The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Team 341 was recently stereotyped in another CD thread and we have been quietly disrespected like this for about 5 years now. So, I feel the need to speak out. But I promise this post has a positive outlook.

In 2005 our team became frustrated with losing on the playing field and funds were very low. At that point we had a choice to make. We could either, blame other teams and complain about all of the resources that the “elite” teams have or we could decide to work our tails off. We chose to be positive and just try really, really hard to improve.

Unfortunately some teams in the previously mentioned thread have not made that choice, as yet. While I can certainly understand the frustration that comes with competition, using another team as a punching bag really disturbs me deeply. I am upset mostly because teams, that don’t know anything about Miss Daisy’s history, make assumptions based on stereotypes. FIRST stereotypes are dangerous and are usually developed out of a need to target a source for built up frustrations.

I am not replying in an attempt to embarrass or attack anyone, so please do not take this personally. I just want to set a few things straight about the so-called “Elite” Miss Daisy. My hope is that maybe in understanding our team, you may look at other successful teams differently. I am sure that we also know very little about the inner workings of other teams.

Stereotype #1: “Miss Daisy is Rich”
I am the founder of our team and for the last 11 years, the team has basically run on my credit card, which gets frantically paid off in May with sponsor funds and fundraising. Many years we finish the season with almost zero left in our account. One year I was $5,000 in debt until July. I probably lose about 1 to 2 thousand dollars of my family’s personal money every year. Yes we have very kind and generous sponsors, but we are not what you think we are. Every year we start with almost nothing and fundraise like crazy. I won’t insult your intelligence by saying we are poor, but we are certainly not the rich team that you imagine.

Stereotype #2: “Miss Daisy has an unlimited machine shop”
No. We have a very small lathe, a small mill, and a cut-off saw. That is it. The vast majority of our robot each year (over 95%) is designed and built by our students in a high school woodshop with rickety tables. We succeed by using our resources wisely and knowing our limitations. We have mostly won by choosing very effective strategies and not by having the best machine on the field. In 2012, we built our best machine ever. Some visitors to our pit were visibly disappointed to find that our machine was a pile of extruded aluminum and urethane belting, just cleverly arranged and programmed.

Stereotype #3: “Miss Daisy is designed by Corporate Engineers”
We do not have any outside engineers that come to us directly from our sponsors. Every Engineer, CAD mentor, or Media coach on Miss Daisy is a former FIRST/341 student, a friend of a student, a team parent, or a teacher. We do not have a single engineer or professional on our team that is not in that category. Our fantastic engineering design mentorship comes from our former team members and their friends. We are an absolutely home-grown organization.

Stereotype #4 : “Miss Daisy always wins everything”
We had an anomaly in 2003 where we made it to Einstein. It was an amazing experience.
Do you know when we won our very first regional? The answer: 2007
That’s right. It only took us 7 years to figure out how to be a consistent winner. Before that we had never even been in the finals at any regional and had only made it to the semi-finals twice. Yes we win quite often now and I am very proud of our performance over the last 7 years. But it was due to the dedication and sacrifice of many students, just like any other team.

Summary:
In 2005 we made it a stated objective of our team to strive for sustained excellence both on and off the field, while maintaining all of the GP standards that we so deeply believe in. We collected resources, paid closer attention to winning team models, adopted a philosophy of continuous improvement, and always, above all else, treated other teams with the respect they deserve. We helped teams in need and looked up to “Elite” programs with admiration. We still do this.

Every team in FIRST can make this choice. Be positive, help others, and work like a maniac behind the scenes. This approach will bring you joy and satisfaction, whether you win or not. Attacking or mocking other teams will only lead to more frustration. I hope this explains who we are.
I am also hopeful that this post will make teams think twice before stereotyping another team. Instead, I strongly urge everyone to spend their energy learning from successful teams. Learning and striving creates positive energy.

As always, Miss Daisy wishes everyone a great off-season.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Well said!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

You're an inspiration to all of the teams who aspire to rise above their opponents instead of bringing them down. I hope our team can one day become everything you guys are.

