Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[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.

[christina_omg]

i think any team is able to go to multiple regionals. its all a matter of fundraising and how much you want to put into first.

this was my teams rookie year and we built a twin, went to 2 regionals, and had a free ride to georgia. all paid for by sponsors....

so it is fair. if a team is willing to work hard to get money then nothing should be holding them back from getting as much out of first as they possibly can. sure, some teams get lucky and come upon big money but everyone can do that. you've just got to keep looking and use time wisely.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I see your point but this argument doesn't make any sense...

If teams were limited to "local" regionals then the powerhouse teams would just beat the little guys over and over and over again indefinitely... (think 254 at SVR)

However, if you allow teams to move around, the stronger teams will invariably go where the competition is fierce - allowing the weaker teams a chance to show their stuff (and giving the big teams a bigger challenge).

Make sense?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by gblake

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

Blake,
You have completely missed the message of FIRST.

Yes we send people home with GREAT BIG BANNERS, but that is to prove that the competition isn't just for show.

The whole idea of FIRST is to realize that even though we crown a champion at an event, a teams makeup and how they can give back to themselves and the community is what really matters.

Yeah we can look at a team and say they have won 10 regionals in the past 5 years, but the goal and the point of FIRST is to say that yes that team can build a great robot, but can they win with gracious professionalism too.

Being a member of FIRST is supposed to teach people that winning is certainly something, but it isn't everything. Winning on other levels like inspiration and outreach are just as important if not more.

[Dancin103]

I have a few thoughts on this. I have been pondering this one for a while now. When our teams first started we only had the money to attend one regional and build a robot. A few years into competing, we got enough money to build the robot and attend both a regional and nationals (championship). And now we have the sponsorship to attend to local events and nationals. (There have been a few years, like this one, where we have attended 3 regionals and championships.) It's all about getting the sponsorship and the funding, and teams should not be limited, if they have the funds, well them let them compete at multiple regionals.

It is in my opinion that if a team has enough money to attend more than one regional and championship then let them. As well I think if a team wants to compete at a different regional out side of their "region" then let them. For some teams, their "home" regional is not within an hour or so of where they are from. Like us, a team from PA, our "home" regional is Jersey, and will always be Jersey. It was the first regional we ever attended and it will always be our home. (Thanks Jersey for making it our home, we love playing with you guys!) Also, for a team like Miss Daisy (correct me if I’m wrong here), they always attend the Chesapeake regional in addition to the Philly regional. Now, Chesapeake is about 3 hours from them and yet I’m sure they feel at home when they go there cause they have been competing their for a while now.

Allowing teams to compete at different regionals every year is all apart of the fun. It opens up a new realm of opportunities and allows teams to compete with teams they may not have competed with before.

Well, that’s my 2 cents and what I think about competing out side of your "home" and "region" and competing at multiple regionals.

P.S. I previously mentioned getting sponsorship and funding to "play the game" in FIRST, so if any teams reading this need help attaining the sponsorship, please drop me a note and we (my team and I) can help you out in that department. FIRST is all about partnership and helping others, and so if you are a team that needs help, please contact us, we would be more than willing to help.

Cass

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Blake,
You have completely missed the message of FIRST...

No, I don't think that I have. And for you to make assert such a broad and sweeping misrepresentation of what I wrote is seems just a bit presumptous.

I read exactly the same FIRST mission statements that you read. I attempt to inspire students and instill in them a gut-level understanding of the value of leadership through service to others, excellence for its own sake, expanding an appreciation for the value and role of STEM in our communities, and collaboration right up until the moment of competition.

But - My observation was not about what I or you individually do or do not think or do - My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards. In that way our/FIRST's actioins speak far louder than words.

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

The whole idea of FIRST is to realize that even though we crown a champion at an event, a teams makeup and how they can give back to themselves and the community is what really matters.

