with the oft-heard refrain from the teams and sponsors that "the competitions are too expensive!" Put these two together, and you end up with just one result. We have to make more INEXPENSIVE events available. Mini-Regionals are the way to go; Mega-Regionals are monolithic money-pits that we and FIRST cannot afford.

-dave

Dave,
I can see where you could get the impression that I was saying that we need more regionals in order to get more winners into the Championship. But that was not my intent. I was trying to point out that given the rules FIRST has now, it encourages teams to go to as many regionals as possible to increase their chances of winning and getting in.

Anyway, I agree with your solution, which may also help make my prediction wrong about "How big FIRST will ever get".

Can you elaborate on your vision for these mini-regionals and their relationship to the regular regionals? Do you need to do well in the mini regionals in order to get into the regular ones? Or would they just be practice-like in preparation for the only regular regional you are allowed to attend?

Raul

[ChrisH]

Dave,

Thanks for saying what I've been thinking for a couple of years. Even if I had said it, nobody would have listened anyway, from somebody of your stature in the FIRST community maybe they will.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics has used a similar structure for many years. AMA Contests are run by Contest Directors who have to demonstrate competence and familiarity with the rules of the contest they are running. All the rest of the organizing is done at the local level by local clubs. The Contest Directors get one minor consideration in return for their efforts, they get half off on next year's AMA dues (currently $56). They are vastly underpaid.

So how well does this work? Here in the greater LA area there are currently 6 major fields that can support a model soaring competition. Entry fees are modest, around $10. Yet expenses are even lower and there is a soaring contest at one field or another just about every weekend. That is just the "sanctioned" events with official CDs. Just about all the local clubs also have unsanctioned events they don't even bother to publish outside the club newsletter. I use model soaring because that is the community I am personally familiar with, but there are all kinds of other disciplines within model aviation that have a similar structure.

There are also other sports like cycling that do much the same thing. USCF (United States Cycling Federation) clubs MUST sponsor at least one race a year or loose their status with the national organization. Here in Southern California there is at least one race every weekend from May to October.

Rarely does anyone from either national organization attend one of these local events.

By reducing the cost and de-emphasizing official FIRST participation, by going to more of an "off-season" type structure, we can dramatically increase the number of teams that participate and therefore our chances of achieving our real goal ... transforming the culture.

Personally, I'd rather have a five or six competition season (maybe with an "everyone drives rule" a la AYSO) for nearly the same cost of one competition now. If most teams were willing to host a small competition in their local area this could easily be done in places where there is a fairly large concentration of teams.

Finally, I don't know about you, but after seven years on a team, I am rather fundraised-out. I'd rather just write a check for the cost of my son's participation. But I realize that for many deserving youth this just isn't possible. This is especially true in the communities where FIRST is most needed. I have also been involved in trying to recruit new rookie teams. The current cost is a major obstacle. Just the numbers are enough to scare many science and math teachers away. If I wasn't personally convinced of the worth of the program I wouldn't bother myself.

[KevinB]

Originally posted by dlavery
You guys have it all backward.

...

Mini-Regionals are:
- limited to no more than 20 teams
- cost-capped at a maximum of $500 per team to attend
- designed to physically fit in a high-school gym/basketball court (including play field, pits, and audience)
- organized and produced entirely by a local committee
- require no participation by FIRST Manchester staff
- have a limited award structure, so no more than five (5) judges are needed
- audio-only (i.e. require only audio amplification),
- do not have large-screen projection video systems,
- without a formal "team social" event, unless one is organized by the teams
- designed to be set up in one day or less, and
- distributed all around the country - not just in a few locations that require expensive travel arrangements.

In other words, these are relatively small, simple, low-cost events that are easier and cheaper to produce and attend. Think of them as similar to many of the off-season competitions staged by teams, but incorporated as part of the formal competition structure supported by FIRST. Accordingly, many more of them can be conducted during a competition season. On any given weekend, there could be one or two DOZEN Mini-Regionals going on, instead of just two or three regional competitions.

