Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[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.

[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.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

Word.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

Consider the robots: being mere machines, they lack the capacity for partnership, leadership, and gracious professionalism. All they can contribute to FIRST is inspiration, though the qualities embodied in their design and construction, and through their winning performance on the field of play. That contribution is very important -- without it FIRST could not be what it is -- but, as Alan points out, it is not enough.

Teams are made up of humans, and therefore have the capacity to embody all of the larger principles of FIRST. Being more than machines, we share a duty to strive for that goal.

Back to the main topic. My team has attended two regional events in each of the last five FRC seasons. We do it because we like to meet FIRST people from other places, and because we want to play robots as many times as possible.

[GeorgeTheEng]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

I'm pretty sure the chairman's trophy is larger then any other trophy FIRST gives (with the exception of the Founder's award and possibly the Woodie Flowers award).

On the initial topic, Life is about the opportunities that you create for yourself. Each team starts with the basics and it is up to them to make the most successful program they can.

Multiple regions != powerhouse robot
Money != successful robot
Lack of resources != team failure
Veteran Team != winning team
Single Regional != lack of inspiration

My team attends multiple regionals or a regional and championships, and our robot has not been in contention for the winners spot for years.

Edit - I want to provide some clarification. First, for those not of a computer science background != means does not equal. Second those are my opinions after having been a participant with a team and a event volunteer for a number of years.

[Cory]

I think this entire discussion is a moot point, because every year there's an open sign-up period for any teams that don't prequalify, who have the money and wish to go, so it's not like anyone is stealing spots from anybody else.

Not to mention the fact that this discussion is being perpetuated against teams under the premise that it's "not about the robots", like these teams should be ashamed of themselves for making FIRST all about winning, since they go to multiple regionals. The irony here is that this argument itself is making FIRST out to be about the robots.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

Multiple regions != powerhouse robot
Money != successful robot
Lack of resources != team failure
Veteran Team != winning team
Single Regional != lack of inspiration

Yabbut, you know, George, that pWinning goes up with practice (multiple regionals), money, resources, and experience. How many teams on Einstein were not top teams in all these categories? I believe you are saying that these factors are not sufficient, which I agree with, but it would not be accurate to say they do not have a positive effect on winning probabilities.

[waialua359]

Winning an award and trying to do so has its merits.
It can show where you are at as a program amongst your peers. If at first you dont succeed, you go back and analyze why, coming back better and stronger than the year before. It allows your team to set goals to improve, whether its building a better robot AND/OR building a better program.
The reality of winning is that it not only brings glory and celebrates an accomplishment, but it also brings about opportunities for more sponsorship and support by others that may otherwise not notice.
Success breeds success.
People that make excuses about it not being fair should take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves, "What are you going to do about it?" Trust me, we have done that many times several years ago trying to figure out how to compete against the highly successful teams in every phase of the program. We didnt make any excuses, instead embraced the challenge, even though we are still doing the chasing.

[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)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 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)

Actually, it's more like 5/50. (Rookies have maybe a 1/10 additional, depending on how many rookies.) If you aren't submitted for CA, 4/50.

[vivek16]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, it's more like 5/50. (Rookies have maybe a 1/10 additional, depending on how many rookies.) If you aren't submitted for CA, 4/50.

True, but the point I was making still stands. Competing at multiple regionals is fair because from a raw probability perspective, it doesn't change your chances of going to the championship.

-Vivek

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by 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)

It's been a long time since I took statistics. But I think you're logic is flawed.

First, you assume that each team has an equal chance of winning the game. We'll overlook that for the time being.

But each regional is a unique event. If winning is truly random, the chances of winning one are independent of winning another. Therefore

1 regional - 3/50
2 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50
3 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50 + 3/50
etc.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

It's been a long time since I took statistics. But I think you're logic is flawed.

First, you assume that each team has an equal chance of winning the game. We'll overlook that for the time being.

But each regional is a unique event. If winning is truly random, the chances of winning one are independent of winning another. Therefore

1 regional - 3/50
2 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50
3 regionals - 3/50 + 3/50 + 3/50
etc.

We assume each team has an equal chance of winning one of the 4 non-submission, non-rookie awards. That is not the case, but we want a best-case scenario here.

I think your logic may also be flawed. You're saying that in two events, a team has a 6/50 chance. They have a 3/50 in each (using the numbers we're playing with). However, as I remember probability, you don't add. The odds of x event in two separate cases is multiplied. Your chances of qualifying twice are much smaller than indicated.

Assuming, of course, that everything is equal, which it isn't.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by EricH

...Your chances of qualifying twice are much smaller than indicated...

Multiplying as you suggest will give the probability of winning all the events. Adding the probabilities gives the chances of winning one (or more) of the multiple events, thus qualifying for a Championship invitation, which is what Gary wanted to show.