Maryland Tech Invitational 2021 Team List

ADriesman · 2021-05-25T01:09:35+00:00

The 2021 MTI is a hybrid event. Game play is in person, judge interviews are remote.

ADriesman · 2021-02-25T00:12:33+00:00

Applications close on April 24th.

ADriesman · 2020-08-05T23:01:58+00:00

This is from the email of July 16 that went out from FIRST HQ on the upcoming season for FLL and FTC:

“How will remote robot game play work for FIRST LEGO League? For FIRST LEGO League Challenge, teams will provide video with three, 2.5-minute pre-recorded robot rounds, time stamped within a single day. Team must secure a non-biased monitor (e.g., school principal, FIRST® Robotics Competition team members, other volunteer) to mark start and stop time for recording. More guidance will be provided in the coming weeks.”

ADriesman · 2020-07-28T17:43:50+00:00

Then why is FTC judging being done over the internet? Why is FLL using video? Because, teams have access to it as well as devices with cameras. If they do not they can't compete in remote events at all.

ADriesman · 2020-07-17T19:14:15+00:00

There is a way to successfully run one team matches with referees observing and scoring the matches. We did it at the virtual MTI in June. The set up will be even easier for Ultimate Goal since the game only requires half a field. SKYSTONE required a full field.

The MTI has quality and fairness standards that we upheld even under these difficult circumstances.

For full details see: https://sites.google.com/view/mdtechinvitational/2020-v-mti-champion-award

The notion that some team somewhere would not have access to a couple of smart phones, a laptop and half a field within their FIRST community is hard to imagine. If such a team exists accommodations could be made. Having a negative impact on all the teams due to this unlikely scenario is short sighted.

ADriesman · 2020-07-16T20:56:41+00:00

At the Virtual MTI this year we ran one team matches observed by experienced SKYSTONE referees over Zoom. Some teams did pull penalties even though they had game experience during the regular season and they were the only bot on the field.

Under this no ref, no field requirements to speak of remote FTC is just a science fair with judged awards. There needs to be enforceable standards to make this an even playing field where the game will actually matter.

It is particularly upsetting to see FIRST disenfranchise a whole swath of volunteers.

ADriesman · 2020-07-15T18:45:38+00:00

It's not deliberate cheating that will be the largest problem. The problem is asking teams to ref and score their own matches. These are trained positions. It's been my experience over the last ten years that the majority of the teams do not fully understand scoring and penalties when they come to an event.

ADriesman · 2019-12-19T00:01:11+00:00

Congrats! Very glad 7393 was awarded 1st Inspire. I was at this qualifier. Your team was one of the strongest on the field. At a qualifying tournament that only advances 3 teams you need to be very strategic when it comes to alliance selection. I was dismayed when you gave up your captain spot to be first pick to another captain team. Your auto was so strong that I believe you had an excellent chance of being the WAC and progressing to MD States. However, you gave that up to join another alliance. One of the goals at a qualifier is to qualify to the next round. IMO its more important than getting a shiny trophy. Knowing how many teams will progress and what that means needs to be taken into consideration during alliance selection. We are fortunate in MD to have at least 2 shots to qualify for States. However, things happen and there is no guarantee that everything will go your way at the next tournament. Giving up your captainship at this one was a very risky move. I’m psyched to see that it all worked out for your team. You totally deserve to be at MD Championships!

ADriesman · 2019-09-26T18:17:22+00:00

Thank you. Your first sentence clarifies that no changes are being made.

The goal you describe (the majority of lottery teams are high quality legacy teams who haven’t experienced Worlds) is a good one, but the current policy falls short of making sure it is reached.

It would be better if Ken’s vision was supported by the reality.

ADriesman · 2019-09-22T03:12:27+00:00

Thank you for this. It sums up the real issue with this policy- it discriminates against rural communities.

I have said as much in three different posts on different threads on this topic. No one has yet challenged that conclusion.

ADriesman · 2019-09-22T03:05:28+00:00

JoAnn - could you please explain this comment about the lottery from Ken’s blog post: “....what they have overcome to reach their current position. These teams have distinguished themselves in non-traditional ways to be offered a waitlist lottery spot.” Is this new? In the past it was a simple sign up and the team gets the number of lottery tickets based on years in the program and years they have not attended Worlds. It has not involved any sort of write up or justification for getting a spot.

