Michigan rankings

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

I currently have to teams at Monroe High School. 1528 and 2719 (rookie team). However, to get classified as a rookie I had to submit a request for review of our team. I stated that 2719 is a classroom team and is not a part of the 1528 team. I have 2 students on my team with FIRST experience. When the decision came back to allow us to be a rookie team, it was clearly stated that we were considered a rookie team because we only had those two students with previous FIRST experience. I was told that we could have up to a total of 5 experienced students on my team to be classified as a rookie. If 2771 has a total of 9 experienced students on there team, then they should be stripped of there rookie status and any awards they received with it. You are absolutely correct in stating that 2771 should show some gracious professionalism and report the change of status and return thos awards.

Steve,

2719 should definitely be considered a rookie team. The argument that 2771 use to justify themselves as a rookie team is that at the time of kickoff they only have 4 students with FIRST experience. The other 5 students with FIRST experience joined their team after the kickoff. How many days after the kickoff did they join is not even the question here? This is what FIRST says as criteria for rookie team.

1. A new team that starts in a school/organization/alliance that has never run an FRC team before (most teams are formed within a single school, but some comprise two or more schools, or are organizations such as Scouts, Boys & Girls Clubs, home schools etc.)

2. A returning team may qualify as a Rookie, but in order to do so must not have been in a competition for three years. That is, going into the 2009 season, they cannot have competed in either seasons 2008, 2007 or 2006. Teams whose last competition season was 2005, or earlier, can return this season as a Rookie, OR, they can continue as a veteran with their original number if they wish to do so. Teams that choose to register as a veteran would not be eligible for the above listed Rookie incentives and recognition.

3. Where multiple schools were combined into a single team, and that team now wants to separate into different teams, or any single team wants to separate into different teams, the new teams do not qualify as Rookies unless the requirements set forth above in 2 are met. These teams will need to register as a new team and contact FIRST at frcteams@usfirst.org for further instructions.

4. Where multiple existing teams want to combine into one team, the new team does not qualify as a Rookie. The combined team can select to use one of the existing team numbers, or can apply to FIRST for an unused number from the rookie year of the oldest team. In either case they should advise team support which teams have combined by emailing frcteams@usfirst.org.

5. If a mentor, or teacher, from an existing team leaves and starts a team at a new school, that team does qualify as a Rookie team.

6. If individual students who have been involved in a team leave that school and start a team in their new school that team also is generally considered a Rookie, providing it meets condition 1, and does not involve sufficient students to be considered a version of condition 3. As a maximum, the number of students in the new team that have competed in prior teams must not exceed 5.

FIRST did not state at what point in time that the number of students in the new team that have prior FIRST experience must not exceed 5. My interpretation, based on the spirit of the rule, is that from the time of kickoff to the end of that season, so that it is fair to other rookie teams. 2771 chose to use the letter of the rule and picked the date of kickoff only for meeting that criteria.

This is from their website.

Code Red Robotics was started by students who left Team 288, The Robodawgs, after a leadership change.
After the initial four former 288 team members planted the Grand River Prep team, five more former Robodawgs wanted to join without even being asked.
Code Red Robotics now has eight freshman from Grand River Prep, nine Grandville Students, plus students from four other Grand Rapids area high schools.

You be the judge.

Ed

[Steve Ketron]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Steve,

2719 should definitely be considered a rookie team. The argument that 2771 use to justify themselves as a rookie team is that at the time of kickoff they only have 4 students with FIRST experience. The other 5 students with FIRST experience joined their team after the kickoff. How many days after the kickoff did they join is not even the question here? This is what FIRST says as criteria for rookie team.

1. A new team that starts in a school/organization/alliance that has never run an FRC team before (most teams are formed within a single school, but some comprise two or more schools, or are organizations such as Scouts, Boys & Girls Clubs, home schools etc.)

2. A returning team may qualify as a Rookie, but in order to do so must not have been in a competition for three years. That is, going into the 2009 season, they cannot have competed in either seasons 2008, 2007 or 2006. Teams whose last competition season was 2005, or earlier, can return this season as a Rookie, OR, they can continue as a veteran with their original number if they wish to do so. Teams that choose to register as a veteran would not be eligible for the above listed Rookie incentives and recognition.

3. Where multiple schools were combined into a single team, and that team now wants to separate into different teams, or any single team wants to separate into different teams, the new teams do not qualify as Rookies unless the requirements set forth above in 2 are met. These teams will need to register as a new team and contact FIRST at frcteams@usfirst.org for further instructions.

4. Where multiple existing teams want to combine into one team, the new team does not qualify as a Rookie. The combined team can select to use one of the existing team numbers, or can apply to FIRST for an unused number from the rookie year of the oldest team. In either case they should advise team support which teams have combined by emailing frcteams@usfirst.org.

