What First is missing.

http://qkme.me/3uednw

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I know of 20 offseason events, which is great, but really less than a tenth of what there needs to be - and I'm just talking about America.

There are definitely more than 20 offseason events but since they aren't listed on a single page like the regionals, it's hard to find them. Honestly I wonder what percentage of FRC participants (students and mentors) even know off season events exist?

It would be nice to have a central place to host information about offseasons that also has a place for teams to register and sign up volunteers. Something like robotevents.org but for FRC offseason events.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by 404'd

Although I could be wrong, most of the webcasts are usually filmed on decent cameras (if they are streaming the video shown on the audience screen), but streaming high quality video becomes a problem with bandwidth constraints and other problems. But I agree there were some pretty low quality streams that I saw.

Then find a better website to host your streams. Try something new, like the new Bittorrent streaming protocol that needs significantly less bandwidth on the broadcaster's end.

[synth3tk]

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.

Yes. Some of these streams were unbearable. Some of them looked liked washed-out CCTV security cameras. Fixed views from the very back of the stadium does not a good stream make. As someone who already knows what's going on and into the program, I found it hard to watch them, so I know a random parent/friend/stranger that stumbled onto the stream was probably not impressed.

I feel like if there were production standards and a minimum budget, we may even see some local stations pick it up, whether live or after-the-fact. While we may not compete easily with NFL/MLB/NASCAR/LMNOP on Sundays, there's always the Saturday slots that are usually reserved for paid programming during the afternoon. Or the digital over-the-air channels such as 5.2, 8-3, etc.

Originally Posted by fb39ca4

Then find a better website to host your streams. Try something new, like the new Bittorrent streaming protocol that needs significantly less bandwidth on the broadcaster's end.

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

I believe this is what yoqu're looking for, it seems to be a pretty cool concept with a lot off potential. Definitely something that we should look into (and preferably someone with more webcasting knowledge than I have)

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Fixed views from the very back of the stadium does not a good stream make.

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

[Bennett548]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

What about the setup 2337 brough to a couple events. I was a sigle camera with a wide angle lens on a pole behind the scoring table:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...64&postcount=9
Here is a randomly selected video from that setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lOCOmD2keeY

I don't know much about the bandwidth aspects of it, but that hardware setup would be pretty affordable to have one for each field.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

An HD camera with a fisheye lens mounted right next to the field (just like the MSC feed) provides the best viewing angle from home, as the field fills up like 90% of the viewable area. Tiny GoPro cameras on poles can do this just fine without obstructing the audience's view.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Twitch, Ustream, Justin and NASA all have plenty of bandwidth to stream up to 1080p+ (and Twitch can even go higher). That's not the issue. The problem is sending the video to the streaming servers. Some venues only have access to DSL/T1, so they can't put out a high-quality video alongside normal internet usage.

That said, if you'd like to give that new Bittorrent streaming thing a try, then contact your regional director and see if you can try it out next year. I've never heard of it before, so I'm going to go look it up.

Oh, in that case P2P streaming won't help this specific problem, as the broadcaster must have enough bandwidth to upload the stream in the first place.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by 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.

We are one of those teams. Small rural towns who have few local engineers who really want to get involved and no veteran teams within a 50 mile radius need a little more help to get off the ground and stay there.
We have been around for six years. Four years ago we were lucky and got connected with an extremely dedicated and fun loving engineer. This year we happened to get connected with another two who have found great fun and enjoyment with our team and FIRST in general. The company that employs our original engineer as well as one of our new ones has just been purchased and we do not know what the new owners plan to do with the plant. If they shut them down we could lose two phenomenal engineering mentors.

One suggestion that I have made to FIRST directly is how the top 8 alliances are formed. I submit that if you want more excitement from the mid-level, low-level, and rookie teams treat the alliance selection at competition like alliance selection at many of the off-season events. You may not choose from within the top 8 and/or if you have already won at a regional you may not compete as an alliance captain in subsequent regionals. To my way of thinking this would not be much different than Chairman’s as you can only submit it at one event. Before you start yelling that it is their reward for hard work take a breath and let me finish because I have the utmost respect for those teams and push my team to emulate their work ethic and dedication.

