Ideas to move in the direction of making FIRST competitions 'fair'

[Donut]

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

i don't know if I buy it....in our rookie year we went and won at the Peachtree Regional as a rookie with almost no money. I see teams all the time that I know (since I talk with them) don't have a lot of resources build great, competitive machines. Also, I have seen some big money teams squander their resources and end up building a machine that isn't indicative of all their support. I think there are some hasty generalizations being made in this post that may or may not necessarily be accurate. Please consider this as you try to "make competitions more fair" because I think there is an issue with the problem statement that was given.

On this point, perhaps any "fairness" system would need to address just making it easier for a team who is not doing as well (a 4-6 or 2-8 kind of team) to get into the playoffs, rather than making it easier for a team because they're a rookie, have less funding, or whatever. If you assume all these types of teams need help you will end up assisting those who are already doing good in the current system as well as those struggling, and that's not the idea behind this. If you go off of how a team is doing at the competition you can make sure it is the struggling teams (or at least struggling in competition that year) that are getting helped more, regardless of what type of team they are.

I expect any system to have limitations though. I don't think any kind of system could be remotely fair and still give an 0-XX team a good shot at the playoffs short of allowing every team in the playoffs, and that would just extend to the already crammed regional schedules (could you imagine the Championship like that?).

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

With the ever increasing amount of off-the-shelf resources, such as the IFI and AndyMark transmissions and wheels, IFI Kitbot frame, and the EasyC programming environment, it's becoming easier and easier for rookie teams to build better robots. Rather than seeing strict rules put in place to stifle the "better" teams, I would rather see more resources being developed to help rookie teams build competitive robots.

Instead of lowering a team's expectations, let's raise the amount of competitive resources available to them.

that is one way increase the level of fairness, or to have classes or levels of competition in which teams can play

you could either have a KOP-only division, and let the super teams play in a totally unrestricted class (use whatever motors / controllers / parts...) you want

or you could turn it around to take some of the restrictions off the smaller teams, so they could buy completed assemblys from someone else, and focus more on one aspect of the design: SW, control systems, auton mode.

My gut instict is telling me we could not (and most teams would not want to) limit the game in ways, so that all teams are more or less equal, and then have all teams compete for the same trophy: ie, only 8 students and 2 mentors per team, or all teams can only use the KOP and nothing else...

I think we would have to move in the direction of having different levels of play within FRC, so that teams can target the level/class they have resources and people to do well in - that means the expert/vetran game could be opened up even more: super-bot class, maybe with $50k robots playing for the top title.

Ali was the HeavyWeight boxing champion or many years, and Sugar Ray Leonard was the top of his class in boxing. They were both champions, but they never had a match against each other. There should be a similar path for FIRST to explore.

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

i don't know if I buy it....in our rookie year we went and won at the Peachtree Regional as a rookie with almost no money. I see teams all the time that I know (since I talk with them) don't have a lot of resources build great, competitive machines. ...
I think there are some hasty generalizations being made in this post that may or may not necessarily be accurate. Please consider this as you try to "make competitions more fair" because I think there is an issue with the problem statement that was given.

I expected there would be some contention on whether FIRST competitions actually are fair or not. Every kickoff meeting I have attended in person Dean Kamen makes a point of saying the competition is not fair, and that it is not designed or intended to be fair.

Some of the aspects of the way the games have evolved are not to increase the level of fairness, but intead to keep the games exciting, interesting, and to let the weaker teams stay more involved.

Originally teams played against each other, there were no alliances. Your ranking at regionals depended mostly on how well your robot and players performed.

But now with the 3 team alliances, your team only represents 33% of your alliance. A really good team could be matched with weak teams in every single match, and not place well in the rankings. Likewise a weak team could be matched with excellent robots in every match, and end up in the top 8 of the rankings, even if their robot never scored a single point all day.

that is one aspect of fairness that could be addressed. Alliances exist in part to keep every team engaged, but the result is that the team that scored the most points, or played the best defense at an event, may not make it into the top eight, then everything else is out of their control.

the other aspect is the resource and team sizes. The smallest team you can have is 4 students and one mentor (you must have 4 students on the playfield). I think it would be great if smaller Highschools could have teams with only 4 -8 students, and they would have a reasonable chance of being the champions in their division or level, whatever that means, without having to defeat a team with 60 students and 20 mentors and a multibillion dollar corporate sponsor.