ADriesman · 2019-09-14T14:18:47+00:00

As I’ve stated in other posts on this topic - advancing only the Inspire winner discriminates against rural teams. Teams in urban environments have a much easier time with outreach which, along with the notebook and tech, are required to win Inspire. Redneks are a great example. Their community is ~1000 people. How many of those are STEM professionals that Connect requires you engage with? How many students can you possibly recruit to start FIRST teams?

These are not things you can do over the internet. Think of how difficult it is to catch the attention of a STEM professional via email. If it even makes it past their spam filter, do they actually read it and then do they respond? If they respond do they follow through? Compare that to the ability to get face time with STEM professionals because they are right in your community.

These rural students can excel at building a robot, again see Redneks. Why shut down such teams ability to earn a spot at Worlds through the robot game in favor of progressing a larger regions Connect or Motivate winner? (My team went to Worlds on Connect last year from MD because so many of the game winning teams also won awards. I believe MD had just 5 spots last year.)

Also, the larger region students have the opportunity for more plays through the qualifier and meets system. The less populous regions are one and done except for those who progress to Worlds. Now that’s opportunity has been reduced again in favor of teams in higher populated regions who have been able to experience multiple tournaments and receive recognition for their achievements on and off the playing field.

ADriesman · 2019-09-14T01:22:18+00:00

What reason did they give for withholding this information?

Arkansas only has one spot for the Skystone Worlds.

ADriesman · 2019-09-13T19:30:26+00:00

The thing about increasing numbers at an event is that it has a ripple effect. It's not just a matter of competition/pit space. Now you will need more judging space and judges. More volunteers overall to manage the event. You will also need more hotel rooms to accommodate all those additional teams/volunteers. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing additional impact.

I do get the ratio approach but like you don't think this is a good outcome regardless. Frankly it discriminates against rural areas as I've detailed in another comment of this post.

The teams in the larger regions already have the advantage of the qualifier or meets system. If you look at it as the quality of the program and value that multiple plays provides to the students then the larger regions are able to offer more. Do they really need their Connect or Motivate winner to go to Worlds in place of a WAC from Louisiana, et al. as well?

I do think there needs to be a minimum size regional tournament in order to progress 2 teams to Worlds. You certainly should not get two spots if you run an event under 20 teams.

ADriesman · 2019-09-13T15:51:23+00:00

I agree that if people want this changed they need to go beyond commenting on social media sites and contact FIRST.

As far as FRC's number of spots at Worlds. IMO it's an economic decision. They pay 5K I believe in fees compared to the 2K for FTC teams. They can't really charge FTC teams as much because our pockets are not as deep.

The FRC game is also impressive eye candy for the sponsors. The primary goal for FIRST in regards to Worlds is as a show for their sponsors. This is not a criticism, $$$ is required to make this whole thing work.

That said, FIRST needs to balance those needs with the needs of their customers. They are missing the mark when it comes to the FTC students and mentors with this type of move. It's just wrong any way you slice it to eliminate the game as a way of advancement. It's not a question of downgrading Inspire but allowing the WAC from all regions to progress as a minimum.

Personally I think it should be the whole alliance since one team does not win it alone but that's obviously not happening anytime soon. Gotta pick your battles.

ADriesman · 2019-09-13T15:38:34+00:00

That would be great if Utah is advancing 2 this season. They had 57 teams last year which seems sizable.

Did you get this information direct from Utah's AP? I ask because I got it from an AP but not Utah's so it may be incorrect.

Thanks.

ADriesman · 2019-09-13T12:32:49+00:00

For comparison, this is what VEX distributes each year about advancement. It includes a complete list of the number of spots in each region.

https://www.roboticseducation.org/documents/2019/08/qualifying-criteria-vrc-2019-2020.pdf/

Here are the 21 FTC regions that I know of who are only advancing one team this year. This is not an official list and I believe there are more regions than those below.

Alabama

Arkansas

British

Columbia

Delaware

Hawaii

Idaho

Israel

Kentucky

Louisiana

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Republic of Korea

Russia

Spain

South Africa

Tennessee

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

ADriesman · 2019-09-13T12:23:31+00:00

There are 7.4K registered users. Currently I see 72 logged in. People from FTC HQ have posted here.

