New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

People seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a pilot. Of course you don't launch it everywhere at once. You have to see if it will work.

OK, nobody should be fooling themselves here. This is a "pilot" program in the same way that the first flight of the Airbus 300 was a "pilot" test flight. The real, full deployment is going to happen after this "pilot" program and there is not a lot that will be allowed to stand in its way. This model is going to be continued, whether this first year works or not. It is going to be spread across the rest of the country, whether the other states want it or not.

Why do I say this? One simple reason: no one is actually interested in the "success" or "failure" of the pilot program. It appears that it has been pre-ordained that the pilot program will be a "success."

If this were a legitimate pilot program, a well thought out set of goals to be achieved by the pilot program would exist, and be readily apparent. The criteria for a successful experience would be carefully spelled out in a set of thoughtful, objective, and complete, test conditions that would determine whether those goals were achieved or not. Those test conditions would be well-rooted in a legitimate business model that looked at the appropriate areas of impact on the teams, the region, the state, and the national organization. The FIRST board of directors would know those criteria, and approve them. And the criteria would NOT be written by the people charged with executing the pilot, but by objective third parties who have no stake in the outcome.

However, those success criteria do not exist. And they don't exist because no one wants them to. Because if there is no standard against which you determine success, then you can never fail. Instead, history will be re-written retroactively when the pilot program is over, with the success criteria suitably defined at that time to correspond to the actual events.

Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

To quote Dean Kamen:

"Over the years FIRST has aggressively taken steps to invent new programs and reinvent existing programs to find new ways to take our message to ever more participants. The district event pilot in Michigan is an important opportunity to help reinvent FRC, our flagship program. It holds the promise of making FRC more accessible, thereby moving us closer to the day when every high school student has an opportunity to participate. Team members should be able to play more and play closer to home, all at a lower cost."

Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.

-dave


.

[Rich Kressly]

There's a good point Dave makes about this being called a "pilot". While the new structure has possible merits and I'm thrilled for the MI teams that will get to play an additional event and most likely more matches in each for a little less money, I'm not so sure what "success" will be measured against either.

I'm also concerned that no matter how successful in MI this might be that the infrastructure required to make this system scalable might not exist at all. How many volunteers will this require over a local "season"? How many fields, FTAs, robot storage facilities? How will this work in regions where the nearest "rival school" is already 3 hours away? Will this solution really change much for them? MI may be able to clear these hurdles, but look at the FRC strength that already exists there.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, I think this is an idea born in MI that may work for MI. Even with events and a slightly less expensive entry, I still don't know how many folks nationwide and globally are able to jump right into starting an FRC team and build a big robot. As an advocate for intermediate-sized programs, to me this plan is missing an integral piece that could get teams and communities interested in a way that initially costs far less in human capital and expertise.

Unless we can see a real "plan" with proposed goals and desired outcomes, I'm sure we'll be having much the same conversation after these events with little more than anecdotal information about who liked what and what some people thought worked, etc...

...just my little log for the fire
namaste

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dlavery

... this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.

-dave


.

You are right.

I applaud what FIRST in Michigan is attempting. As John said earlier, there are great people in Michigan who will move heaven and earth to make this approach work -- in Michigan.

Whether it can work elsewhere is a proper subject for discussion by everyone who cares enough to commit time and treasure to the mission of FIRST. I hope the discussion will stay active, and gracious.

[Pat Major]

Top ten reasons FIRST in Michigan system with events being held at high schools is an improvement over the current FIRST model:
1) Expose more students to FIRST.
2) Expose more teachers to FIRST.
3) Allow your sponsors to “stop by a competition after work”.
4) Allow student’s parents to more easily attend an event.
5) Reduce the cost of participating in FIRST.
6) Increase teams ROI.
7) Reduce the time mentors have to be away from work.
8) Reduce the time students have to miss school.
9) Reduce expensive time consuming travel.
10) Money that was paid to event planners can now be used to sponsor more teams.

