Michigan Regional System: Who is asking the hard questions around here?

[Katy]

So, Michigan regionals: hate them or love them they are here.

I'll say this right now: it is not my intention for this to turn into yet another rant about why you do or do not think this is a good idea. There is a very simple reason for this: the time for conjecture is past when there are hard facts present that you could work from instead.

That said? I obviously won't be the only one writing here and so I'm pretty prepared to accept that this topic might get rapidly swept away. I'm just asking you guys, out of politeness, to respect these intentions and take the hypothetical stuff elsewhere.

FIRST has called the regionals in Michigan a test. I trust that any sort of remotely educated or intelligent mind understands the meaning of the word "test" in the scientific sense. It would mean that they are running an experiment, that they have defined clear and measurable definitions of success and failure in various categories, and that they will now take and study copious amounts of data to make an informed choice as to what their further action (if any) should be. FIRST hasn't published any such criteria to my knowledge to the public: but as the public will not be the ones making the decision I guess that is defendable. I am always one for freedom of knowledge and transparency, but I am trying to respect the fact that that belief is not always shared.

Some people go as far as to accuse FIRST of not treating this as a test at all but as a cultural introduction for the rest of us of an inevitable future. Others take FIRST at their word and believe this is a test. I do not want to go into who is right because in this case it does not matter: if you believe this is the inevitable future you should logically want to know about it and study it so you are properly prepared for it. If you think this is a test you want to know the results and study them so you can have an educated opinion on what the conclusion of the test should be (and also want this data in case they do decide to implement it). Either way you cut it: if you are anything short of entirely apathetic about this situation the logical response to do would be to study it scientifically...

...and to be honest with you I don't see a lot of scientific study going on about this topic. I see raging, I see whining, I see a lot of people patting themselves on the back, and I see a lot of mindless yes-men who agree without a lot of thought. I think that's awful.

So lets change it. Lets start asking the hard questions about this new system and going about scientifically determining the answers. Lets collect the information and begin going through it to reach some meaningful conclusions. Maybe somebody at FIRST will read it, maybe they won't. I think the data will be very useful to us if they do choose to roll this system out across the entire league in helping local areas avoid pitfalls and shortcomings: especially since FIRST does not seem to have much expressed intention of making whatever volume of study data they are gathering public.

I'd be a hypocrite now if I didn't contribute so I'll start it off.

The new regional system indicates a sharp increase in the number of regionals per square area. This would mean for the regionals to remain the same size you need more teams per square area. Are they getting enough new teams to make the regionals feel reasonably sized? I know there are many new rookie teams...the question is are there enough?

Are the new rookie teams full teams? I understand they have most of their funding out of the way but you can not just give a non-existent team funding and expect them to become a team magically. Do they seem to have reasonable mentorship? Do they look like they will be getting sponsors? Is the number of students on the team to a critical mass where the team is likely to continue even after a few graduating classes? In short: do the majority of these new teams look sustainable?

Do the new teams flood out the regionals and lower the level of competition? Are there enough vets around so that the spirit of "gracious professionalism" (man I hate using that term) is getting through? Gracious professionalism is difficult to qualify so I'm going to simplify some qualifiable indicators for the purpose of this talk: cheering for opponents, limited off-field destructive/hostile behavior towards other teams, cooperative behavior in pits (tool, materials, manpower, and expertise lending), and positive inter-team social interactions. These would probably be a few reasonable starting indicators that this mentality is getting through (and I am totally not claiming that those things alone would constitute gracious professionalism).

Are there sufficient volunteers to staff the regionals?

That's all I have for now: I figured I would post up my questions and then begin crunching whatever numbers are available for the new Michigan teams on the FIRST website. That might answer a few of the numbers-based questions.

If anybody else has any questions: please ask them. If you have available data from the Michigan regionals: please post it.

Reasonably, by the end of this, I would like the answer to this thread topic's question to be "Everybody."

[keehun]

Now, my question is, how does the Michigan system differ from other regionals? Excuse my ignorance. I know Michigan's was labeled differently so I knew something was different but I don't know what is different. Perhaps you can shed some light in to this, so people can understand you better.

Thanks =]

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by Katy

...

I don't have enough information to have an opinion. However, that was very well put and I hope that the posts responding to it are half as well thought out.

