The Society for More Qualifying Rounds

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/17/99 5:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Great suggestions posted by Kate Leach on 3/15/99 9:20 PM MST:



Kate, that was my attempt at sarcasm! Sorry it wasn't obvious enough! )

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 11:28 AM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago). Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination. Let's say there will be 200 teams at nationals. This is roughly 4 times the number of teams at each regional. Therefore, I think they should have 4 times the number of teams in the eliminations. If they have enough stages, this really shouldn't add much time onto playing the matches. Just picking the alliances will take a while.

: Okay, here is the deal:
: This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

: Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
: California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
: Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
: Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

: I don't know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

: Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

: Now, on to the Nationals:

: Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

: I ask you, 4?

: They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to "write your congressperson."

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 3/15/99 12:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 11:28 AM MST:



: I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago).
: Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination.

The only way to increase the number of teams in the elimination rounds without increasing the allocated time is to add additional playing fields.
If the additional space is available, why not use it to increase the number of qualifying matches?

- Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 3:42 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Jerry Eckert on 3/15/99 12:48 PM MST:



: : I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago).
: : Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination.

: The only way to increase the number of teams in the elimination rounds without increasing the allocated time is to add additional playing fields.
: If the additional space is available, why not use it to increase the number of qualifying matches?

: - Jerry

Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.


I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.


Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:26 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 3:42 PM MST:



I believe you would need 4 stages (2 fields each) not just 4 fields to have 64 teams in it. But you could do 32 teams with 2 stages.

Raul

: Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

: Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

: 1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

: 2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

: As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

: 1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

: 2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

: 3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

: 4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

: 5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.

:
: I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.

:
: Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Raul on 3/15/99 4:26 PM MST:



I guess I meant 4 STAGES. Sorry. I was counting on the upward trend: 2 stages two years ago, 3 stages last year, why not 4 this year? If not four stages, I would settle for 32 teams.

: I believe you would need 4 stages (2 fields each) not just 4 fields to have 64 teams in it. But you could do 32 teams with 2 stages.

: Raul

: : Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

: : Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

: : 1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

: : 2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

: : As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

: : 1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

: : 2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

: : 3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

: : 4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

: : 5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.

: :
: : I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.

: :
: : Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Steve Plunkett, Engineer on team #121, Rhode Warriors, from Middletown, RI and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:33 PM MST:



I just came back from Philly and from what I understand, there will
be 2 stages in Florida. It took all day Friday for 60 matches to be played
on 2 fields in Philly. The reamining 23 were played Sat. morning until noon.
I would love to have several seeding matches, however, it is a logistical
problem in Florida. With 220 teams playing, it will take 220 matches for
all the teams to get four seeding matches. Assuming 4 fields, then 2 matches
can go on at once. Therefore, you will need almost as twice as long to
complete the seeding matches as you did for 60 matches in a day at Philly.
Friday ran from 9:30 - 4:00 pm with a half hour break for lunch, a total of
6 hours of seeding matches (approx.). Double that and add a break for lunch,
it looks like will be going on into the night in Florida as it is with 4
matches.

The practice rounds will require 55 x 15 minute slots or 13.75 hours of time
for everybody to get one practice round (if there only 4 playing fields).
So this could roll over into Friday morning, then the seeding matches begin
and go into the night. The last seeding matches are completed Saturday
morning and the Quarters can start after noon.

I'm sure FIRST would like to have more seeding matches, but there is only
so much time in the 3 days that they have to play with. What I have said could
be subject to change, but I think they like the 2 stage format because
both stages could be located in a way where you use only one arena. I think
the stages will be somewhat facing each other (maybe at a some angle?) and
the stands are in between. This would allow matches on both stages without
getting up and changing their seats. Spectators could just turn towards the other
stage.

I could be wrong on the above statements, but I think it might go that way.
Let's wait to see what the format really is and go from there. If there are
more than 4 fields, that will move things along. But I really don't know
for sure other than the stage count.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I'm sure this won't win me a lot of friends, especially considering the host of this site, but here it goes...

I think each team should be limited to one (and MAYBE two) regionals MAX. This is for a variety of reasons, two of which I'll share here:

1. The regionals are becoming way over crowded. If you want more qualifying matches (which I definitely do), the only way to get this is by reducing the number of teams. Another point: if teams that only get to go to one regional and that regional happens to be the Great Lakes Regional, that team is only guaranteed 10 matches between the regional and nationals. That is very little reward for all of the work that went into the project. It would be nice to play more matches.