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by Pat Major

Top ten reasons FIRST in Michigan system with events being held at high schools is an improvement over the current FIRST model:
1) Expose more students to FIRST.
2) Expose more teachers to FIRST.
3) Allow your sponsors to “stop by a competition after work”.
4) Allow student’s parents to more easily attend an event.
5) Reduce the cost of participating in FIRST.
6) Increase teams ROI.
7) Reduce the time mentors have to be away from work.
8) Reduce the time students have to miss school.
9) Reduce expensive time consuming travel.
10) Money that was paid to event planners can now be used to sponsor more teams.

And that list (which is even missing some big pros/advantages) is precisely why so many regions and teams will be at a disadvantage and consider this upcoming season to have two separate values and sets of rules.

I don't post much anymore, but I don't have a high pain tolerance and I want to stop biting my lip.

As someone said earlier, the entire point of this "pilot" is to provide a better value and return for the cost. And it does that, there is no doubt:
- no one can debate that two events for $5,000 is a substantially better value than one event for $6,000 or two events for $10,000
- no can debate that having 6 or 7 events in a state makes it easier and cheaper for more schools to participate in
- no one can debate that saving $5,000 gives teams a huge advantage in either time/energy/stress saved in fundraising or in the ability to build a practice robot, buy a new control system or attend an extra regional
- no one can debate having your robot in your hands during the fix it window, being able to drive it, being able to add parts to it and so on is much more advantageous than just working on parts and bringing them to an event

IRI and many other great off season events have already proven teams will have a great time and great experience at lower cost events, done in 1 or 2 days, that they get to bring their robots to. There's no question that it's a better deal and a better value, and there certainly isn't any "pilot" needed to prove it. It's all been proven already - which leads to the questions/concerns many have as to why this pilot is needed if it gives some teams these benefits but not others.

The problem is, this pilot effectively sets up two different competitions this year. One set of rules and a substantially better value for teams from one state, and a different set of rules and a lesser value for teams from the rest of the country/world. This has nothing to do with "which teams" or "which state" is getting the advantage - this same issue would exist no matter where it was happening. If this was happening in Florida, California or New York - the issues would be no different, so I don't have any issue with Michigan teams wanting to save money or get a better return for their efforts. The price/value needs to get better for all teams in all areas - and anyone who has participated on an FRC team knows that.

The issue is that for the first time ever, there will be one set of teams getting a substantial discount over others, that's the part that makes little sense (especially since registration fees don't go towards paying for the cost of any FIRST regional events anyway). If this pilot was truly designed to give teams more plays at a better value, then it seems it should be done in states that don't have multiple regionals already (Hawaii, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc...), those are the states it could truly make the biggest impact and help the most teams who can't compete twice in the existing system IMHO.

One of the great things about FIRST is that is has always been one great community - my fear and concern for this pilot is that this upcoming season will now have a fractured community: FIRST in Michigan at one price/value, and FIRST everywhere else at a different price/value. Any pilot that can in any way potentially fracture the great community everyone has built in FIRST needs to be handled very carefully and in a way that is fair to all.

My 3 cents.

Hope everyone's having a great summer!

[Rich Kressly]

Alright, when I posted earlier I hadn't read Beth's pdf about the shipping situation. Is this verified as true? Even without the pilot structure in my state is there any good reason for my team to have to ship its robot? It seems to me we could save a whole lot of money (not to mention the colossal headaches) for teams and FedEx, if the free FedEx shipping was just ued in situations where teams couldn't drive the bot to a regional. Santa, what I want for Xmas is the same cost (money and human) savings as MI teams, even if the pilot structure doesn't exist in my state.

[Zflash]

One criteria that our team uses when deciding to compete out of state is whether an event is being held at a university. We do this because we like the opportunity to show our students out of state options. Our team has traveled to Purdue twice for this reason and to the Florida regional as well. On other teams we have traveled to VCU. Traveling long distances is justified to the parents by pointing this out to them. My question is do other teams do this and how do you think it will affect MI?
By the way MI has always been on our list.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Jason Morrella

If this pilot was truly designed to give teams more plays at a better value, then it seems it should be done in states that don't have multiple regionals already (Hawaii, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc

Jason,
I can't speak for any other states. I agree this may provide more benefit elsewhere. This proposal came from the from the regional coordinators here in Michigan to FIRST in New Hampshire. No one here made any attempt to represent any region outside of Michigan. I have no idea if any other regiona has every tried to implement any kind of similar initiative. I think FIRST was wise in terms of how to proceed with this idea and properly manage risk. Some think this will be an improvement, others disagree. The only way to know is to test it. FIRST agreed to implement this in this region and partially isolate it from the rest of the league in order to properly test the concept.