I think the issue of whether FIRST is fair should be clear - when compared to other sport-like events and contests that students can enter. I hope we focus here on ways to open the competition up to more teams, so they can compete against other teams 'like them'.

that doenst mean we have to make it easier for everyone - we could make it easier for smaller teams, and make it more challenging for the powerhouse teams.

[Taylor]

"Well, since Johnny is a slower runner than Alex, we'll put his finish line 10 meters closer so it's a fair race."
You'll never hear that at the Olympics.
As the coach of a small team with limited funds and limited experience, I think the way they've got FIRST set up is fantastic. If our team went in and won the whole thing as it is, it would be absolutely spectacular. However, if we were given accommodations, I think any victory would be cheapened. I would rather earn it.
As it is, we celebrate our small victories. Winning any matches were cause for ecstacy. Even though our dumper bot wasn't one of the strongest, we feel we contributed with our defensive play and strategizing. I think preparation is critical - the team members have to come in with realistic expectations. If we finish a regional or offseason with a winning record in match play, we'd probably go crazy. If we get picked as an alliance partner, I can't imagine the emotions from the kids, especially the veteran members. Sometimes the struggles make victory so much sweeter.
Also, I believe it is up to the veteran teams to show a great example, keep the bar raised high, and go out of their way to help out. In November, all the FIRST teams in Indiana will meet at Kokomo for a workshop. Teams will learn from the masters - Baker, Fultz, Florence, Beatty, etc. about all aspects of being a FIRST team, from fundraising and sponsorships to pneumatics and drivetrains.
The great equalizer in this competition is knowledge, highlighted by chiefdelphi.com itself. We can share ideas, philosophies, experiences, successes and failures.
One thing I do think would help is awards. Perhaps make some awards that would go to smaller/younger/poorer teams other than Rookie All-Star. Being publicly recognized as an up-and-comer would create a ton of inspiration for a team. Perhaps the Look-Out award? Wait-Til-Next-Year award?
gah. Now I sound like a Cubs fan.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by boiler

"Well, since Johnny is a slower runner than Alex, we'll put his finish line 10 meters closer so it's a fair race."
You'll never hear that at the Olympics.....

yes and no. Im almost certain no woman has ever won a large-open class Marathon race. Men have an inherent advantage in long distance running.

That doesnt mean women have never finshed before all the men crossed the finish line, but when open class races are held, the men and women are ranked in separate classes. Best male runner, best female runner.

They dont move the finish line for the women, but they do acknowledge the obvious differences in performace ability.

to address the concern of some people who seem to like playing 'against all odds', if FIRST did create levels or division of play, you could always sign up for the open class / unrestricted / super-bot class and go head to head against the best teams in the world, if thats what you want to do

but keep in mind, alliances may no longer exist then, and you would have to win on your teams merits alone.

[Ryan Foley]

I agree with Art on this one. Instead of limiting teams, offer more resources and off the shelf parts to teams so that those who lack funding and engineering staff can still build a competition worthy robot. The really spectacular robots built by powerhouse teams serve to get the students more excited for the next year, as they will hopefully want to build an even better robot. Events could be made more fair; a better and more accurate way to rank teams; more random match pairings, perhaps go to 12 elimination alliances instead of 8 so more teams can play, etc. Then yes, you could add robot classes, like MATE or Trinity Fire Fighting does. The unlimited class would be a good one to keep, then do a class that has the same robot construction rules as OCCRA (student built, very limited on parts). However, more classes means more work for the GDC, as there would have to be two versions of certain rulebook sections.

So as an alternative option, we could always try to expand BEST out of the south as well as OOCRA. Those competitions are limited in parts and mentor involvement, and we could keep FIRST as is. For really brave teams, you could compete in all 3, as they do not overlap.

