Vote to change the format of FIRST.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by exprg:melonhead

did anyone ever think that maybe there should be a limit on the competitions you can attend? i know last year in Minnesota, a team from Wisconsin had already had a position in the nationals and won that privilege again in the 10,000 lakes regional. personally, i don't like that they were able to take this chance away from another team.
i think teams should only be able to register for one competition and one only. that way everyone has their chance.

How is that fair?

If I want to go out and fundraise to compete in more than one regional, then how can you fairly stop me?

Let teams compete to the fullest level that they are willing to commit to. Never limit what a team can do, it's not fair to those that put more effort in. It's far more inspirational to compete more then once, so let teams do it. You learn a lot more by competing multiple times. If you only want to compete in one regional a year, nobody will stop you, and if people want to compete in more than one, then don't try to stop them either. If you want it to be fair, go out, fundraise, and compete in more regionals.

Team's that earn two spots in nationals, don't take spots from anyone. If a team wins two regionals, then that's just one more team that gets off the waitlist later, so they didn't take anyone's spot.

[exprg:melonhead]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

This may need to be looked at, but a limit of one is kind of harsh.

but see, it only takes one competition to make it to nationals. the way i see it, if you are a wonderful enough team to make it all the way, great for you, but finish practicing at home. other teams are at competition to secure their spot and if you're there just for practice and ruin another teams chances, i think that is hardly fair and definitely not an example of gracious professionalism.

[GaryVoshol]

I disagree, primarily because of the stress it would put on mentors over a 2x build season.

But Mr. G, it's all in your perspective. From the perspective of many teams, you are one of the haves, not a have-not. For the last 3 years you have not been watching on the sidelines on a Saturday afternoon at regionals and districts - in multiple events each year. You've been to CMP about every other year, and have been in the finals on Galileo. I know the teams you are speaking of, who do seem to win something every year. But to me it seems like you're firmly in the second tier. And there's a lot more tiers below you.

I say this not to offend in any way, and I'm sorry if it is taken that way. We felt similarly about my daughter's team - "All those other teams are better, have more, can do ..." But then I found out that there are hundreds of teams that build a robot, go to one event, and go back home. Sometimes when complaining poverty, we don't recognize the riches we have.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by exprg:melonhead

but see, it only takes one competition to make it to nationals. the way i see it, if you are a wonderful enough team to make it all the way, great for you, but finish practicing at home. other teams are at competition to secure their spot and if you're there just for practice and ruin another teams chances, i think that is hardly fair and definitely not an example of gracious professionalism.

I think your missing the point of competing. It is not to win and going to the Championship. It is not just about winning. It is about enjoying all the time and effort you put into your robot and your team. Yeah, winning is nice (not that I would know...yet) but I think if your main goal is to win and advanced to the Championship, you will be dissatisfied more often than not. Those teams that have put in the extra effort to fundraise to attend 2x regionals, should have the right to enjoy all their hard work.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by exprg:melonhead

but see, it only takes one competition to make it to nationals. the way i see it, if you are a wonderful enough team to make it all the way, great for you, but finish practicing at home. other teams are at competition to secure their spot and if you're there just for practice and ruin another teams chances, i think that is hardly fair and definitely not an example of gracious professionalism.

If you're competing because you want to get to Atlanta, prepay and get a spot that way. The events are designed to stand alone as a fun, inspirational experience; they aren't just gates to a more inspirational experience.

Though I'll freely admit when I was in FTC, I hated competing against a team who already qualified, and then I joined the other side of the coin and my opinion changed. So take that as you will.

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think your missing the point of competing. It is not to win and going to the Championship. It is not just about winning. It is about enjoying all the time and effort you put into your robot and your team. Yeah, winning is nice (not that I would know...yet) but I think if your main goal is to win and advanced to the Championship, you will be dissatisfied more often than not. Those teams that have put in the extra effort to fundraise to attend 2x regionals, should have the right to enjoy all their hard work.

I think it's important to make the distinction that each individual event is a competition, not the FRC program as a whole. Then again, I could be off base here. I'm in the minority somewhat of supporting a non qualification only Championship Event...