Ignore the "haters", they haven't taken a second look at what you guys have done.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

"You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice."
This is every single reason and more about Miss Daisy being a Hall of Fame team.

(Small side note: Mr. Ostrow, why does your team alias say "Wissahickon"? I've always wondered...)

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

This is a very inspiring post, thank you for sharing some of the magic that makes your team tick, by showing that it isn't really magic at all, but hard work and dedication. In addition, every single person on your team that I talked to in Vegas was unbelievably passionate and kind. For the past couple of years, when working on our Chairman's submissions, Miss Daisy's has always been one we turn to for inspiration. Having 341 on our alliance in Vegas this year was the highlight of our season. How awesome that our first pick ever was Miss Daisy!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

As a former mentor for 3929, I just want to add that 341 is one of those teams that goes out of their way to help someone else out. Their mentors have loaned us robots, given us code, and have even taken time out to come to our outreach events just to play with the robot and to talk to our kids. They have shared strategy, design ideas, and have always provided a source of inspiration for non-technical awards as well.

I have never ever experienced a more humble team that has so much success both on and off the field.

Anyone who doesn't know 341, please don't talk. Maybe you should just listen to what they have to say about their team.

Al & company: Thanks a ton for what you do for teams in the Philly area and in the world. You are THE local inspiration for 3929 and are our standard of excellence in terms of sponsorships and robot quality.

Thanks for this thread.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Very well said! Your team has been an inspiration to CRT 306 since I started the team in 2004! We have competed together many times throughout the years at many different competitions! It has been an Honor being able to come to your school every year and participate In your off season event. This year for the first time I was able to check out your shop, and see everything you have stated. Thank you for all your team has done and I look forward to working together more in the future.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Teams like you inspire a team like mine to strive to be better both building a robot and with our outreach to our community, so just remember for every person who stereotypes teams like you your inspiring about 100 other people to be better
My two cents

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

This is very inspiring! Team 291 has always looked up to Miss Daisy as an elite team over the years. Thank you for sharing some more about how you have come about your success. I am definitely going to show this to my team and get them inspired knowing that someone as good as Miss Daisy is in a very similar situation every year

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

When I stopped by 341's pit to trade T-Shirts, one of their drive team members was talking to another team about 341's CAD program and how the other team could get started in CAD. 341's CAD program is completely home-grown and shows a huge initiative for the team to educate themselves and others. It also shows a drive to make the best robots possible. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want 341 to do well. 341 deserves to be doing well.

I and many other members of my team have always looked up to 341 as an inspiration, and the type of team we strive to be. They are such a role-model team, and this post proves that point again.

Well said Mr. Ostrow.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Teams like you are always among the many teams (particularly in MAR) in which I always reference saying, "They have nothing that we don't, why can't we be more like them?". Teams with modest backgrounds like Daisy truly are an inspiration to all of FIRST.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

From a growing team, let me ask you a question.

What is your biggest component to maintaining sustained excellence?

As a veteran in FIRST, I believe the continued success of the team is in the hands of mentors. This belief has served me well, and has only grown over the years.

However, I'm on a team that is very dynamic. A good chunk of our mentor base is college-level; a chunk that stands to grow in the coming years. With such a "volatile" mentor core, I'm wondering what factors other teams use to make sure they maintain a level of success for years to come?

- Sunny G.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Having recently had an exchange with a team 341 mentor myself in the thread in question (in which the original disagreement turned out to be almost entirely miscommunication), I'd like to mention that every experience I've had with members and mentors from 341 has ultimately been a very positive one. I wish your team the best, and hope there are no future misunderstandings.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

This gives me way more respect for Miss Daisy than before, because I fell into the trap of assumptions. I always respected you as one of the greats since I first heard of 341 when you won the CCA, but I did assume about the money and machine shop and stuff. The fact that you have been so successful is made so much more impressive now that I know the truth. I was at Boston last year, and the quality of that bot absolutely blew me away, and you totally deserved the 1 seed and win. I hope you and your team keep doing what you do, regardless of what anyone says.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Great post!

