**FIRST EMAIL**/FIRST Adds District Event Model Alternative to FRC Program

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

The opt-in thing is cool i guess, but how about an opt-out? My team is located in the western side of the UP. The closest district last year was 8.5 hours away! We had to travel down state 2 times and it didn't save us any money.

I said it last year and I'm going to say it again, Nobody thinks about logistics! Yes we got 2 comps for the price of 1 but we had to travel farther than anybody else in MI. The farthest anybody in the LP had to travel was what 5 hours maybe? It takes us that long just to get to the bridge! And we have to do it 4 times(there and back 2 times)! Thats alot of miles and alot of money to spend on a bus and hotel's.

I'm all for the district events I just want them to change the lines and allow more than 1 state to be involved, I want to compete against more and different teams!

This sounds like you folk were a special case that could easily be handled with a tiny bit of flexibility. I'd bet that a polite and well written inquiry would make all the difference. The problem would be that FIRST may be afraid that opening the door for you would open the door for other teams' complaints and whining.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

The problem would be that FIRST may be afraid that opening the door for you would open the door for other teams' complaints and whining.

FIRST is a company providing a service for a fee -- this is "customer feedback," not "whining." I think your point would be better made if you didn't take shots at other teams.

[Madison]

FIRST is requiring that a registered non-profit organize district-model events in 2011 and beyond. Can someone involved with FiM describe what liability such an organization takes on if they should organize such events and how that compares to current arrangements?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

The opt-in thing is cool i guess, but how about an opt-out? My team is located in the western side of the UP. The closest district last year was 8.5 hours away! We had to travel down state 2 times and it didn't save us any money.

I said it last year and I'm going to say it again, Nobody thinks about logistics! Yes we got 2 comps for the price of 1 but we had to travel farther than anybody else in MI. The farthest anybody in the LP had to travel was what 5 hours maybe? It takes us that long just to get to the bridge! And we have to do it 4 times(there and back 2 times)! Thats alot of miles and alot of money to spend on a bus and hotel's.

I'm all for the district events I just want them to change the lines and allow more than 1 state to be involved, I want to compete against more and different teams!

One thing to consider was that last year was special. Many people are resistant to change. If teams were given the option of participating or not participating, less teams would have participated. If enough teams didn't participate, it would have doomed the system because there wouldn't have been the required density of teams. This wouldn't have been because the system wasn't good, but because people were resistant to change.

Now that a vast majority of Michigan has said they like the system, letting a few teams like yours opt-out wouldn't hurt anything. You might get a different response if you bring your objections up to the right people this year.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Jared341

If I had to guess, I'd say that not many new regions will go to this model in 2010 - but many likely will in 2011. There are many logistical decisions (booking venues, staffing, funding, etc.) made too far in advance for FIRST's August decision to affect many states this year.

Yup there were issues with prepayed venues for 2010 events and contracts of the sort.

The 2011 hosts for districts in NJ will most likely be 25, 11, and 75+1403 I am told.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Greetings Teams:
[/font]94% of team leaders, mentors and team members rated their District Model experience as “good” or “excellent;”

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?

[dtk]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?

The term "Team Members" here is used generally to mean students as it is limited to age 19 and under. Looking only at the Team Members numbers they fall essentially inline with the overall numbers. 94.4% of the "student" category rated the overall tournament experience as good or excellent.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

This stuck out. This seems to be all about the mentors and FIRST. Don't they forget it's all about the kids, and if they're not learning or having fun, it's a waste?

Joe, please go read some of Dave's posts from around build season. It's not all about the kids, it's all about the partnership between the mentors and the students. (And, a good mentor is also a good student...) Also note that this is the overall number for the team survey.

If the students aren't learning, being inspired, or having fun, they'll quit. This is their option. If enough students quit, then the team no longer exists, and the problem definition changes.

What I'm surprised at is how few students responded to the survey, comparatively. Off the top of my head, about 150-200 mentors and about 100-150 students responded. (I haven't looked at the results in a couple of weeks, so these figures are probably wrong, but I do remember that more mentors than students responded.) This may have to do with the distribution methods, but the ratio of students to mentors responding was low for what the number should probably be. I don't know why.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by EricH

What I'm surprised at is how few students responded to the survey, comparatively. Off the top of my head, about 150-200 mentors and about 100-150 students responded. (I haven't looked at the results in a couple of weeks, so these figures are probably wrong, but I do remember that more mentors than students responded.) This may have to do with the distribution methods, but the ratio of students to mentors responding was low for what the number should probably be. I don't know why.

My guess would be three-fold for the low student turn out.
#1 The university that did the survey sent it out after the season was over, which puts you late into the "I don't care or am too busy" portion of the school calendar. This is especially true for Seniors.

#2 The team leader/contact may not have passed things. It happens.

#3 Have you ever asked for a student to get a permission slip to be signed? Have you ever read the numbers of submissions for Scholarships? I was amazed at the IRI that a really great scholarship was not given out because..... NO ONE APPLIED!!!

[fuzzy1718]

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

Well that's a little disappointing, hate to say it. :/

[waialua359]

Some conversations have occured in Hawaii about the postings on this thread.
The idea of change when it involves:
1. Allowing teams to play more often in a season
2. Saving on cost to teams
3. Savings for FIRST such as FedEx freight costs/donations
4. Better logistics in terms of the RPC for respective events

IS a great thing.
But, I see one major drawback. It's not equal for everyone.
I would hope that further discussions and exceptions be made for teams not as fortunate in terms of location issues, or non-qualified participants outside district model events.
If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.

Having the opportunities to compete with California teams is part of our history (started by 254) and I cant see not being able to compete with them or in NJ in 2011 and beyond.
As Wayne pointed out earlier, FIRST is more than the robot competition itself. Its giving students an opportunity to broaden their horizons, meet new people, and visit the areas surrounding the competition.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by EricH

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

We thought about the possibility of that. But, yeah, like you said.........the cost to attend many events in one season would be impossible. Being a part of the CA districting plan wouldnt work.
I was implying that perhaps a pool of teams (based on criteria) could be exempt from either participating/not participating in district events. I cant see how it would hurt Michigan, for example, if a team from outside was allowed to compete with the rest of their teams, due to a criteria such as ours. Hmmm...

[dtengineering]

Geographical issues come into play not just for Hawaii teams, but for any team located more than a couple hour's drive from a potential competition site.

I think the Alaska and UK teams, in particular, might share this concern, but I also think of some of the teams from Montana and Idaho who make long drives through snowy mountain passes to reach either Portland or Seattle. Not to mention, of course, teams in Alberta, who are even further from FRC hotbeds than the Montana and Idaho teams.

Attending two district competitions for the entry fees equivalent to one regional competition, while a benefit for teams that do not face challenges in their travel budget, could be a real challenge for teams that are "inconveniently" located. In fact a district model with multiple competitions could actually make it more difficult for those teams to compete on an even footing than it already is.

I do, however, have faith in the people who run FRC, to think about these challenges and find a way to address them that works for everyone. The district model, after all, is an option... not a requirement... and I do get the sense that it will be implemented with a fair degree of flexibility and sensibility.

Jason