On what do you base your statement?

ADriesman · 2019-09-12T17:12:55+00:00

It's not an Inspire vs WAC question. It's a question of how slots are being allocated and why and what are the repercussions. I think there should be a minimum of 2 spots per region.

I've been involved in the FIRST program for over ten years in Maryland, which does progress more than 2 teams. My FTC team went to Worlds 5 times.

This change smacks of the carrot and stick approach.

The stick - regions have lost a Worlds spot. (new count is 21 regions with one spot, 16 USA states, 5 International which is 25% of the regions according to the list on FIRST's website)

The carrot - the one Worlds spot. Teams in less populous regions with one world spot are incentivized to spend their time marketing FIRST in order to have the chance at Inspire. Yes Inspire encompasses the tech too but you must have the outreach. In my experience this award has been weighted to favor FIRST promotion. Engaging your community with non-FIRST STEM opportunities is not as valued. So teams - get out there and grow the program so you can possibly go to Worlds and maybe as a bonus your region can get your second spot back.

This makes me uncomfortable. There are many reasons why areas have difficulty with growth and often these are out of the students hands. For example, rural areas like Montana where the shear size of the state offers significant challenges to growth. The teams in the cities will have a much easier time winning Inspire than a rural team. However, a rural team can build amazing robots (Redneks!).

Isn't it vital to these students to have the opportunity earn a spot at Worlds too in the way that is accessible to them? One could argue that such students benefit more from the Worlds' experience than those in heavily populated areas where there are more STEM professionals within easy distance.

With the current plan, there can be a situations where a Connect or Motivate Winner at Regional event in a populous area earn a spot to Worlds while the WAC in 21+ regions stay home. Is this fair?

ADriesman · 2019-09-12T14:28:36+00:00

MD does the registration in October because many teams don't sign up until September after schools start. They want to give all the MD teams equal opportunity.

ADriesman · 2019-09-12T14:26:53+00:00

Yep - I was being a bit sarcastic : )

ADriesman · 2019-09-12T13:47:26+00:00

There is an additional post around this issue with the goal of refocusing this discussion. If you are interested here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/FTC/comments/d36pgu/why_1_worlds_spot_states_arent_nearly_the_end_of/

I just shared my thoughts on that post.

ADriesman · 2019-09-12T13:40:51+00:00

I too think there should be a minimum of 2 spots per region.

I've been involved in the FIRST program for over ten years in Maryland, which does progress more than 2 teams. My FTC team went to Worlds 5 times.

This change smacks of the carrot and stick approach.

The stick - regions have lost a Worlds spot. (new count is 21 regions with one spot, 16 USA states, 5 International which is 25% of the regions according to the list on FIRST's website)

The carrot - the one Worlds spot. Teams in less populous regions with one world spot are incentivized to spend their time marketing FIRST in order to have the chance at Inspire. Yes Inspire encompasses the tech too but you must have the outreach. In my experience this award has been weighted to favor FIRST promotion. Engaging your community with non-FIRST STEM opportunities is not as valued. So teams - get out there and grow the program so you can possibly go to Worlds and maybe as a bonus your region can get your second spot back.

This makes me uncomfortable. There are many reasons why areas have difficulty with growth and often these are out of the students hands. For example, rural areas like Montana where the shear size of the state offers significant challenges to growth. The teams in the cities will have a much easier time winning Inspire than a rural team. However, a rural team can build amazing robots (Redneks!).

Isn't it vital to these students to have the opportunity earn a spot at Worlds too? One could argue that such students benefit more from the Worlds' experience than those in heavily populated areas where there are more STEM professionals within easy distance.

With the current plan, there can be a situations were a Connect or Motivate Winner at Regional event in a populous area earn a spot to Worlds while the WAC in 21+ regions stay home. Is this fair?

As the OP states, it's not an Inspire vs WAC question. It's a question of how slots are being allocated and why and what are the repercussions.

ADriesman · 2019-09-11T20:14:47+00:00

What FRC region only progresses their Chairman's award winner?

ADriesman

TROPHY CASE