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but I felt it is relevant:
As Dean has said many times, FIRST isnt fair; it shouldn't be. In real life, engineering companies and firms don't all have the same size bank accounts, or the same research capabilities. In order for FIRST to show kids what engineering is really like, they must give a somewhat accurate representation. If a kid wants to go into engineering knowing that some companies just arent at the same level as others, then he/she is truly interested in this stuff. But if we give the impression that everything is equal, that student may be very disappointed after getting their college degree. Besides, learning to deal with failure is an important part of life. So a team didnt make the elims, it has happened to everyone at one point or another. There was a little league near my hometown last summer that proposed that T-ball and little league should no longer include "outs" or "strikes". Kids have to learn to accept, deal with, and move beyond failure. I've been in that back row, watching everyone else get picked and win awards. As cliche as it sounds, you just have to try harder next year. Keep improving, and you will get your shot at those lovely medals. So if we do try to make FIRST more fair, don't make it "too fair"

[KenWittlief]

As Dean has said many times, FIRST isnt fair; it shouldn't be. In real life, engineering companies and firms don't all have the same size bank accounts, or the same research capabilities. In order for FIRST to show kids what engineering is really like, they must give a somewhat accurate representation. If a kid wants to go into engineering knowing that some companies just arent at the same level as others, then he/she is truly interested in this stuff. But if we give the impression that everything is equal, that student may be very disappointed after getting their college degree.

Life itself is not fair. You can excel in college and be killed by lightning or a drunk driver the day after you graduate.

But we do try to keep a level of open and fair competition in the business world. We have invention and design protection through patents and trade secret protection laws. If you want to start a one-man company, you can do that as well. We have laws against one company dominating a market.

In the business world you are free to move anywhere and find a company to work for that matches your goals and expectations.

But HS teams cant up and relocate to find bigger sponsors and more mentors. Students cant switch schools just to be on a powerhouse team.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Students cant switch schools just to be on a powerhouse team.

Why not? Elite sports players do. My parents decided to live in Fairfax County when my dad got out of the Navy based in part on the quality of the school system. Granted, the students can't do that on their own, but plenty of parents out there will do whatever they can to have their child succeed.

That's not even mentioning the FIRSTers that goto a certain college because of their FIRST team/program.

Wetzel

[Noah Melamed]

This is out of box and pretty radical but I'd like to put it out there. It's no way polished just a concept I've had that I think i've taken from another competition but I can't seem to recall. This would proabbly apply to a rookie or low cost "division" and then above that would be open division identical to the current FRC.

The teams can only purchase parts from listed FIRST suppliers

Teams are provided with the KOP
plus they can purchase $2000 worth of parts/supplies/material from the following suppliers:

any amount from andymark
any amount from McMaster
any amount from Granger
$300 from 8020inc
$150 from skyway wheels
etc.

Conditions
$200 limit on Sheet Metal
$350 limit on Electrical componenets
etc.

all other FIRST rules apply

[Taylor]

Perhaps FIRST could complete the sports analogy and make varsity, jayvee, and freshman competitions. Or follow another high school paradigm and make classes, based on some sort of algorithm of team size, experience, etc. Or, like the NCAA, Division I, II, III. Then perhaps the champions could compete against each other....?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Noah Melamed

Teams are provided with the KOP
plus they can purchase $2000 worth of parts/supplies/material from the following suppliers:

Why not just pay $2000 less to begin with and spend the money however you want?

I think this thread is ridiculous. If you think FIRST should be leveled, you are missing the point. Yeah sure, you can say kids on small underfunded teams are walking away with a bad taste in their mouths.. but what about the kids on the wealthy teams? How do you think they feel when they don't even have a chance to get their hands dirty, and have put absolutely nothing into the robot.

Example: I was a freshman on my high school's team in 2003. The students helped come up with the strategy, but the robot was entirely built by engineers. We weren't allowed in the shops at Johnson and Johnson, so we didn't even know what the robot looked like until the last day of the build. We did OK in our competitions, but didn't even get into eliminations at Championships. That same team lost all of their sponsorship and engineering support the next year due to budget cuts. That year, the teams robot was built by 3 high school sophomores, a freshman, and 2 juniors. The robot ranked 4th in NJ, and was sitting in either 1st or 2nd all day Friday at UTC. So, don't come to me with sob stories. If you want it bad enough, you'll toughen up and put more work into it.