Thank You.

[Joe J.]

Originally Posted by keehun

Now, my question is, how does the Michigan system differ from other regionals? Excuse my ignorance. I know Michigan's was labeled differently so I knew something was different but I don't know what is different. Perhaps you can shed some light in to this, so people can understand you better.

Thanks =]

Michigan is "piloting" a new competition structure. As a brief overview Michigan's three former regionals aren't taking place this year, instead 7 District events and a State Championship are taking place. Michigan teams did not ship their robot but instead Bagged them and bring them directly to their events. The districts differ from regionals, instead of a Practice day Michigan teams have an 8 hour unbagging window.

2009 registration fees were $5000.00 and for that teams got 2 District events, for an additional $500.00 teams could attend additional District events. (Each district guaranteed teams 12 qualification matches) To attend the State Championship teams have to qualify based on a points system (first two districts attended). Michigan teams were REQUIRED to participate in this program, though they could travel to out of state events, out of state teams could not attend Michigan events. More infomartion & the Michigan Rules can be found at the FIRST in Michigan website. The FiM now has its own forum here on Chief Delphi FiM forum. The original Chief Delphi thread on the topic http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=68653

[IKE]

Some initial Data from the build season:

I helped out with a rookie team this year that was lead by others that had some FIRST experience. They liked the new format as they were able to sign up for two events for less than the cost of 1 traditional event. They also liked that the events were close enough that they didn't have to pasy for busses and hotels (typically the largest part of the traditional budget).

As the events are just starting, that is all I can talk about. I will discuss more details once they are made available.

IKE "the YES man"

P.S. Michigan had to do something different because with 120 teams and only 120 comp slots, many Michigan teams had to travel out of state in order to get to play at all(other out of state teams would sign up for MI events because they knew "their" local events would not fill up until later). Many less organized, lower budget teams would miss the 5 minutes that were available before MI events filled, and then blow their entire budgets on Out of State Busses and hotels.

While I do not think this structure model will work everywhere (Katy finds many of the reasons), I made a counter proposal in the last thread that would work as a transistionary step.


All-
Also, the reason that you will not see a lot from FiM people is the attacks from a vocal minority showed them it was better to take their work off CD. This is the same reason why there are not a lot of official FIRST people on CD. While many say that words should not hurt anyone, these comments have made the people organizing the events stay away for CD which I personally think hurts all of us. These are Woody Flowers Award winners and FIRST outstanding volunteer winners who are tired of stones being thrown at them for "trying" something new. As Lil' Lavery stated in another thread about mean statements on CD, these are volunteers trying to help make things better. Nice post Katy as these are good questions instead of acqusations.

[pathew100]

This is how I understand the situation. With the amount of MI teams and the steady growth of teams, all 3 regionals in MI were full.

Even before the recession that has taken over the whole country, the economy in Michigan had been bad for years now. It would have been nearly impossible to raise funds from sponsors for another 'regular' regional in Michigan. And it would have been too much of a hardship for many teams to travel outside the state to compete.

Now Michigan can hold 8 events for the cost of 3. And every team can play in 2 events for the price of one and get more qualification matches per event, since the events are capped at 40 teams. This maximizes the cost/benefit ratio for the teams. And the "experience of FIRST" of learning/building/competing in the game is the (mostly) the same.

Can the system be improved? I'm sure it can. And I hope all the teams involved can have their say as they move forward.

[EricH]

I'm withholding judgement until all the events are over.

However, I do think that some things could have been/could be done differently, and the chief is the perceived "secrecy" until release. The next biggest? Starting in the same year as a new control system.

Other than that, I will keep quiet until the events are over and the data is in.

[Justin Montois]

I got involved in the discussion before but I didn't think it was really going anywhere so I kind of set it aside for a while and I think it has done me some good.

I will be your biggest supporter if...

1) Gives me two events for the price of one.(Check) This is the BEST idea for change that I have ever heard.

2) FIRST in Michigan give points towards the state Championship to Chairman's Award and Engineering Inspiration Award winners.

3) Develop some sort of wildcard event or something so teams that can afford to travel to different events can do so. I will be sad if the days of 365,67 ETC coming to FLR are over. If this Pilot program goes through as is, I won't ever see those teams unless we all qualify for Championship. I think that would severely hurt the level of competition if everyone is forced to play in-state.


