Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Yes, this was our first time ever doing sheet metal.
We just added a sheet metal sponsor this Fall through our new mentor, Dustin.
However our previous 10 robots were made from stock extruded aluminum.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

As a huge fan of Ramp Riot, I feel obligated to say that 341 is certainly an awesome team, with some great people and the support of many many students. Always have a good time at RR and whenever I get to see 341 play.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

This was one of those wow quotes when I saw it Al. Well said!

My software students can probably speak more to this but Miss Daisy is a large reason for our success this year after they released their shooter code for their 2012 robot last year. I also have to thank Jared for allowing me to pester him about some software problems we were having during the MAR Championships. Jared took the time to speak with my software student to give him a few tips towards solving our problems. Jared went out of his way (way out of his way) to try and help.

I'm lucky to be able to interact with a lot of teams outside of my own. New and old teams ask how they can be successful and there really isn't one good answer. My best advice to the team is that you get back what you put in and that you should play to the strengths of your surroundings. Daisy is a great example of this.

Nate

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

There is a common misconception that the Hall of Fame teams do well and make it into the hall of fame because of their sponsors. This is not true. HoF teams have good sponsors because they work hard. A comment I heard a lot was about team 118, and how their robot is designed by NASA engineers in a NASA facility and they do well because they are rich. This is completely wrong. The robonauts get to work with great engineers and have great sponsors because of the amount of work all of their dedicated students put in each year.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I remember a story from an old Karthik speech, I think about the Cheesy Poofs. He said there was a year when they lost their welding(?) sponsor, but the kids really wanted to be able to weld their robot. By the time they hit the S in the phone book, they had one. They literally called every single one in the phone book.

Great things don't just happen to HoF teams; HoF teams make great things happen.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

So let me start by saying that I'm viewing this from a very eagle eye FRC wide level and not from the individual team level.

The concept of "sustained excellence" partnered with the concept of "you can do it too, if you set your mind to it" flat out doesn't work. If every team is sustaining excellence then what is excellent? You can't have a system where every team is awesome because then awesome would be average. This is a sign of a broken or soon to be broken system.

What statements like these look like to people not on top is a carrot on a stick. IMHO this is why you see the team bashing. This is why you see the stereotyping. When teams are told or assume that the play fields are level, and they can see the carrot and the stick. This image sinks in even further when you see the same teams beating the crap out of you year after year and they are the ones selling you the carrot. It doesn't matter how these teams beat you, with what resources they did it with, etc. Rather it's the repeated spanking that is the issue. For a system to look equal there needs to be turnover in what teams get success. This doesn't mean that the same teams always win everything, but rather the same teams are always within grasp of wining. You don't see much turnover in the FRC. Rather you see the same regional powerhouses again and again beating their opponents. The FRC needs more streaky teams to be healthy, not more powerhouses. Powerhouses are great for exposure, they draw a lot of attention. Powerhouses are not great at changing culture. Why? Because one team is a source of inspiration for other teams, but 1000 teams is inspiration for an entire country. Yes I understand that there isn't just one team to rule them all, but regionally there are usually a handful that do. Considering how few teams actually get to see outside their region, the same effect is felt by them.

Good bye green dots, hello red ones...

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Last year we attended MARC for the very first time and got pummeled all day long and came in second to last and it was perfect. Every match we were paired with a great team going against a great team. We learned so much for them and this year I encouraged the drives team to explore the pits and take a look at what the teams are using for their drives systems (I think our choice of going with Mechanums cost us getting picked) to see if they can have input next season on using those designs for our robot.
It's easy to get defensive around elite teams. Many of them seem aloof and stuck up but to be honest the more your around them the more you realize they're just good people. They're just tend to be better organized.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I think your original logic is sound, but it comes from a semi-universal habit of conflating two kinds of excellence. One type is being the best--it's comparative. Everyone literally cannot be the best. The other is being excellent at your mission--it's non-exclusive. Everyone being excellent in the latter sense would mean that every event looked like IRI: always room to improve, certainly some better than others, but still anyone's game.

It's possible to have had 2,500 teams this year that could put up 40 points per match, or even 60*. Every team could have started 12 FLL teams** and done 14 outreach events. That'd be pretty excellent in my book, and they're non-exclusive. When a powerhouse like Daisy says we can do "it", that actually is because we can. We can meet them on their level. Now, can we beat them in any given match? Maybe, maybe not. (We're 1-1-0.) But we can make it a close fight either way. (Watch you, Jared!)

I like to think of it as a college basketball player visited and elementary school team and said "you guys--every one of you guys--can be as good as I am if you work really hard". Would he be so wrong? (Ok, he'd probably be a little wrong. If he were Karthik Micheal Jordan he'd be really wrong.) And yet, when they play each other in college, someone's going to win.


