Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[thefro526]

I think that competing at multiple regionals is very fair. I don't really think that there should be any actual limit but, there is an understood one that's in the 2-3 range. I only know of one team that has ever exceeded 3 regionals in one year. Personally home regional doesn't really apply to us because we're about equidistant from two regionals Philly and NJ, and about 2 hours from Annapolis and NYC.

[Salbert]

I could see how it'd be unfair... not only does the team traveling to multiple regionals have greater chances of winning awards, but their drivers get more experience handling the robot, giving them more experience and an edge at the Championship. If I'm not mistaken, MOE 365 has provided funding to other teams, so maybe instead of going to more regionals, these teams should help new teams fund their way to the Championship. It'd look good on Chairman's and they'd get the Gracious Professionalism award.

[JaneYoung]

If you are comparing competing at multiple regionals with competing at one, no, it isn't fair. The more experience the team has competing, the more opportunities they have to improve, to hone their skills, and to deepen their understanding of the game. For the teams that consistently attend one regional, like ours, that is the choice that we make. We choose to attend one regional. The reasons for the choice can be many and can be varied but the decision is still the same: to compete in one regional per season.

Why does it have to be fair? It doesn't. Every time a team travels to compete, they are showcasing the development of science and technology that is so important to the competition, using the resources, brain power, and courage that it takes to compete in the current season's game.

If FIRST were ever to devolve to the point that only winning the robot competition mattered, then the program's vision would have vaporized, the dreams would have died, the purpose would have shriveled, and the participants would have lost. Before they ever received the KoP. If we feel pummeled by the program as it is set up now, we should re-evaluate why we are participating as a team and what we want out of the program. If we feel beaten up by the success of teams who have found the means to compete at multiple regionals, then we need to build stronger muscles, mentally and emotionally, as we are evaluating the purpose of FIRST for the team(s) and for each of us, individually. FIRST isn't for wimps. It never has been. Robustness is a part of the program: the robots, the teams, the individuals that develop while participating. There will never be a way to fully balance the big dogs with the little dogs. The haves and the have nots.

I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in the science and technology aspect of it. I'm interested in watching students be inspired by a wall of patents at Georgia Tech. I'm interested in listening to the team members of FRC 842 tell me all about their latest and newest project. I celebrate the robot performances and the teamwork that is evident during the competitions. I celebrate the fact that teams have found ways to travel to multiple regionals and continue to set the bar for themselves, inspiring others as they go. I also celebrate the teams that travel to one regional. They have all gone the distance.

[dsm]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I see no contradiction. Accomplishments include much more than winning.

I personally agree with your notion about accomplishments, but the comment in question (to split hairs ) was made specifically in reference to awards, so I do see a contradiction. Regardless, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even the original poster, despite what many seem to think.

Awards are indeed not everything, and the simple process of building a robot, and competing with it in even one regional, has many intangible benefits in its own right -- benefits that won't ever be done justice by a trophy or medal.

But awards do matter, let's not kid ourselves. Especially those championship eligibility awards, which not only represent tangible recognition, but also something more important: opportunity. Opportunity to go to that next level, as well as to be exposed to more sources of learning and inspiration.

And no one likes to be denied opportunity -- especially when that opportunity must be earned.

Which is kind of what it smells like, to me, when what was previously a merit-based championship slot is suddenly relegated to the random waiting list. It was originally a merit-based slot for a reason (one would hope), but suddenly, for no other reason than because some team merits a slot so much that they in fact already have one, the meritocratic principle is simply cast aside.

That's what aggravates me as it relates to this topic.

And I think it's an easy thing to fix.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
That you use the word "competition" instead of "program" is a good clue to your mindset here. Try to broaden your goals to include the stated mission of FIRST, rather than focusing on winning medals. Does it sting to be beaten by a powerhouse veteran team? You bet. Does it make me want to pout and go home? No way! It makes me want to do better next time. It inspires me to do better next time.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I don't believe teams automatically deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They should be recognized for their accomplishments.

Originally Posted by DanTod97

To me, these two ideas contradict each other.

I'm not sure they contradict each other. But what does it mean to be recognized? And where do we draw the line between effort and accomplishment?

In its June 2005 newsletter, FIRST recognized its champions, but the lists linked from page 3 (Spotlight on FIRST Teams and Spotlight on FIRST Champions) do not include any teams that were awarded medals or trophies at the Championship. Even the Chairman's Award winner for that year is mentioned only in passing (on page 13)! Whatever the rest of us consider important, reading this newsletter forced me to realize that FIRST does not care at all about which team wins what award. The FIRST idea of what makes a champion diverges from what we think a champion is. So does the FIRST idea of accomplishment. Nor do I think that FIRST cares how many regionals a team attends, as long as that good ol' "Inspiration and Recognition" keeps flowing.

[fuzzy1718]

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta.

