New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

[IKE]

I participated in the Thursday portion of the Kettering Rookie Regional. I also saw the review of the Pilot event and heard a lot of comments.

As M. Krass keeps pointing out, there was not a lot of feedback on CD about the event. This is for a couple of reasons.

As a pilot event for Rookies only, there was not a lot published to vetran teams.
Since Rookies were the ones competing, they would be the normal traffic on CD, but most Rookies do not figure out CD until late in their first year.

As a team that attends multiple regionals, I really liked the thursday night check in format. With it a reasonable drive (1 hour), I didn't have to take time off of work (this is huge for me as a volunteer). Pits were open late that night and they got a lot of machines inspected and ready to go that night including machines that were 30+ pounds overweight. Last I heard only 1 machine out of the 30+ teams were non-functional at the end of the event (there are often that many at a traditional regional). With the MI FIRST format, this team would get 1 more chance to get their machine going. The traditional format has them packing up and likely folding up after their first year.
As far as quality of the event goes, it was really quite good. I will talk to the organizers to see if they can put the Rookie Regional Wrap Up on CD so people can judge for themselves. People should keep in mind that the difference in "quality" isn't as big as they might expect.
As far as Michigan not being able to fit in the current model, there were 3 regionals with 140 total slots for 120 michigan teams (and out of state teams). If every team went to 1 michigan event that meant there were only 20 slots open for a second event. That means a lot of teams had to go out of state for a second event. As people have pointed out travling out of state costs at least 2x as much as local events thus requiring a significantly larger budget and time off of work (or only the competition team getting to travel).
I like the quality vs. quantity debate, but lets attach some numbers. If 120 teams get to experience an event rated at a 9 (scale of 1-10), or for the same price they get to experience 2 events rated at a 7, isn't that better? Or for teams that do two events, 2*9 versus 2*7+9(The state championship will be a 9) 18<23.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by IKE

I participated in the Thursday portion of the Kettering Rookie Regional. I also saw the review of the Pilot event and heard a lot of comments.

As M. Krass keeps pointing out, there was not a lot of feedback on CD about the event. This is for a couple of reasons.

As a pilot event for Rookies only, there was not a lot published to vetran teams.
Since Rookies were the ones competing, they would be the normal traffic on CD, but most Rookies do not figure out CD until late in their first year.

As a team that attends multiple regionals, I really liked the thursday night check in format. With it a reasonable drive (1 hour), I didn't have to take time off of work (this is huge for me as a volunteer). Pits were open late that night and they got a lot of machines inspected and ready to go that night including machines that were 30+ pounds overweight. Last I heard only 1 machine out of the 30+ teams were non-functional at the end of the event (there are often that many at a traditional regional). With the MI FIRST format, this team would get 1 more chance to get their machine going. The traditional format has them packing up and likely folding up after their first year.
As far as quality of the event goes, it was really quite good. I will talk to the organizers to see if they can put the Rookie Regional Wrap Up on CD so people can judge for themselves. People should keep in mind that the difference in "quality" isn't as big as they might expect.
As far as Michigan not being able to fit in the current model, there were 3 regionals with 140 total slots for 120 michigan teams (and out of state teams). If every team went to 1 michigan event that meant there were only 20 slots open for a second event. That means a lot of teams had to go out of state for a second event. As people have pointed out travling out of state costs at least 2x as much as local events thus requiring a significantly larger budget and time off of work (or only the competition team getting to travel).
I like the quality vs. quantity debate, but lets attach some numbers. If 120 teams get to experience an event rated at a 9 (scale of 1-10), or for the same price they get to experience 2 events rated at a 7, isn't that better? Or for teams that do two events, 2*9 versus 2*7+9(The state championship will be a 9) 18<23.

I would love to see anything more about the rookie pilot from last season -- a wrap up by those that organized the event, photos, or video. I have been able to find three pictures of the event; only one of which offers a glimpse a the "stage," -- the field and seating. That picture did not impress me, reminding me more of an off-season competition than a world-class sporting event.

I would like to know more about media coverage of the rookie event. How were media guests and VIPs handled? Was there a catered reception, special seating or guided tours?

I think that, ultimately, if we're going to drive interest in science, technology, engineering and math on a national or global scale, we have to recognize that inspiration -- while enormously effective through direct mentoring -- can occur by other mechanisms. Interest by youth in becoming a professional athlete is disproportionately high compared to the number of youth that have met a professional athlete. Why can't the same be true of STEM heroes in the future?

