Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[GaryVoshol]

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

[dsm]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

I personally agree with your notion about accomplishments, but the comment in question (to split hairs ) was made specifically in reference to awards, so I do see a contradiction. Regardless, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even the original poster, despite what many seem to think.

Awards are indeed not everything, and the simple process of building a robot, and competing with it in even one regional, has many intangible benefits in its own right -- benefits that won't ever be done justice by a trophy or medal.

But awards do matter, let's not kid ourselves. Especially those championship eligibility awards, which not only represent tangible recognition, but also something more important: opportunity. Opportunity to go to that next level, as well as to be exposed to more sources of learning and inspiration.

And no one likes to be denied opportunity -- especially when that opportunity must be earned.

Which is kind of what it smells like, to me, when what was previously a merit-based championship slot is suddenly relegated to the random waiting list. It was originally a merit-based slot for a reason (one would hope), but suddenly, for no other reason than because some team merits a slot so much that they in fact already have one, the meritocratic principle is simply cast aside.

That's what aggravates me as it relates to this topic.

And I think it's an easy thing to fix.

[fuzzy1718]

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta.

Not so. The number of teams attending the Championship does not depend on the number of multiple-Regional winners. A team that is already eligible to go doesn't take extra spots if it earns its eligibility in more than one way.

Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta...paid their way to Atlanta...Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.

What payment are you referring to? Every team pays in order to register for the Championship.

You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

I'm sad that you feel stepped on. I firmly believe that it's within your power to aspire instead of lament.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

Surely you must recognize that this post is hypocritical? You ask these teams that buy their way in to Atlanta and win more than one regional to "stop stepping on the lower budget teams", but you seem to be putting your team (which attends 2 regionals) in this "low budget" category.

What separates these teams from yours? The fact that they are successful? No team goes into a season knowing that they will win the first regional they attend when they register for multiples. Are you asking them to not participate in the second if they win the first. How inspiring is it to go at all for the students on that team. In my opinion, you can't have the inspiration of bringing in the "powerhouse" teams and still have the "fairness" of keeping them out of the eliminations. The students on these teams will just not be as interested in being there if you're dragging them around like a show pony and taking away the fun, competitive aspect of it.

To take this to an extreme, should teams that buy their way into Atlanta not be allowed to participate in Elims at regionals at all? Or be eligible for EI or Chairman's for that matter? After all they do already have a spot in Atlanta so why should they have a chance to get another one and deny a "worthy" team of a spot.

Having said all that, I do think that there should be a better way of assigning the spots that are vacated by teams qualifying multiple times. Why don't we take the spots vacated by any teams that have qualified multiple times and pass them to other "deserving teams". Perhaps take the vacated spots and give them to members of the finalist alliance in the order captain, 1st pick, 2nd pick. If 4 or more of the teams from the winning and finalist alliance are already qualified then you can give them to the waiting list. Chairman's and EI spots can still go to the waiting list as normal as these are less affected by attendance at multiple regionals.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

So, you would rather we went the FLL road? So you want MORE teams coming (if you're a weak regional) just so they can win an award and qualify for the Championships?

I see what you are saying, but I would ask you to remember some things: You are making some generalizations. You're going to have to back those up, and I think you'll have a hard time.

There is a limit on where you can enter for the Regional Chairman's Award and the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award. One regional. However, there is no limit on all the other awards. You want a limit. Very well. YOU can tell the judges that team xxx can't win award yyy because they've already competed, even though they clearly have the best candidacy for it.

(I even know of a case where a team told the judges not to consider them for an award that qualified them, because they had already won it. This was a rookie team. While this is an option for judged awards, there is no guarantee it will work, and it isn't an option for competition-based awards.)

You're also saying that possibly the best robot can't compete in eliminations if they're already going. That's like telling the New England Patriots that they can't even start the playoffs. Or the New York Giants. You get me? Teams that are in the Hall of Fame need to stop competing, because they have already qualified and *might* win and steal a slot from a team that isn't the best? Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, then you need to revise your statements, because that's the impression you convey.

Your statement about teams "stepping on the lower budget teams" is annoying, to say the least. There is absolutely no reason that you can't go out there and build a robot that performs at least that well. It might not look pretty, but it can beat theirs. It's cheaper, but so what? Just go out there, and build a robot that can beat theirs. Anyone could have built 1114's design. No one did. Anyone could have built 330's design, and several did. The execution was what set them apart.

The time you spend on here complaining is time you could be spending figuring out how those teams do it and figuring out how to implement that.

[IKE]

Fuzzy1718 and others:
Actually, I am familiar with 1718 and they did build a great machine this year (and last year). Had they competed at various other regionals they would have been a top 3 machine, instead of a top 10 machine. Detroit and GLR are very tough regionals. If 1718 wants to win the easiest thing to do is go to a lower scoring regional (I won't name names). The harder thing to do is to rise up to the level of competition. I think you guys are there.
It is a 40 minute drive from Armada to Auburn Hills. Shoot me an email, you drive and I will buy you dinner and we can discuss our teams. I think what you will find out is that many of the "powerhouse" teams are that way more so out of years of experience and lots of determination than money. There is only 1 way to get more experience and it is not playing 1 regional a year and nationals every other year. Actually I will correct myself, there are several ways to gain experience. Talk to those "Powerhouse" teams (there are a lot within driving distance).
I hope you guys keep competing. IMHO you guys are one of the most impressive young teams out there and better than many veteran teams (from a competition perspective). Please keep up the good work. This team is actually one I specifically had in mind when discussing that if teams could only compete in their own neighborhood then 1718 would only get to compete with crazy tough teams (please read earlier thread).