Not so. The number of teams attending the Championship does not depend on the number of multiple-Regional winners. A team that is already eligible to go doesn't take extra spots if it earns its eligibility in more than one way.

Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta...paid their way to Atlanta...Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.

What payment are you referring to? Every team pays in order to register for the Championship.

You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

I'm sad that you feel stepped on. I firmly believe that it's within your power to aspire instead of lament.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

Surely you must recognize that this post is hypocritical? You ask these teams that buy their way in to Atlanta and win more than one regional to "stop stepping on the lower budget teams", but you seem to be putting your team (which attends 2 regionals) in this "low budget" category.

What separates these teams from yours? The fact that they are successful? No team goes into a season knowing that they will win the first regional they attend when they register for multiples. Are you asking them to not participate in the second if they win the first. How inspiring is it to go at all for the students on that team. In my opinion, you can't have the inspiration of bringing in the "powerhouse" teams and still have the "fairness" of keeping them out of the eliminations. The students on these teams will just not be as interested in being there if you're dragging them around like a show pony and taking away the fun, competitive aspect of it.

To take this to an extreme, should teams that buy their way into Atlanta not be allowed to participate in Elims at regionals at all? Or be eligible for EI or Chairman's for that matter? After all they do already have a spot in Atlanta so why should they have a chance to get another one and deny a "worthy" team of a spot.

Having said all that, I do think that there should be a better way of assigning the spots that are vacated by teams qualifying multiple times. Why don't we take the spots vacated by any teams that have qualified multiple times and pass them to other "deserving teams". Perhaps take the vacated spots and give them to members of the finalist alliance in the order captain, 1st pick, 2nd pick. If 4 or more of the teams from the winning and finalist alliance are already qualified then you can give them to the waiting list. Chairman's and EI spots can still go to the waiting list as normal as these are less affected by attendance at multiple regionals.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.

Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.

Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

So, you would rather we went the FLL road? So you want MORE teams coming (if you're a weak regional) just so they can win an award and qualify for the Championships?

I see what you are saying, but I would ask you to remember some things: You are making some generalizations. You're going to have to back those up, and I think you'll have a hard time.

There is a limit on where you can enter for the Regional Chairman's Award and the Woodie Flowers Finalist Award. One regional. However, there is no limit on all the other awards. You want a limit. Very well. YOU can tell the judges that team xxx can't win award yyy because they've already competed, even though they clearly have the best candidacy for it.

(I even know of a case where a team told the judges not to consider them for an award that qualified them, because they had already won it. This was a rookie team. While this is an option for judged awards, there is no guarantee it will work, and it isn't an option for competition-based awards.)

You're also saying that possibly the best robot can't compete in eliminations if they're already going. That's like telling the New England Patriots that they can't even start the playoffs. Or the New York Giants. You get me? Teams that are in the Hall of Fame need to stop competing, because they have already qualified and *might* win and steal a slot from a team that isn't the best? Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, then you need to revise your statements, because that's the impression you convey.

Your statement about teams "stepping on the lower budget teams" is annoying, to say the least. There is absolutely no reason that you can't go out there and build a robot that performs at least that well. It might not look pretty, but it can beat theirs. It's cheaper, but so what? Just go out there, and build a robot that can beat theirs. Anyone could have built 1114's design. No one did. Anyone could have built 330's design, and several did. The execution was what set them apart.

The time you spend on here complaining is time you could be spending figuring out how those teams do it and figuring out how to implement that.

[IKE]

Fuzzy1718 and others:
Actually, I am familiar with 1718 and they did build a great machine this year (and last year). Had they competed at various other regionals they would have been a top 3 machine, instead of a top 10 machine. Detroit and GLR are very tough regionals. If 1718 wants to win the easiest thing to do is go to a lower scoring regional (I won't name names). The harder thing to do is to rise up to the level of competition. I think you guys are there.
It is a 40 minute drive from Armada to Auburn Hills. Shoot me an email, you drive and I will buy you dinner and we can discuss our teams. I think what you will find out is that many of the "powerhouse" teams are that way more so out of years of experience and lots of determination than money. There is only 1 way to get more experience and it is not playing 1 regional a year and nationals every other year. Actually I will correct myself, there are several ways to gain experience. Talk to those "Powerhouse" teams (there are a lot within driving distance).
I hope you guys keep competing. IMHO you guys are one of the most impressive young teams out there and better than many veteran teams (from a competition perspective). Please keep up the good work. This team is actually one I specifically had in mind when discussing that if teams could only compete in their own neighborhood then 1718 would only get to compete with crazy tough teams (please read earlier thread).

[gblake]

Folks,

What with all the brain power represented by FIRST and the participants in this thread, I am surprised at the number of posts that "talk" past one another or that discuss some off-topic aspect of a broader subject.

