Worries

[Jessica_Boucher]

First, what will now go on in the regional awards selection process? Since there is now a strong emphasis on these awards, will there be an added decision in giving an award to a team: whether they are already secured for the Inivtational…and whether this single award will push them over. I trust FIRST will make the right decision concerning awards (giving it to the best fit for the award), but still…the worry is there.

Secondly, what exactly is the definition of gracious professionalism and is that definition going to drastically change? Is gracious professionalism now a team that already has secured their spot to Nationals forfeiting a regional to get the other teams into the Invitational? Can a team state this and recieve recognition on say, a Chairmans award?

Ah, how drastically different the regional deliberations will be.

[jrukes]

They should not change the “rules” for judging. Teams that are eligible this year because of POINTS are still “fighting” for points to become eligible for next year.

[system]

I think you may be misinterpreting what Jessica is saying. . .

While what you said about teamsw fighting for points might be true, this new criteria for qualification presents a number of dilemmas for teams and judges alike.

For example, if a team that’s been around since 1992, and is therefore already qualified for Nationals, should win a regional, they become doubly qualified. By winning a regional while already knowing they were guaranteed a spot, are they be viewed as being ungracious? If things are so arranged that only a winning team gets qualified, and not, say, the highest placing team not ALREADY going to Nationals, several veteran teams are faced with the possibility of monopolizing spots on the list of the automatically qualified.

Similarly, a judge might be biased with respect to veteran teams because of the new significance of regional awards. Will they still award a veteran, Nationally qualified team with an award that might otherwise get a lesser known, or rookie, team in? Conversely, will they lay favor with newer teams to give them a chance at going to Nationals and unfairly ignore the achievements of older teams?

The points system is about the only thing with this new qualification process that makes sense. . . what doesn’t make sense is why it’s all based on last year’s performance. But, anything performance based is already light year’s ahead of the rest of the qualifying criteria.

[jrukes]

To answer the questions more specifically,

1. When selecting a winner, the judges should never consider any factors outside of the intent for the award. They are not called the “Invite to EPCOT” awards. They are the Driving Tomorrow’s Technology, Quality, Creativity, and Leadership in Controls awards. To give an example from this year, several teams were so outstanding that they won the SAME AWARD TWICE (two separate events).

#47 - Leadership in Control
#65 - Imagery
#111 - Xerox Creativity

These teams should be commended, not penalized for being successful. I don’t know what teams were second in line to receive those awards, but I would never consider withholding an award because the team already won at another regional. How would you feel about your award, knowing you only won it because the other team had to turn it down.

2. Everyone has there own definition of Gracious Professionalism. But I can’t think of anyone that would feel good about themselves or their team knowing that they threw a match or tanked an interview so another team could win. The “loser” would be the next team on the waiting list that registered for “The EPCOT Invitational” back on September 27th.

3. It was not mentioned in this thread, but from now until FIRST changes the qualification requirements, points (read winning regionals and awards) matter if you want to go to nationals next year. So even if you have a spot this year, you still have to earn one for next year. And just think how much tougher the requirements will be. I have the greatest respect for the teams that earn a spot at nationals because the spots are few and the stress is high.

Off the field, support everyone you can. On the field, support your alliance. Be true to your team.

[Jason_Morrella]

Very well said jrukes, I agree 100%.

I really don’t think people should be wasting energy talking about teams “throwing the finals” at a regional. I now many FIRST teams personally, and can’t imagine ANY team, qualified or not, making the finals of a regional and not giving their best effort. First and foremost, teams have pride and want to be the best. Second, teams have a responsibility to their alliance partners. Third, I don’t know of any team who would want to be known as “the team that threw a regional”. This is not an issue, as no team would ever throw a regional final.

Also - energy should be aimed at “tweaking/fixing” a few aspects of the qualifying. The Nationals COULD NOT be open to all teams. That is a fact and a reality which everyone knew was coming. It might not be the “idealistic” situation, but it is the “realistic” solution. You don’t see the NCAA letting 600 teams into the National Championship each year. All teams get to play in their conferences (regionals) and then the winners or top qualifiers go onto the National. Is the system perfect? No. Can it be slightly adjusted to be a little more consistent & fair? Yes. But limits are reality and there is nothing FIRST could do about it - so let’s be somewhat less angry, and help them create the best system possible.

Regarding the 6-8 existing teams from 1992 who are automatically in (it’s not 28 teams like many seem to think)-personally, I completely disagree with that special exception. I agree 100% that Chairman’s Award winners deserve lifetime entry, but not 1992 teams. The origional teams already have the inherent advantage of having more experience than all other teams and the gained/earned knowledge that comes with it. They don’t need any additional advantage.

That said, I know a few of those teams well and have the utmost respect for them. Anyone who thinks or would even suggest that those 6-8 teams would “throw” a regional final is nuts. Those teams have the utmost integrity, put a great deal of work into their robots each year, take a great deal of pride in their performance each year, and want to be the best. They have the same right as every other team to be recognized as a regional champion if they can get that far.
Personally, I doubt if the majority of those teams even want the special treatment of the “1992” clause or the stigma that comes with the rule, and probably are asking FIRST to cancel that part of the new qualifying system.

