|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan
Quote:
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! Last edited by Jason Morrella : 11-08-2008 at 21:13. Reason: I'm not a "strong" typer |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| California nad Michigan Schools Score First In Robotics Competition | Joe Matt | FIRST In the News... | 0 | 05-07-2005 17:43 |
| A New Concept for the Tournament Structure in 2004 | Andrew | Rules/Strategy | 38 | 07-07-2003 12:30 |
| West Michigan Robotics Competition | archiver | 1999 | 1 | 23-06-2002 23:00 |
| West Michigan Robotics Competition | archiver | 1999 | 1 | 23-06-2002 22:56 |
| West Michigan Robotics Competition | archiver | 2000 | 0 | 23-06-2002 22:33 |