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

[GMKlenklen]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

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

I agree, I'm going to school 100 miles away from my former high-school... just because it's better.

Anyways, back to the problem statement, I too think it is severely flawed. When I look at the FIRST robotics competition, I see a game that anyone can play, and play at a very high level with only a kit-bot. And I have proof, team 1775: We where on the 2nd place alliance at the Midwest regional in 2006, our rookie year. It really doesn't matter how much money you have, the competition tests your creativeness in design and your ability to compete effectively. And having really good teams like 111 and 71 really ups the creativeness and helps out your competitive mind. I really don't see how you think things are unfair, all you need is time, passion, and thought.

[Gdeaver]

The First program is working well the way it is. I feel that First needs to continue to support the bottom teams by insuring that no team fails (doesn't ship a bot). They have done a good job with the KOP frame, transmissions, Easy-C and documentation. In my opinion, any team that goes through the 6 week design and build process has won, they just don't realize it sometimes. What does worry me is the direction some teams have been going. There have been several teams lately that have begun using sophisticated state of the art manufacturing process for the robot construction. This is not necessarily bad but can lead to some less than desirable effects. I'm mainly concerned with it causing a disconnect between the students and the mentors. First is all about having adult professional work through the process with the students. Instead of focusing on the wining thing I believe that some effort and guide lines need to be established on how to incorporate advanced technology into the robot and program while keeping the students and mentors connected. Basically First needs to support the bottom and cap the top. Also these are high school students getting their first taste of technology. If things get too sophisticated we risk blowing them away and turning them off instead of turning them on. There are no easy answers and every year this subject should come up.

[hpycmpr]

There are some inherent difficulties for rookie teams. they spend more time doing things that other teams can do quickly. An easy way to assist young teams would be to allow more time.

If a team has been in existence for 1-2 years then their ship date would be 8 weeks after kickoff. For teams 3-4 years ship date would be 7 weeks after kickoff. All other teams ship 6 weeks after kickoff.

It just allows more time for inexperienced teams to get their act together.

[BlondeNerd]

It seems that most of these posts involve giving rookies a handicap of some sort. I do not think that this is an appropriate way to make the competition fair. Something that I have thought of is adopting a policy similar to that of Odyssey of the Mind. In OM, the mentors are not allowed to touch the product. They handle administrative tasks and guide the process, but cannot build/create the final product. If the judges feel that the coach has had too much of a hand in the process, the team can be disqualified. I realize that something this strict would harm FIRST, but it does not seem right when I see teams at competition with several middle-aged men in the pit working on the bot, while the students serve merely as drivers. A way to make FIRST 'fair' would be to add an award, or introduce a factor into qualifying points, that rewarded teams based on some sort of interview that could show how much the team worked on the robot rather than the adults. Inevitably, some things will require adult help, and the adults wouldn't mentor if they didn't get to play with the bot! But, the point of FIRST is to teach the students something, and a robot completely designed, built, and programmed by professional engineers will be of better quality than one done by students. If no students on the team ever touch the robot, will they learn anything?

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by BlondeNerd

... If no students on the team ever touch the robot, will they learn anything?

Yes - but only if they want to. In fact, they can learn way more from master craftsmen than they ever could from trial and error.

But this has been debated to death. FIRST is not another Soap Box Derby, never was, never will be. It is meant to have anywhere from 100% to ZERO% student participation in the build - most teams strike a happy medium - few, if any, can be found at either extreme.

Back on topic: I want to know who gets to decide when FIRST is "fair." Because I don't think it's fair unless we all agree.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by BlondeNerd

...does not seem right when I see teams at competition with several middle-aged men in the pit working on the bot, while students serve merely as drivers.

I look forward to the day when we are having these healthy discussions regarding FIRST's development and someone comments on several middle-aged women in the pit working on the robot. That will be cool.

