What First is missing.

[nicholsjj]

Just a few thuoghts:
I believe that VEX is starting to really compete with FIRST on some STEM related competition aspects. Talking to team mentors that have gone from FRC to VRC it makes sense in a few areas mainly money. One mentor told me that he can run 7-12 VRC teams for the price of one FRC team over a three year time span. VRC is also more easy and less expensive to run from an event stand point compared to an FRC regional. Now VEX has taken the game and upped the diffcuilty of it due to VEX Iq. Now the games are becoming more challenging and high school targeted. I'm not trying to bash FRC because the fact is that FRC is still the only competition in which students get to work side by side with professionals to build a 120 lb machine. The problem is that unless the cost to the teams go down or a full district model is put in place many teams will seriously consider going to VRC instead of FRC. I'm not saying FRC will fall to the way side but it will be hurt from it. Also I have a question for all of you more expirenced people out there. Will VEX Iq. challenge FLL or is FLL established enough that the cost difference wont hurt it too bad?

[Phyrxes]

IQ vs FLL is going to interesting to watch, with FLL being the firmly entrenched 800 lb gorilla. Convincing people to move away from the product they already have experience with is never an easy task.

If anything you are going to see school divisions pick and choose the programs they support due to previous investments in products and perceived return on their investments.

Example: Our school division which is just over 80,000 students now has FLL in most (all?) elementary schools, VRC in most (all?) middle and high schools, FTC in a number of high schools, and three FRC teams.

Educator's note: That is total division wide enrollment which includes over 60 elementary schools, 16 middle schools and two traditional schools, as well as 11 high schools,

[Maldridge422]

I think FIRST faces enough challenges without outside competition. In my city, we have five fewer FRC teams than we did in 2005. The difficulties faced by every single FRC team provide, IMHO, plenty of competition. Every single FRC team has to constantly compete against the outside world for the funding and support we need to survive. I'm confident that FIRST understands that if it is not constantly improving itself, it will not last long.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Maldridge422

five fewer FRC teams than we did in 2005.

Which means there are about 100 students a year no longer exposed to STEM. If there were a viable competitor to FRC it may provide an opportunity that currently doesn't exist for those students.

[Gizmo4]

I think FIRST and sponsors should start not just focusing on inner city teams but other underpriviledged teams that live in areas that don't feature many willing or even engineering companies. There is a lot of scientist and engineer potential that is missed through that.

[ebarker]

I don't want to sound rude, but please go understand what the definition of what a monopoly is. FIRST isn't a monopoly. It is an open market and they are putting up no barriers to entry, that is they are not preventing anyone from stepping and competing. There are other competitions that compete with FIRST and they are open to anyone.

FIRST doesn't make money, they get their bills paid. And they run the organization financially responsibly which means they keep a proper amount of reserves for operations.

If FIRST were making money, plenty of investors would be starting competitions to try to get a piece of that action.

To seriously impact the current cost structure would require a fundamental restructuring of the whole program. That restructure might be offensive to other people. That is one of the factors driving the district model. More plays, lower cost, less show, more high school gym, but that is another argument for another thread.

The real issue here is Value.

Anytime we are talking about cost, we also need to be talking about value.

Cost and Value are two distinctly different entities.

If you can persuade your community of the value of FIRST, then there is a chance the cost issue will resolve itself with increased funding.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by ebarker

The real issue here is Value.

Anytime we are talking about cost, we also need to be talking about value.

Cost and Value are two distinctly different entities.

If you can persuade your community of the value of FIRST, then there is a chance the cost issue will resolve itself with increased funding.

Amen. When I worked at Linens 'n Things, we had a large portion of product that we called "Value Merchandise". For five years, to the chagrin of my manager, I called it what it was: "cheap crap" -- there was no *value* in it; most of it wasn't worth the pittance it cost.

Value means a high-quality product at a price worth paying. FRC is an excellent product, but I think that the cost is prohibitive for many. If we can maintain the quality but lower the cost, I think that would be one of the greatest changes FIRST could make.

Please file under "easier said than done".

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Which means there are about 100 students a year no longer exposed to STEM. If there were a viable competitor to FRC it may provide an opportunity that currently doesn't exist for those students.

Sounds a lot like what VEX and FTC are intended for. Some areas don't have the financial means/mentors/build spaces available to support a program on the scale of FRC in every school. Grants are often available to get teams started, but they don't provide the means for these teams to be self sustaining once the grant money runs out. I saw this happen in Boston with the Smith Foundation grants- we had something like 23 rookie teams in one year. The next year, all but a handful did not return.

FRC is and always will be expensive, and not just financially. The tools, space, mentor and student hours (not just during build season, but planning meetings, organizing fundraisers, public outreach and demonstrations, recruiting, etc), parts, other materials, and competitions all have fairly high costs associated with them, and not all are monetary. Any competitor on the scale and of similar mission to FRC is very likely to have similar requirements in terms of time and material.

VEX and FTC appear to be designed to avoid such requirements. With primarily bolt-together components easily assembled with hand tools, much more relaxed time requirements, reduced system complexity, and dramatically lower cost, these programs were started with the intention of getting STEM into schools where FRC scale teams are either impractical, or unfeasible. These "100 students per year no longer exposed to STEM" don't need something on the scale of FRC to be inspired if their school/community can't support it, and a competitor of equal flashiness and cost likely won't change that. Practical alternatives do exist, if the powers that be are willing to consider them.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

Sounds a lot like what VEX and FTC are intended for. Some areas don't have the financial means/mentors/build spaces available to support a program on the scale of FRC in every school. Grants are often available to get teams started, but they don't provide the means for these teams to be self sustaining once the grant money runs out. I saw this happen in Boston with the Smith Foundation grants- we had something like 23 rookie teams in one year. The next year, all but a handful did not return.

