New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

[dtk]

The single largest reason why the district events are being limited to Michigan teams only for the 2009 season is logistics. The amount of work required to start up a single new event is enormous. For 2009 Michigan is going to go from three events to a total of eight. This number of events should just barely ensure two spots for every team in the state, depending on the number of rookies. It was simply not feasible to add enough events to have slots available for out of state teams. This, however, does not preclude that possibility from existing in the future.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by dlavery

What do you think?

So much for doing the Dallas-Detroit "Home & Home" exchange with 217.

-John

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by dlavery

What do you think?

I think that whatever I think I'll have to learn to deal with it...

I'm happy this isn't coming to CA next year...

Here are my thoughts:

-One major advantage I see from this is that more competitions will allow teams to improve their robots more over the course of the competition (particularly the rookies). For rookies that only attend one event, they do not get another chance to improve their robots.

-The state championship sounds very fun. I like the idea of regional championships. It would be cool if the top teams from each region got to compete before going to Atlanta. (I'm not sure this would work on the state-by-state basis since many states don't have enough teams).

-I agree with what Cory said. Instead of starting new teams we should really work on improving the teams that are already established. There are plenty of teams here in the Bay Area that are over 8 years old and are still struggling. The experience for students will be better if money, mentors, students, and sponsors are concentrated rather than spread thin...

-I don't like high school sporting events. Actually I just don't like sports period... I'm thouroughly against FIRST becoming more sports-like, and less unique.

-If FIRST didn't take risks, we'd still be playing 1v1 on a feild covered in corn. Right?

[Jim Zondag]

To comment on a few items in this thread:

The goal of this initiative is to test a new model of FIRST Competition.

The purpose of this change is to increase the "Return on Investment" (ROI) for teams. All teams who compete in FIRST commit a certain amount of Investment in the areas of Time, Money and Effort in order to build a robot and manage the team. Their Return on this investment is how many times they get to play with this robot, and the experience of the competition events.

In today's system, the ROI for many teams is very low and many teams compete at only one event. Creating a system where teams can compete at 2 events for the price of one effectively doubles the ROI for many teams. The new district events will guarantee 12 qualifying rounds per event compared to many of today's events today which often only have 8 rounds/team. Thus in 2009, a team can get 24 qualifying rounds for the same price as 8 round cost in 2008, a 300% increase in ROI! Odds of advancing to eliminations increases for all teams at the new smaller events.

Other factors further increasing this are, reduced travel costs, no shipping costs, etc.

An earlier post spoke of sustainability of existing teams. This change will help everyone, new and veterans, because it reduces the amount of time, money and effort that all teams must commit while maintaining as much of the experience as possible.

[Jonathan Norris]

I agree with Cory on this one, FIRST Robotics Challenge is not for every high school... there I said it. I have seen too many situations where FRC just doesn't work at a high school, and I am now seeing it first hand trying to start a team in a city and region that hasn't ever heard of FIRST. Trying to convince a cash strapped school that you can run a $10,000+ robotics program when there are easier and cheaper alternatives available isn't easy.

It comes down to one simple fact: the cost of entry is too high. Yea I know FIRST does a great job getting sponsors to subsidize some of the cost, but $10,000 to run a basic team is still too much for a large number of schools. The major selling point of FIRST is that it really isn't just your average high school competition, it is an advanced robotics competition that is run more like a professional sporting event then a simple one day high school science competition.

By having these small regional events leading up to the normal sized state event, you are reducing the quality of the regionals, and by association will reduce the quality of the competition, robots, and ultimately the great learning experience that FIRST is.

FRC needs to continue to be what it is, the most advanced high school robotics competition in the world. Where students get a unique opportunity to work with engineers on an advanced very real world engineering problem. Lets not water-down what is a great competition and learning experience just so we can accommodate teams that don't have the resources to compete. Let FTC and VEX be the platform that gets the ideals and competition of FIRST into every high school. There is no reason why FTC and VEX can't be in every high school, but there are plenty of reasons why FRC can't and shouldn't try to be.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

It comes down to one simple fact: the cost of entry is too high. Yea I know FIRST does a great job getting sponsors to subsidize some of the cost, but $10,000 to run a basic team is still too much for a large number of schools.

Your dissenting point actually just made the point as to why this pilot is a good idea. The reason for trying this change is due to the fact that the cost IS too high for a lot of schools. So what's the solution? Lower the cost per event. Obviously this isn't the end solution, but if everyone decides that they can enjoy a pared down competition just as much as one with all of the thrills, then maybe they can expand on this solution and find other ways to cut costs without ruining the inspiration.

What bothers me is everyone saying that they shouldn't try it because people won't have the great experience, etc. etc. Well that is why the SHOULD try it. How will anyone know what the experience will actually be like until they try it?

There is a great competition that everyone talks about that acts as a pared down version of a regional. It has scaled back audio-visuals, two day format, and many of the other things being proposed for this pilot. This competition is called the IRI. I'm sure many people agree that they have a pretty good competition experience there.

I guess my point is, let's see how it plays out before we condemn it to failure.