Why does someone have to meet Paul or Andy or their local, homegrown equivalent to understand that what they do is cool and worthwhile? Why can't we put these guys up on ESPN (y'know, like we used to?) alongside their teams and drive interest that way?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

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

I'd maintain that FRC, even at the Championship or IRI level, is all strictly amateur. The FIRST equivalent of professional sports is no less than a career in science or technology. That is what we want (some of) the students to be aiming for.

I can imagine a future FRC season having only Michigan-style district and regional competitions, and a world championship event with participation based on merit alone. From a previous highly active thread, that would obviously make many people happy. But I can also see a use for a handful of official "invitationals" which teams can apply for regardless of region.

[acdcfan259]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

One of the fundamental problems with Thursday in the current format is that for many, Thursday is not Practice Day, Thursday is Rework Day. Many teams show up and tear their machine apart. They do not go out to practice and instead they spend the whole day wrenching. Why do they do this?...because they can. Now, teams are going to have to put more priority being ready to play when they show up beacuse the whole idea of "we'll fix it on Thursday when we get there" will no longer be an easy choice. Teams will still have this same amount of time to rework if they want, but now they are doing it on their own time. In reality, this will likely make the inspection process easier, not harder.

I don't see this as a problem, but as a good thing. If teams want to re-work they should be able to. This is making the competition that much better.

I really see no reason to get rid of Thursday. FIRST has proven time and time again that they graduate some of the best and brightest in the country and the world. You're actually missing the same amount of time if you were to attend one regional like a lot of teams do.

Originally Posted by johnr

I would hope that the powers that be would see that a waiver of some kind needs to be in place for teams in the U.P. This is a test program and i see no need to make every team take part. However, if you take waiver you might not be able to play in states.
Also, Thursday is abit of a concern. One thought would be that a teams near the district, with good practice fields, would offer its use. Maybe with a small fee. That first friday could be ugly.

I have to agree wholeheartedly. If teams don't want to participate, that should give us an idea as to whether or not this is the direction we should take. As some have said, this is a downgrade for some teams. Forcing them to participate doesn't seem right.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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?

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

Excellent points Chris. I'd be happy to find out the pilot turns out to be awesome and have to eat my words.

I just hope the effort to give teams 2 regionals instead of one doesn't result in two watered down events instead of one good one. Without a practice day, most teams will probably get half a regional's worth of competition out of their first event.

You're right though. It is too early to condemn it to failure.

Originally Posted by AndyB

Minnesota will likely see a growth in 2009 equal to, if not larger, than its 2008 growth. How does ONE competition have a chance in hell to operate smoothly with the oldest team at the regional only 3 years old. Now lets figure out how a state like Minnesota could operate 5 or 6 competitions, most of them with no teams over 2 years old.

If this became widespread, certain regions would comprise more than one state, I'm sure

[Herodotus]

I think the best thing anyone who will be directly involved in the new system can do is employ some teamwork, some intelligence, and some creativity and just try to make 2009 the best year yet for FIRST in Michigan. If the new system doesn't work out, at least it won't be for a lack of effort.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I think the best thing anyone who will be directly involved in the new system can do is employ some teamwork, some intelligence, and some creativity and just try to make 2009 the best year yet for FIRST in Michigan. If the new system doesn't work out, at least it won't be for a lack of effort.

I would guess that this has already occurred and is continuing. The news is hitting the wires now but there has had to be a lot of ground work, teamwork, intelligence, creativity, commitment, and courage to implement this type of change. It is a pilot program for one season and it is innovative. For an entire state to be involved on this level means FIRST is making an impact and like it or not, we have to heed that.

We can't hold back the tides of change, just like we can't stop time. A pilot program can try this out, test it, and then go from there. The FIRST community can rally around this state and these FIRSTers and support the effort, the initiative, the pluck, and the commitment of the volunteer leadership and all of the teams that will be a part of this.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Cory

If this became widespread, certain regions would comprise more than one state, I'm sure

Definitely. I'd say that the Northeast/New England would probably be one region, while the area of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the rest of the northern Great Plains would be another. Then more regions could spin off. (Note: Regions are only meant to be examples...)

As for the "if it becomes more widespread, how do teams from different regions interact" question, we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

[Beth Sweet]

I've attached the pdf I received in my email a few hours ago. It seems to detail more information which many have requested in this thread.

I'm still... composing... my personal opinion

[dtk]

Just to be clear there are not a large number of differences between the district format and a regional format. The biggest change is Thursday has been reduced to an optional 4 hours, with the other missing 8 hours allotted to teams to use off site.