Dave,
I think it is too soon to assume that this will be universally rolled out everywhere in the future. I'm not sure anyone other than the FIRST board of directors can comment on that. Many of the goals of this change are financially motivated and a fairly detailed proposal was approved by the FIRST board of directors. A "successful" pilot event based on the new event model was conducted last March at Kettering U. How can we claim it was a success?... A: We surveyed all the teams who attended and had universally positive responses, B: Event was conducted with all costs meeting targets far below a traditional regional, C: Delegates from the FIRST board of directors were in attendance and were very satisfied with the event quality.

So, if we please the participants, please the management, and can do it for under the projected budget, is it a success? I'm not sure what other measures to use. On the flip side, how exactly can anyone claim that the current system is entirely "successful". ROI is low, team attrition rates are high, and many Regional events lose money every year with no end in sight. Is this "successful?"

Who will decide if this pilot is a success in 2009? Internally, the FIRSTinMichigan project has financial goals, expectations on how the events will be conducted and how many teams we can help to fund. These will be our internal measures of success. On the outside, how will FIRST NH determine if it is a success? I'm really not sure. I agree with you that there must be some standards by which FIRST will measure our "success" in 2009, but I do not know how or if this will be done.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Who will decide if this pilot is a success in 2009? Internally, the FIRSTinMichigan project has financial goals, expectations on how the events will be conducted and how many teams we can help to fund. These will be our internal measures of success. On the outside, how will FIRST NH determine if it is a success? I'm really not sure. I agree with you that there must be some standards by which FIRST will measure our "success" in 2009, but I do not know how or if this will be done.

That's the problem.

"Internal" goals are subject to change without anyone in the community ever knowing. Internal goals can be moved lower after everything is said and done, and success can be [wrongfully] claimed. This is more or less exactly what Winston Smith did for a living.

This is a non-profit organization were are all a part of. This is not a business that has to protect its property, products, and ideas. There should be no secrets or private internal goals. What is there to hide? It should all be publicly available with complete transparency about why they are doing everything, for exactly what reasons, and exactly what they want to accomplish.

As such, this "pilot" in Michigan should have a very rigid set of goals released to the public well before the season kicks off about what they attempt to accomplish. And these goals cannot just be unquantifiable goals, like asking everyone if they had a happy time. They need to be hard numbers.

For example, this would be the start of what quantifiable goals for this program can be:

• Currently, A% of schools in Michigan have strong STEM-related curriculum or FIRST teams. And due to B, C, and D reasons, we believe the current growth strategy will not work for expanding this presence. As such, we are currently looking at this district-level pilot program for meeting the above goals.
  
  The new pilot program in Michigan is being pursued to increase the number of teams in the state by a rate 30% higher than the average growth in Michigan over the past ten years, as well as increase the team retention rate by an average of 50%. The average growth in the number of teams in Michigan over the past ten years has been an average of E new teams per year, and the average retention rate has been F%.
  
  In order to successfully execute this plan, we currently will need to grow the infrastructure of the existing FRC program in G, H, and I areas. We currently have J number of volunteers in the state; five years ago we have K, and ten years ago we had L. Though measures M and N, we are looking to increase the number of volunteers available for these competitions, and to successfully train them to fulfill these positions as well as current volunteers.
  
  Also needed to grow this new program are large sources of new capital to fund these improvements. Over the past ten years, the average growth of capital to fund teams and competitions and the state has been O%. In order to successfully carry out this new district model, we will need to increase that by P%. This will require an aggressive campaign to bring in funds through measures Q, R, and S.
  
  In the case that these conditions cannot be accomplished by T date, our fallback plan details are U, V and W. In light of such happening, any new models of competition listed above will be put on hold until the conditions listed above can be satisfied.

As such, I also want an objective assessment of this new district-level competition as opposed to other avenues of growing the message of FIRST, and why they feel (and can prove) this new program is better, especially in regards to quantifiable goals, such as the cost per person to participate, average time necessary to have a competitive robot, etc.