[thefro526]

I'm not a big fan of this idea as it sits on paper. It seems good but then in the same respect it doesn't. You're essentially dumbing down two regionals and letting the teams compete at these instead of one normal regional. At the same time the teams are competing against local teams so the diversity is lost. I love going to regionals and meeting people who live hours and states away, but here you'll meet the people in the town next to you. I think this has good intentions but may not fair as well as many seem. In reality, all FIRST is doing with this is trying to make more teams in a state and a time with struggling economies. Almost all of us here know how hard it can be to get sponsors when you're the only team for miles and times are good, now imagine if they're are 5 teams in the same 10mile radius competing for sponsors, how will that work?

[Wayne TenBrink]

As a mentor of a small, county-wide team in rural West Michigan, I look forward to participationg in this pilot program.

We only had enough money for one event last season (like 75% of all FIRST teams). Our robot was badly damaged in the 2nd of our 8 matches and wasn't back to 100% until the 7th match. Our entire "functional" competition season consisted of 3 matches. I like anything that improves our "return on investment".

The new competition format doesn't change the real core of the learning process, which is the build season. The second regional also guarantees the opportunity to make mid-season improvements - another core learning event.

We will miss the practice day, but perhaps some good alternatives will develop in the course of the pilot program. Inspection logistics will be a challenge.

There seems to be simultaneous concern about diminishing the "experience" of the regionals while going to more of a high school "sports" model. I always thought that the noise, lights, & decoration were what made regionals like a sporting event (not that thats a bad thing).

There is a lot more to FIRST than the excitement of the competitions or the elegant designs and presence of the powerhouse teams. I believe that FIRST should follow a growth model that emphasizes opportunity for more students rather than protecting the quality of the experience for the few. Don't forget that FIRST isn't just about competing with robots - they are useless after the season is done. It is about inspiring students to pursue technical careers and turning them into gracious professionals.

I think this pilot program moves FIRST in the right direction by making the program more accessible to rookies and all of us in the great pool of cannon fodder for the powerhouses. We still may not win, but we will get to play longer on the same dime!

[EricH]

One thing that I'm puzzled about is: Michigan teams pay $5000 for 2 events. Does the rest of FIRST (as in, the other 1300 current teams and the rookies outside of MI) pay $6000 for one event or $5000 for one event? It seems that it's going to be easier to have one common price than to keep track of two different ones. (And then you also don't have to deal with border-jumpers, not that any FIRST team would even think of trying that!)

It's both a fairness issue and an organizational issue, and there isn't an easy answer. 200 or so teams pay less than the other 1300 or so and get more for their money. I understand this is a pilot, and designed to verify low-cost event/new tournament structure, but it's still not exactly fair. (I also know the world isn't fair. I've been on both sides of the divide in FRC.) Question is, do we all see lower entry fees, or just those teams? Because if it's only the teams in the pilot, EVERY team in FRC is going to want to be in Michigan or wherever it's expanded to next!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

There seems to be simultaneous concern about diminishing the "experience" of the regionals while going to more of a high school "sports" model. I always thought that the noise, lights, & decoration were what made regionals like a sporting event (not that thats a bad thing).

The analogy I'd make is that our current regional events are our version of MLB/NFL/NBA games, etc.

The pilot will be more like a high school basketball game. Which one is more exciting?

I too would like to know where the money is coming from. Knowing the MI's economy is in shambles, I find it hard to believe that sponsors will cover the added cost that will be incurred.

[artdutra04]

FRC is not an easily [down] scalable competition model, down to local/district events. The nature of the competition makes it like the MLB/NBA kind of robotics competition, the crème de la crème of robotics competitions, the competitions everyone wants to aspire towards.

FIRST already has had* the perfect, scalable competition to get into every high school in the country: Vex. This is a system designed to be the "high school sports" model of robotics competitions. It is designed to inspire students all over, with the boundary of entering in terms of tools, resources, and money being very low while at the same time still providing for an exciting challenge.

What fun would high school sports be if there was nothing higher, no Division 1 College or Major Leage teams to aspire towards? FIRST is the engineering equivalent of sports, and we need the program that everyone wants to aspire towards (FRC), while still providing a great competition that everyone can be involved with quite easily (FTC/Vex).

And you can't make one competition model be able to suffice for both roles without loosing something along the way.

I want a robotics competition of some kind to be in every high school, to give every student an equal opportunity, but it's simple math and economics to determine that FRC is not the model to achieve that. It's too expensive, no matter how many corners are cut.

Once we get an FTC/Vex team in every school, then and only then would it be appropriate to look to "upgrade" them to FRC.

But the main reason why I oppose this, is that it screams of spreading sparse resources so thin that no one would ever really benefit from them, without concrete plans to increase the supply of money, resources, and volunteers. FIRST needs sustainable growth a lot more than we need more, more, MORE!!!1!! rookies, and yet they seem to be turning a blind eye to the best tool they have to achieve those goals (FTC/Vex).

And besides, it's kind of common sense that you don't go looking for millions and millions of dollars in new funding during economic hard times. Especially Michigan, which is certainly suffering the brunt of the downturn in the auto industry.