Here in North Alabama, many schools are participating in a program called BEST (http://www.bestinc.org/). BEST is similar to FIRST in that students build a robot in six weeks, work with sponsors, try to mentor other teams, etc. except the competition is much smaller and resembles one of the "mini-regionals" you mentioned. Have you ever attended a BEST event? There's one coming up in Auburn, AL in two weeks. I guarantee you that if you attended it you would scrap the "mini-regional" idea instantly.

A team from my school participated in the program this year and I tagged along for the competition. It was terrible! None of the judges or field personnel had any experience (they were "local volunteers") and there was basically mass chaos.

It's no coincidence that FIRST has trained staff members at every regional event. It is simply 100% necessary to make things work!

Not to mention that the most exciting part of the FIRST experience is the competitions! The lights, the sound, THE PEOPLE ... it's incredible! FIRST has established their position as THE PREMIER high school robotics competition because the exciting atmosphere of the competitions rewards students for hard work. You want to water that down to a small game in a high school gym? WITH FEWER AWARDS? I don't know many kids that would be willing to work their asses off for six weeks just to go play in a gym somewhere (Proof: There were only ~6 people on my school's BEST team as compared with our FIRST team of ~50).

While I do agree that cost saving measures can and should be implemented for regional events, it would be a disaster for FIRST to make any drastic change that would rob the regionals of the elements that keep FIRST ahead of its competition.

[dlavery]

Originally posted by KevinB
Here in North Alabama, many schools are participating in a program called BEST (http://www.bestinc.org/). BEST is similar to FIRST in that students build a robot in six weeks, work with sponsors, try to mentor other teams, etc. except the competition is much smaller and resembles one of the "mini-regionals" you mentioned. Have you ever attended a BEST event? There's one coming up in Auburn, AL in two weeks. I guarantee you that if you attended it you would scrap the "mini-regional" idea instantly.

A team from my school participated in the program this year and I tagged along for the competition. It was terrible! None of the judges or field personnel had any experience (they were "local volunteers") and there was basically mass chaos.

Yes, I have attended a BEST event. I have also been to the BOTBALL competitions (regional and national), the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence robotics competitions, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence mobile robotics competition and exhibitions, and nearly a dozen others. I have been a judge at many of these events, a technical adviser to some others, am on the board of directors of two competition organizations, and have provided significant financial support for several of them. So I have some insight into how good - and bad - competition events are organized.

I am not sure that I follow the logic path from you seeing a single poorly-run BEST competition (out of the several BEST events that are run around the country) to the conclusion that all small events are terrible and the idea of mini-competitions should be scrapped.

I have re-read my post a few times now. I am pretty sure that nowhere in there did I say that a low-cost event had to be a low-quality event. To the contrary, I made a distinct analogy between the Mini-Regional concept and the better off-season, team-sponsored events that are currently held. Many of them are conducted in an extremely professional manner, have a very polished presentation, provide a wonderfully positive and supportive atmosphere, provide for high levels of competition, and do a great job to further the goals and message of FIRST. They provide the existence proof that, done properly, a small event with a small number of teams can be produced for a reasonable amount of funds and effort, and it can still have a very positive outcome. FIRST Lego League events - many of which are held in school gyms - do exactly the same thing.

So while it is possible to produce a bad competition event in a small venue (of course this is true, and I never said it wasn't), it is also possible to produce a very good one. Done properly, Mini-Regionals can work - things like Ramp Riot, Duel on the Delaware, Havoc on the Hill, California Robot Games and FLL prove it.

-dave

[Ken Leung]

Originally posted by dlavery
So while it is possible to produce a bad competition event in a small venue (of course this is true, and I never said it wasn't), it is also possible to produce a very good one. Done properly, Mini-Regionals can work - things like Ramp Riot, Duel on the Delaware, Havoc on the Hill, California Robot Games and FLL prove it.

-dave

Very interesting idea, Dave. I think a lot of off season folks are thinking the same thing. How do you imagine it would work? Will the mini-regionals be hosted at high school gyms? Community college gyms?

Here are my thoughts on this whole idea:

There should be some sort of standards on how the mini-regionals is all around the country, just like how FIRST have the same A/V plan for all 20+ regionals. They don't have to be super fancy or anything, but each of them should provide some consistence for all teams.