Edit: To add to this comment, I don't know that what the teams are achieving and working towards in FIRST will ever be completely equal or fair. We are working in getting young girls engaged in science and math and keeping them engaged. That effort is gaining ground in FIRST and we are seeing growth but it will take time. That is just one example. Much of the discussion in this thread and others shows me that teams handle themselves wisely and carefully and look at different perspectives and views when developing and evolving. All of this shows up on the competition field with teams at different stages of the journey.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by BlondeNerd

... it does not seem right when I see teams at competition with several middle-aged men in the pit working on the bot, while the students serve merely as drivers. A way to make FIRST 'fair' would be to add an award, or introduce a factor into qualifying points, that rewarded teams based on some sort of interview that could show how much the team worked on the robot rather than the adults. ...

I know this has been debated ad nauseum in earlier threads. I've resisted jumping in before. But I don't like to see a distinction drawn between "team" and "adults". By definition a team is one entity, and an FRC team's adult members are as much a part of that entity as its high school students. One great example is FRC 71, Team Hammond, winner of the 2006 STL Regional Chairman's Award and a member of the 2006 STL winning alliance, along with several dozen other distinctions earned since 1996, including four FRC Championships.

Last year, St. Louis was 71's first event of the 2006 season and like many teams, they had a lot of work to do getting their robot ready to compete. As the lead robot inspector, I had a wonderful opportunity to see the BEAST evolve before my eyes. I watched both how the robot was improved, and how the team created those improvements. For students willing to listen, learn, take direction, and keep up with a professional work pace, there was a whole lot of hands-on teaching going on.

As many are aware, Team Hammond is sponsored by Beatty Machine & Mfgr. Co. and that sponsor provides the team, among many other forms of support, the services of several of the finest engineers, machinists and technicians to be found anywhere. The younger (student) members of 71 are lucky indeed to see and follow the example set by experienced professionals. And while it is true that many of 71's student members don't work on the robot, it is also true that many do. The standard they are held to is a very high one -- to work on the BEAST it seems you don't have to be a professional, but you do have to behave and perform like one. While this model of teamwork may not be the best for every team, it sure seems to work for 71. It is hard to argue with success, and 71's success is an inspiration not only to its own students but to all of the FIRST community.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I personally love the fact that some teams are dominated by pro engineers and receive thousands of dolors in funding! So much the better when we beat them! (or not )

At least it gives us a goal...

I think FIRST is a big trap. They lure you in with these cool competitions and shiny robots and along the way they trick you into learning something

If you make the competitions fair, there will no longer be any competition, and as a result... it won't be exciting... and there won't be any bait
(why try when everybody wins?)

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by hpycmpr

There are some inherent difficulties for rookie teams. they spend more time doing things that other teams can do quickly. An easy way to assist young teams would be to allow more time.

If a team has been in existence for 1-2 years then their ship date would be 8 weeks after kickoff. For teams 3-4 years ship date would be 7 weeks after kickoff. All other teams ship 6 weeks after kickoff.

It just allows more time for inexperienced teams to get their act together.

With a bit steeper gradient (first year: 8 weeks, 2nd year: 7 weeks, 3rd+ years: 6 weeks), this is the best idea I've heard in the thread so far. It is concise, it is definite, it is enforceable, and it gives help in an area that rookie teams probably struggle the most with: time. I don't think you'd get too many people whining about "that rookie team dominating because they got all the extra build time", because everyone would know that next year that team will have less time. Further, it isn't easy to manipulate this system. With cash or mentor divisions, you might have teams under-reporting cash spent or mentors used just so they get into a less competitive division. On the other hand, it is impossible for a team to claim they've only been competing for one year so that they get more time.

It's so easy to waste time on a rookie team just trying to figure stuff out. If you've got a first-year programmer with no instructions other than the internet, it isn't unusual to waste an entire night doing something that would take a 2nd or 3rd year programmer 5 minutes to do.

Many other ideas that have been proposed (divisions by cash, divisions by student/mentor makeup) are very difficult to draw lines with. If a team spends $1999, are they definetely worth helping out more than a team that spent $2001? Since help is likely to come in chunks and not in a smooth spectrum, it is difficult to make up brackets to divide teams with. Cash spent and # of mentors are things that require hairy definitions and gray areas. If a school buys $100K of machine shop equipment and uses it to shape $500 worth of steel into a robot, how much money was spent? If a recent graduate of a school shows up and helps out, are they a mentor, or still a student? To the team it would appear that they are just a student.

