District/Regional Format

[Tanner]

I don't know if GA FIRST is planning to do anything, but from what I know and who I know, I don't think so.

Do I think FIRST should impose the District/Regional format on the country/world?

From what I know of the system in Michigan (which is little, so bare with me) is that it seems you get more out of less. Specifically, more chances at district competitions, ergo more of a chance to get to Atlanta, from a "less" (read: same) amount of money.

Saving money is great, which seems like what this format was made to do, though without seeing/experiencing a district competition I couldn't say much about it. I can say I do like the lighting/set-up of the regionals. Again though, I don't know much about the district competitions.

I like the bag/tag idea though that's probably because our main regional is literally 10 minutes away from where we work. Don't know about the district format though, but that's probably because I don't know enough to make a well informed decision.

-Tanner

[Vikesrock]

Minnesota probably has close to enough teams, or will very shortly, but the problem I would see with using this system here is key volunteers.

Most of the key volunteers for the two regionals we have now are still imported from what I know. I believe only the LRI at 10k Lakes was from Minnesota out of the 2 LRI's, 2 Head Refs and 2 FTAs.

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Minnesota probably has close to enough teams, or will very shortly, but the problem I would see with using this system here is key volunteers.

Most of the key volunteers for the two regionals we have now are still imported from what I know. I believe only the LRI at 10k Lakes was from Minnesota out of the 2 LRI's, 2 Head Refs and 2 FTAs.

For LRI Jeff (10K regional) is from MN, Chris (North Star) is from WI, and Al (not LRI at either regional, but a great aid is from IL). For Head Refs, Dick (10K) is from MN and Chris (North Star) is from IL. For FTAs, I don't know who it was at 10K, and Chris (North Star) is from IN. (Yes, the LRI, Head Ref, and FTA at North Star all had first names of Chris.)

In fact, going further, at North Star, the majority of inspectors and refs were from out of state. At 10K, most of the refs were from MN and I do not know about inspectors (Jeff can probably mention if he sees this thread).

In addition, in asking Mark Lawrence about this during the weekend, he said it was a ways off in MN because creating a 501 c3 is not something that is on the radar.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by RMiller

For LRI Jeff (10K regional) is from MN, Chris (North Star) is from WI, and Al (not LRI at either regional, but a great aid is from IL). For Head Refs, Dick (10K) is from MN and Chris (North Star) is from IL. For FTAs, I don't know who it was at 10K, and Chris (North Star) is from IN. (Yes, the LRI, Head Ref, and FTA at North Star all had first names of Chris.)

In fact, going further, at North Star, the majority of inspectors and refs were from out of state. At 10K, most of the refs were from MN and I do not know about inspectors (Jeff can probably mention if he sees this thread).

In addition, in asking Mark Lawrence about this during the weekend, he said it was a ways off in MN because creating a 501 c3 is not something that is on the radar.

Thanks! A few more from nearby than I thought, but still probably not enough and it looks like there are other barriers as well.

The FTA at 10k Lakes was Mark Koors from IN.

[Collin Fultz]

Let me start by saying that I really like the District idea if it is implemented everywhere. Michigan was a perfect place for a pilot, but I believe after two years, FIRST knows if it’s going to work. In my opinion, Michigan cannot stay as this “one-off” state where people can go out to competitions but others cannot come in. I understand it will take some time, but the ball needs to start rolling one way or the other. The status quo is not fair to the teams in the states around Michigan. I know life isn’t fair and neither is FIRST, but I think we should try to make it as close as possible from a cost standpoint as we can. If another regional only charged teams $2500 and only let people in from their state, others would feel the same way.

FIRST has had incredible growth over the last decade and I see that continuing in this decade. Personally, I find it very exciting to be able to say that I was involved at a relatively early stage in FIRST's history. For those who have been involved for longer and have pushed this program to the point it is at now, you're my role models. I see FIRST moving in a few different directions during this next decade. Some of these changes are complementary and some of them are not.

1. The Championships will become a true “Championship” which you must qualify for to attend.

As FIRST grows, the increasing number of teams will make it impossible to continue to have “at-large” teams present at the Championships. FIRST will probably go to a qualification system similar to what FiM has started. The tricky part here is that you have teams with more “plays” than others and therefore more opportunities to earn points to qualify. However, this is no different than the current situation where teams can do three regionals in an attempt to qualify. It will be interesting to see which Michigan teams have qualified for The Championships and how many are the same as last year. Some may say this is a bad thing and a reason not to have a qualification requirement. But look around, it’s roughly the same group of teams attending Atlanta from other states each year anyway. There are nine teams attending from Indiana. Eight of these teams attend every year. The other is a rookie team (3176) who won RAS. I don’t know specifically about other states, but I’d guess this is pretty common.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t FLL require teams to qualify for States and Champs? If elementary school kids can handle not qualifying sometimes, I’d think high schoolers could, too. FiM has shown this to be a realistic option.