2. Big Money = Big Winners? Is this what FIRST is all about? A team that can afford to go to multiple regionals is at a HUGE advantage. It essentially gives these teams more time with their robot (beyond the six weeks). First, the drivers get much more practice at the regional. Second, the team gets to debug the robot at the regional. Third, the team gets the robot for 72 hours after the regional for more practice and work. A team that goes to multiple regionals can do terribly at the first regional and by time nationals comes along, they could be one of the best teams. On the other hand, a team with less money may only go to one regional and miss out on all of the practice and debug time and will end up being an also-ran at the nationals.
In other words, one team may actually have better engineers, builders, drivers, etc. but it won't be seen because other teams get much more time.

If FIRST continues to allow teams to attend as many regionals as they wany, they at least should give everyone their robot for 72 starting on Saturday night following every regional. This would allow the small money teams a better shot at competing.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:40 PM MST


In Reply to: One more thing... posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST:



I do agree that a team going to more than one regional has an advantage, but I see no reason to stop this. This isn't just a competition, it's a learning experience. And if more kids can go to more competitions then FIRST gets more cash and more kids learn, who cares if a "rich" team will get some more practice.
But since space is becoming an issue at regionals, regional teams should take a priority. What I mean is that each team can choose 1 regional which they are pretty much guarenteed (unless a lot choose the same regional). Then after that, the only way they can get into other regionals is if there is space. So this way each team will have their 1st pick of regionals and no multi-regional team will displace a local team. Makes total sense to me.
:-Dan



: I'm sure this won't win me a lot of friends, especially considering the host of this site, but here it goes...

: I think each team should be limited to one (and MAYBE two) regionals MAX. This is for a variety of reasons, two of which I'll share here:

: 1. The regionals are becoming way over crowded. If you want more qualifying matches (which I definitely do), the only way to get this is by reducing the number of teams. Another point: if teams that only get to go to one regional and that regional happens to be the Great Lakes Regional, that team is only guaranteed 10 matches between the regional and nationals. That is very little reward for all of the work that went into the project. It would be nice to play more matches.

: 2. Big Money = Big Winners? Is this what FIRST is all about? A team that can afford to go to multiple regionals is at a HUGE advantage. It essentially gives these teams more time with their robot (beyond the six weeks). First, the drivers get much more practice at the regional. Second, the team gets to debug the robot at the regional. Third, the team gets the robot for 72 hours after the regional for more practice and work. A team that goes to multiple regionals can do terribly at the first regional and by time nationals comes along, they could be one of the best teams. On the other hand, a team with less money may only go to one regional and miss out on all of the practice and debug time and will end up being an also-ran at the nationals.
: In other words, one team may actually have better engineers, builders, drivers, etc. but it won't be seen because other teams get much more time.

: If FIRST continues to allow teams to attend as many regionals as they wany, they at least should give everyone their robot for 72 starting on Saturday night following every regional. This would allow the small money teams a better shot at competing.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/99 6:42 PM MST


In Reply to: I agree . .but it doesn't have to be THAT bad . . posted by Dan on 3/15/99 5:40 PM MST:



I agree with Chris that it is a HUGE advantage to go to more than one regional.

Everything Chris listed as an advantage is true. It does give our drivers more drive time. It does give our engineers more time to debug the robot.

Is this fair? no

Is it going to change? I don't think so.

There are many things that are not fair about the FIRST robot competition and there will always be unfair aspects.

By the way, in my opinion, the multiple regional issue is probably not even the most unfair thing (Experience and funding are the biggest unfair factors, in that order).

Our team's leadership has always been of the opinion that if this robot competition is to be a serious endevour, then we should do our best to maximize our chances of winning, within the bounds of ethics and the rules determined by FIRST.

So... As long as we are allowed to go to more than one regional and we can convince our sponsor's management to write the checks, we plan to continue.

Comments?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/16/99 7:29 AM MST


In Reply to: I agree too -- really posted by Joe Johnson on 3/15/99 6:42 PM MST:



I knew this would start a big discussion. Let me clarify a few things:

If we had the resources to go to more than one regional, we would be there. Don't get me wrong, myself and our students would love more opportunities to play. I have nothing against the teams that do this.