FIRST is inspiring us to careers in STEM. So now it's time to use these skills to make decisions based on numbers and not on bellyfeel.

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Jason, The only way to know is to test it. FIRST agreed to implement this in this region and partially isolate it from the rest of the league in order to properly test the concept.

Hi Jim,

I understand what you're saying, and I applaud the people in Michigan trying to make this happen. The cost of FRC is WAY too high, there is no doubt about that. It should be cheaper to run an event and registration fees should certainly be cheaper (or at least some of the apx $200,000 in registration fees teams pay for each local event should actually go to paying the costs of that local event).

One point I was trying to make however is that "isolating" this as a "pilot" has already been done - in multiple cities by multiple groups for a number of years and it works. We all know the answers to the test: A lower cost structure for events is better for local volunteers/committees/sponsors, a lower entry fee is better for teams, getting to play twice for less than the cost of playing once is better for teams, getting to keep your robot and being able to make repairs & practice driving with it before events is better for teams, having more events in a region saves teams travel time/money and allows them to play more. This pilot isn't going to help prove any of those things - they are already proven. If the test is going to be given, it sounds like most everyone would like the opportunity to try it.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I can't speak for any other states. I agree this may provide more benefit elsewhere. This proposal came from the from the regional coordinators here in Michigan to FIRST in New Hampshire. No one here made any attempt to represent any region outside of Michigan. I have no idea if any other regiona has every tried to implement any kind of similar initiative.

Michigan is certainly not the first, and it won't be the last, to propose models to lower costs for events and teams (most are just never made public). I've worked with regional committees in California, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii and other states who have wanted to cut regional costs, lower fees for teams and try different models in their area for many years - but they were always told those tests should be in the off season and that they wouldn't be allowed to deviate in a major way from the model all events had during the official season, that the FRC season had to have the same guidelines and requirements for all events and teams to be fair. Many off season event organizers, like IRI, have pitched their models to FIRST and had FIRST people come observe them - and they have proven the results of those "pilots".

But these groups were never told there had been a shift and that they could run regionals in their states differently during the upcoming official season. I've heard from a number of committee members from different areas that they were stunned to see FIRST allow such a different model in one state without ever telling them they could offer those opportunities to the teams in their area. Trust me, if that was known, many states would be happy to do such a model this year.

Again, let me repeat, I applaud the efforts of the volunteers in Michigan to get a better return on the investment for schools and teams. It's the right thing to strive and work for. FRC will only be accessible to the majority of schools and students if the cost is lower. I just wish the same savings and opportunities were being offered to all teams - or at least to all teams with only one event in their state or region.

There's no doubt the FRC cost structure will change in the coming years, I (cough) agree (cough) with Dave - it will happen - with or without what is being done in Michigan this year. As IRI, Kettering and many others have already proven - a reduced event and team cost model works and is a good thing for teams, if made available to all teams.

[Jim Zondag]

Jason,
I didn't know that other areas had made any serious attempts to implement low-cost strategies before. As I said before, none of the planning for this was deliberately done in secret, but until the idea got approved by FIRST, there was nothing to talk about publicly. Any other similar past proposals are catagorically the same, no news until it becomes news.

Perhaps the difference here is timing; after multiple attempts from various areas, combined with the current state of the US economy, FIRST finally agrees that the time is right to try something new. One thing I will say, this was not easy, and it took a long time to convince FIRST that this pilot should be allowed to proceed. We have the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as our leaders.

The local situation here is as follows: in 2008 we had 3 regional events. All of these are at capacity and cannot be increased in size. We have recruiting and growth targets for adding new teams which cannot be met without adding another regional. Our Regional Event planners already have diffiiculty finding the funding to run the exisiting events on the traditionaly cost model and it looked very unlikely that we would be able to properly fund a 4th event. Hence the pilot: for the same event support costs from our sponsor base as our current 3 events, we are now going to do 8! Ambitious? Yes...Risk Free? NO!....More Sustainable in the long run? Absolutely!

"A ship is safe in the harbor, but that is not why ships are built."

[J@GMFlint]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Then, the same political forces that shoved this pilot program through the system will demand that the "successful" model be adopted across the country. The same concerns that tried to counter how this pilot was structured will be unable to stop this next effort. And two years from now, we will all be playing at district events, whether they are appropriate for our states or not.