Those are fine, interesting words; but they are not the words that were used over and over again by announcers, and they are not the words on the banners, and they do not describe the metric that separates the Winners from the Finalists on the Einstein field.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

I didn't say that makeup/giving isn't celebrated at all or that it shouldn't be celebrated more. What I said was that I disagreed to a large extent with the following assertion and I then cited evidence to back up my claim.

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

And, again, I didn't say that we shouldn't measure teams by their conduct, etc. I observed that right now, to a very large extent, our actions seem to be attaching more importance to other measurements (i.e. regional and world wins)

I hardly think that you have evidence that justfies saying that I have completely missed the message of FIRST. I think what I have done is noticed how that written message seems to be out of synch with the actual message(s) FIRST tournaments are delivering.

Blake

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by gblake

My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards.

I'll agree with the "public spectacle", but I'll temper it by saying that it's because the robot competition is concentrated into brief matches involving very few robots at a time. The other awards have at least as much time devoted to them, it's just spread out much more evenly across both public and private contexts. And if you look closely at the teams who win the Chairman's Award, I'm convinced that you'll find that they put more effort and time into the activities that earned them that award than they do into building and competing with a robot.

Note that the Chairman's Award banner is just as large as the one given to the winner of the final robot match, so the "big banner" observation is irrelevant.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

Here's some evidence for you: Chairman's Award-winning teams are installed in the Hall of Fame, and they are invited back to the Championship in perpetuity instead of just for one year.

It is my experience that, with rare exception, teams that consistently embody the larger FIRST principles of inspiration, partnership, leadership, gracious professionalism, etc. are more remembered and celebrated than teams that merely consistently field winning robots.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by gblake

No, I don't think that I have. And for you to make assert such a broad and sweeping misrepresentation of what I wrote is seems just a bit presumptous.

I read exactly the same FIRST mission statements that you read. I attempt to inspire students and instill in them a gut-level understanding of the value of leadership through service to others, excellence for its own sake, expanding an appreciation for the value and role of STEM in our communities, and collaboration right up until the moment of competition.

But - My observation was not about what I or you individually do or do not think or do - My observation pointed out the obvious fact that at the World Championship and at regionals, the audience, teams and the event organizers devote much more time, ceremony and public spectacle to determining which machine/team wins on the field than they do to the competition for the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's awards. In that way our/FIRST's actioins speak far louder than words.

Those are fine, interesting words; but they are not the words that were used over and over again by announcers, and they are not the words on the banners, and they do not describe the metric that separates the Winners from the Finalists on the Einstein field.

If you want to disagree with my observation, cite some evidence that team make-up and giving back is celebrated (much) more than winning on the competition fields.

I didn't say that makeup/giving isn't celebrated at all or that it shouldn't be celebrated more. What I said was that I disagreed to a large extent with the following assertion and I then cited evidence to back up my claim.
And, again, I didn't say that we shouldn't measure teams by their conduct, etc. I observed that right now, to a very large extent, our actions seem to be attaching more importance to other measurements (i.e. regional and world wins)

I hardly think that you have evidence that justfies saying that I have completely missed the message of FIRST. I think what I have done is noticed how that written message seems to be out of synch with the actual message(s) FIRST tournaments are delivering.

Blake

Dean has said it from day 1, the competition is a vehicle, we are supposed to be able to look at the competition and realize there is more to it than robots running around the field and a champion being crowned.

Alan has already pointed out that the winners of the chairmans award at championships are put into the hall of fame and invited to come back to championships FOREVER. The winners of the whole entire thing? They can come back for 1 year, but thats it. Teams covet a chairmans award. Tell someone familiar with FIRST that you won a regional and they will congratulate you, tell them you won a chairmans award and they will celebrate you.

Its in the eye of the beholder...as mentors it is our job to let our students know that winning a competition is not everything.

[vivek16]

Here is the thing:

No matter how many regionals you go to, your overall probability of getting to nationals stays the same.

one regional - 3/50

two regionals - 6/100

three regionals - 9/150

and so on.

-Vivek

(sorry if this was already mentioned)