Its not about the money. Its not about the machine shop. Its about the dedication of the students and mentors on the team. Life isn't fair. Its the people who realize this fact and work hard to overcome adversity that succeed.

[Imajie]

Originally Posted by boiler

Perhaps FIRST could complete the sports analogy and make varsity, JV, and freshman competitions. Or follow another high school paradigm and make classes, based on some sort of algorithm of team size, experience, etc. Or, like the NCAA, Division I, II, III. Then perhaps the champions could compete against each other....?

The only problem with doing divisions or any sort of class system is the number of team you need at each regional to make it work well. At most regionals the outer extremes, lots of support or very little, have a few teams each while the majority of teams are somewhere in between.

Winning is good, but losing is sometimes better, it drives you to do better next year because you have something higher to reach for. Where if you win you don't really have anything higher to reach for and the drive to succeed isn't really there IMO.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley

So as an alternative option, we could always try to expand BEST out of the south as well as OOCRA. Those competitions are limited in parts and mentor involvement, and we could keep FIRST as is. For really brave teams, you could compete in all 3, as they do not overlap.

Hear, hear!

If you don't like the way FIRST wraps a robotics competition around its core goals, you might be happier with another organization with competition at its core.

[Lil' Lavery]

First off, we cannot forget how much that FIRST has already done to level the playing field. Limits on how much teams can spend, alliances, random qualification matches, more and more in the KoP, etc. Not to mention, we have 3 awards with 3 different criteria that are rewarded exclusively to Rookie teams at Regionals, 6 (4 top seeds) at Championship, and both Autodesk awards have a seperate championship award for first-year entrants. In fact, TWELVE rookie teams won awards at the Championship event in 2006. And there is only ONE award that a rookie CANNOT win (Chairman's).
The first element to success in every FIRST game thusfar has been building a reliable and competative drive base. The KoP drivebase can be assembled in just a couple of hours, and with IFI, AM, Banebots, and other off the shelf parts, a highly competative drive base only takes a couple days and virtually no custom fabrication. In several games, such as 02, 03, and 06, you didn't need much more than competative drive base to extraordinarily well at an event.
Lowering the standards is the last thing we need in FIRST, and that is what creating divisions, handi-capping, or any other system similar would do. By forcing teams that may be disadvantaged in terms of money or membership to compete on the same level as larger, richer teams we force creativity and hard work. And it can pay off. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've seen rookie bots and thought to myself "why didn't I think of that?". The #1 seed at the largest regional in America was not only a rookie, but their bot was built largely in a barn. And they didn't even win Rookie All-Star or Rookie Inspiration! Why should we lower the standards?

[efoote868]

How many people posting in here are advocates for the small teams, when in fact, they are from larger teams themselves?

How many people posting in here are from small teams, and want the levelled playing field?

I would assume that the answer to the former is a great deal, and the answer to the latter is next to zero.

If you really are concerned about the rookie teams, why not "sponsor" one of them yourselves?

Imho, I didn't enjoy last year's game as much as I enjoyed the others. Is this because F.I.R.S.T. is trying to help out the rookie teams? I hope not, but I certainly could not tell you.
Getting F.I.R.S.T. to change the game to help out the small teams is great and all, but I'd prefer it to be kept to a certain extent. If the game was truely level, wouldn't it be boring?

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by efoote868

How many people posting in here are advocates for the small teams, when in fact, they are from larger teams themselves?

How many people posting in here are from small teams, and want the levelled playing field?

I would assume that the answer to the former is a great deal, and the answer to the latter is next to zero.

I think you nailed it on the head

But i dont want people thinking that smaller teams are the less fortunate and the less adequate. To the contrary, i think that smaller teams with good mentorship can have the best time and the most success in whatever they try. Our team is small but has funding, so i cant say for sure. But i do know what its like in every other activity we do besides the stuff we have funding for. I applaud all the smaller teams for doing what they are doing and i hope they continue to keep up with the big teams.