[Jack Jones]

I hate to rain on the "give rookies more time" parade, but some could start a new team each year and use the extra time to build two or three robots and fine tune the rookie drivers. The win at all cost sponsor could continue to drop the third year team, start another, and thereby always field two at a time with a significant advantage. There are always ways to manipulate the system.

IMO, the best way to make things most unfair is to have different rules for different people.

[Gdeaver]

Everyone should play by the same rules. It's not unusual for a rookie team sponsor to drop an intensive effort the first year and then pull back allowing the rookie to do well the first year and then go into the struggling mode. I think First continues to need to support the bottom and cap, limit the top. As for the complaints that First is stifling innovation. I believe that placing cost, material and methods constraints on teams will force teams to innovate more. I don't want First to get to the point where teams start buying the win instead of innovating to win.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

Everyone should play by the same rules. It's not unusual for a rookie team sponsor to drop an intensive effort the first year and then pull back allowing the rookie to do well the first year and then go into the struggling mode. I think First continues to need to support the bottom and cap, limit the top. As for the complaints that First is stifling innovation. I believe that placing cost, material and methods constraints on teams will force teams to innovate more. I don't want First to get to the point where teams start buying the win instead of innovating to win.

How many teams have won nationals by buying their robots from off the shelf parts?

None.

Every team that wins does so by innovating. Im completely unclear on what your issue is.

[KenWittlief]

I see a lot of posts in this thread that dont seem to be addressing the core issue of the FIRST competition itself (in the manner it is structured), not being fair to all teams.

Some people are saying if we try to make rules that will level the playing field, that some teams or mentors will take advantage of them, and find ways around the rules to win (starting new teams each year so they are always rookies....)

the problem isnt that FIRST mentors and sponsors are cheating, that they want to win at all costs, the problem is the way the competition itself is structured is not fair to all teams. If a sponsor wants to bend the rules to win, they can do so now.

Some people are saying if we make FIRST fair (level the playing field) then it will be boreing, there will be no competition. I think the opposite is true. What we have now is like the New York Yankees playing hardball against little league and Tball teams. No matter how hard those 8 year old kids try, they do not have a chance at winning the world series, because the matches are way out of balance. Its very boring to watch an extreemly mismatched contest.

In the world of sailing they have what is called one design boats. Every boat is exactly the same. You are not allowed to customize your boat or to buy special parts for it. At the world finals every team gets a brand new boat. The only difference on the water is the skill and drive of the skipper and his crew. That is what I call a fair and very exciting sporting event. The races are usually very close and dramatic.

I dont think we can change FIRST so that every team is only matched against other teams that are exactly the same, with any sort of measureable parameters, but we could find ways to ensure the 'little league' teams are not playing against the major leaguers, and that the 12 foot Sunfish sailboats not racing against the 80 foot America's Cup yatchs.

[thefro526]

One of the major flaws of first may be US. I come from a relatively large team 40+ members and we have very little funding But the problem is not how much money you have it is your mentality. As a freshmen i always heard "they didn't build the robot, They have a Huge budget" It begins to rube off after a while. First isn't fair but thats what makes it fun the unfairness allows for further innovations. And the teams that lose the previous year just want to come back and kick butt the next. I can say that because thats how i feel after coming in dead last in our division at nationals I want to do better. But remember this tell your new members that it doesn't matter how much money you have it's how you think. If you think you'll win then you may win; If you think you'll lose than you will lose...

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Some people are saying if we make FIRST fair (level the playing field) then it will be boreing, there will be no competition. I think the opposite is true. What we have now is like the New York Yankees playing hardball against little league and Tball teams. No matter how hard those 8 year old kids try, they do not have a chance at winning the world series, because the matches are way out of balance. Its very boring to watch an extreemly mismatched contest.

I'm trying to figure out how, 2006 Curie Division Champ, 1139 equates to the New York Yankees. They had a RELIABLE DRIVE BASE , INNOVATIVE system to keep balls from jamming and an INNOVATIVE launcher .