(Lack of) Value in the Regional Model

[Kevin Kolodziej]

I'll preface this post by pointing out the majority of my 17 years in FIRST has been extremely positive and FIRST and the people in it have had a profound influence on me as person, as a professional, as a mentor, and as a maker. Anyone who knows me knows that I will go out of my way to promote FIRST and that it consumes my life (for better or worse). I am very thankful for what FIRST has done for me.

I'd like to pose a very simple question: Why does the value of a regional vary so greatly? By "value" I'm referring to what a team (the customer) gets for its registration fee, not the production quality of the event.

Looking through the results for the first four weeks of competition, for regional events only, I see a lot of variation in the number of matches. In general, the more teams there are at an event, the fewer matches each team will get. That's a given. But that's not always the case this year. Virginia had 64 teams and they only played 86 matches, giving each team only 8 matches. Orlando also had 64 teams but played 107 matches giving each team 10 matches. According to the public agendas available for each event, they had the same time allotted for qualifying matches (11 hours total). I was not at either of these events, so I cannot say for sure if the schedule was adhered to or not, but how can FIRST justify a difference of 21 matches between two similarly sized events?

My team attended Wisconsin this weekend. There were 60 teams in attendance, the same number as in 2014. In 2014, 100 qualifying matches were played, giving each team 10 matches, whereas in 2015, only 90 matches were played giving each team only 9 matches. I can understand that this year's match cycle time is likely higher than last year's, but Orlando apparently found a way. Lets go the other direction though - Waterloo had only 30 teams in both 2014 and 2015 and played 65 matches each year resulting in 13 qualifying matches for each team. That's a lot, but based on my previous findings, they could have had even more with ease!

Many teams still only attend 1 event. Those teams in Virginia payed $625 / match (even higher for rookies). Teams in Waterloo only payed $385 / match. 24 of the 30 teams in Waterloo then also got to play in the Playoffs, further increasing the value of their event whereas 40 teams in Virginia only played 8 matches (a whopping 20 minutes of field time) and then packed up to go home, possibly done for the season.

Lets compare that with the district model for just a second - for the same $5000 registration, those teams are getting two SMALL events resulting in somewhere around 25 matches per team ($200/match). Even if a team could not afford to travel to a second district event, the value of one district event is still well above most regional events.

Now lets look at this from another perspective - the spectator. At these larger regional events, most teams are only going to play 2 qualifying matches on Saturday morning. Many spectators can ONLY attend on Saturday due to work or school obligations. Since the majority of the teams will NOT make the playoffs, those two matches may be their only opportunity to see their son's, daughter's, niece's, nephew's, grandson's, granddaughter's, friend's, or colleague's team in action. 5 minutes of play. At least they didn't have to pay to see it...

Enough about robots. Remember, FIRST is about more than just the robots. So lets talk about everyone's favorite blue shirted people - the judges! At Wisconsin there were approximately 20 judges. Some of those judges are locked in the Chairman's Award interview room. Some of those judges are doing Dean's List interviews all weekend. So, lets say there are 12 - 15 judges remaining. Based on my observations, they are probably broken up into 4 or 5 teams of 2 -3 judges - some of them are judging the robots and some of them are judging more than the robots. In an event with 60 or more teams, that's not a lot of judges to go around, but I would expect that every one of those judges would be visiting every one of the teams so that everyone has notes to compare. At least in our experience, that has not been the case. For many years, this year included, we have only seen one or two sets of judges in our pit in Wisconsin. This year we saw only one set of three judges, though we did see them several times. Perhaps only one set of judges looks at 1/4th of the teams? I don't know, but it irks me that the students do not get a chance to talk to more judges about their experiences. We've had very different experiences at other regional events (even large ones like Northern Lights and Midwest) seeing multiple sets of judges, so maybe the issue is limited only to Wisconsin. What have other teams at larger regional events experienced?

There were 41 Chairman's Award submissions in Wisconsin this year. I believe we had 40 submissions last year or the year prior as well. When interviews are going into lunch on Saturday, how can judges properly evaluate and send judges to follow up with teams in the pit when playoffs are beginning (and most teams are packing up)? It's been awhile since I've been to an event with <45 teams - how do others feel the judging is handled at smaller regional events?

No one is forcing us to go to larger regional events, but we can't afford to travel to two events and our sponsors and families would be very upset if we didn't play here at home. If we didn't "HAVE" to go to Wisconsin, we would've happily gone to Central Illinois this weekend. While I am doing what I can and meeting with universities and other mentors to get districts into WI as soon as I can, that only helps out a few teams from the problems and inconsistencies I have outlined above. I have no control over what happens in Virginia or other regions.

All this boils down to is consistency. Why the huge variation in matches? Why the variation in judging? I haven't even touched on inconsistencies on the playing field (more so last year than this year). If the value doesn't improve, why shouldn't we just build the robot for the experience and forego official events and just play at offseason events until districts happen? Our kids will get the same engineering experience, we wouldn't have to build two bots and waste money because of bag and tag rules (well, we don't HAVE to do that now, but at least it helps us make the most of the few matches we get), we wouldn't have to burn ourselves out for six weeks, we could volunteer at the local event and still see familiar faces, we could afford to travel to new and interesting places since registration fees for offseason events are tiny, no missed school....I could go on and on.