And, in particular I am surprised that no one other than Ike ( here ) has brought up the rock-bottom, essential nub of this discussion (if I missed anyone else I'm sorry). I believe that asking if something is "fair" is a 100% incomplete and ill-formed question. I'll assert that there is no such thing as something being "fair" without additional qualification.

Things/situations/actions/rules are only fair in some sense. Giving two children equal numbers of cookies is fair in the sense of giving everyone the same sized treat. Giving children equal numbers of cookies might be unfair in the sense that one child was given all the cookies with the most chocolate chips. Giving two children equal numbers of green beans is unfair in the sense of not recognizing that one is extremely hungry and malnourished and the other is well-fed. Etc.

This is a topic that comes up all the time in some branches of math and philosophy.

My suggestion to skippy is this:

• Assert/define the team characteristics or accomplishments that you think should FIRST should reward and what you think FIRST wants the outcome of the individual regionals and the total regional process to be.
• Describe the parts of the rules that you agree properly use those characteristics to increase the expected value of a team's reward; and
• Describe the parts of the rules that you think improperly use teams' other characteristics to increase the expected value of the teams' rewards.
• Point out that you think the rules are unfair in the sense of rewarding teams for ___ and remind everyone that you think FIRST does not intend to reward teams for ___.
• You are now able to argue/assert that the rules are not fair in the sense that they reward ___.

If you can pose your question in this manner, we can have a debate that just might stay on topic and just might reach a useful conclusion.

I suspect that much of that debate will focus on whether or not you properly express the team characteristics that FIRST should reward, and whether you (or anyone) can properly express what the outcomes of individual regionals and the total regional process should reward/recognize. The part of the debate that touches on whether the rules are fair in the sense of measuring what they should measure and rewarding teams that maximize what the rules measure will be the easier part of the discussion.

Blake

[ktbcantrell]

I see no issue in teams competeing in multiple regionals. Competeing in multiple regionals allows the team to gain much practice in many very important areas: allows teams to trouble shoot and redesign robot components and compete to win multiple anual awards and titles.

Remember, competeing in multiple regionals requires a significant amount of moeny for entry, travel, room and board, food, all other incorporated expenses. The teams that compete in 2 + regionals are only able to do so through their prior fund raising and sponsorships. If they choose to spend their money on extra regionals why should we disallow this.

Personally if my team had the option to compete in multiple regionals we would have done so in a heart beat.

Fair isnt really the issue here. Since all teams have the opportunity to compete in multiple regionals then YES it is fair. Ability to do so is a different issue.

[AdamHeard]

I've got much more out of FIRST ever since I stopped and realized I can gain so much more from trying to improve my current team's situation rather than complain about teams who have more.

I really don't think there is a single powerhouse team that hasn't earned what they have (sponsorship, members, experience, wins, etc...).

[dsmoker]

As a mentor for a team that attends only one regional and has only once in its 9 year existence competed in Atlanta, let me say the following:

1. Why are we so concerned with everything being "fair?" Life is not fair. FIRST is meant, at least in part, to help students succeed in life. Part of life is learning that everyone is not on an equal footing. Some teams will always have more resources than others. The challenge for teams with fewer resources, like ours, is to learn how to (a) increase those resources; and (b) work within the resources you have. It is possible to succeed without the biggest budget or most mentors. Not every team is the New York Yankees (who I love, btw).

2. I have nothing against teams who attend more than one regional each year. Ultimately, it is our goal, when finances permit. It's simply smart tactics to get as much drive time with your robot as possible. We are working toward that goal first by trying to get financially stable to attend two events at least every other season (either two regionals or a regional and the championship). That way each team member, in theory, has the opportunity to go to a second event twice in their high school career. This is especially difficult for us as an inner city team, as we cannot ask student's families to contribute financially. It simply isn't feasible. What we can and are now asking students to do, however, is to fundraise. They did this quite effectively last year, raising almost $3,000 in just a few weeks to help get us to Atlanta when we qualified.

3. I don't understand the whole thing about teams competing in multiple regionals taking up spots in Atlanta. As I understand it, any vetern team can register during the appropriate time period. There is then a wait list for situations where all the spots reserved for regional champions, EI winners, Chairman's winners and Rookie All Stars are not taken up, as would be the case when a team wins multipe regionals. So how is a multiple winner taking up space that someone else could occupy? Maybe someone can correct me on this point if I am mistaken.

Those are my three main points. Intersting thread.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams.

The purpose of FIRST is to simulate a real world professional scenario. There will never be a time in the real world where every company is placed on a level field monetarily or experience wise. Like wise first is the same way and teams that work hard enough to be able to compete at multiple regionals should be rewarded for there hard work. Also if they are good enough to beat all of the teams at the regional why limit them. It should be taken as an opportunity for other teams to find ways to win. Also why don;t you divert the money from the extra regional to the championship. You can buy in just like all the other teams.