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

The purpose of FIRST is to simulate a real world professional scenario. There will never be a time in the real world where every company is placed on a level field monetarily or experience wise. Like wise first is the same way and teams that work hard enough to be able to compete at multiple regionals should be rewarded for there hard work. Also if they are good enough to beat all of the teams at the regional why limit them. It should be taken as an opportunity for other teams to find ways to win. Also why don;t you divert the money from the extra regional to the championship. You can buy in just like all the other teams.

[Brandon Holley]

Getting past the "life isn't fair argument" which honestly, for the most part does not change someones opinion...

We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public community.

Just because your a "low budget" team doesn't automatically give you an excuse to go out there and complain that other teams have more money than you. How much real solid effort have you put into getting a sponsor? Believe me, I understand how hard it is to find a sponsor (especially in an area where FIRST is EXPLODING), but it isn't impossible, and it shouldn't be an excuse as to why you didn't get to go to Atlanta or you didn't win a regional.

Try and get past the squabbling that boils down to your team has more money than mine, and try to look at it is a challenge to say, i want my team to have as much money as yours, how can i do this. Maybe if winning competitions/getting to Atlanta is your end goal, the first goal should be to get your team financials established so that you may be able to compete at multiple regionals, and maybe then you will find yourselves in the ATL.

Hope it helps,
Brando

[dsmoker]

That was my point exactly, Brandon. I hope you didn't view my post as complaining about "big budget" teams. I don't resent them at all. I agree, as I stated earlier, that if a team has a smaller budget they have two options, which can work in tandem: (1) raise more money; and (2) learn how to do more with the money you have.

As for the life's not fair argument, I think the poster immediately after my first post said it better than I did. I think in today's society sometimes people feel entitled, that they should have all the same things others have. It takes work; if a team with a smaller budget wants to have the same budget as a larger budget team, you have to get out there and, as John Housemann used to say in those commercials, "earn it." Nothing worth getting isn't worth a little hard work.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by dsmoker

That was my point exactly, Brandon. I hope you didn't view my post as complaining about "big budget" teams. I don't resent them at all. I agree, as I stated earlier, that if a team has a smaller budget they have two options, which can work in tandem: (1) raise more money; and (2) learn how to do more with the money you have.

As for the life's not fair argument, I think the poster immediately after my first post said it better than I did. I think in today's society sometimes people feel entitled, that they should have all the same things others have. It takes work; if a team with a smaller budget wants to have the same budget as a larger budget team, you have to get out there and, as John Housemann used to say in those commercials, "earn it." Nothing worth getting isn't worth a little hard work.

Exactly, I read a great proverb that was quoted in a book I'm reading ("the World is Flat") that is perfect.

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the faster lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running.

[Pat Roche]

FIRST is a tool that is partly responsible to teach our students about the real world along with inspire them to better it through math and science. Well here is a two very basic economics principles. Business isn't fair. Companies will always try to look for a competitive edge. Just like teams will always try to find a competitive edge. Do you tell a company they can make one product in one industry and not allow them to make a product in another industry if they can afford both? No. You let them make both. So if a team wants to go to a regional and compete at that regional let them. Our robot is our product. Competitions are our industries. So go out and try to maximize your profits.
The other principle is that of competition. Economically its better for two companies to compete. Competition is what makes us better. If a winning team wants to compete against me go for it. It will make me better for doing it. Competition is what pushes us to do what we haven't done before. Competition causes us to push the limits and grow. I don't know if it can get any more real world than that.

Just my $.02

[gblake]

.. We measure a teams success in FIRST not by their regional wins, but by how they conduct themselves as a team, and how they conduct themselves to the FIRST community as well as the public community. ...

I beg to differ - The situation certainly isn't black and white, but before matches announcers constantly and emphatically point out who won regionals and how often they did, particularly the closer the competition gets to "The Einstein Field!!!!".

We/FIRST very often, very much, measure a team's success by their regional wins. And we should.

Sure, there are other awards and other metrics we use, and I sincerely hope they are more coveted by most; but to say that "we" do not measure a team's success by their regional wins is a bit disingenuous. We give teams those big banners to take home and hang so that they and others associated with their team can revel in the rewards of a job well done and be proud of their accomplishment. We don't take a picture of them holding it and send them home with a stack of wallet-sized prints for each team member to tuck into their wallet/purse.
We send them home with a great, big, banner!

FIRST's actions certainly tell us that wins on the field are not the only measure of a team's success in FIRST; and that is a very good thing.

But, FIRST's actions also tell us that wins are certainly one measure of a team's success in FIRST; and I think that is also a good thing.

Blake

[Protronie]

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.

Yes it is a vicious cycle...but it is what it is.
Sponsors want to have their name seen, hence the more places your bot goes the more happy the sponsors are.

And don't think for a min the kids on the team that have many/big pocket sponsors have a easy road.

Double the pressure you feel and you have an idea what it might be like on a mega-team.
Everyone watching what you do, you always on the go it seems.
And theres many people to answer to when things don't go right and your bot has a bad event.

By the same token... I'm sure any die hard FIRST nut would trade places in a heartbeat. Instead of bashing or resenting teams that can go to many regionals... why don't you study them. See what they do and how they do it to attract the money and sponsors.

-p

[dsmoker]

Wins = Attention
Attention = Sponsors
Sponsors = Money
Money= being able to do more.


I totally agree. We have found it exponentially easier to get press coverage, support from the school, and from sponsors since we started performing better, especially after winning our regional last year. That said, the attention and support is continuing even though we didn't even make eliminations based on the fact that we did win two awards: Woodie Flowers for one of our mentors and the Johnson and Johnson Gracious Professionalism Award. The school, in particular, has viewed these as victories in equal important to actually winning the competition.