Sorry, but that smacks of "well, if Dean says so, then it must be right, so we can all stop talking about it now." I could not disagree more. The whole reason this thread was started was to get people talking about the pros and cons of the new idea, to see the reaction, and understand the concerns. If, as I suspect and discuss above, this is going to become the new national model of how the entire FRC program will be structured in the future, this whole topic needs a lot MORE discussion, not less.

-dave


.

More discussion questions in response to Dave's suggestion to talk MORE.

Please do not take these as a slam on the pilot, these are serious questions.

Questions, that would probably have been addressed had there been some level of communication in the planning phases of this venture. As a Michigan team leader, I must object to a "no news until it becomes news", (translated "need to know basis") position. We are supposed to be a community, and secrecy, deliberate or not, only serves to undermine that sense of community and creates a greater potential for friction.

It was posted that "The new system will definitely be much better at promoting the best robots"

Does this mean we are moving to where the "robot" and the "robot competition" is what will matter and count most for teams to "advance" to the championship? One of our Founding Father's once said "it's not just about building robots... that we get the best of what we celebrate..." where are we now headed and what will we be celebrating?

Look at the proposed points system for ranking and advancement to see what appears to be the FiM Vision.

The proposed points system for State qualification ranking is ALL about ROBOT FIELD PERFORMANCE. Why not consider total package scoring something like FLL, or FTC does while we reinvent here and demphasize the machines?

Here are a couple eye brow raisers:
#1 Alliance Captain = 16 points
#1 DRAFT PICK = 16 points (Why is this = to #1 Seed? Other than the assumption that a strong team, yet still not the #1 seeded team, will get picked first from wherever they are in the standings and benefit equally even though they had lesser points, by talent or luck?).

It even assigns points based off of the Elimination Rounds, with adjustments made to individual teams points by WHEN they were picked. Should draft pick even count for points as it is a decision solely made by teams and subject to, potential manipulation for points?

While Judged FIRST awards.... earn a whopping 5 points for a technical award, and 2 points (equal to a match win) for other Judged Awards!! Something looks amiss on the values. Do we as a FIRST Community concur with this, esp. if this indeed our future?

We can argue that it's essentially the same today, but look at the outward message this point system presents. Success in FiM is about building the best robots. Granted, that has always been implied, but now there's no redeeming gracious option in the system.

What about the team that bombs their first event, then Win's the 2nd- but doesn't have the points to go to State? Or the team who never Wins, but gets the points? (I haven't done any of the math, but I'm sure analysis would be worthwhile and interesting) Maybe FiM has something they can share? Or if that team that bombed the first, Wins the 2nd, then actually qualifies for State, but realizes they have no shot at the CMP, and/or has no $$$ to go. When do the tallies come out? So that the next in line might go. Who keeps track and issues the lists?

I'm assuming that a serpentine draft will help balance some of this point distribution though, right? Or, are they planning top-down each round? It really does begin to matter more for State Quals now, and it's not just an impact on a winning alliance.

What is the plan for current Chairman's Award teams? Will they still get the automatic qualification to the Championship? How do they impact the 18 teams from the State if they Win an event and get a ton of points? Or are the final point values going to be calculated after taking the CA teams out? What about the teams they won, or lost with?

How about the State Championship events? Should they (Past Chairman's, or Winner's) be able to go to State and diminish the chances of others qualifying for the Championship if they are already going to Atlanta?

Perhaps FiM should "pilot" them not getting the automatic qualification as well? Or if they do have an automatic qualification, does FiM plan to bar them from competing in the state championship and "suggest" their teams provide the "volunteers" for the State event?

Is there going to be financial assistance made for teams that need to cough up $4000 in a few days if they qualify in week #5 for State? Remember, everyone's budget is expected to drop dramatically.

What if the same team earns a spot at the CMP? That's $9000 in a short time, and two trips back to sponsors and almost 2X of what the initial cost was. I don't know about all this... esp. in tighter times and for smaller teams.

Why only 2 Rookie All-Stars to the CMP, when the State used to send 3? This opportunity can significantly boost a new team, the kinds of teams we are supposed to be helping with all this

Only one Eng. Insp?