FRC is and always will be expensive, and not just financially. The tools, space, mentor and student hours (not just during build season, but planning meetings, organizing fundraisers, public outreach and demonstrations, recruiting, etc), parts, other materials, and competitions all have fairly high costs associated with them, and not all are monetary. Any competitor on the scale and of similar mission to FRC is very likely to have similar requirements in terms of time and material.

VEX and FTC appear to be designed to avoid such requirements. With primarily bolt-together components easily assembled with hand tools, much more relaxed time requirements, reduced system complexity, and dramatically lower cost, these programs were started with the intention of getting STEM into schools where FRC scale teams are either impractical, or unfeasible. These "100 students per year no longer exposed to STEM" don't need something on the scale of FRC to be inspired if their school/community can't support it, and a competitor of equal flashiness and cost likely won't change that. Practical alternatives do exist, if the powers that be are willing to consider them.

I'm well aware of these programs and these problems (I've publicly announced a distaste for rookie grants numerous times). The primary barrier to entry for Vex (I'll get to FTC in a minute) for me is the lack of scholarships. I can start an FRC team, doesn't matter how bad they do, my students are now eligible for a lot of scholarships. Vex doesn't really have the range of scholarships. For FTC the primary barrier to entry is less but still there, many scholarships are written for FRC not FTC.

For me, viable competitors do NOT exist. My students need to pay for school and FRC is the only game in town for that.

[OZ_341]

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

+1 and QFT. This should be a top priority.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers. Viewership will not increase overnight, but this is playing the "long game". Lets also pay what ever fee it takes to eliminate all of the incredibly annoying commercials.

I need to be able to tell outside people to watch a webcast and not worry about what they will see. Some of the broadcasts this year were just flat out embarrassing. So many were bad this year that I stopped telling people to watch. If you do not know anything about FIRST, you are not going to watch a pixelated, commercial filled, webcast from a cheap robot camera struggling to figure out what you are watching.

It can be so much better.

And add to this camera operators that actually know what to watch for in matches. I honestly think that, just as refs are trained for each game, camera operators should be "trained" as well. I know every team deserves to be given spotlight on the webcast, but I really dont want to see two robots sitting at the pyramid doing nothing and the 3rd struggling to get their robot to shoot into the low goal when the other pyramid has a robot climbing to the 3rd level with 15 seconds left or dumping in the pyramid goal.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

FIRST needs to start with a consistent high quality webcast of every event. They need to require a standard set of criteria for broadcasting an event and then it needs to be SUPPORTED and FUNDED.

A minimum production value standard and equipment list will raise the broadcast standards and attract more viewers.

This holds true not just for the webcast but for event production quality.

That is my biggest beef with the few district events I have been to. (and it really is just a FEW, so please don't hate on me for that statement. I haven't been to the ones I've heard described as 'well-done', so I am not going to speak for those events.) One I was at in person felt like a badly-done offseason event. It just wasn't the event quality I'm used to from FIRST.

Yes, districts are great because of their lower expense and their ability to give teams more matches... but if the events are disorganized and unimpressive, then nobody from 'outside' is going to watch, online OR in person.

[TikiTech]

Aloha,

From what we have seen over the past years is that VEX is a wonderful starting program that allows basic programming and building skills to develop. These skills help the students to transition into FRC. Our program was started with the low cost underwater ROV competitions and then added the VEX program and then Botball. It was after our successes in these programs that we were approached to start a FIRST team.

I like the fact that the programs have different seasons which allow the robotics program to run thought the school year. There is little overlap and competition for resources.
I am saddened that the Vex and FRC world championships coincide this next year. This makes for some tuff decisions on which to attend if you are lucky enough to attend both. In my mind there would be no question which to go to.
There is NOTHING like a FRC world championships. It is by far the most student inspiring event we have ever attended. The amount of stories that the students bring back from ROV, Botball, and the VEX world championships is NOTHING compared to the amount from the FRC world championship ….

Back on to the topic.
Would another program competing with FRC be a good thing?

Many areas have a hard enough time supporting the existing FRC teams.
Having another program compete for students as well as sponsorship would, in the end, hurt everyone.
If a company has to decide on which to support, most sponsors will make the decision based on costs. If it is going to cost the company less to sponsor a non FRC team then it is a good business decision to do so and will still look good to the community. If they have a set budget of outreach sponsorships, then they could now support two non FRC teams for the same amount and it then it looks even better to the community to do so.

Would this cause FRC to make changes to be more competitive? Sure but at what costs?
Cheaper quality and fewer KOP items? Less scholarships available as participation drops? Smaller venues and less commercialism (making it Loud)?

Are monopolies a good thing? Sometimes…Do monopolies they still exist? Yup…

Are you old enough to remember the telephone system in America prior to the monopoly break up?…….
My service has never been quite the same

An open market approach will solve some problems but will just cause others.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by TikiTech

Aloha,

From what we have seen over the past years is that VEX is a wonderful starting program that allows basic programming and building skills to develop. These skills help the students to transition into FRC.

I'll ask the tough, sensitive question because its going to come up sooner than later, IMO. It already is to some extent with the overlapping of 2 major World Championships in 2014 which affects many including us directly.

What happens if VEX views this as the other way around? What happens if in the future, there is no need to transition at all? Hard choices which will force real competition.