2. FIRST will transition (or at least begin to transition) to a district or modified district format everywhere.

I believe some type of district/qualifier/whatever-you-call-it structure will work in New England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest (some group of IN, IL, OH, WI, and KY), Minnesota, Texas, and California. Will it be messy at first? Yes. The FiM structure won’t fit perfectly into the mold at each region. But, we are all pretty smart people, we can figure out how to make this work. The cost / benefit from the Michigan pilot has shown this to be a value add to the program as a whole. In my opinion, the Regional model is almost saturated in many locations. The sponsorship money isn’t available to start more Regionals as more teams start. The increasing costs also create a pretty large barrier to entry and are starting to stress an already stressed mentor base. There are a ton of teams in MN and there is no talk of slowing down their growth. Most of these teams can only attend one in-state regional a year due to financials. The District model where they got a minimum of two competitions with twelve matches each and had a higher likelihood of playing into the afternoon Saturday would be a huge step up for these teams. I think this would only lead to FASTER growth in the area.

Would it stink not to be able to travel and see other areas of the country? You bet. When I was a student, we went to Arizona twice, which was awesome. The Championships used to be at Disney, which was really cool, too. But, we outgrew Disney. Eventually, we’ll outgrow the Regional structure. Personally, I’d rather be leading the charge on this change than pulling up the rear.

Also, teams need some help with scheduling. St. Louis, Chicago, and Indiana regionals were all the same weekend this year. So, for teams to go to a second regional and not do back-to-back weekends, the second regional option was pretty scarce and usually around 8 hours away.

3. Forget the Bag & Tag, we’re moving to a point that you only ship a robot if you’re going somewhere you have to fly. You heard me, no more ship date.

Which seems more fair:
Team A goes to a Week 1 and a Week 5 Regional. At the Week 1, they see all kinds of things they can do to fix their robot to make it play the game better. They can take up to 65 pounds off this robot and take it home, improve it, and bring it back to the Week 5 ready to play. They have 3.5 weeks to make these improvements.
Team B goes to a Week 4 and a Week 5. They also see improvements they can make to their robot while watching a Week 1 webcast. But, like most teams, they don’t have a CAD model or a practice robot on which they can try these improvements. So, they do what they can, but then struggle in Week 4. They plan on taking 65 pounds home with them after Week 4, but they only have 3 days to make the improvements before the same Week 5 regional.

By going to a system where you don’t ship the robot, it can (not will, but can) lessen the stress of the build season, can (not will, but can) increase overall robot quality, and can save teams money because they won’t be pushed to build two robots so they can have one to use for practice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

All of these changes are pretty radical and will cause a bit of a shift in how FIRST operates. In my opinion, these changes all help to bring the bottom up. The top teams will still do 2 districts, state championships, and World Championships. I think it gives teams a better shot at having that one magic year where it all comes together and they make a run to the World Championships.

I used to be hate the notion of a FIRST team in every high school. I didn’t think it was a realistic possibility. I can see it now as a realistic goal. It will take some time, but it is possible. But for that goal to have a shot, a change to the current competition structure has to happen.

Another great thread, Joe. Please, keep them coming.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

Forget the Bag & Tag, we’re moving to a point that you only ship a robot if you’re going somewhere you have to fly. You heard me, no more ship date.

This is an interesting concept; it may actually help to "level the playing field". I like that it promotes continual improvement and I think that it is a logical extension of the coopertition concept.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

As FIRST grows, the increasing number of teams will make it impossible to continue to have “at-large” teams present at the Championships. FIRST will probably go to a qualification system similar to what FiM has started.

I don't really think this is going to happen. I mean, the current system still lets teams go every year if they wanted to, when I heard the system was originally made to basically ensure any team with the funding could go once every four. When the open slots fill up completely in the registration period for teams that did not attend the previous year, I'll give you that, but right now I think people are just going "more teams must mean the championship is too full for everyone".