We're still planning to send 3 Chairman's...

3 Winners...

9 Top points/field performers...

I highly advise ALL teams to look this pilot over very carefully and critically. Don't let anyone else do your thinking for you.

No one questions the need to improve. Are we sure we have the right vehicle to get there and are keeping to the objectives of developing people along with robots? If we can work through some of the questions and questionable aspects now together, why wait a full season to test & see?

Perhaps FiM will host some official discussion soon. I think it would be well worth the time.

[fuzzy1718]

Now knowing that the initial idea came from michigan teams ALOT is explained. I guarantee (I don't know anything for sure just my thoughts) that the planning was mostly done by FIRST's "Elite" members (if you don't know what I'm talking about then email me, my rep can't take another huge hit) and had lttle to no imput from "newbie" FIRSTers.
As far as the comments about everything being public and little done in side deals, all I can say is get used to it. Everyone builds up FIRST so much that many think that it is the utopia that we all dream of, the fact is most of the stuff that gets done happens through smoke and mirrors. The same is true in the real world of every day life.
There was a post earlier that made a comment about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) I think the new system's designers' hearts were in the right place, but not everything was thought through or is this the smoke and mirror effect again? If everything is a strict need to know basis and a "small" group put this idea together, Then FIRST is no different the the current government. (I know that a lot of people won't like that comment, but hey not many like me and in my eyes it is the truth)
I guess what many want to know (especially me) is who put the idea out there and was the mastermind of it. often who puts something together shows in how it works and for who it works. Those who did put it together probably don't want to come forwards due to all the heat, but would you rather like people to draw their own conclusions? That can turn ugly very fast.

I know that my rep will probly go down after this, but it needed to be said. I admit I don't want the new structure to go away, I even like some of it's ideas, I just think it needs to be revaulated and the whole community needs to have a say and know what is going on at all times. No more of the smoke and mirrors B.S. that FIRST pulls and now FiM is trying to pull.

Now you can bash what i have said here, since everyone is so good at it, or put yourselves in someone eleses shoes and view it with a new light, although half of you probly stopped reading after the government bit. Let's see... if you read the whole thing put robot in size 5 font at the top of your post.

let the bashing begin,
Fuzzy

[SusanMeyer]

I'm not going to bash you Fuzzy. I agree with most (not all) of what you said, though you could say it in a less confrontational tone. I don't know what the rep thing is, but don't feel bad for questioning things that don't look right. I agree with those that think challenging things that don't seem right and asking questions and having open discussion is good (when done respectfully). You should not be afraid to post views that question and challenge decisions made by FIRST or any other organization, that's the only way mistakes can be fixed. The point that "Michigan has the benefit of having some very persitent individuals as leaders"(including a board member) who can get things pushed through that benefit their teams and not the rest bothers me very much. That doesn't sound like something the FIRST I've been a fan of would allow and is what disappoints me most. School hasn't started yet, so don't they still have time to fix this and make sure all teams get the same benefits for the same price?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

"rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." This new system was designed almost specificly for that, maybe not intentionally, but the point is it favors certain teams over others. (No not all michigan teams) Fuzzy

Wow, I am beginning to feel like a member of the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy"

I can tell you for a fact, this proposal does little to help your so called "elite". These teams have money, have build shops and have the means to ALWAYS produce a great robot in 6 weeks. What does this do for them?....very little. Now, on the flip side, half the teams in the state have barely enough resources to play at one event in 2008. In 2009, every team will now get to play twice, and will have 3 times as much field time as in the past for a lower price. This has almost no benefit for the rich teams, they already have the cash to play as many times as they want, but this will make a world of difference for many who can not currently afford to expand their involvement.

Now look at how this will actually hurt the elite. It is a well documented fact that the more a team plays, the better they get. If you don't believe this, look at the OPR value growth on any team across multiple events. The trend is almost universally in the positive direction. This is why many senior teams try to play as many times as possible. In 2008 there were only 5 teams from Michigan that played at 3 regionals. In 2009, there will effectively be over 60 teams who can make this claim. There goes a big competitive advantage previously only available to teams with a lot of money. Favoring the elite? I think not!