Overall, I'm going to keep an open mind about this until after the pilot season is over (and I'm staying keen to avoid conformation bias in the coming months...), but I'm just not liking it very much at this point in time.


* The new FTC still has potential, but I want to see how it plays out first.

[waialua359]

Traditional FIRST events are exciting from start to end.
Losing any part of its luster does have a negative effect.
Although FIRST isn't about the competition itself, but about inspiring young kids in STEM, the reality is that sponsors, businesses, students, etc. are drawn to it by the competition itself.
Dean Kamen said it himself. Americans pay more attention to pro-sports than they do in inspiring young people in being the problem solvers of tomorrow.
FIRST is reaching an ever-growing audience because it uses the same concept as they do in sports.
It isn't just the adults, volunteers, parents and teachers we are trying to convince, its also these businesses and sponsors that are vital in making FIRST a reality.
The whole luster of a competition shouldn't be compromised.

I'm all for this new pilot program, as long as while its addressing the demand of new FRC teams, it doesn't compromise that portion of the whole program.
I also believe that the new fee structure is a great thing. Once the pilot is conducted and evaluators assess everything, they may find a better way of structuring other events to make the price tag lower.
As some teams have pointed out, they spend all of their time and resources, only to play 7-8 matches the whole season. That really isn't cost effective at all and will further the cause for teams to fold.
Our team has been lucky enough to get great funding and support. But the majority still feel that spending $$$$$$$$$$ on 20+ kids is just not worth it, when there are other programs that cost much less and address the same issues.

[Jon Jack]

To be honest, FIRST has done a horrible job at making sure the rookies continue on to be sustainable teams.

It seems like there is a lot of pressure (from FIRST HQ) on regional support staff to recruit as many teams as possible as quickly as possible. Once a rookie team is created, they're left hung out to dry. They then have to learn how to survive on their own, or fold. While there are resources available for struggling veteran teams, there are many more resources available for starting a new team.

If FIRST put as much effort and resources towards sustaining teams as they did recruiting new teams, we would not have the attrition rate we have now. One statistic I think would be interesting to see is what percentage of teams return AFTER folding? I'm betting that is a very low number. If that is the case, shouldn't it be a priority to keep veteran teams around since the likelihood of bringing a school back after they've folded is slim to none?

I think that FIRST is trying to grow too much too fast. As a result the quality of FIRST is being sacrificed. As Cory said, Regional Planning Committees are having a tough enough time finding skilled and experienced volunteers for critical positions. What happens if this becomes the future competition structure and California has 20 district events? There's no way all those district events are going to be able to find experienced volunteers for critical positions. As a result, the quality of the program will suffer. Suffer for what? So we have the room to start X number of new teams?

[Jim Zondag]

To comment on a few more items:

A: The rookie pilot run at Kettering last year proved we can run a very high quality FIRST event for a fraction of the cost of typical regional event.

B: Item A is not exactly anything new, since very good off season events have been running for over a decade in many locations. Most of these events operate at 10% or less than the operating cost of a typcial FIRST Regional.

C: We have the money to run 8 events in Michigan next year if we do it this way. Financing will not be an issue.

D: We have the venues to for the events and we have many qualified volunteers and veterans to help get this going.

E: We have an estimated 120-130 teams in the State of Mich next year. This means if you compete at 2 events, there is probably no more overlap on team particapation than there was in 2008 if you did any two of GLR, WMR, DET, Cleveland, Chicago, Boiler, etc. The only reason overlay may increase is because now EVERYONE plays twice. If we enabled double plays for everyone thru any other means, the overlap issue would be the same as it will be in the new system.

F: If anyone want to go out of state, it costs the same as always. Now you get a 2 for 1 deal if you stay in state, but if you want to skip one and spend your money to go somewhere else, go for it. Your loss for throwing away a freebie, but it will not cost any more to do this than it ever did in the past.

G: Remember, Nothing will ever get better without making changes and taking some risks. We all want FIRST to get better. "Better" means lower cost, more sustainable, more accessable, more visible, etc. This change is a big enabler to all this things.

FRC today is profoundly different than FRC was in 1992. The league is over 60x its original size yet we are still using a competition structure designed when the league was small. Many have argued for a long time that we have outgrown this model. In 2009 we will finally test a new model and find out if this is true. We will never know if we do not try!

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Cory

The analogy I'd make is that our current regional events are our version of MLB/NFL/NBA games, etc.

The pilot will be more like a high school basketball game. Which one is more exciting?

I too would like to know where the money is coming from. Knowing the MI's economy is in shambles, I find it hard to believe that sponsors will cover the added cost that will be incurred.

I have to admit, I'm curious as well. On one hand, they say that this is required for FIRST to continue in Michigan. On the other hand, they state that there is no plan to extend this other states. Which is it? Why is Michigan the only place that needs a new structure to be viable? Why the "political" double speak on the real reasons behind the change?

I don't see this changing the overall experience for many teams. I do see the quality of teams being sent from Michigan increasing, however. Requiring an average score and after than having a championship will tend to shed more of the teams that aren't performing at a top level. I.e., I suspect this format will send fewer of the teams who squeak in through alliance selection, etc., and send more of the "top 8" teams.