At least, that's my hope.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Collin, one thing I would caution you on is something that Dean and Woodie have mentioned several times is that ship date is not just a date that we have to have our robots in a crate or bag, but it is rather a design constraint of when we need to have the robot done. FIRST is trying to mold a real life engineering process into this competition by having a deadline for the robot, much like having to have an engineering process done. Fedex has been very gracious to FIRST over the years with their donation of shipping, I can imagine that they too have been hurt by the recent economic situation and donating thousands of dollars in shipping is not exactly the smartest thing for any company to be doing, but they have stuck with it and we are grateful that they do it. Bag and tag is most likely a way to relieve some of stress on Fedex to stick to their commitment of shipping robots as more and more teams start up every year. FIRST must have had to stop and think down the road to 5-7 years and think of how many teams we can have and how many robots that is to ship. Personally I see it useless that teams who live within 30 minutes of the competition have to ship their robots when they can just bag it and not waste the shipping cost, but more events are switching to this systems showing it is catching on.

Also, keeping robots back is not wise due to copying. 217, 1114, 469, 148, and so many other good robots debuted in week 1 and 2 regionals, and some before ship date. What is keeping a team competing in week 4 or 5 to just rebuild their robot to do exactly what that team does? I don't want to see FIRST turn into a bunch of variations of the same good robot competing everywhere.

Yes, it would be nice if we can keep our robots and not have to ship or bag , but the outcome could be very negative for FIRST.
Just my thoughts.

Maybe that's where Toyota went wrong?

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Collin, one thing I would caution you on is something that Dean and Woodie have mentioned several times is that ship date is not just a date that we have to have our robots in a crate or bag, but it is rather a design constraint of when we need to have the robot done.

Also, keeping robots back is not wise due to copying. 217, 1114, 469, 148, and so many other good robots debuted in week 1 and 2 regionals, and some before ship date. What is keeping a team competing in week 4 or 5 to just rebuild their robot to do exactly what that team does? I don't want to see FIRST turn into a bunch of variations of the same good robot competing everywhere.

Yes, it would be nice if we can keep our robots and not have to ship or bag , but the outcome could be very negative for FIRST.
Just my thoughts.

I understand what you are saying, but I also don't think it's as big of a problem as you might think. Right now, teams that have the resources (manpower, machines, money, etc.) to copy, will already have a practice robot, and the drive to continually improve their robot throughout the season. Our robot is never done...until we put it in the trailer after IRI...maybe. These are the teams that would have the resources to copy other robots...if they wanted...and would do so anyway. And it doesn't really happen that much.

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I was referencing if there was NO bag and tag system or ship date that Collin mentioned earlier and in several other threads before. What is keeping a team from waiting until good teams compete in week one and the build their robot in the following weeks to do exactly what team X does but better and have it for week 5 all ready to go? It is definitely a very low thing for a team to do, but I am sure that there are teams out there who would do it.

Yes it doesn't happen now because we have ship date and teams can only hold back 40lbs of weight, but I was replying to FIRST moving to a no ship date and every team keeps their robot in between competitions.

How exactly is it a "very low" thing to do? FIRST allows you to hold back 65 lbs. If most teams wanted to, they could have rebuilt their robots into a 469/67 type looper. Our frame + drive + electronics is easily over 55 lbs. We'll have had 3.5 weeks between Boilermaker and Championships. Did we do this? Nope. We've been working on making the robot we designed better (improved autonomous, better ball grabber, driver practice). Is it fair that we have a second robot and room to build part of a field while other teams cannot? NO WAY! To me, it's much more fair for teams to just never have to ship their robots. Then, all teams going to Week 5 events would be in the same boat. I would bet that if a team tried to build a "better" 469 in the weeks between Week 1 and their competition, they'd end up with an inferior robot on the field. Very few teams in FIRST can prototype, design, and fabricate a robot that quickly (then practice, break, fix, and debug that same robot).

In this hypothetical situation, if the team did pull off creating a better version of another robot, I would applaud their efforts and know that they worked their butts off. But don't forget, the good teams that figure out these "dominant" strategies early enough to build a great robot are CONSTANTLY improving their strategies, driving skills, autonomous, and every other aspect of the robot between their competitions, too.

The goal of FIRST is to Inspire. In my opinion, all three options I laid out can only help grow FIRST to reach its goal of Inspiring as many kids as possible.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

How exactly is it a "very low" thing to do? FIRST allows you to hold back 65 lbs. If most teams wanted to, they could have rebuilt their robots into a 469/67 type looper. Our frame + drive + electronics is easily over 55 lbs. We'll have had 3.5 weeks between Boilermaker and Championships. Did we do this? Nope. We've been working on making the robot we designed better (improved autonomous, better ball grabber, driver practice). Is it fair that we have a second robot and room to build part of a field while other teams cannot? NO WAY! To me, it's much more fair for teams to just never have to ship their robots. Then, all teams going to Week 5 events would be in the same boat. I would bet that if a team tried to build a "better" 469 in the weeks between Week 1 and their competition, they'd end up with an inferior robot on the field. Very few teams in FIRST can prototype, design, and fabricate a robot that quickly (then practice, break, fix, and debug that same robot).