Maybe I'm different....my stereotype image of more successful teams is that they just work harder and smarter than we do. Thanks for explaining how you do that.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Just want to add, Al, that you and your team members are widely respected as consistent examples of 'gracious professionals', both on and off the field. People with whom I have volunteered and worked, think very highly of you all!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I don't mean to steer this back to the negative amid all of these positive posts but I did want to tack on something to Mr. Ostrow's initial post.

When you do end up stereotyping a team in the way that Mr. Ostrow points out, you're not only putting another team down but you are putting that team's students down. What pains me the most as a fellow mentor of Miss Daisy is having to explain to one of my students why someone may have said something to them that was off color in the midst of an atmosphere of "gracious professionalism". If you're thinking about saying something out loud like this, don't say it at all, least of all within earshot of one of my students. No team member needs to hear that when they may have only been on the team a mere handful of months.

And finally, I can corroborate all that Mr. Ostrow has said. Even though I'm a fellow mentor, I still call him "Mr. O" because I am one of those 341 graduates he speaks of!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I am disgusted that anyone would ever stereotype or criticize Miss Daisy. For those of who that have, or let me tell you a story:

Last year, a small group of our students wanted to try to go to IRI for the first time in our team's history. We were lucky enough to be invited, but now we had to get out there. I, at the time Co-C.E.O. and a junior-turning-senior on the team, was basically in charge of organizing the whole trip for us. Without 341's help, our trip to IRI would never have been possible. They not only offered us spare spots on their bus out there, but they also offered us room on their trailer if needed. Additionally, they ensured that a car of one of our parents would be safely locked up at their school while we were away. Mr. Ostrow and Team 341 made sure they could do everything possible to help us. We all felt completely comfortable in their hands. Their hospitality was so amazing and inspiring. I and the rest of our team that went to IRI can not show enough appreciation and gratitude towards your team. You made us feel right at home, and Team 1676 is extremely honored to call you our friends. There's nobody we'd rather spend a 12-hour bus ride with than you =).

If there is any team that truly embodies the gracious professionalism of FIRST, it's Daisy.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

As many others have said thank you for making this post, it gives some real insight to the history and the workings of Miss Daisy. Miss Daisy has been an inspiration to myself ever since I joined FIRST back in 2008. However, since my return as a mentor in 2011, I have truly seen how amazing your team, robots, off season events, and overall mentality is with a better regard.

Every year the fact that your team comes up with a simple but successful design and truly embraces the ideals of FIRST is a tribute to the hard work that is done by all of team 341's members. Building amazing robots out of simple materials such as Bosch extruded aluminum, that accomplish the game tasks so well, only attest to the fact that teams with minimal budgets can accomplish a desired game task and help to inspire all.

I know Miss Daisy has inspired myself and Team 1403 greatly, here is just one example. At the start of this season, after the game had been unveiled, we had a strategy session to determine what task we wanted to accomplish. One of the first questions asked was what will Miss Daisy do in autonomous, seeing as how in 2011 and 2012 team 341 had one of the best autonomous in first. We immediately knew that you guys would be going for a 7 disk and made it a design goals of ours. Unfortunately we were only able to accomplish a 5 disk autonomous instead of a 7 but it just goes to show how team 341 is an inspiration to other teams throughout FIRST.

Unfortunately the haters are always gonna hate and they're is absolutely nothing that you nor anyone else in FIRST can do about that, but just remember that the next time you hear something negative, another 100 people are thinking something positive.:)

Edit: Stereotyping is something that will always be associated with success whether it be in the business, the academic, or the FIRST world. In the FIRST world it is amplified because of the massive High's and Low's throughout the season. My only advice is to keep on enduring so that Team 341 can keep inspiring the students, mentors, volunteers, and sponsors throughout FIRST.

JB

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Bashing of successful teams is so contrary to the culture of FIRST. Enough of the "haves and have nots" - especially in FIRST. Their will always be disparity in resources, but more resources don't define or guarantee a team's achievements.