[exprg:melonhead]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think your missing the point of competing. It is not to win and going to the Championship. It is not just about winning. It is about enjoying all the time and effort you put into your robot and your team. Yeah, winning is nice (not that I would know...yet) but I think if your main goal is to win and advanced to the Championship, you will be dissatisfied more often than not. Those teams that have put in the extra effort to fundraise to attend 2x regionals, should have the right to enjoy all their hard work.

i understand where you are coming from, and i'm not trying to say the only reason for competition is to win. that is far from the truth. what i'm trying to say is that it's not about the spotlight either. i just think there is better ways of practicing. but to be honest with you, if our team was wealthy enough to do that, we definitely would, but the major question is "is it the right thing to do?"

[nikeairmancurry]

Ok, I've discussing this issue with some outsiders to FIRST and heres a quick run down of what some others on the outside thinks.

-Anyway to bring the competition level up altogether as a whole would be great.
-Not all teams can nice high level support in a down economy.
-Reguardless teams will be better in a 5th week/Championship, then week one.
-Where are big money teams, who already go to 3 regionals and have practice being hurt in this system?
-If it saves money why not try it?
-There will be disadvantages to every system (Like BCS for college football).
-Change is sometimes not a bad thing.
-It's a suggestion, it can be changed.

None of this outlines one side or another, there just comments from others. Those including two highschool teachers, a high school athletic director and few others who know of FIRST from being invited to see an event in the past.

The one the strikes me the most are the last three. There is no perfect way for FIRST to be run to make everyone happy. There may be many others out that that have had there own idea of how FIRST could change for the better. To do agree, that the 6 week deadline does put pressure on a team to work together to get it done. Yet, the robot is not the only thing in FIRST that has a deadline on.

Mr. G, has a suggestion that he feels would make FIRST better, why don't others just suggest ways of taking that idea so that it would work. Like in anything in a business, sports and congress, a bill in its original form is sign less that 5% of the time. It goes through many revisions until there is a agreement. Who knows he's idea may lead to something that does help all teams in long run, but it doesn't mean his idea is the right way.

So instead of saying why its doesn't work, use cooperation to maybe come up with something that does help everyone. Those who have finical issues, to those rookies and small teams where its just hard to get the money to participate. Working together is the way to go. Disagreeing you nowhere.

[drwisley]

Originally Posted by sgreco

How is that fair?

If I want to go out and fundraise to compete in more than one regional, then how can you fairly stop me?

Let teams compete to the fullest level that they are willing to commit to. Never limit what a team can do, it's not fair to those that put more effort in. It's far more inspirational to compete more then once, so let teams do it. You learn a lot more by competing multiple times. If you only want to compete in one regional a year, nobody will stop you, and if people want to compete in more than one, then don't try to stop them either. If you want it to be fair, go out, fundraise, and compete in more regionals.

Team's that earn two spots in nationals, don't take spots from anyone. If a team wins two regionals, then that's just one more team that gets off the waitlist later, so they didn't take anyone's spot.

How are you fundraising? I don't consider finding sponsorships, fundraising, but if you're selling 10k in cupcakes .. I won't argue with you.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by drwisley

I have a very well funded team, but I'd rather fund more teams than attend multiple regionals. I find attending multiple regionals to increase my odds to win would be greedy. The money is much better spent on a new team.

You cannot fund another team with the $4,000 you would save from not attending multiple regionals. That's just not enough money. Money also means nothing without mentors. We don't need more teams. We need sustainable teams.

Originally Posted by exprg:melonhead

did anyone ever think that maybe there should be a limit on the competitions you can attend? i know last year in Minnesota, a team from Wisconsin had already had a position in the nationals and won that privilege again in the 10,000 lakes regional. personally, i don't like that they were able to take this chance away from another team.
i think teams should only be able to register for one competition and one only. that way everyone has their chance.

What if FIRST worked this way? If you attend your first regional and you don't qualify you're SOL. How is that fair? This hurts the average team more than the top teams. The top teams will qualify anyways, and the average team will have 1/2 as many chances to qualify.