I never thought I'd say this, but for what reason should any team continue to play in the regional model? Why are additional regional registration fees still so ridiculously high when the event does not see any of that money? Veteran kits are no where near $5000 anymore with no essential items included (this year with the new control system is the exception) and FIRST Choice providing access to donated parts. $5000 also helps pay for staff and logistics and game fields - so, I can see why initial registration is the way it is (especially since it is the same in the district model), but the $4000 additional event fee still boggles me.

Thanks for reading,

Disgruntled Kevin

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

I'll preface this post by pointing out the majority of my 17 years in FIRST has been extremely positive and FIRST and the people in it have had a profound influence on me as person, as a professional, as a mentor, and as a maker. Anyone who knows me knows that I will go out of my way to promote FIRST and that it consumes my life (for better or worse). I am very thankful for what FIRST has done for me.

[SNIP]

Thanks for reading,

Disgruntled Kevin

I love FIRST, but this is what had me switch to VEX and run events. $25-50 per event, 10+ matches per event, most of them 30 teams, about $2-4 per match. Plus it's not a once and done, but at my peak we ran 12+ events per year in the Philadelphia area. So many teams came to 4-6 events per year. To me, the C in FRC/VRC/FTC is about competing.

The district model is a way to get more "C", smaller, less flashy events with more play time.

OTOH there is the off season. Lots and lots and lots of $250 events. And I see teams do 1 official event and 8+ off seasons. So your teams value change may be in doing more off season events.

[Ilovepineapples]

Dear Disgruntled Kevin;

I full heartedly agree with your statements. I have the same sentiments when it comes to FRC and the costs associated with the Regional system. I've compiled the numbers as well and I'm surprised that more areas in the Midwest haven't already moved to Districts. From the team's perspective you get so much more bang for your buck. I haven't had too much time to look into scores and statistics between regional and district events this year but looking through the spreadsheets that Ether posted earlier this morning, it appears that the average scores in district events are higher than regional events (after a brief glance). At the end of the season I would like to see the community work together to do a statistical analysis of scores between district and regional events. As time goes on, I only see more benefits to the district system when compared with the regional system. I'm looking forward to the future.

Sincerely,

Disgruntled community member.

[mathking]

I completely agree that there is better value with the district model over the regional model. At least for teams in areas with enough team density to support such a model. Even for geographically isolated teams it may well be true that they get more matches in one district event than in one regional event. I believe this is one reason why FIRST is headed toward a district model everywhere. I think another benefit is making qualifying to the next level more attainable. There are many teams that rarely if ever qualify for the World Championships. For such teams, being able to qualify for a district championship is a big deal. The district model also levels the playing field somewhat by letting more teams participate in multiple events, with the commensurate improvements in robot performance. While we have been fortunate enough to go the Championships more often than not, this year will be the second time in 13 years we have gone to two regional competitions. (And this year it was a last second thing that is stretching our finances.)

So I guess I would say you have every right to feel disgruntled. And I think that FIRST as an organization is moving in a direction that will address this problem, if not completely solve it.

[PayneTrain]

If you'll look at my location, you understand why you don't find any pushback from me on this topic. The only caveat I have is that there is a difference between how good districts can be and how well you expect districts in your area to be executed.

[Lij2015]

I completely agree that the district model is surperior to the regional model, and you can send more teams to champs that way (at least Virginia can as we only technically have one regional).

The District model can however fail if the good teams in the district are split up too much by location and the smaller size, therefore making some district events super boring. But the fact that the majority of the teams get to play in playoffs or eliminations is 100% worth it, as that is a team changing experience.

[bscharles]

I agree that the District model gives more benefits in the end than using the Regional model. One of the main points I've heard by people arguing for regionals is that they are held at larger venues and have a more exciting atmosphere than district events held in high school gyms.

However, I think that by having the smaller events, it makes FRC more like a sport, where you "practice" for several weeks, and then get to play at multiple "games", rather than working for 6+ weeks and having your season over in 3 days. By making it more feasible for teams to attend multiple (3+) events each season, it allows students to get more out of the program. Although the logistics will be difficult to work out, I am looking forward to when Wisconsin goes to Districts.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by bscharles

I agree that the District model gives more benefits in the end than using the Regional model. One of the main points I've heard by people arguing for regionals is that they are held at larger venues and have a more exciting atmosphere than district events held in high school gyms.

This was one of my team's worries when the PNW went to Districts, but we found it to not be true

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Lij2015

I completely agree that the district model is surperior to the regional model, and you can send more teams to champs that way (at least Virginia can as we only technically have one regional).

The District model can however fail if the good teams in the district are split up too much by location and the smaller size, therefore making some district events super boring. But the fact that the majority of the teams get to play in playoffs or eliminations is 100% worth it, as that is a team changing experience.