Successful teams work hard. Miss Daisy sets a high bar for teams to shoot for, not shoot down. HOF teams have achieved their status by commitment of the team. Having deep pocket sponsors, incredible machine shops, armies of engineering mentors are not required in FIRST. The essential elements for success are dedicated mentors and students - you cannot buy those.

I met 341 in San Diego (2009) and was so impressed by their commitment to the program. They had a very good robot (won the regional, as I recall), but even a better team. Team 341 handed out their "Team in a Box" CD which helps any team (rookie or veteran) become stronger. I recall their Chairman's Award being announced in Atlanta (2010) and was so surprised they hadn't already won it.

Teams focused on getting more sponsors, machines, mentors and trophies might be overlooking the mission of engaging more students.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

No, no, I have the best Miss Daisy is awesome story! Back in Philadelphia 2010, we were the captains of the fourth alliance. Of course, daisy and Moe were on the first. When the semi finals rolled around, we were up against the best striker and full field shooter in that alliance. We were probably the one alliance there that could challenge the eventual champions for the crown. We were heartbroken when our defender sat motionless for a round with a broken crio. We called our time out but couldn't get them fixed in time.

To ensure the competition would be fair, Miss Daisy called their time out. Since they were up a match and this is technically illegal the myth (may be true) on our team is that they threatened to sit still a match with our partner off the field and the refs ended up letting them call the back to back time out.

In the end we lost 8-7 due to a silly penalty about our side panel detaching. But what I will always take away from that regional is how much of a class act Miss Daisy is. It was really the proof to watch them win rca then cca that same year.

341 is the team that, through their actions, taught me the meaning of gracious professionalism.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Only on CD can a thread about a HOF team turn into a "flame war" on who has the best Miss Daisy helping story :rolleyes:

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Somewhere in Daisy's file archives there's a picture of an awkward, freshman me carrying a box out to our truck, trying to get through their crowd celebrating their Chairman's at that same event. Naive me was very unsure as to what all the hubbub was about ::safety::

Of course I still desire a Daisy headband...

Sorry to derail this thread further into, "Let's tell our stories about Daisy!"

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Actually, I found that extremely inspiring. I used your 2012 "Behind the Design Process" to guide our students' design strategy this year. Thanks so much for sharing.

Our team enjoyed the opportunity to play with Miss Daisy and Team Mean Machine on the Newton field. Our 218 to 191 win was definitely one of this seasons highlights.

Keep up the great work!

David Allred
ROBOTZ Garage

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Oh, to be the successful team that suffers from being stereotyped!

Unfortunately, this is the price for being an elite team (on or off the field). FIRST is at the vanguard of a culture change, but many people are not there yet. Jealousy and bitterness rear their ugly head again and again.

Don't be discouraged by the stereotype. Consider it a compliment in disguise. I appreciate seeing the story and explanation of team histories. As a coach, it allows me to show my students what can be accomplished with whatever resources you have, given the determination and resolve of dedicated students and mentors.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Thanks very much for the kind words. It really does mean so much to our team.
I just wanted to reinforce the original point, that any team can choose to have positive energy. It is truly a construct of the mind. If your team is not what you wish it to be, go out and make it happen.

Reach out to successful teams and ask them for help, rather than complain about them. I have never seen a successful team deny help to anyone. Learn from other models, work hard, and improve. It may take several years, but it will happen. Positive energy attracts positive people. Its totally up to you.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I know that Miss Daisy is a huge inspiration to our team. They are the perfect example of a team that works hard and becomes one of the best teams in the world.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Well the return on investment for the effort spent clicking that hyperlink was huge.

Thank you.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I would take your belief one step further.

Students learn from, are inspired by, and emulate their mentors. A team with a solid mentor base helps to create a productive, inspired, and ultimately successful group of students.

Mentors learn from, are inspired by, and emulate each other. A team with a great lead mentor leads to a productive, inspired, and ultimately successful group of mentors.

Each level of the pyramid looks up at the next for inspiration and to grow (even within the student group it is obvious how much the rookies look up to the veterans...even if they won't admit it).