5. If a mentor, or teacher, from an existing team leaves and starts a team at a new school, that team does qualify as a Rookie team.

6. If individual students who have been involved in a team leave that school and start a team in their new school that team also is generally considered a Rookie, providing it meets condition 1, and does not involve sufficient students to be considered a version of condition 3. As a maximum, the number of students in the new team that have competed in prior teams must not exceed 5.

FIRST did not state at what point in time that the number of students in the new team that have prior FIRST experience must not exceed 5. My interpretation, based on the spirit of the rule, is that from the time of kickoff to the end of that season, so that it is fair to other rookie teams. 2771 chose to use the letter of the rule and picked the date of kickoff only for meeting that criteria.

This is from their website.

Code Red Robotics was started by students who left Team 288, The Robodawgs, after a leadership change.
After the initial four former 288 team members planted the Grand River Prep team, five more former Robodawgs wanted to join without even being asked.
Code Red Robotics now has eight freshman from Grand River Prep, nine Grandville Students, plus students from four other Grand Rapids area high schools.

You be the judge.

Ed

ED, I should not be the judge. With regards to Gracious Professionalism, team 2771 should present the facts to FIRST and let them be the judge. Only by them accepting or declining your team rookie status would this issue be solved.

[Paul Copioli]

Ed,

If you want me to be the judge, then 2771 broke the spirit of the rule. So, taking 2771's lead, I will start a rookie team next year with a new school that has 4 students at kickoff. Miraculously, I will then obtain 5 more students from a seasoned veteran after kickoff.

I am not at all accusing 2771 of this, but your post above just gave the formula to get around the intent of the rookie rule.

My question is, what is rookie about 2771 this year? Students? Nope. School? Nope. Mentor? Nope.

I am sure it wasn't 2771's intent, but it sure does seem odd to me. All that aside, I think 2771 is a great team who did a great thing this year with the webcast, etc ... rookie or not. However, if I were the "Emperor of FIRST" or the "boss of the Emporer of FIRST" 2771 would not be a rookie team.


Paul

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

School? Nope.

School, yes. They are in the Grand River Prep Academy (HS), a new charter school. It is located two suburbs away from the Grandville location of 288/216 - yet for some reason the address on the FIRST website is Grandville. Still, the 5-member rule applies to teams in a new school.

I think that 2771 got their rookie status correctly at the time it was made. Perhaps after adding members they never went back to ask FIRST again. Or perhaps FIRST decided that once a status was given, that status will stay - a valid position because there does have to be some cutoff point, whether that be kickoff, ship (bag) day, or first competition.

To make an analogy, the question becomes does a team need to be "reinspected" when they add "new equipment"?

PS, let's be very careful with this thread.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

You be the judge.

I'd be willing to serve on a jury, but FIRST headquarters is the only legitimate judge.

[Tom Line]

Frankly, seeing this information makes me believe that 2771 shouldn't have been a rookie team.

However, they were. I also believe that should be the end of it. They met / meet the rule, depending on how you want to read it. Whether they broke it in spirit is up to FIRST, but at this point, what are your options? Declare them a non-rookie, go back and rejudge 3 competitions, let the other teams know, screw around with the points totals, and throw everything into disarray? Grant 3 other teams rookie status and allow them into Atlanta?

You can be certain that not a single member of team 2771 was actively trying to break the system. It happens. Now it's highlited a potential rule issue in regards to rookie status.

As for what is graciously professional, 2771 are a great team with a great robot. They show up ready to play, and frankly they made every competition a better, louder, happier place.

I believe the rule should be simplified and corrected. As for the rest of it, let's just move on and have a great Michigan Championships.

[Springman]

I am sure there are other threads concerning this issue, but this one seems to be near the top. Please do not take offense if your team is mentioned in the following. I am only using team numbers to reference what I see as a potential FIM point system problem. 67, 216 and 1918 have all competed exceptionally this year.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

The problem is that because 216 was one of the few lucky teams to be able to go to a third event for $500, if the points or results were able to be counted, isn't that not fair to other teams that could not go to a third event (due to no slots available), even though they improved their robot significantly in their second event (830 comes to mind)?

I commend 216 on their improvement and think it's great that they did so well at WM. But they had the pleasure of a third event for $500 which is AWSOME in it's own right. Some of us that want a third event have to pay $4000 for that...

In retrospect, I think that you may have hit on the real issue. If you look at the competitions this past weekend, there was a significant impact by teams entering their third competition. 67, 216 and 1918 are just a couple examples of teams that 'took' points out of the system that other teams near the middle of the pack could have used. Consider what these two events in particular would have been like without teams competing in their third event. At West Michigan, there were over 90 points (30 each for the win and 15 each for the 2 seed captain/selection) removed from the system by 1918 and 216 alone for their victory. Right now I feel that FIM should seriously consider not allowing a third event for any team because of this impact.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Springman

In retrospect, I think that you may have hit on the real issue. If you look at the competitions this past weekend, there was a significant impact by teams entering their third competition. 67, 216 and 1918 are just a couple examples of teams that 'took' points out of the system that other teams near the middle of the pack could have used. Consider what these two events in particular would have been like without teams competing in their third event. At West Michigan, there were over 90 points (30 each for the win and 15 each for the 2 seed captain/selection) removed from the system by 1918 and 216 alone for their victory. Right now I feel that FIM should seriously consider not allowing a third event for any team because of this impact.

