District/Regional Format

[Vermeulen]

I don't think that a district setup would work for Wisconsin, since most of our teams are in Waukesha county, and the other few teams are scattered across the state. In a district approach, there would probably be a couple Waukesha county districts, and then one other district, which doesn't make sense. Bag and tag, on the other hand, makes sense for areas where most teams are close to their home regional.

[xzvrw2]

I dislike the district/state championship format for a few reasons. I feel that this format stops Michigan teams from knowing about the teams from the rest of the world. Sure a team can go to another regional, like 217, and see those teams, but who has that kind of money any more. Back when I was onmy team, I knew teams and people from around the world because I went to different regionals outside my state. Now I feel that the Michigan kids of today are being deprived of that. These kids hear of stories of other legendary teams around the nation and they can go check them out on here or other websites. But what about these new upcomming teams that, because of the new district format, people like myself cannot even get to see. Back when I was on my team we would go to the midwest regional and see teams like 71, 111, 45, 101, 383(yes the brazillian team), 16, 648, 234, 447, 292, and 461. Those are just the teams that I can remember off the top of my head. These kids will only see these teams at nationals. I think that it hurts FIRST by doing this. I know this format is well liked, and I know that I am rarely every on any more, but I do know that I kind of dislike how things are going and I wanted to voice my opinion on it. Thanks for your time.

[fuzzy1718]

What if teams could determine their equivant to "state championship" before they register for their districts. They would then compete in that area all season. For instance, what if 217 was getting tired of playing MI teams, so at the start of the seaon they decide to play in the Midwest area. It would solve the issue that U.P. teams have along with many other not densely packed areas, and would allow teams to intermix year to year. The only downside is travel costs. Which mean the intermixing would be limited to only a select few.

On a side note I had no idea teams were not supplying their volunteers. What if the number they needed to supply was based on the number of students on the team. I'm sure enormous teams like HOT and Chickens can spare a few more hands than say Martians or other small teams can.

[ExTexan]

On a side note I had no idea teams were not supplying their volunteers. What if the number they needed to supply was based on the number of students on the team. I'm sure enormous teams like HOT and Chickens can spare a few more hands than say Martians or other small teams can.

Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread. I have heard grumblings about teams not supplying volunteers and wondered about it. I think teams that don't supply the required amount should pay for the cost of people to replace their shortfall. Volunteers could be part of the price of entry.

However, that said, I and several on my team volunteer because we enjoy it and want to. Working with a "requried volunteer" that wasn't there for the experience would be a lot less fun for us and the teams.

[artdutra04]

There are aspects of the Michigan system which are good, but I really don't think the Michigan system is a magic bullet that will fix FIRST everywhere if only it can be imposed on them. While anything to help reduce costs to teams will certainly help everyone in the long run, I don't think the Michigan system is the only way to attain high team sustainability and competitiveness.

In fact, there's a competing system in place, which has been around for the greater part of the last decade, that does many of the same goals as the Michigan System. This competing system involves a very large number of very-low-cost competitions in a relatively small geographic area that extends the FRC season into a year-round program. This system wasn't imposed on anyone, but organically grew from passionate grassroots efforts on behalf of teams and mentors. This system is what some might call the New England system (possible even the Northeast system to include NY and NJ area).

Since the 1990s, New England (which is about the same size and population as Michigan) has been slowly building up a very robust off-season competition circuit. Each of these off-season events are hosted by a team, and many of them act as fundraiser opportunities to fund their own team's program. Despite this, up to a dozen off-season competitions can be attended for the same price as one FiM District Event. As a result, it's not uncommon for a team to attend three, four, five off-season competitions each year.

Due to the deep history of not only off-season events, but also FIRST in general in New England, the mindset of FIRSTers here is different than other parts of the country. It's really hard to put how it's different into words, but it's unique. Due to fact that many teams and mentors involved in FIRST here were also involved in FRC back in the defense-dominated games of the 1990s, defense is also pretty big here.

We also take to off-season events here like a duck to water. Since these competitions are "just for fun", teams often let any and all students drive their robots. These students, who wouldn't normally get to drive the robot at official events have a blast at these competitions. We often tweak the rules of the game at these events, to make the game more fun or challenging. Mentors like these events because they are relatively stress-free, especially when compared to official events. Overall, they are cheap, fun and popular.

Many of the teams, mentors, and volunteers who plan these events are also the movers and shakers of FIRST in New England. They would be the ones responsible for establishing a District System here. But from talking to many of these individuals, there's not much of a desire to impose a District System here, as it would overstretch these volunteers as they run their own teams and manage their off-season events. And for the reasons listed above, they doubt the need for a District system here.