In other words, building sustained excellence happens when you start with the right pieces at the top...and pick up the rest of the pieces on your way.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Did some one step on the Daisies? Don't step on the Daisies. For several year's now our team has been having many problems. In search for solutions we looked to the successful teams in our area for the model and plan for our survival and growth. 2 teams that have been unbelievably helpful and responsible for not only our survival but, our growth are Miss Daisy (341) and MOE (365). If you get to know these teams you will not find superstars but a group of rather normal human beings that are dedicated and committed to the ideals of First. They work year round to maintain their teams. They dedicate way too many hours to the effort. In stead of being envious of their success, one would be better off getting to know them and see what lead to their success and work those concepts into your own program.

Please, Please do not step on the Daisies.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

For each successful team, someone or some group of people on that team had to work really hard to build the team to its level of success. Is it fair to demean the hard work that someone put in because of personal jealousy?

From my experience, team competition success seems more to be a function of the paradigm of the team as opposed to funding, number of members, or anything else (I won't list examples, but there are a number of teams I know of with $30,000+ budgets who achieve low to medium success each year). If one has a team culture of working hard and takes advantage of the talents of its members, one can leverage one's resources to produce the best possible season result.

Miss Daisy is a great program. I know our team learned a lot from them while on their alliance at Chestnut Hill. Great members all around, I made a ton of friends during that district event.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Our team made a similar decision 5 years back; dissatisfied with never winning anything. When we made this decision, we really had little understanding of what we needed to do to actually become a better, more competitive team (and at the same time to bring more value to our students). So we looked for role models. Fortunately, we didn't need to look very far.

Teams 341 (Miss Daisy) and 365 (MOE) quickly became my references on how a well-run team should operate. Students and Mentors of both of these teams are very open and helpful. I have learned volumes from Daisy and MOE and have become a better mentor as a result. Our team has become a better, more competitive team as well.

It's easy and satisfying to denegrate the successful, but it's far better to emulate and learn from them!

I agree with Gdeaver: Don't step on the Daisies!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

The first time I saw Miss Daisy was in Atlanta 2010 championship and was amazed to see them receive Chairman's award and their video submission. They were one of the inspiration for me (personally) to do outreach programs. I missed to list them in one of my earlier post on Chairman's award submissions and award recipients.

On the sidebar, I don't like to call any award recipient as winner, they are awarded for what they do. Everyone that does things like community ourtreach etc are already winners and the judges determine who has done a little more or little differently, so there are no losers, which means there are no winners either). Just my take, please ignore if you don't agree with this.:cool:

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

First, this is one of the most inspiring threads I've read on CD in a while, thank you Alan for giving us all some insight into how your team is run.

I had the pleasure of spending champs with my new FRC team, 1983 Skunkworks Robotics. I've known them for a long time, having gone to school with several former students and now engaged to one of their mentors. Being a highly successful team in the Pacific Northwest region, they've also seen their share of the stereotyping, especially since they came out strong their rookie year and haven't slowed down since.

Like 341 and many other top teams, the have-nots assume "elite" teams just have money handed to them. Skunkworks has started to do sustainability workshops and provide other guidance to local teams about how they run their program, and how hard the students work to get their sponsors, maintain their sponsors, and fundraise 12 months out of the year to support their program. As a direct result, they're starting to see the attitude towards them change, as other teams start to realize that nothing is given to them for free, and the effort required to sustain the program.

The other team I'm involved with, 971, also had major hurdles to overcome this year. Many people do not know that we lost our main fabrication sponsor, Berger Manufacturing, last summer when they closed down. Berger had been a huge supporter of the team since 2006. The students and mentors both scoured their leads and worked tirelessly to get enough manufacturing capabilities lined up for the season to produce a competitive robot, and continue to work to give back to our sponsors, thank them for their support and show the impact they've had on the students. It just goes to show that things can happen to any team, no matter how young, old, struggling or established. The difference between continuing to be competitive and folding is how hard the team works to maintain their community relationships and establish new ones.