In this hypothetical situation, if the team did pull off creating a better version of another robot, I would applaud their efforts and know that they worked their butts off. But don't forget, the good teams that figure out these "dominant" strategies early enough to build a great robot are CONSTANTLY improving their strategies, driving skills, autonomous, and every other aspect of the robot between their competitions, too.

The goal of FIRST is to Inspire. In my opinion, all three options I laid out can only help grow FIRST to reach its goal of Inspiring as many kids as possible.

Take as an example, 33 last year. (Sorry Jim) After seeing 67's dominant machine they rebuilt their robot to be a wide dumper similar to 67's. They had the added benefit of a crab drive system underneath. LOGICALLY they should have been better than 67 because the upper structure was nearly identical and the drive train was imho better. Why did 67 win another blue banner while 33 got knocked out in the semi's? I always attribute it to driver practice. Their drivers practiced playing one way but the new system required a different style of play. Winning in FRC isn't all about the robot, it is about the drivers practicing and communicating.

Please note, this is NOT knocking 33. There are very few teams that consistently awe me with every aspect of their program.

[Jim Zondag]

Andrew,
No problem...our efforts last year were just an extreme example of what we never stop doing: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. We made a 39.8 lb replacement part for the Championship. This took considerable time and effort, but it was something we felt that we needed to last year.
I personally have never truly understood FIRST's motivation to restrict our access to the machines. I know that many believe that it is to make things more fair, but in realility all it really does is widen the gap between the teams with a lot of resources and the teams with less. There is no other machine sport on earth that I know of where they take your machine away from you.
Shipping/bagging is a vestige of a time in which most teams went to a single event. The now that we are playing a SEASON it no longer makes sense.
To me the most tragic thing about shipping/bagging is the fact that it prevents teams from self-promoting effectively precisely when we have the best opportunity to do so. You build hype BEFORE the big game, not AFTER. We are Robotics teams, and showing people our robots is the single best way to fulfill Dean's homework assignement and get outsiders to our events.
Teams are their own best advocates, by taking away the robots, FIRST takes away our best promotional tool. If Dean wants us to complete his homework, then he should eliminate these obsolete rules to allow us to do this effectively.

[Al3+]

It's been my impression that the purpose of ship date is to impose on us an artificial time constraint. 6 weeks is hardly enough time to build a robot. But it just means we have to exercise good time management.

This is why team 840 did not hold back anything this year, even though we really could have used some drive practice, we believed it was against the spirit of the competition.

Also, having no ship date would intrinsically cause some unfairness. Say that Team A and Team B both attend only 1 regional, Team A's event is on week 1 and Team B's event is on week 5. Team B gets 4 extra weeks to build their robot! Even if they don't try to "copy" successful designs, it doesn't change the fact that they are much more prepared for their event than Team A is.

Then again this is assuming both teams only attend 1 event, which wouldn't be the case under the district system. Still, timing differences would be an issue. With ship date, the same deadline is imposed on every team.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Al3+

It's been my impression that the purpose of ship date is to impose on us an artificial time constraint. 6 weeks is hardly enough time to build a robot. But it just means we have to exercise good time management.

This is why team 840 did not hold back anything this year, even though we really could have used some drive practice, we believed it was against the spirit of the competition.

Also, having no ship date would intrinsically cause some unfairness. Say that Team A and Team B both attend only 1 regional, Team A's event is on week 1 and Team B's event is on week 5. Team B gets 4 extra weeks to build their robot! Even if they don't try to "copy" successful designs, it doesn't change the fact that they are much more prepared for their event than Team A is.

Then again this is assuming both teams only attend 1 event, which wouldn't be the case under the district system. Still, timing differences would be an issue. With ship date, the same deadline is imposed on every team.

Team A would compete against teams who have a similar disadvantage. Now, at the Championship level it could be a problem but if all teams get their robot back and have time to work on it after their events this difference goes away.

[Al3+]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Team A would compete against teams who have a similar disadvantage. Now, at the Championship level it could be a problem but if all teams get their robot back and have time to work on it after their events this difference goes away.

That's true. Event timing should ideally still be consistent for everyone, but with a team attending 2 district events in 4 weeks, variations in event timing probably won't influence performance by much either way.

Sounds like a good idea.