FiM is NOT FIRST

[Cory]

The really stupid part about FiM to me, is that the model is clearly centered around the competition. It's focusing more on the robots, and the competitive experience by rewarding robot performance more than other aspects of FIRST.

Now I don't necessarily have an issue with this, because I like competing as much as anyone else, but I see where people have complaints.

The reason I think that it's stupid is because in most states besides MI, what is going to happen is the district system will actually make the competitions far worse. Teams from outside the area will not be able to travel to an event, and you'll see the same old group of teams. In areas without many strong teams, this will mean events that are super boring, or consistently dominated by one good team.

As to the point of "what do we do when we have 10,000 teams and can't use the current model?" well...let's just say I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's taken the better part of two decades to get to around 2,000 teams. FIRST management is completely delusional if they think there's a snowball's chance in hell of EVER having a FRC team in every school in the country, or even 50% of them.

What FIRST ought to be doing is figuring out how to prevent 15-20% of their teams from dropping out of the competition every year, instead of worrying about their growth rate. What good will it do to have 10,000 teams who barely have a clue and are just scraping by versus 2,000 teams that are actually sustainable?

[IKE]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

That's a hard question.

But if FIRST has to sacrifice their ideals and values* just to grow the program, that's not healthy growth. That's cancer.


* FiM is a robot competition. It's not a culture-changing competition that happens to use robots as a vehicle for inspiration.

I have run some of the numbers and posted it in another thread (started by Dave) what I would do. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=68653&page=18
Check those out. I really think something great could come from FiM.


I would argue some of the key objectives of a "Pilot" is to have a large enough sample for it to be meaningful. Also to not destroy the integrity of the whole by just making Universal changes to everyone. That is why you do a "Pilot".

The State boarder was chosen as a way to Geographically limit the damage if things go bad. Take it as it is.

I think it is very selfish to make statements like: "FIRST should not care about those that don't have programs, and instead help me and my friends". This is what "I" hear when senior teams tell me that they don't want things to change. I know that is not what you are intending, but again that is what I hear.

Back to the Quality vs. Quantity vs. Funding. Currently most of the regionals are subsidized heavily by corporations. Guess what, when discressionary money runs out, so does the large sum of cash to put on a regional. You already have Automakers like Nissan and many others pulling out of Auto-Shows that help sell their products. Do you think they will continue to earmark $250K so a "certain" group of kids can be inspired? A big part of FiM is trying to find a sustainable model for FRC. Right now their are 6 district events that teams automatically get to participate in 2 for $5k. Then 50% of teams get to qualify for the State Championship, which should be at least as good as GLR. What is not GP about that? Finding a way to remove one of the "off work" days so more mentors can participate, what is not GP about that? Having events close enough so that parents can come and watch. Letting Rookies get 2 events under their belts their first year. And there are many more positive elements. Talk to Rookies that didn't come back, and the number one thing they will tell you is too limit return on investment. It takes a couple of years for the "values" to sink in.

As far as the Culture Transforming awards, some might say that any points you put towards a culture transforming award cheapens the meaning of the Award. Just a thought. I too was shocked that there were not points for those awards, but I think there is more to it.

Disagreeing with some of the points system is great. Adding input on what you value about FIRST is great (thank you Beth). Being passionate about your program is great. Please be realistic. Most teams are building with donated money, and traveling with donated money, and playing on fields with donated money. FiM may not be the exact right answer, but I applaud them for trying. I look forward to looking back on 2009 to see if FiM is a success.

[Justin Montois]

I totally agree with Cory and Colin touched on this point as well. We should be striving towards sustainable teams. Not more teams just for the sake of having them.

If the goal of FIRST in this endeavor is to get more students involved, the experience they get on a so-so team that is struggling, is not as good as the experience they would get if they perhaps traveled down the road a bit to a school that already has a successful team. Our team currently has a few students from a neighboring district without a team and I know they are having a great experience.

As far as FiM is concerned, I guess I'm not totally clear about what their goal is. The Q&A says that this competition structure was determined to be the best way to bring a quality experience to as many students as possible. Yet they have also said that there are "so many teams" in Michigan that the three regional’s they host is not enough to support all the teams. Yet for some reason the answer is not another regional. Because they say, they don't have the money in sponsorship to start another regional. I find it interesting that all these new teams in Michigan seem to find money to start and be competitive yet the money is lacking for a regional.