I appreciate what this thread is trying to do. I hope it can stay civil.

[keehun]

Why doesn't FIRST hold like 4 regionals? In Minnesota where our local regional is, the number of local teams grew by four fold over the last two years. In 2007, we had like 20~30 teams. In 2008 (our rookie year) they had around 50 teams and this year we have over 100 teams. We are holding 2 regionals at the University of Minnesota. I would personally hate this district thing and I feel personally fortunate to be in Minnesota with two regionals. Now, we only get to compete in 1 of the 2 because they go on at the same time, but that is how it is in Minnesota.

(I am not up for a debate because I don't know enough about the "situation" and how the district system is actually working out)

[wingnut1705]

I am from a Michigan team and I must say that at first, I was very uneasy about the new system. However in the last month I have become more optimistic and I am finding great positives in the new format.
In the last few weeks, my team essentially lost funding from our biggest sponsor. With the hardships faced by the auto industry, our automotive supplier simply could not afford to give us thousands of dollars. Fortunately our registration fees were paid, and they will still pay for small purchases. If we were still under the "Regional" format we would not have been able to go to our normal two competitions. With "District" events, we will still be able to attend two competitions.
I think that overall, the most important parts of the competitions will be unchanged. My favorite memories are exciting matches, playing Ultimate Frisbee with new friends, and simply, being around honorable teams and people. Will there still be exciting matches? Yes there will. Will I still be playing Ultimate Frisbee with people I met 10 minutes ago? Of course. And will the great people that make up FIRST still be there? Yes.
With the future economy uncertain and the cost of EVERYTHING rising, these District Events sound great to me. Yes there are bugs, but I am sure than can, and will be fixed. The most important part is that the spirit of FIRST will still be there, and everybody, big budgets and not, will be able to participate.

[Lil' Lavery]

Rather than a discussion of the specific merits and issues with the michigan structure (which has been discussed ad naseum in other threads), I think Katy's point was to lay out a discussion of what constitutes success.
Regardless of whether or not FIRST puts out an official "criteria for success" of the Michigan district pilot, the community needs to weigh in on what should be considered successful. This is especially imperative since FIRST has not issued such criteria publicly.

This should, and HAS TO, be done before the competitions actually occur (I know that one has already happened) as to avoid any biasing. We are not asking for judgement now, but rather the guidelines to judge.

And Ike also raises a good point. Not only should the volunteers not be blamed (they should also have thick skin and realize its not their fault if the events do not pass the criteria), and the criteria should be written to help make it clear that the volunteers effort is not what causes failure.


Edit:
Some criteria from me.

1) Amount of matches played per team
2) Over-all cost for teams (including travel and other overhead)
3) Amount of VIPs per event (and any quantifiable reactions to their presence there)
4) Sustainability of teams (if possible to differentiate from Michigan economy)
5) Amount of matches that teams spent non-functional
6) If possible, a anonymous satisfaction survey passed out to Michigan teams comparing the two systems
7) Attendance per team per event
8) Amount of school support for teams (more events also means more school missed), in whatever terms quantifiable
9) Amount of volunteer hours required per event
10) Average time per match run compared to regional events

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by keehun

Why doesn't FIRST hold like 4 regionals? In Minnesota where our local regional is, the number of local teams grew by four fold over the last two years. In 2007, we had like 20~30 teams. In 2008 (our rookie year) they had around 50 teams and this year we have over 100 teams. We are holding 2 regionals at the University of Minnesota. I would personally hate this district thing and I feel personally fortunate to be in Minnesota with two regionals. Now, we only get to compete in 1 of the 2 because they go on at the same time, but that is how it is in Minnesota.

(I am not up for a debate because I don't know enough about the "situation" and how the district system is actually working out)

Because, as someone already said - Michigan's economy can't support another regional event. There simply aren't enough big name sponsors in the state that has had the country's worst unemployment rate.

We're lucky in a way: the number of teams and how densely packed we are allowed this to happen. There are negatives to the system - don't get me wrong. Our regionals are one day "shorter". They're also cheaper to attend and cheaper to host, which are both pretty major positives.