Instead, there have been strong efforts here to create a sort of Regionals 2.0. Better, stronger, faster, cheaper. The WPI Regional is a prime example of this: a small 30-40 team event allows a high number of matches, has travel grants to reduce the costs for all attending teams, has Regional-specific scholarships to reward students, and by doing everything "in-house" on a college campus, they can host a full-quality Regional for a fraction of the price. I foresee these trends to continue, as the NU CT Regional also awarded travel grants this year, and at least for a few days this past season was slated to be hosted at a college campus.

What this New England system allows, is for a $10k/year team to attend one high-quality Regional event and up to a half dozen off-season events scattered throughout the year. Since these off-season events are mostly single-day events, travel costs are essentially null. By spreading the competitions out over the year, it reduces burn-out and keeps students engaged throughout the year. And the "just for fun" nature of the off-season events allows all the students to be inspired behind the glass, driving the robots.

Please don't take this as an attack on FiM. If the teams in Michigan appreciate and enjoy the District format, congratulations for finding a solution to fit your regions needs! But please don't make the mistake of thinking that the entire country has the same attitude about FIRST and try to impose the District System on everyone. Some parts of the country have already found our own successful niche solutions, and while we may not always brag about them, we like them and we want to continue doing them.

[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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Which was exactly the case in MI before we went with FiM. There were two regionals only 50 miles apart in SE MI, and one in W MI. Nothing mid-state, nothing Up North. I appreciate that CA is larger than MI, but not all that much larger. Teams from the western UP are farther from the MSC site than teams from Philadelphia would be. We hoped to put one district in the UP, but there are only 4 teams (in an area 20% larger than Maryland and Delaware combined). Still, having a district in Traverse City cuts the travel time in half for one event. Far-flung teams have a disadvantage in both district and regional systems.

Even some of the L.A. teams stay overnight, just because it's a 2-hour commute or so in moderate traffic. L.A. - San Diego (2 hours, or thereabouts--over 100 miles) often sees teams staying in hotels; same for the SVR-Sacramento leg, which is a similar distance. L.A.-Sacramento or L.A.-SVR is a good solid 6-7 hour drive. Add the L.A. - San Diego distance if you're coming from/going to S.D. instead of L.A. These aren't far-flung teams either--these are the places there is an event currently, and most teams have their second event in CA as well. The far-flung teams typically wind up in Las Vegas due to being mainly in the desert area on the east side of the state--another overnighter either way.

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

What do you think of the idea of an Ambassador System where the Winners of a regional championship as well as the Chairman's Award winners (and perhaps even the Finalists) are invited to compete in a different district/regional the following year. It would not be mandatory and I think it would be best if the Ambassador teams were financially subsidized for the extra travel/shipping/etc expenses. I am thinking that of those 9 teams (3 winners, 3 Chairman's & 3 finalists) perhaps 3 become ambassadors.

If the various regions opted to do this... Oh, and put the RAS into the pool of teams, for a pool of 10. And have a couple of at-large spots in each district that could not go to in-region teams until after X date.

I like the idea. I'll even go you one better, Joe: If you're invited, the "away" event is counted as part of your registration for your home region, and any points you earn count in your home region.

Example: CA is one region, AZ/CO/UT/ID (AZ) are another. Teams 60, 159, 3006, 39, 987, 3194, 1013, 1011, 3315, 842 are the pool of ambassadors for AZ; 254, 330, 1717, 812, 692, 3186, 1323, 1622, 1266, 971 are the pool for CA. Up to X teams from the AZ pool can compete in CA, and up to X teams from the CA pool can compete in AZ. All the teams competing in AZ have their points--and registration--in CA, and vice versa. Meanwhile, 359 and 368 get the at-large spots in the San Diego district, and 2576 gets one of the ones in the Los Angeles district.

(Note: could also be MI, the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, or any other region that uses the district system)

[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.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

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.

My experience in VEX, where we have five tournaments each about a month apart in Redmond, Vancouver, and on Vancouver Island for just over 50 teams is that keeping the robots back does allow some copying. But I think that is a good thing.

It gives teams a microcosm of the real world of engineering, where you KNOW you can't stand still. The robots that won our first event in November, would have been slaughtered at our final event in March. I tell students that if someone is copying you, then that means they are one month behind you... and you better keep running if you want to stay in front... and watch out for teams that will leapfrog past you with radical new designs. We saw at least one completely brand new concept in how to play the game in our fifth and final event this year. In FRC, if you've got a good robot in Week 1, you can be pretty confident that it will be a good robot at the Championships. Not in VEX.

Of course rebuilding in VEX is pretty easy to do... the robots are all made of re-usable parts, so doing a complete re-build can cost absolutely nothing.... and the events are weeks apart, giving plenty of time to tear down, rebuild and retest.... and can be done without close adult supervision.

The FRC schedule has different constraints on it than the VEX schedule does, and thats why I'm happy to be able to play both games... but I wouldn't necessarily condemn copying or improving upon a good design as a bad thing. In fact, it is the smart thing to do!

Jason