I think if there true goal is a quality experience then robbing teams of an FRC Regional experience is not the answer. I love the Finger Lakes Regional. To me, that's what FIRST is. The build season is fun and everything don't get me wrong, but going to FLR is what it's all about. Over the years 340 has been lucky to meet teams like 365, 67, 65, 68, 217, 354, among others. That's the FIRST experience. Under the FiM model we wouldn't have a 365 shirt in our shop, or a 217 and 237 shirt.

Simply, if your state can't support another regional, then stop pushing for new teams. Look at the MOE Robotics group. How many high schools is that? And you can't tell me those kids haven't gotten an amazing experience. Between a great robot every year and a national Chairman's award, they are a team that should be emulated. Ask a kid on a struggling team in Michigan if he doesn’t wish his team could be like that.

Quality. Not Quantity.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

Yet they have also said that there are "so many teams" in Michigan that the three regional’s they host is not enough to support all the teams. Yet for some reason the answer is not another regional. Because they say, they don't have the money in sponsorship to start another regional. I find it interesting that all these new teams in Michigan seem to find money to start and be competitive yet the money is lacking for a regional.

There are now 127 teams registered in Michigan, including 13 rookies and 13 second-year teams. Not "all those new" teams, but a steady growth. With the 3 regionals we had about 140-150 slots - the Detroit Regional at Wayne State was limited to only about 35 teams because of the size of the facility. The people who created what eventually became FiM were looking toward the time there wouldn't be enough regional slots in the state for all the teams from the state, let alone those who wanted to go to a second regional in the state. They could have looked for sponsorship to hold a 4th regional, which would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000. Instead, they chose to eliminate two of the regionals, create 7 new district tournaments at a total cost of less than one regional, and change GLR into the Michigan Championship.

I think if there true goal is a quality experience then robbing teams of an FRC Regional experience is not the answer. I love the Finger Lakes Regional. To me, that's what FIRST is. The build season is fun and everything don't get me wrong, but going to FLR is what it's all about. Over the years 340 has been lucky to meet teams like 365, 67, 65, 68, 217, 354, among others. That's the FIRST experience. Under the FiM model we wouldn't have a 365 shirt in our shop, or a 217 and 237 shirt.

I've already addressed the concerns about not seeing teams from other states. But the reality of the situation is that very soon, Michigan would have to close registration to other states anyway, as Washington did for a time. That or say, "No more new teams."

Simply, if your state can't support another regional, then stop pushing for new teams. Look at the MOE Robotics group. How many high schools is that? And you can't tell me those kids haven't gotten an amazing experience. Between a great robot every year and a national Chairman's award, they are a team that should be emulated. Ask a kid on a struggling team in Michigan if he doesn’t wish his team could be like that.

Quality. Not Quantity.

Except MOE is in a tiny little state - even considering they get some students from nearby states. Oakland County alone is 40% the size of Delaware - and has 28 teams, including 5 rookies. Some of the rookie teams in Michigan this year are from communities 50 or more miles from any existing team. Some are from the Detroit schools, with no transportation available to the suburbs. Are you really in favor of saying "No room" to inner city and small-town/rural school districts? And most of the legacy teams are in southeast Michigan, historically largely supported by the auto industry. There are many medium-size cities and scores of small town school systems still without teams. FiM was created to give access to those areas.

Is it an ideal solution? No. We've argued the point structure here in this thread. But something had to be done, or the existing teams would have been in the position of crossing the moat, pulling up the drawbridge behind them, and keeping the castle to themselves.

[Paul Copioli]

For those of you not in favor of FiM, I just ask that you be careful with what you say. Unknowingly, some of you have called me, and many like me, not GP. I ask that you take a moment and think before you write.

Maybe FiM won't work. Maybe it will. I can guarantee you that the numbers for point values probably should be tweaked. There is nothing stopping that.

I can tell you this: my team has saved money due to this model. Many others are competing in two events for the first time in their history. To say the FiM competition structure doesn't teach GP, I just don't get it.

Cory brought up an interesting point about one team dominating a weak district. How many Silicon Valley Regionals has 254 won in the last 11 years? Seems to me that the possibility of weak regionals already exists. Sorry, but I am calling it like I see it.

It is funny to me that many of you complaining are not even from Michigan. Why can't you let it play out and we can debate then. While there may be many that will force the issue after the season, there are many more of us that will take a factual look at how it actually worked. Believe it or not, the evil FiM folks do care about GP (there are over 5 WFFA winners that are part of FiM) and about teams. Retention is at the top of the priority list.

Beth,

When you see Jim Zondag at the Novi Kickoff (if you are going there), please tell him to his face that he is not promoting Gracious Professionalism and make sure I am there to see it.

Paul

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Beth,

When you see Jim Zondag at the Novi Kickoff (if you are going there), please tell him to his face that he is not promoting Gracious Professionalism and make sure I am there to see it.