Teams need to hear these stories. They become inspired from this, because rather than feeling like they can never reach that level because they don't have the sponsors, they start to understand that they too can achieve that success by putting in the effort. It's eye-opening for a lot of teams. Thank you Daisy, for being a role model and an inspiration to so many teams.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

At our regionals this year, several people came up to me and said "Wow, you have a lot of sponsors, you guys must have a lot of money" or "Wow, you have a trailer, you must have a lot of money" or "You guys have a CNC? Your school must be rich." We do okay, but in reality, it's not as much as anyone thinks, and plenty of teams with mediocre robots and pit areas are running larger budgets than ours. If we happened to qualify for Championship, we wouldn't have been able to afford to go. If any one of our major sponsors dropped out, it would be a real hit to our budget. I was mostly okay with it, because most of the people making these comments were nice about it, and saying it in a more complimentary fashion. However, it does show that speculation forms without having the facts.

My favorite was "How do we make our team be like your team?" That's the sort of question everyone should be asking of these so-called "elite" or "powerhouse" teams.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Wow. I just wanted to say thanks for making this thread. It's surprisingly inspirational and nice to see the "real" side of things on "elite" teams, especially a hall-of-fame team.

Your post really puts things into perspective. My team won its first FRC regional this season and it took us six years to finally do so, and to hear 341's story is quite eye-opening to me. Thanks for posting.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Us too. "What would Daisy do?" We ask it in our shop. We ask it in our strategy. Ok, really, we ask it anytime we want something done better. :P

To everyone out there (and to Daisy, if you don't know), this is not an isolated incident. Not for Akash, not for 1676, not for us. I can walk by pits at MAR districts and hear people saying "what would Daisy do?" (Or if they're there, "we could ask Daisy!")

They and MOE 365 are who people in this area turn to to see what's "right". We don't do it to complain, we don't even do it to worship in awe. We do it because we know we can do it to. Because they're not magic, they're not "rich", they're entirely accessible--and they'll help us!


I'm completely comfortable saying that MAR as a region would not be what it is today without both 341 and 365.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

In my own experience it was largely an education issue.

2011 was my rookie season and my first regional was Wisconsin. There were many good robots there and one phenomenal one (went on to win worlds). In my ignorance and frustration I gave in to the dark side, swallowed some silly rumors and did some hating of my own.

Two seasons and lots of education later I like to think that I am largely cured.

I have seen first hand how the great teams are not only the ones that are pushing the sport forward, they are the ones making it happen period. Many many many of the volunteers that make events happen come from experienced teams.

I think we need to constantly remind ourselves, our students and each other, that we need to look externally for inspiration and internally for goal setting. As FIRST there are more things that unite us than divide us so lets get focused on the positives.

-al

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I think all consistently good teams inspire others to be better. In our initial design meetings for Breakaway, we were trying to decide where to shoot from, and were considering being a striker or maybe shoot from the middle. Then our head mentor was like "Hang on a second, 40 is going to be scoring from across the field, why can't we?" (referring to the late great Team 40 from Manchester NH). We pushed ourselves and made a robot that could score at will once at 100%. 40 had a great robot, but we were right there with them, and came home with our first regional win.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Thank you so much for this- after making Einstein this year, my team found out how the intense effort of developing strong programs for community outreach and engineering, as well as the incredibly long hours through build season and beyond pays off. It was a pleasure talking with you guys on Newton, always a delight to find another team on the same page as us.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Lol what a great 341st post :D

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Ditto--GREAT POST!!!

My only personal experience with Miss Daisy is the evening of their winning the Championship Chairman's award. We happened to be in the same hotel and ran into them in the lobby in the evening. Instead of gloating and basking in the glory, 4 of their mentors spoke with us (we had been there for the chairman's as well) for over 1/2 hour telling us tips and tricks they've learned over the years. In 14 years of competition, that was the most useful time I've ever spent with another team!. We have used most of what they told us and are genuinely a better team as a result.
This post explains their team concisely and those who lambast their team are probably upset that they have not found a (nonexistant) shortcut to success.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I went to 341's pit this year at CMP, and the robot had some very nice sheet metal parts. How do you make sheet metal with only these tools? Do you have a sheet metal sponsor?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

One of the easiest ways to see if a successful team has a mentor built robot is to visit them in the pits and see who has their hands on the Robot.