I also agree that the district model is competitively superior to the regional model. More matches leads to more playing time which leads to more opportunity to go to further events.

However, there is always a tradeoff. In many areas (at least of Virginia and Maryland), teams will have to travel a reasonable distance (4+ hours for some) for an event hosted in a high school gymnasium. This incurs more travel and hotel costs than a regional model, raising the "Per Match Price". Additionally, having an FRC competition is good anywhere, but I think many would prefer to have it at a university facility than a high school gym. These do occur, but less often. Although I cannot speak for myself, I would imagine many VIPs and potential sponsors would rather have the competitions, and younger children (Elementary-Middle school) would be more struck by larger numbers of teams in a larger arena.

Although I do see the benefits of the model, there are certainly drawbacks. Hopefully, every state will find a way to make sure all the teams benefit by the change.

[wilsonmw04]

I question the assertion that the district model is cheaper. For a team that does not perform well, they get more plays/$. I understand that. However, what about the teams that do succeed on the field? You get the privilege of going to district champs and paying $4000. If you do well there, you get the privilege of going to World's for another $5000. In a good year, you get to pay $13000 for the privilege of going to World's.

In VA they are touting it as a way of playing more for less cash. That logic doesn't jive with my wallet. Can some folks who are already in districts comment?

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I question the assertion that the district model is cheaper. For a team that does not perform well, they get more plays/$. I understand that. However, what about the teams that do succeed on the field? You get the privilege of going to district champs and paying $4000. If you do well there, you get the privilege of going to World's for another $5000. In a good year, you get to pay $4000 for the privilege of going to World's.

In VA they are touting it as a way of playing more for less cash. That logic doesn't jive with my wallet. Can some folks who are already in districts comment?

This right here. I love the district events, but it takes every penny you have. Our team this year has a good shot at regional champs, and if we make it any farther, we wont be able to go to worlds. paying $9000 is something we don't have, and our small admin team (me and two others, yay) now have to try and convince our mentors we can get the money (and get sponsorship's to get the money) to go to worlds if we make it, and that gives us... oh, two weeks to try and get all the money so we can pay for worlds if we make it. As is we have barely enough to pay for the regional championships. Lucky for us we live super close to EWU so hotels aren't an issue. Other than that, districts have been awesome.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

In VA they are touting it as a way of playing more for less cash. That logic doesn't jive with my wallet. Can some folks who are already in districts comment?

I can't speak for other districts, but MAR put together a grant to help teams pay for district championship registration or travel costs, as well as world CMP registration.

@marwallet

[MooreteP]

Kevin,
I've been doing this as long as you, sigh..... I remember 5 Regionals and 200 Teams.
Now we're at 56 Regionals, 48 District Events, and 3,000 Teams.

Watched the growth and experienced the changes that it brought. The ideal of making this beautiful STEM combination of public and private more available to all students in all schools is a lofty one. With a few exceptions, this can be a tough hill to climb for many.

FIRST in Michigan took the bull by the horns and started the District System. They have an incredible number of rookies this year.
I am so happy that we went District last year. More bang for the buck and more intimate competitions.

Consider the cost of a typical High School Sports team.
The United States routinely spends more tax dollars per high-school athlete than per high-school math student—unlike most countries worldwide. And we wonder why we lag in international education rankings?

High School sports is a unique institution in America. It's makes us different from other countries. This may be why FIRST doesn't translate well internationally

High school football has high expenses, low revenue
The money spent on High School Sports is larger than spending on STEM depending on how you look at it.

Originally Posted by Foster

The district model is a way to get more "C", smaller, less flashy events with more play time.

OTOH there is the off season. Lots and lots and lots of $250 events. And I see teams do 1 official event and 8+ off seasons. So your teams value change may be in doing more off season events.

This^

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your feelings are shared.
A Wisconsin/Minnesota District could happen. You certainly have enough quality teams there.

[Drakxii]

I would love to be in a district model system. We already have to travel 120 miles to our only regional, so getting additional money for one more trip and 1 more night hotel is heck of a lot cheaper then paying for another full regional trip.

As for district champs, sure we might not have the money to go the first year but being able to say we qualified for state champs would help with funding and getting school support next year. Also at the end of the day if I have to pick between telling my kids that we don't have the funds for district champs/worlds, or that we need to get worse so we can be cheesecaked into winning our regional, I am going to choose the first option.

[SoulianPride]

I never thought I'd say this, but for what reason should any team continue to play in the regional model? Why are additional regional registration fees still so ridiculously high when the event does not see any of that money? Veteran kits are no where near $5000 anymore with no essential items included (this year with the new control system is the exception) and FIRST Choice providing access to donated parts. $5000 also helps pay for staff and logistics and game fields - so, I can see why initial registration is the way it is (especially since it is the same in the district model), but the $4000 additional event fee still boggles me.

When Dean Kamen spoke at the Kettering District back in week 2, he made it sound like a majority of the US was being switched to the district system in the next few years with the hopes of the entire program being districts->state->world