Everyone also overlooked one big point. I didn't necessarily say limiting the regionals is the only option that would level the playing field. I think if the other teams are allowed equivalenvt times with their robot that they would have gotten had they attended a regional, that would definitely help.

Example: We could not attend the Chicago regional. The teams that could attend get their robots for 72 hours after the regional ends to work and make changes. Why not give everyone their robots for 72 hours? In this way, the teams that could not attend miss out on the scouting, driving experience, fun, etc., but they still get equivalent time to improve their machine.

Any thoughts on this option?


: I agree with Chris that it is a HUGE advantage to go to more than one regional.

: Everything Chris listed as an advantage is true. It does give our drivers more drive time. It does give our engineers more time to debug the robot.

: Is this fair? no

: Is it going to change? I don't think so.

: There are many things that are not fair about the FIRST robot competition and there will always be unfair aspects.

: By the way, in my opinion, the multiple regional issue is probably not even the most unfair thing (Experience and funding are the biggest unfair factors, in that order).

: Our team's leadership has always been of the opinion that if this robot competition is to be a serious endevour, then we should do our best to maximize our chances of winning, within the bounds of ethics and the rules determined by FIRST.

: So... As long as we are allowed to go to more than one regional and we can convince our sponsor's management to write the checks, we plan to continue.

: Comments?

: Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 3/16/99 8:09 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I agree too -- really posted by Chris on 3/16/99 7:29 AM MST:




: Example: We could not attend the Chicago regional. The teams that could attend get their robots for 72 hours after the regional ends to work and make changes. Why not give everyone their robots for 72 hours? In this way, the teams that could not attend miss out on the scouting, driving experience, fun, etc., but they still get equivalent time to improve their machine.

: Any thoughts on this option?

If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 3/16/99 10:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I agree too -- really posted by Jerry Eckert on 3/16/99 8:09 AM MST:



That was the case this year too...teams who participate only in the National tournament did not have to ship out their machines until Wednesday, while everyone else had to ship on Monday...

: If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
: a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
: attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
: who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/16/99 11:55 AM MST


In Reply to: Same this year... posted by Nate Smith on 3/16/99 10:31 AM MST:



Yes, this rule still applies, but it is somewhat outdated in the fact that it assumes teams only go to one regional. Perhaps teams should get an extra 48 (or 72) hours for each weekend that regionals are held. For every regional that a team attends, one 48 hour period is removed from your alloted 'extra build time'.

Example: The normal ship date is Feb. 22. Assume there are 7 weekends in which regionals are held. This would equate to an extra two weeks to work on the machine (7 x 48 hours). If a team goes to 3 regionals, than they get 6 days taken off of their extra time, giving them only 8 days after the Feb 22 build time.

At first, this may not seem fair. You might state that you punish teams that attend regionals by taking away extra build time. I look at it this way: what if a team goes to a regional on all 7 weekends (as some teams do). These teams get Thursday, Friday, and Saturday to do some work on their robot. Then they get the robot from Saturday night through Monday. This gives these teams an extra 5 days of work per regional. Let's say that you can't really work over night because they shut down the pits, so we'll take away 24 hours. This still gives 4 days of extra time per regional. If you attend 7 regionals, this equals 28 extra days of work time. That's one whole month! If we believe in the 4 days extra per regional, I'm only asking that these teams give up 2 days. Therefore, there is still an advantage to attending the regional in terms of work time (not to mention the driver practice, scouting, etc), but this advantage is reduced.

Okay, maybe there is no team that attends a regional every week (or is there?), and two extra weeks may seem a bit much at first. Then perhaps FIRST should determine which team is going to the most regionals. Use the number of regionals this team is attending instead of the number of weekends that regionals are being held.

As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more.

: That was the case this year too...teams who participate only in the National tournament did not have to ship out their machines until Wednesday, while everyone else had to ship on Monday...

: : If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
: : a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
: : attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
: : who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/16/99 3:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hopefully, this is my last post... posted by Chris on 3/16/99 11:55 AM MST:



I have to disagree. There should never be a spending cap on education. This is not just a competition, winning isn't the ultimate goal. Tons of things are unfair if you look at this solely as a competition, but if you look at FIRST as an experience the word "unfair" doesn't apply.
If someone wants to spend money on education why should we stop them? A more sensible thing would be to divert the multi-regional money to create more teams. :-Dan

"As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more."