As usual, all new announcments create emotion, but the FIRST teams always adjust, always have a great experience, and normally look back at the end of the year and realize FIRST made decisions which were better than most origionally thought.

Oh well - there’s my 3 cents. Interested to see what many think.

Jason

[Mike_Soukup]

I completely agree with the statements by jrukes and Jason. The idea that a team would be looked down upon for winning an award or a regional if they’re already qualified for Nats is crazy. The Regionals themselves are a competition and each team has the obligation to perform and try their best. Any effort less than 100% would be ungracious with respect their temmates and to their alliance partners.

Mike

[Wayne_C]

Viewing the above I tend to agree with the discussion. I really doubt there would be some conspiracy on the part of the teams to fix the outcomes and help friends get to the Nationals. Competition is competition and everyone gets wrapped up in the event. I’m sure the Judges will also do their best to be impartial (although after the forum following the Nationals this year there may be others who disagree). We have to wait and see.

What dismays me are all those grandfathered teams who have a free ride forever no matter what they design for the season. Yes- they are great people and got well deserved recognition. I bear no malice for them or their accomplishments. But I don’t know what the promise made to them by FIRST was but it sure doesn’t seem fair that these teams which have already been heavily recognized get a free ride forever. How far does one award get you?

FIRST will do what it wants and my group has resigned itself to doing the best with the raw deal we got. But as a gesture to those teams who will be hit by the huge increase in costs associated with making last minute arrangements after they win their regionals to qualify, FIRST should refund their entry fees for the Nationals to offset the team’s costs. Then maybe it wouldn’t be as bad a nightmare.

Do I think they will part with the money-NO. But I figure somebody might bring it up.:mad: forever

[system]

Well, I wasn’t trying to suggest that anyone would look down upon anyone or stuff like that. . .and certainly no conspiracies or anything.

I’m not speaking as a rookie, but instead trying to take the point of view of a veteran team. Personally, I think everyone will agree that all the teams should always try their best, no matter the circumstances. That much seems obvious.

However, with that said, there’s always a possibility that the members of a veteran team might feel some guilt should their success prohibit another team from attending Nationals. I didn’t say it’s fair, or necessary, or if it’s even likely to happen. It’s just a possibility that shouldn’t be around at all.

Similarly, the judging of the awards should not and probably will not change. I’m just a bit weary of the idea that they count so much toward qualifying.

The outcomes of the game. . .the scores. . .the seeding. . . those are all objective things. There’s a clear cut winner who outperforms the other robots. Their merit is obvious, and a shot at Nationals warranted. A judged award is subjective, and, as such, isn’t a fair indicator of who should and should not be at Nationals.

I think, in a lot of ways, we’re agreeing about this. Some qualification process is necessary, of course, but the laundry list of exemptions and exceptions and things is a bit ridiculous. There must be a simpler solution somewhere.

With these new rules, many new teams are crying foul. If it were a first come, first serve system, for example, I just can’t imagine veteran teams saying, “But we were here first!”. . .

[ggoldman]

I have been skimming the posts in this Thread, so if I have any wrong impressions let me know

I belive the judges should give the awards to those who deserve them…regardless of whether they qualifyor not. If the regional competitions become more about winning and less about testing and preparing, more teams are going to be going for the big win and for the awards and less are going to go just for the experiance. I believe the selection process is fair, to an extent. If you have a good robot, you will qualify one way or another. My team has made it into the finals in our regional both of our two past years. We didnt have the best robot our first year, and we didnt have the most funding, but we showed that we could do what we said. If every other rookie team could do that…they would have 2 points towards nats…if they are top rookie, they get 1 more, and if they win the rookie judges award they are in.
There are so many doors you can go through to get to nats…I think most people should stop being shelfish and just do the best they can at regionals…then worry about nationals.

Gabe Goldman

(sorry…but i was thinking out loud)

[system]

Well, I’m posting repeatedly, but. . .oh well.

I think the point people are missing is that many of us are not complaining. . . and we’re not complaining because we won’t get to go to Nationals.

Instead, I think what a lot of us are suggesting is that the new sets of rules put a lot of new, unnecessary pressure on everyone; and, in particular, on veteran teams. If the TechnoKats or CD deserve an award, or a win, I sincerely hope they get it. But, the TechnoKats success might be tainted if they enter into the mindset that they’ve somehow prevented another team from going to Nationals.

How can we rectify this as FIRSTers? Those of us that aren’t happy with the new system need to make it known. Otherwise, things won’t change. But, we all need to continue to support one another however we might need it. These new stresses will not undermine gracious professionalism, but lift it to a higher level. At least, I hope. It’s our job to make sure that our teams perform as best as they can, and that we make sure to congratulate everyone on their efforts. That means that those veteran teams need to know that there won’t be any animosity or resentment of them because of their success.