*No, I didn't do the disc math. You're missing the point, go back up there are read it. :P
**Again, not the point

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I guess I don't understand what your point is. Are you suggesting that teams should not try to achieve repeated year-after-year success?

Some teams are born with a silver-spoon in their mouths. I should know, I'm on one of them. GM wanted to get involved in FRC, started our team, and pretty much gives us everything we need to succeed. Does that guarantee our results? No! I'm sure there are plenty of teams GM helps, that aren't nearly as successful. Our students, mentors, teachers, parents, and alumni work very hard to continue to achieve our goals both on and off the field. Should we stop this, because teams feel we have an unfair advantage?

Other teams are not and/or were not so well off when they started. They made a decision to work even harder, and continue to improve to achieve their goals. Example - 341

The message of if you set your mind to it, you can do it is 100% correct. Anyone can if they really want it. It may take longer for some and shorter for others, but we can all achieve whatever success you want to define.

If you want to know how we do it and what makes us "supposedly special", just ask. I've spent the last couple weeks answering repeated questions about our shooter. I have no problem with this. Eventually, I'll make a Tech Notes on this years robot and publish it. Outside of the build season, we have very little secrets that we would not be willing to share.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

You won't see any red dots from me. I was hoping for this discussion.
What I am about to say comes from someone that was tired of losing. I know the sting of missing the playoffs and packing up early. The difference is that we did not just accept it or blame someone else.
Sustained Excellence is YOU trying your hardest in every possible way. Period.
Sustained Excellence does not guarantee a desired result. Olympic hockey coach Herb Brooks called this "sacrificing for the unknown." You have to work your *** off under the strong possibility that you may never see victory. There is no short cut. In the end what you achieve from Sustained Excellence is a deeper satisfaction for doing your absolute best, not what you tell yourself is your best. If you do this you will put yourself on that trajectory towards the "carrot". Every year our team has the goal of making it to Einstein. We have made it once in 14 years. In our one appearance (10 years ago), we flipped on our back and died. Yet we set this as the only acceptable goal every year. Fools? Maybe. But we will continue to "sacrifice for the unknown" and strive for excellence.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

These two statements really spoke to me.

For those of you that don't know, this is my first year as a 341 Mentor. To some, it seems like an odd transition, but in reality it was really quite natural. Here's the short and sweet of the story, I hope it shows some of the team's character.

In 2009, my senior year of High School, I was the driver and team captain for 816. We were lucky enough to have gotten into the CMP and somehow managed to Seed in the #6 Spot on Curie. With our first Pick, we chose Team 245 and with our second, Team 341. Why did we pick 341? We had seen them compete at a handful of regionals and offseason events from 2005 to then and knew that they were a team that had it together AND knew how to win.

Immediately after alliance selections ended and we were allowed to go back to the pits (a few minutes walk for me as 816's rep) a group of Daisies had already shown up in our Pit looking for the drive team and offering any assistance that we could have thought of. Part of me was intimidated by the offers of help and first and the shear number of team members that they seemed to have as we weren't the best or biggest team and only had one prior experience in Championship Eliminations before. Once we moved into one of the hallways adjacent to the Pits, I was instantly put at ease.

I can remember the mentors, those who I am now lucky enough to call my friends and teammates, being some of the most awesome people I have ever met. The way that they spoke to us (We (816's drive team) were a bit cocky back then) is something that has stayed with me through all of my time since then. They spoke to all of us as equals, not like kids like we were used to. They listened to our ideas, while also sharing many of their own. They knew what we could do and what we were best at almost as well as we did - but they also listened to what we wanted to do. Their students also had the same attitude, this mutual understanding and respect. It was truly amazing.

From then on, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Team 341 served as both a source of inspiration and also as a group of people that I could go to when I needed help. They were always more than willing to help us when we were in a jam, whether it be 2010 Philly after our robot went up in smoke and needed a half dozen PWM cables on the field within 6 minutes or at 2011 Philly went we got in jam with our new polycord claw and they sent over one of their Best students to help us get everything working well.

Then in 2012, after parting ways with my previous team, 341 invited me to be a Daisy. In this past season, I feel as if I have learned more about what FRC and FIRST are really about then in my previous 7. There's a reason that 341 was Awarded the CCA in 2010 and now holds a spot in the HOF, and I can assure you of something: It was, and continues to be well earned.

I can understand the point you're trying to make here, but I don't think it's accurate.

Think about something that Mr. Ostrow said earlier in this thread and you might be able to see this a little differently.