Paul

Paul,

If Jim Zondag would care to discuss this issue with me, I would be happy to do so.

[Edit: For the record, I spoke with 4 FiM members before making this post, 1 of whom never responded to my email, another of whom said that my opinions would be shared, but likely ignored. This has been my last resort]

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

It is funny to me that many of you complaining are not even from Michigan. Why can't you let it play out and we can debate then. While there may be many that will force the issue after the season, there are many more of us that will take a factual look at how it actually worked. Believe it or not, the evil FiM folks do care about GP (there are over 5 WFFA winners that are part of FiM) and about teams. Retention is at the top of the priority list.


Paul

Paul,

Those of us not from Michigan that are discussing this have read Dave Lavery's post about midway down in this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=68653&page=15

We realize what you guys are working on is probably going to spread. So we are trying to discuss it as much as possible. I think if FIRST plans to use the FiM platform as the way to grow FIRST then everyone should have a say no matter where they are from.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

It is funny to me that many of you complaining are not even from Michigan.

Maybe people are getting passionate about this because they feel the things happening inside Michigan are going to affect the future of this program outside of Michigan.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Why can't you let it play out and we can debate then. While there may be many that will force the issue after the season, there are many more of us that will take a factual look at how it actually worked.

Maybe because this program was proposed, structured, & instituted without any input from the international community people are concerned that it will be similarly deemed a "success" without any input or discussion within the international community. This is especially scary if the "success" of this program will end up affecting the rest of us.
Based on prior history... should the dissenters just hold their tongues and hope an appropriate time for airing grievances and open discussion is made available?

Though, I guess ultimately the opinions of the international FIRST community don't really matter when it comes to long term planning for the FIRST program. Right? Someone will come along and tell us all what is best for us, again.

Why are you so eager to stop the discussion?

-John

[Paul Copioli]

John,

I am not eager to stop the discussion, but will not tolerate accuasations that FiM is trying to make FIRST like OCCRA and that FiM is making FIRST forget about the base fundamental values that we all hold so dear.

Look at the first post in this thread and if you think the accusations in it are valid, then we really have nothing more to discuss as I believe they are proposterous.

What actual solutions were proposed in the first post? What counter proposals were mentioned? It seemed to be a libelous rant that has no place in this forum.

I am not part of FiM as I disagree with some of the assumptions made, but I am willing to let it play out this season and take copious notes on what is good and what is bad and use factual (not emotional) arguments for it, against it, or propose changes. I am just asking the rest of you to do the same. I am sure Beth will do the same, but I disagree with the tactics she is using right now.

Are you saying that this discussion in this thread is actually helping anyone at all? I agree that this has been a cordial discussion, but it has not been a productive discussion.

Arguments like, "the competition will stink" or, "the quality of the event will go down" will only have the right to say "I told you so" at the end of the season; but what will they have actually done to try to help some of the barriers of entry (or to sustain) for a FIRST team?

[Zflash]

I believe that FIM is still FIRST when you have such a large group of people that get together and compete against one another and help one another at the same time they are displaying and passing on GP every moment of the competition. As far as the point system I am sure that will work out eventually and it is not to late to change it now,the competition hasn't even started. If you feel strongly about it post a point system here for all to see and discuss. With that said money saving is a huge issue with any team in the FIRST community, and my understanding is that MI teams have gotten at least a $127,000 donation from someone to cut their registration cost, and have been allowed to put regionals on for less money as well. I hope that in the future the rest of us can recieve some of the benifits the MI has gotten this year that will surely make thier experience much better then the teams that can only afford one event, and the like us to take our students to multiple events each year. Good Luck FIM. and FIRST.

[Beth Sweet]

My apologies if my corrections weren't clear, I thought that they were implied.

As, by my post, I state that point values are indicators of value importance, all awards should be given equal points, excluding at least Chairmans, long been claimed by FIRST to be the most honored, which ought to receive a greater number than the rest. The Chairman's Award, that which has been so revered and encouraged by FIRST, must be placed in a class by itself, above and beyond the rest. If there is a 5 point rate for the robot awards, in order to show equal value to the rest of the awards, all awards should be ranked at 5 points, except for "the most important award in all of FIRST" which quite obviously should receive more points than all the rest.

I was under the impression that this was implied by my original post, my apologies if this was not the case to some people.