You name 'em. 148, 118, 1114, 254, 1717, 177, etc..... their kids are deeply involved.

As described by the OP, Miss Daisy is an exemplar.
Move past the stereotyping and be inspired.

Great Post.

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.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I kept meaning to highlight this comment. This is what its all about on some level. In St. Louis, I had a conversation with some MAR Board members and a FIRST RD about this very topic. I do believe that the FIRST/CD public discourse and FIRST event behavior is going in the wrong direction. Coaches need to EDUCATE their students, parents, and fellow coaches about FIRST principles. The education has to be continuous because our programs keep turning over every 2 to 4 years.
We can't just repeat these principles for the judges. We need to live the principles at competition and within our teams at home. Thanks for making that post.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

OZ_341 I missed the dual meaning of excellence that you meant and didn't think of it as personal growth, but rather as the "you can be just like us and win all the time" type.

No... You are looking at it from a very different perspective than I am, hence why I said I'm looking at it from an FRC wide type of view and not an individual team view. Each team should always try and "sustain their excellence," but the larger system of FRC should not be designed so that the same teams can stay excellent. There should be some sort of factor that destabilizes things. Right now it very much so is designed so that teams that are ahead can stay ahead, if they don't have unforeseen factors like losing sponsors or build space, etc. This would be fine, but FIRST is also trying to enact cultural change and inspire not just its participants, but everyone. You can't do that if there is a natural division among the tools that are doing the inspiring, aka the teams. Other wise, the lesser teams eventually get so focused on wining that all culture changing avenues are ignored, GP and coopertition get thrown out the window. The concept that there is this semi-permanent group of upper echelon of teams and this lower group of teams, and that this is accepted, creates that division. In order for FIRST to achieve both its goals, of cultural change and establishing itself as a sport of the mind, there needs to be turnover of what teams are on top. I have nothing against the current top teams, they do awesome things and are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. This destabilizing factor can be an official thing from FIRST in the form of a game element or something else, it can be an idea that a group of teams decides to do, it can be a culture shift among the entire community of the FRC, etc. It really doesn't matter what it is, there just needs to be something that forces this turnover regularly. I thought that the FiM/MAR structure would do more of this, and it has. However the question of whether this is a change in sample size or a change in stability is the question. We shall see when the borders are removed.

I was a part of a team that went through both the stages of ripping into powerhouses and of being a powerhouse. I have talked to a ton of former FRC students. I understand both sides of the argument and why both sides see what they see. Now that I left FRC and am now looking back at it from an outsider's view with inside experience, I can see that something isn't quite right. That there is some factor missing to make it all work more efficiently.

I am really bad at explaining ideas like this through text so I am sorry for the long posts and horrible explanations. I'm working on communication skills.

Akash, I'd advise you to take a look at world systems theory. It explains some of what you are pointing to, if you understand it fully. (it is a really hard concept to grasp as it has many layers and applies more broadly than it seems, I don't even get it in its entirety) I have factored into this teams that have risen by the inspiration of the powerhouse teams, but those teams only help to accelerate the core's development leaving the periphery in the dust and creating the animosity. The teams that have risen are the semi-periphery, the powerhouses are the core, and the lesser teams are the periphery; using the terminology of world systems theory. All I am doing is applying a very basic anthropological concept to FRC, there is no opinion. I actually hate the fact that this works as elegantly as it does. It means I have to listen to my profs gloating about me doubting them in the near future:(

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Ivan:
I don't pretend to have any knowledge of world system theory although it sounds like an interesting topic. I guess, I want to understand. Are you suggesting a handicapping system in which high-performing teams receive some pre-arranged disadvantage?

One problem I see with this is that the game changes every year. We have seen some pretty powerful teams fall from prominence because they misread the game challenge in a particular year.

Many teams misread this year's game. I also remember that in 2009 when we all had to play with the same wheels on a slippery surface, some pretty powerful teams struggled that year.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I read this as you want to punish the powerhouses.