So - as for defining success?

1. Do teams get to play more in this format than they used to?
2. Do teams get to play more cheaply in this format than they used to?
3. Do an equal or greater number of Michigan teams win berths in the worlds?

I think it's a checkmark for all the items - so far.

As for suggestions to improve, I have a huge one. I'm going to miss playing against all the cool teams from out of state - Beatty, Panteras, and others. I'd say after initial registration is completed for all Michigan teams, allow 5 more teams into each venue from out of state if they want, at 1/2 the price of what the Michigan teams pay (we pay $5k for two, let the out of state pay $2500 for 1).

Don't lock out the out-of-state teams. That's my biggest - and right now my only - complaint. I'm willing to bet good money that out of state teams would jump on the chance to pay dirt cheap prices to compete in the regionals.

[Mike Q.]

we competed in traverse city this weekend. we played 12 qualifying matches even though there was quite a few field problems. most of the field problems were communication errors. the competition level was a little down from a standard Michigan regional.

[WEHickok]

As a member of the Board of Directors of FIRST in Michigan, it is good to see what others are thinking about our "test". Let me respond to some of your concerns from my point of view (and I do not talk for the Board, but just for me).

I have been involved with this since our first meeting in Francois' living room last April or May. Our every move has been monitored by FIRST and the FIRST Board of Directors. This has not been done in a secret as some have stated.

The primary reason to try this is to come up with a way to have more teams in Michigan and not run the costs up too great. With three full regionals, we needed another. If you have not read the papers recently, Michigan is in financial trouble...worse than many other states...so a new traditional regional was out of the question.

How could be make better use of the dollars that we did have? How could we grow in a down economy? One way was to cut the costs of the regionals and make them closer to home so we could cut or eliminate the costs of travel.

There has been much hard work to get where we are. We have increased the number of volunteers to staff seven Divisional tournaments and one State Tournament. And all the time, we are still being watched. Dean K. and Paul G. will be in Michigan for Week 4 to visit two of the Divisionals to see for themselves. Brandis University (I hope I spelled that correctly) has already created a survey that will be used at the close of the season...asking teams, parents, students, volunteers, etc., for their reaction. This data will be studied.

We do not think we have a perfect plan, just a place to start. Some have indicated their displeasure about not giving ponts for the RCA and EA awards. I, also, am not pleased with that, and I raised that issue during our discussions on points. Discussions have already started on how to handle this in the future.

Speaking for my team, we will play in three divisional events. These cost us $5,500. If this had been using the traditional FIRST method, I believe this would have cost us $13,000. GM has cut much of our funds this year, so we would have done well to go to one event, not three. Shipping costs are down, since our robot is in the corner of our shop in a "baggie" and we will take it, in the bag, to our competitions and bring it home.

As to the rookies--from what I have heard, most of the rookies have received help from the veteran Michigan teams. I don't know of any that have been left out in the cold (bad Michigan joke) to fend for themselves. And many of the rookies have received financial help from FIRST in Michigan to get started.

So, Please give this a try. Let us see where this goes. I think it has potential to be a way to improve FIRST. There are a lot of questions...like how would you do this in areas where you only have one or two teams? ...will we ever get to see our friends in nearby states until we get to the Championship? ...will those in nearby states be able to come play in Michigan if we were to do this again? ...and the questions continue. We must look at this "test" and then try to get the answers. Just like teams solve the problems of the game, I think the FIRST community will be able to solve this one, too---not FIRST in Michigan, but keeping the excitement and getting more kids involved while reducing expenses. Keep an open mind and help us find the answers to better FIRST.

Thanks.

[Lil' Lavery]

Walt, thank you very much for the effort you and the other volunteers give.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are operating in total secrecy from FIRST HQ, but rather what some are saying is that we want to know what you would consider a successful season. You say you are going to study data and surveys, which is great news that I fully support, but what data exactly are you studying and what are the desired results you are looking for?

The qualm some of us have with the process is the lack of transparency thus far regarding the specific and/or quantified objectives of the program, as well as the implications of the system on the rest of the country and FIRST. None of us are saying we shouldn't give this a try, but we want to know now, before the events run their course, what constitutes success. It is the only way to objectively quantify and evaluate the impact of this pilot.