When I started FRC, there were many people on my team (816) that had gotten tired of losing to the same teams (at the time, 103, 25, 365, etc) year in and year out. It wasn't uncommon to hear grumbles about 'Engineer Built Robots' and if we had a 'Professional Machine Shop' we could win too. These people ended up getting so caught up in their excuses and negativity that they never spent time trying to improve themselves and/or the team.

During my Junior year of HS, the team began to change. My graduating class was the sizable majority of the team and we were lucky enough to have a few aces in the mix. We came to an agreement during the off-season leading up to the 2008 Competition Season that our Goal was to win a Regional before graduating. This goal changed our thoughts from 'we would win if we had what XXX had' to 'we will go out and find what we need to win.' After a lot of self teaching and hard work, we ended our qualification matches at our first event as the #2 Seed with an 8-0 Record and went on to captain an alliance to the Semi-Finals, claiming our team's first ever on Season Elimination Match Victories in the process. We never did win a regional as we planned, but at all 6 of our On Season Competitions between from 2008 to 2009 we made Eliminations and seeded in the top at at all but one - including being an alliance captain at the CMP in back to back years. (First Round pick at the event we didn't seed for anyone who's counting)

My point here is that any team can have a good season(s), or always be in the running to win an event - they just must chose to do so and commit themselves to it. Teams are quick to belittle others for being powerhouses and consistently successful, but they rarely ever seem to want to put in the work required to become a 'powerhouse' team - almost as if the level of play in FRC as a whole should go down... Which is an uninspiring thought.

Unrelated, sorry for such a long post, had too many thoughts I needed to get out.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I'm going to take a whack at this post to prove you wrong.

Case in point - MAR and NJ/PA in general.

25, 56, 103, 365 used to be giants. On some level, they still are, but not to the extent that they used to be.

Latest couple seasons- teams are rising to the challenge of ranking with and above these teams. Examples: 1676, 1640, 341 (yes these guys weren't always top dog on the field like they are now), 2590, 2607, 2016, 11, 1403, 1218.

If you think teams aren't improving and rising above their competition, then you aren't analyzing the full playing field.

Saying that teams aren't inspired by the powerhouses to knock them out is just false.

Other areas of interest- California, New England teams (mostly CT and Boston area), Texas, Hawaii even. CANADALAND

Take a look at 973, 1323, 696, 1538, etc... These are all products of teams looking at perennial powerhouses and wanting to rise above them. Many of these teams have done so. What's cool is that it pushes teams like 254 even more.

Soon, the current or new generation of elite teams and powerhouses will give rise to an even newer generation of elite teams.

The culture of MAR is changing, the culture of FiM is definitely changing. Everyone outside of FiM can see the improvement in team quality. Soon, some of those teams will learn to rise about current and former powerhouses.

I'm fine with people posting their opinions, but please do your research when you post things like this.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

FIRST people tend to understandably think in terms of numbers. We extrapolate the results of matches before they happen. I am a former engineer so I get that idea. But a blind belief in only the numbers and the machines will lead to a defeatist attitude. You can rise above the numbers and the machines. What is often overlooked and underestimated is the human factor in a match. Having the foolish belief that you can win a match in which you are completely outgunned will drive you to develop a winning strategy.

Long before we were considered a powerhouse team we would win matches and playoff rounds that we had no business winning, because we believed in ourselves enough to make the effort to win the match.
I also wish I had a dollar for every time we went into a match with the wrong attitude and lost a match that we should have won because we thought the data would hand us a victory.
FIRST is a sport and every sport starts "inside your head". I remind my students and coaches of this message at every opportunity.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Daisy and Moe are regional powerhouses in the Philly region. In a very FIRST like way, they have been willing to share that info. (Team in a Box, amazing web sites, off season events, etc.) Teams have picked up on those things and some are using it. Clem and Siri from 1640 pointed out they made a conscious effort to reach out to Daisy and Moe and learn from them. Seems to have worked, three regional wins and a recent trip to Einstein for Sab-bot-age.

Both teams have similar features. Inspired Mentors. Inspired Roboteers. Work hard. Work hard all year, not just the 13 weeks of the season. Work the entire program, not just building a robot. They are all here to make a difference. Strong commitment to making a difference.

And when I talk to other HOF mentors you can see that almost incandescent glow about their commitment. When you talk to their roboteers you can see that glow also. So while the haters continue to hate, the smart people are asking "How can I get that glow too".

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

On my time with WildStang, both as student and as a mentor, I have only been inspired and have always looked to 341 as a great team. I have a very deep respect for your team. Your team is one of my favorite teams to spectate and follow through out competition season.