[IKE]

Some constructive Points:

Chairman's Award. One thing I have never liked about Chairman's award is the all or nothing approach. Teams can put a great deal of effort into it, and get very little feedback. Often, the runner's up will get the Engineering Inspiration award. What I would have loved for FiM to do is to grade a team's Chairman's effort. Give them a score that then gets used in the system. This promotes doing Chairmans. To put it frankly, I have seen a lot of really good submissions for Chairman's from my team, but only the greats win. Adding points to just the winner wouldn't make our team try any harder (or work any less). Now if we got a 75 out of 100, Next year we can push the kids to shoot for an 80 or better. For the Formual SAE competition the big award that all the engineers want to win is the Design competition. They score the design presentations relative to the merit of the design and the teams ability to present. Teams are then scored. 0-125. Typically most teams get rather generic scores ranging from 0 (DNF) to 70 pretty good. Semi-finalist (top 10) are typically 90-100 point range, and then the Design finals are held after the actual race (top 3). Design finals are also public!!! That way other teams get to be inspired.

As far as being concerned that a Chairman's level team will not get to compete at the State championship. I would say that it is highly unlikely (at least in Michigan and likely the Midwest). Seriously if you run the data, this Chairman's award level team would have to have a robot that is not playing Saturday afternoon at both Districts. I have a very hard time believing that a team organized enough to win a Chairman's in Michigan can't make a robot that drives well (which is all it usually takes to make it into the top 24 at a 40 team event).

If FiM is a good thing that should be spread, I would think the next step would be to erase the state borders and have districts and regional championships. You can go wherever you want, but I personally would look down on teams spending exhorbinant travel fees instead of using that capital to help sustain other teams. The best way to have good competition at home is to work with a local team. Yesterday, I talked to a leader from a Rookie Team that 217 has literally taken under their wing. Nice job Thunderchikens. 2337 was one of the Top qualifiers at nationals last year due to their hard work ethic, and the mentorship of the Mid-Michigan teams. If you don't have good competition in your area, then make it. If you raise the funds yourself, fine, fly to Vegas. If it is on a corporate grant. I personally think there is a better way to spend that money.

As I said before one of the major complaints from Rookie teams that I hear is that it is a ton of work and money just to get blown away as you are trying to get your machine going. Getting a second event, then they will actually have a chance to play. I know our team has helped many Rookies get their machines running at the Regionals (some even qualified ahead of us in 2007). There is a certain lansing team that I know I helped in 2005 & 2006 while they were having a hard time getting started. For me that is the most rewarding part of competition. I can't afford hotels, days off work, and fuel bills to travel across the country supporting regionals. I am looking forward this year because I can drive 2 hours early Saturday morning to help a team get their arm working, reset the fields, or run cables, or be a safety naz.. uh inspector.

For those that are close enough, and want to form an educated opinion, please come and volunteer at a Michigan District event near you. As JVN said, this model could get forced on the FIRST community and an Educated, Fact Based opinion will go a lot further than conjecture. You guys are smart, take a couple hours and run the numbers for yourself. If you find a better way please share.

[johnr]

Please correct me if i am wrong,but if you win chairmans at district isn't that a invite to atlanta? If yes, why would you need another chance at getting that pass at states by playing? If no, then point system needs to be changed. I would hope that a team that wins a chairmans would also earn enough points at districts to go to states.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by johnr

Please correct me if i am wrong,but if you win chairmans at district isn't that a invite to atlanta? If yes, why would you need another chance at getting that pass at states by playing? If no, then point system needs to be changed. I would hope that a team that wins a chairmans would also earn enough points at districts to go to states.

That is incorrect. Winning Chairmans at district is an invite to States, who will then funnel it down, eliminating over half of the district winners. This was requested by FIRST, who, understandably was uncomfortable with us going from 3 regional winners to 7 district winners. Thus, States points are important.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by johnr

Please correct me if i am wrong,but if you win chairmans at district isn't that a invite to atlanta? If yes, why would you need another chance at getting that pass at states by playing? If no, then point system needs to be changed. I would hope that a team that wins a chairmans would also earn enough points at districts to go to states.

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

That is incorrect. Winning Chairmans at district is an invite to States, who will then funnel it down, eliminating over half of the district winners. This was requested by FIRST, who, understandably was uncomfortable with us going from 3 regional winners to 7 district winners. Thus, States points are important.

And in addition, there are two separate advancement tracks to State. Winning the CA, EI, etc. gets your team an invite to participate in the judging for those awards at State. Points earned on the field and for other awards gets your robot an invite to compete at State.

As I recall, the top 3 Chairman's presentations at State will get invited to Atlanta - with their robot, I presume.

Thus the contention that started this thread - that the points given toward competition and technical awards skew the focus of teams away from the culture-changing awards. We'll have to see how that all plays out.