The crew running the event, the tournament structure, the awards, the field, will all be within the within the normal bounds of regional events that are currently being run.

Low cost does not mean there are a ton of cut corners but merely finding ways to maximize the usage of the resources we have (local sponsors donating more of the items etc...). Even reducing the length of Thursday was not to cut costs but rather to allow for teams to attend more events while missing the same number of school days.

As many have mentioned there are some technical issues involved with the shortened format but aside from that I’m not sure where the idea of the district event being a stripped down regional is coming from. What parts of a regional are missing that so degrade the quality of the event?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by dtk

As many have mentioned there are some technical issues involved with the shortened format but aside from that I’m not sure where the idea of the district event being a stripped down regional is coming from. What parts of a regional are missing that so degrade the quality of the event?

As I'm sure you're aware, the budget for a typical regional event is typically somewhere between a quarter- and half-million dollars. I'd like to believe that there's not much pork there and that regional planning committees are practicing due diligence in making sponsorship dollars go as far as possible.

You are now suggesting that Michigan will be able to support more than twice as many events as last season at the same level of quality of regional events. Whereas before, regional planning committees in Michigan might have to raise, say, $750,000, it follows that the 2009 season will require $2,000,000. I am skeptical that you'll be able to make up the difference -- $1.25M -- through donations and support from local businesses. Necessarily, and admittedly, you are using venues, high school gymnasiums included, that do not have the same cache as those used by many other events.

There is appreciable benefit in generating interest in our progam when I am able to tell people that our competition will take place in KeyArena, Seattle's basketball stadium. It is more challenging to get people to understand the scope and value of the program, I think, if I instead have to invite them to the Franklin High School gymnasium.

I don't see how you can possibly provide experiences that are of the same caliber as today's regional events without a comparable budget. If you are able to provide an experience that matches the event we have here -- held in a large stadium, lighting trusses, gobos, television cameras, DJ, projection screens, professional presentation, etc. -- for such a significantly smaller cost, well, what the Hell is my regional planning committee doing wrong?

[Ian Curtis]

24 matches for the same low cost of $6000? Sweet! If only they threw in a free bonus practice day, I wouldn't only be sold, I'd move to Michigan!

That said, the loss of the practice day makes me worried, especially if they plan on having a lot of rookies. In the five years I've been involved with FRC, the practice day has been instrumental every single time. That would set me on edge if I lived in Michigan. Using IRI as an example is pretty invalid in terms of practice, as all those robots have seen at least one full event, and I'd bet a pretty good portion of them have seen multiple events.

Also, the way I read it, Michigan teams pay the full fee and have no chance of qualifying for Atlanta unless they pay another $4000 to play at the State Championship, right? That seems to me like it could potentially be a pretty hard sell to a school, and cost some deserving teams on low budgets (especially rookies) a trip to Atlanta.

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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?

Yes the cost of entry is high, do I believe that should change? no. There is a reason the cost of entry is high, because FIRST is such a superior robotics program when compared to lower-cost alternatives. That is why FIRST is special, by focusing on making it more 'approachable' and cheaper you are reducing the qualities that make FIRST a special program. Yea its really hard to build a robot with a team of students and engineers in six weeks, and yea its really hard to find the money to fund a team, but that's the challenge: running a successful FIRST team is hard work. For me that's just how I like it, make it more challenging.

To lower the cost of entry, in this case allowing teams to enter two mini-regionals, too much would have to be taken away from the experience of FIRST. I'm not saying don't try it, I'll be watching Michigan just as closely as everyone else, I'm just worried about the direction here.

[EricH]

I'm almost inclined to agree with Cory and Jonathan. There are quite a few valid objections to the new structure. These have been raised already; therefore, I won't go into them.

There are also good reasons to make the change permanent and even more widespread. Again, these have been brought up already.

However, I would like to remind everyone that this is a PILOT. As such, it may fail. It will almost certainly lead to changes. It may succeed. We won't know until next April/May whether it worked; more importantly, whether it worked the way it was intended to. We can only observe how it goes and give FIRST feedback as spectators and participants. I'm going to give FIRST the benefit of the doubt on this one, because it's an experiment. But if it doesn't work out, then someone will need to figure up some other way of reducing costs and/or improving return; i.e. increasing the "value" (in this case, bang-for-the-buck) of FIRST.

[smurfgirl]

Wow this sounds really interesting, I can't wait to see how this turns out. Is this the key to the future of FIRST? I will definitely keep my eye on Michigan this year.