In terms of money wise, you can have a relatively low cost event with about 15k to 30K. 20 teams X $500 is already $10,000. Some lower level sponsorship should cover the rest of the cost. The important costs to think about are carpets, floor protection, and A/V equipment. For Cal Games, a lot of the A/V equipments like projectors and camera are borrowed from WRRF folks, and projection screens we rent with a relatively low rate. The carpets cost about $0.50 per square foot, so brand new carpets to cover a whole gym of about 5,000 square ft will cost $2500, providing there are tarps covering the rest of the gym. The rest of expense is just getting the field there, banners and signage, volunteer food, insurance, and custodian. But compare to a regional that cost $170,000 per 50 teams, $30,000 per 24 teams much cheaper.

My concern is how to keep the event at a high school for 4 days without causing major disruption to their PE class. I suppose they can do outdoor sports at the football field or soccer field. Also, is February and March sports season for high school?

Another thing that has to be done is, if these are to be standard events around the whole country, lots of contracts have to be signed with the high schools/community college way before hand to make sure the dates are set aside for the competitions. These will be the responsibility of the regional committees to take care of.

Finally, the events have to be staffed with a field manager, a head ref/head inspector, and score keeper, and an MC. There will need to be about 30 volunteers too. Here is what I suggest. Take bay area, for example, we are definitely more than 20 teams around here, and will need multiple mini-regional. The teams not competing at a mini-regional can go to another one to be volunteers. It will be a great experience for the students/teachers, plus a chance to earn community service.


Will FIRST be willing to let regional committees take care of these mini-regionals and only worry about standard regionals and CE? I suppose time will tell. Right now, FIRST make sure every regional have at least 2 staff from them to run the events. Maybe it's time for the regional committees to grow their own crew for regionals.


Definitely worth thinking over. It could potentially be very chaotic if there are lots of mini-regionals happening. But not impossible.

[KevinB]

Well Dave, let me first apoligize if I seemed offensive for my post. I didn't mean to flame other robot organizations! (I need to learn to stop posting to forums when I'm in a bad mood!)

The point that I was trying to make is that from a high schooler's standpoint (and that of most high schoolers I know), I will always put forth more effort to try to win competitions that appear to have more prestiege. For years our school was invited to programming competitions held by the Alabama Council for Technology in Education, but had trouble getting anyone interested in attendance -- because they knew that there would be little to no competition at the event and it just wouldn't be worth the time. However, when the University of Alabama launched a similar competition with hundreds of participants and full scholarships to the winners .... we got TONS of interest from high schoolers (I even won a digital camera and $1,000 scholarship!).

If FIRST can make a smaller event seem prestigious (I suppose they could), more power to them! I just will always favor the current (big and exciting) atmosphere that the regionals provide.

I fully understand that the expense of regional events is preventing FIRST from growing at the rates it would like, however at least my opinion is that that quality should prevail over quantity any day.

[BandChick]

Originally posted by KevinB
If FIRST can make a smaller event seem prestigious (I suppose they could), more power to them! I just will always favor the current (big and exciting) atmosphere that the regionals provide.

I agree 5000% the bigger events are more fun. Paul Kloberg actually told me this after Final Bin Bash. He said that FIRST was a girls' sport because it was about socializing. It's about getting out there and meeting people and learning things, and yes, you can learn and do great things at mini-regionals, but so much less overall.

[Pin Man]

Interesting though... I was reading throught the teams registered one regional had 79, one had 63, three had above 50, but there is one out in CA that only has 19 teams...

[Ken Leung]

Originally posted by BandChick
I agree 5000% the bigger events are more fun.

In my 5 years of FIRST experience, I thought IRI was THE BEST competition I've ever been to, even more fun than any regionals I've ever participated and volunteered at. That event didn't cost 170k like a normal regional, and yet it was a far better experience for me.

So, I believe a big part of it is in the people who run the event, and the spirit of the participating teams. Of course it's still nice to have all the A/V equipment and professional video production, but I think it's been proven that they are not necessary for inspiration and excitment.

[KevinB]

I have no doubt that there will always be several extremely successful small events across the country. You're correct in saying that it completely depends on the people there.

If FIRST were to decide to implement small events in which dozens were being held at any given time .... there would be no concentration of bright and fun people at any given event -- they would be spread out even more greatly than they currently are.