At our one event we compete against teams that attend 2, 3, and 4 events and many times they bring home those big blue banners from multiple events every year. I am at a school and in a town that simply is not yet willing to pay for two events even though we have been in qualifiers 4 of the 6 years we have been competing and our performance is consistently improving. Because we have not yet brought home a blue banner we get a lot of smiles and pats on the head saying ‘how nice for you’ etc. If I brought home a big blue banner there is no question that my community and school would step in and help pay for us to attend championships but until that point we still rank somewhere behind underwater basket weaving in the eyes of this football obsessed town (once again please forgive as my home lives and dies by two seasons, football and robots ) If alliance selection were shifted to ‘must pick outside the top 8’ and/or you cannot compete as an alliance captain if you have already won a regional I think a couple of things would happen:

1. More teams in qualifiers = more teams going home excited about their experience = more kids/teams in their local media = more support and widespread knowledge of FIRST
2. Lower seed alliances would not go into quarter-finals expecting to lose (i.e. #1 vs #8 which on the surface seems exceedingly unfair however it is by rights that #1 earned that advantage)
3. More new teams to championships = more local publicity for FIRST because I don’t care how small your town is when you have something this cool advancing to World Championships the entire town will jump on board

Now, all of that being said I could be (and often am) completely mistaken and talking out of my backside so please feel free to take my comments as such. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching powerhouse alliances play all-out on the field. It’s exciting and fun to watch. Sometimes though, it’s tough to sit in the stands knowing that your one competition is done while you watch and try to appreciate the finals playing out before you between two alliances made up of multiple teams that have already won their way to championships.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

I see that a lot, but a lot of venues don't have a place to put cameras, so what if FIRST incorporated 2 fixed cameras into the field; one on each side on top of the alliance wall. Every webcast could have the same views and we'd have a standard. Cameras ship with each field so everyone is the same. Thoughts?

I can't recall which regional it was (I think MSC, as stated earlier in the thread), but I saw that setup before. Something like that plus the static "aerial" shot that we already get would be much better. 3 views minimum, then regionals with more resources/space can also add in the optional camera operators.

Originally Posted by launchloop17

What about the setup 2337 brough to a couple events. I was a sigle camera with a wide angle lens on a pole behind the scoring table:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...64&postcount=9
Here is a randomly selected video from that setup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lOCOmD2keeY

I don't know much about the bandwidth aspects of it, but that hardware setup would be pretty affordable to have one for each field.

I like that. You can see everything, and the regional only needs to setup one camera.

I definitely think FIRST should try to implement some of these ideas and enforce a standard. It's the next logical step in their plan to spread the word.

[WaterClaw]

Personally, as far as the original argument was saying, I have to say that cutting the prices would help rookies who still are trying to gather a ring of sponsors. No one should show disaproval over some one wanting lower part prices. It would allow rookies to actually try out their ideas with efficiency. The only casulty that I think veterans are objecting to is quality of parts. That's probably why the very next post that followed objected.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

One suggestion that I have made to FIRST directly is how the top 8 alliances are formed. I submit that if you want more excitement from the mid-level, low-level, and rookie teams treat the alliance selection at competition like alliance selection at many of the off-season events. You may not choose from within the top 8 and/or if you have already won at a regional you may not compete as an alliance captain in subsequent regionals.

Now, all of that being said I could be (and often am) completely mistaken and talking out of my backside so please feel free to take my comments as such.

I prefer to say that you are attempting to repeat history (and should you succeed, the traditional "doomed" will apply in big, bold letters). I think I would much rather deal with powerhouses forming within the top 8/multi-regional winners than deal with teams throwing matches to drop out of the top 8.

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

This had about the same effect as disallowing picking within the top 8 would have. It's not necessarily difficult to intentionally lose a match and make it look like an accident--not that anybody necessarily would, but it wouldn't be surprising, at least to me.

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by EricH

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

And this I did not know should have read up on my FIRST history I suppose lol...thank you for the info on this. And I can completely see your point about match fixing. Having only had experience with the selection process for the past six years this seemed like a good idea when I first considered it however if past history has proven otherwise then it should be removed from consideration.

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by EricH

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

I should have explained better. In my head (like most things it always sounds better in my head ) they would be available for selection just not an AC. Maybe I have built up the position of AC as having more 'power'(?) than it really does because of the selection process. I don't want them out of the top 8 totally as they are extremely valuable partners and can absolutely help another alliance advance to regionals.

Originally Posted by EricH

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Interesting, I know District events are out there but have had no direct dealings with them or understanding of how they actually work. I have heard rumblings of Texas perhaps shifting to a District set up but no real concrete information. I will have to do some more research on how the District setup works because that would definately nullify the ideas posted above.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by rsegrest

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?

That would have a similar problem; teams would have an incentive to throw matches if they're the top seeded team and have a chance to drop down to rank 6-8 by losing their last match.