Yesterday, Christina and I told a very nice teacher we would bring her kids to Nationals, and we don’t want to let her down. We’re an even numbered team, which might be helpful, but we won’t leave anything to chance. The school and kids are enthusiastic, and she and I will work our tails off to make sure these kids get the entire FIRST experience.

I encourage everyone else to do the same. I just wish FIRST hadn’t gone with a system that adds so much additional stress.

[Carolyn_Duncan]

I don’t want to go into a long song and dance because so much has already been covered. I think if anyone read any of my previous posts they know I’m not in favor of limiting. But I really think this system is aweful. I also think we should try to refrain from using the word “fair” to describe these limits. Life’s not fair. I agree with what’s been said by jrukes & co. So with that said I end my $0.02.

[Andy_Baker]

*Originally posted by Michael Krass *
**If the TechnoKats or CD deserve an award, or a win, I sincerely hope they get it. But, the TechnoKats success might be tainted if they enter into the mindset that they’ve somehow prevented another team from going to Nationals.
**

I’ve thought about this some more. Many people on team 45 have discussed this “original 28 rule” and I’ve gotten alot of input.

At this point I would like to say a couple of things about this rule and some of the other “auto-qualification” rules:

1. We will not sandbag. We are going into this season with the will to win, just as we ever have.

2. Here’s another scenario to think about: a “auto-qualifying” team wins a Technical award at a Regional. While this may take the spot for another team who may have won the award at the same regional, it also leaves a spot open for all of the other even nubered teams across the nation. So, it doesn’t really take away a spot… it just displaces the opportunity to the even numbered teams.

3. (this is probably the most important point) As an “auto-qualifying” team… we are pledging to be a mentor to any and all teams who need help. In the past, we have given away mechanical design prints, software (auto-balancing), and other stuff. We plan on doing that more… and I would hope that other “auto-qualifying” teams will step up and do the same (as many already do).

4. I don’t like the auto-qualification rules, especially the original 28 rule. I would rather not have it, but I did not say that we don’t deserve it. Teams who have been in it for 11 years deserve credit. I just don’t think that this is the right way to do it.

Andy B.

[Carolyn_Duncan]

Andy, you are a very wise man. And I think it’s wonderful to hear words like that from an “auto-Qual” team. I just wish I was closer to you guys.

[system]

*Originally posted by Carolyn Duncan *
** Andy, you are a very wise man. And I think it’s wonderful to hear words like that from an “auto-Qual” team. I just wish I was closer to you guys. **

Andy’s cool that way. He’s one of those people you can always point to when you’re trying to explain what FIRST is all about. He’s thoughtful, level-headed, and a great sportsman, and I always welcome his comments on these boards.

Look at the white papers section. . . just look at the information the TechnoKats have provided. They’ve shared more valuable information than most teams have ever developed.

Andy, you rock

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Andy_Baker]

*Originally posted by Michael Krass *
**
Look at the white papers section. . . just look at the information the TechnoKats have provided. They’ve shared more valuable information than most teams have ever developed.

Andy, you rock
**

Michael, thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate them, that’s for sure.

I’d like to devert most of this credit to the rest of the team. We are fortunate to have a great crew of adults and students who actually like to hang around each other and work together.

From Tim Railey (an 11 year veteran) to the new engineers and instructors that have joined this year… we are definitely a team. This bond is what keeps us going.

For example… check out the data sheet that I’m posting under the “Unofficial Pre-qualified Teams” thread (another engineer came up with this data sheet and gave it to me to post).

Andy B.

[Andy_Baker]

Grrr… I can’t attach an Excel file to my note… So I’m going to give it to Brandon. Maybe he can put it into the white papers section.

Andy B.

[Clark_Gilbert]

You could save it was a .txt file with Excel, then open it with Word and save it as a .doc file… (hey i’m bored and i just thought of that)

(or u could put it in the white paper section so it wont get lost in a thread)

[Brandon_Martus]

ill let it allow xls files…

but – if its something that could be useful in the future, i’d post it in the white papers section as stated in the previous post

one day ill make the white papers more automated, so you can upload it to the server, and you dont have to fumble with sending it to me in an e-mail and all that extra work.

…one day…

[Andy_Baker]

OK… I’ll try this again.

Here it is! Remember that this is unofficial. Please correct it within this thread by pointing out any mistakes.

Andy B.

[edit: removed attachment, new attachment in future post]

[P.J_Baker]

Thanks Andy.

I also made a sheet, but I was too chicken to post it. It seems to jive with the TechnoKat sheet pretty well.

Here are some interesting stats from the sheet:

There appear to be 72 Pre-Q’d teams

65 of the 72 arequalified based on last year’s performance

Of the remaining 7, 1 earned 4 points last year, 4 earned 3 points, and two earned no points.

3 of the remaining 7 are original teams the other four are Chairman’s Award winners or finalists.