But those teams were needed to make the districts more 'even'. I don't know how many teams were competiting in thier 3rd event, but what if there were only 30 teams without them? I would be upset if I missed the elmininations at a 40 team event and then find out an equally talented team make it at a competition with only 30 teams. The various districts will never be perfectly equal, but I think the current system is best.

[GVDrummer]

Originally Posted by Springman

At West Michigan, there were over 90 points (30 each for the win and 15 each for the 2 seed captain/selection) removed from the system by 1918 and 216 alone for their victory. Right now I feel that FIM should seriously consider not allowing a third event for any team because of this impact.

I agree with what you are saying here in the fact that teams competing in a third event have no effect in their qualifying score for state. It does how ever affect other teams in the aspect of points being taken away.

Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would be a lot smaller and therefore teams who compete in the later weeks have less teams to compete against and therefore have a more likely chance to place higher and score more points. Then therefore have an advantage of teams that compete earlier on in the season.

All in all, this was the first year for the Michigan District regional events and state championship and I believe it ran pretty well for the first year. I am sure that if FIRST continues with this structure we will see changes in the program to try and even out the playing field. But one thing we always have to remember is this event is not about winning and which teams get to go to state, but increasing the knowledge of students and have them learn the aspects of science, technology and Gracious Professionalism.

~Jake

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by GVDrummer

I agree with what you are saying here in the fact that teams competing in a third event have no effect in their qualifying score for state. It does how ever affect other teams in the aspect of points being taken away.

Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would be a lot smaller and therefore teams who compete in the later weeks have less teams to compete against and therefore have a more likely chance to place higher and score more points. Then therefore have an advantage of teams that compete earlier on in the season.

All in all, this was the first year for the Michigan District regional events and state championship and I believe it ran pretty well for the first year. I am sure that if FIRST continues with this structure we will see changes in the program to try and even out the playing field. But one thing we always have to remember is this event is not about winning and which teams get to go to state, but increasing the knowledge of students and have them learn the aspects of science, technology and Gracious Professionalism.

~Jake

I'm all for allowing teams to have a 3rd event. On the other side, if they didn't allow 3 events, then a way to increase the # of teams in the later weeks would be to get rid of 1 or 2 of the 7 districts. 2 weeks in a row now we have had 2 events. If we took away 1 or 2 of those, the events would all be full.

[Springman]

Originally Posted by GVDrummer

Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would be a lot smaller and therefore teams who compete in the later weeks have less teams to compete against and therefore have a more likely chance to place higher and score more points. Then therefore have an advantage of teams that compete earlier on in the season.

~Jake

These are just some ideas to create equal opportunity for teams. I have probably already spent too much energy on this issue. Some real quick math offers some options:

Option 1:
132 teams * 2 districts each = 264

264/7= 37.71 about 38

*Cap the team limit at 38. Two districts would have 37 teams, the rest would have 38.

Option 2:

132 teams * 2 districts each = 264
*Eliminate one district. The remaining 6 districts will have exactly 44 teams each. (264/6=44)

[Paul Copioli]

[quote]Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would [/QUO

There were 16 teams that had 3 district events. Six of them were at Troy: 67, 68, 247, 910 are the teams I remember off the top of my head.

[GVDrummer]

[quote=Paul Copioli;843192]

There were 16 teams that had 3 district events. Six of them were at Troy: 67, 68, 247, 910 are the teams I remember off the top of my head.

Thank you for that clarification, so 10 teams at the WMR competed in 3 events taking up 1/4th of the roster at the tournament.

[GVDrummer]

Originally Posted by Springman

These are just some ideas to create equal opportunity for teams. I have probably already spent too much energy on this issue. Some real quick math offers some options:

Option 1:
132 teams * 2 districts each = 264

264/7= 37.71 about 38

*Cap the team limit at 38. Two districts would have 37 teams, the rest would have 38.

Option 2:

132 teams * 2 districts each = 264
*Eliminate one district. The remaining 6 districts will have exactly 44 teams each. (264/6=44)

This does seem like the logical thing to do to give all the teams an even opportunity to compete in the tournaments.

[Enigma's puzzle]

Hopefully next year we will just have enough teams that one district event will have to expand in order to allow the everyone to get two events, and no one will have to worry about a third instate event. PROBLEM SOLVED start mentoring new teams.