New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

[BJT]

I am curious to see where the tech inspection fits into this format. Thursday usually isn't about installing upgrades to your robot, it's about having the official inspectors tell you if you need to change or fix something. If a team is 10 pounds overweight and has wiring issues, what makes us think they are going to figure it out by themselves in an 8 hour fix it window?

[Herodotus]

If there are seven district events in Michigan at least one of them is bound to be farther north, I would imagine. At least somewhat so. If not, that could be a major pain to any teams in the UP or towards Mackinac.

[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!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Read the announcement here.





What do you think?

-dave



.

For Michigan teams and the future of FIRST, this looks great.

But like all plans such as these, the devil is in the details and execution of such plans ... and we have yet to see either. Good luck to MI FIRST and to all the Michigan teams ... I believe it's going to be a wild ride.

[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.

[J@GMFlint]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

To comment on a few more items:


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.

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!

Jim, as you know we've talked about this concept before and agree on most points.

What has caused some heart-burn among our folks though is that they LOVE going to the MWR in Chicago, and as it stands currently, we would not be able to elect going there until the 2nd or unrestricted round of event selection, IF the event is still open. Which means we could be shut-out or wait-listed for the event that the team most want to go to and we all know how much fun it is to make travel plans on "If's".

In effect it also means that all MI teams lose out on an event of choice if they want to go outside of the state for their first event selection, even though they still intend to play at 3 total regional/district events. We think our initial event selections should be left open and do not agree with this point. We understand that they want to push teams to do this in-state, but maybe if a team commits to 3 events (2 in-state 1 out of state) perhaps they could leave the initial event choice open like the other teams and not be confined to choosing in-state only events 1st round.

Also, if there are open spots at MI events, then out-of-state teams should be allowed to participate in MI as well, except of course for the State Regional/Championship.

I am personally a bit concerned about not having Thursday practice, we always learn a lot from them, but more so, what about the tech inspections? We have a lot of quality off-season events, but there are no official inspections based on the premise that everyone is still using previously FIRST officially inspected and approved robots. With minor latitude graciously provided for repairs.

At the Kettering Rookie Regional the Tech. inspections were a bit "liberal" because this was "practice" for the rookies. I'd like to see what the execution plan is for this. I'd sure hate to be the team that didn't have access to a good scale and had to try and lighten a robot once they were weighed in heavy at an event at 8AM Friday and were scheduled for the first round of qualifications. Will these events be as "liberal" as well? Will the non-conforming team have to sit out a match, play anyway? Something just doesn't sit right with that one right now...

Plus, by the Off-Season most teams have their robots pretty well in order, so between match time is not as critical. For a week #1 event not having the Thursday to make revisions/corrections could make for a very painful event for anyone scrambling to do so between matches Fri & Sat. Again, I'd like to see the details on how we are going to get the increased # of matches. Would it be through a 30-40 min. turn around time, or more play time through a longer day?

OK, one more parting thought and perhaps the biggest one. At the KRR-08 no question, it was a high quality event, but we also had a LOT of quality volunteers from veteran teams throughout the Midwest all working together to make it a successful event. Who is going to staff all of these Michigan district events? It's one thing for a single event, maybe two, but is there a sufficient volunteer resource base to cover all of that, plus run our own teams especially if there are two events the same weekend where many of the teams are also competing?

Details, details...

[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.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by tdlrali

How? $5000 for KOP and TWO regionals? Two regionals for the price of one? That doesn't sound more expensive to me.

We are in Houghton MI which is about as far north as you can get in MI. So the 2 buss trips we would have to take to lower michigan won't save us any money it will actually cost us more. The initial expense is cheaper but people have to consider transportation as well and that is not cheap at all.

[Jim Zondag]

A couple of more points inspection:

At Kettering, ALL the teams were rookies. Thus many of them had never been through inspection before. We needed more inspectors than normal at this event because of this fact. At the 2009 events we will not have so many rookies at any of the events. Over 90% of the teams will have experience and will have done this before. They should know what they are doing and be much closer to having a legal robot when they arrive.

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.