I suggest everyone refer back to the speech where Dean said "FIRST is not fair and shouldn't be" or something to that effect. Life isn't fair, neither is FIRST. You have to do your best with what you have while striving for all that you don't have.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by drwisley

How are you fundraising? I don't consider finding sponsorships, fundraising, but if you're selling 10k in cupcakes .. I won't argue with you.

Money is money, what does it matter if it is from a sponser or from selling goodies?

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by drwisley

How are you fundraising? I don't consider finding sponsorships, fundraising, but if you're selling 10k in cupcakes .. I won't argue with you.

I'm curious what your basis is for this distinction. With the amount of time and effort we put into seeking sponsorship, I often wonder if we wouldn't be better off selling something instead.

[efoote868]

I believe you've missed the point, you can't see the forest for the trees.
It doesn't matter if the build season is 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or half a year. The point of FIRST is not about the build season, or the robot, or the competition. Its about what happens during the build season, the learning that goes into the robot, and experiences people have at the competition.

I also believe that trying to make it more "fair" for teams won't lead to the outcomes that you're looking for.
It's the diversity of teams that make FIRST competitions so interesting to watch, and participate in. Every year, people wonder "What's Hammond, Wildstang, Simbotics, etc." up to?

In another thread, someone was advocating for more separation between powerhouse veteran teams and rookie teams, to make it more fair. None of the rookie teams wanted to be separated, because some of the best experiences they had were from competing against, and with veteran teams.
If I can find the post, I'll quote it here.

From 3 years ago...

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

They brought up the subject of fairness between teams, the idea of "divisions" of teams, separating the high resource teams from the low resource teams. Ken Patton, Joe Johnson, Raul Olivera and I were sitting together (for you new to FIRST, these three guys are some of the best robot designers and most inspirational engineers there has been in this program). We realized that we were these "high resourced" teams (since then, btw, each of our teams have lost resources). Lead mentors from the newer, lower resourced teams were giving their opinions. Of course, there was one guy who was really liking the idea of putting the higher resourced teams into their own division.

After some discussion, one quiet mentor from a rookie team spoke up, saying, "At the end of this year, we asked the kids what their highlight was. Our kids overwhelmingly answered this: when we beat Wildstang in a qualification match. I don't want that opportunity to go away. The teams who are new to this, or with lower resources must have the opportunity to play 'with the big boys'. While this surprised me, I understood it when it came from their point of view."

Of course, I am paraphrasing here, but something much like that was definitely said. The discussion ended right there. The one guy who was pushing for divisions was now quiet.

David needs a chance to beat Goliath. You want a way to inspire kids? Hand them each a little rock. Pour your heart into this program. Work side by side with them. Work late. Work through your problems. Get frustrated together. Let them see you mess up. Design that shooter for the 4th, 5th or 6th time. Don't give up. Tell them to go out and beat Goliath. They'll do it. No... that's not right... you'll do it together.

The propagation of the idea of making FIRST into a perfectly fair competition is just silly. Teams need to win, and they need to lose. People need to realize that the difference between winning and losing is HARD WORK. Woodie says this anytime he speaks... this is the HARDEST FUN YOU'LL EVER HAVE. It's not easy. This is life.


Andy B.

[drwisley]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I'm curious what your basis is for this distinction. With the amount of time and effort we put into seeking sponsorship, I often wonder if we wouldn't be better off selling something instead.

Asking versus earning.

[drwisley]

Originally Posted by Cory

You cannot fund another team with the $4,000 you would save from not attending multiple regionals. That's just not enough money. Money also means nothing without mentors. We don't need more teams. We need sustainable teams.

We need more teams. You could probably quote Dean for saying that at each kickoff.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by drwisley

Asking versus earning.

Because pursuing local companies, contacting them, organizing robot demonstrations at their facilities, inviting them to regional competitions, and placing their logo on your robot, T-shirts and banners is no work at all. The teams with 25k+ budgets didn't work for those sponsorships right? The money just fell in their laps?