To paraphrase Karthik, to equalize the playing field do you want to drag the top tier down, or raise the bottom tier up?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

This thread reminds me of a quote I saw on Reddit: "The reason we struggle with insecurity is because we compare our behind-the-scenes with everyone else's highlight reel."

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I have always thought that "XYZ is designed by Corporate Engineers" is a patently ridiculous statement. Most of us don't design frisbee launching, basketball shooting, innertube plucking, soccerball kicking robots for our day jobs. Even as you move up the engineering world and become really good at what you do, just because you can design a really awesome [thing] does not necessarily mean you can build a top quality FRC robot.

To be sure, engineers are great people to have around. But just because they have the title does not automatically make them good at robots off the bat. (But you may have a hard time getting this past our egos. :rolleyes:)

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Where do I apply for a day job that does those things?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Cherry picking some of Ivan's statements; I'm not trying to interrupt his flow & hope this doesn't do that.

Gregor paraphrased Karthik; I'll paraphrase a Zen story I read years ago and probably don't remember correctly. If you have a shorter piece of string than your neighbor, the way to change the situation is to lengthen your piece of string, not try & shorten his.

I don't know how you can artificially make the "powerhouse" or "elite" or "whatever you want to call them" teams less of what they are. The only way to change them is for them to stop being themselves. There are pages of CD posts talking about this, so I'm not going to expound. I'll admit that I'm not a good out-of-the-box thinker, but I just don't see how FIRST putting anything artificial into the system is going to change these teams. They'll just figure out how to work around it.

AND...if you ARE able to find a way to force the kind of turnover you appear to think is healthy, I don't want it. I don't want to beat 1114 or 2056 or 469 or 67 or <insert the appropriate team here> on the competition field because FIRST made it harder for them than it did for me. I don't want to win Chairman's over 1108 (for anyone not familiar with KS teams, they've won something like 7 RCAs at various tournaments) because FIRST did something that gave them a harder set of standards. I want to get to their level and win because we EARNED it. There's no way I'm going to take any satisfaction in a trophy that I got because I got to use both legs in the race and my opponent had to hop on one.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

We have a couple engineers of non-mechanical fields-- a nuclear engineer and a chemical engineering PhD. They're great people to have around, but as I understand it it was a bit of a learning curve for them to work on an FRC robot. Ultimately, their greatest value to the team for a while wasn't extensive technical knowledge of FRC robots, but rather the problem solving and design skills they brought to the table and taught to the students.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

wow, thats such an inspiring post. Team 1758 looks up to 341 with admiration!

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I don't understand the notion of it at all.

Lets use 2056 for an example. One of the best teams EVER in FIRST. 17 regional wins in a row, never loosing once. Dominates every year, builds Einstein quality robots every year. Has never won a championship. Is this an "elite" team that you should destabilize? I'm sure they'll do just fine with whatever you throw at them, but they have still yet to win the highest robot honour. Why should they be penalized?

Now lets look at 67. Another perennial powerhouse, 3 time champion of the world, CCA winner, and more blue banners than I care to count. Did not win an event this year. This is arguably the strongest team in FIRST, ever. Do they qualify to as a team to destabilize?

My point is that even if this idea was ever even approved, there is no metric to measure "eliteness." What is "too elite." Never in a month of Sundays will this get approved, but if the thought of it ever does, it simply cannot happen because you cannot measure it.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

There is particularly excellent short story that I would greatly recommend called 'Harrison Bergeron' by Kurt Vonnegut. (For just the summary, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Even if you could measure it, Jaxom's post sums up the point. What's so Inspiring about beating someone who had to face a harder challenge than the rest of the community? Besides, all giants fall from time to time, as Gregor has shown. But they work hard to get back up and go even farther than they had before.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but I don't think I can any more. Kudos to the posters above for their support of team 341, who is a well-tuned group of hard-working students and mentors. With such a big team - yes, it requires a heck of a lot of clapping when they head to the field after winning an award, but it's extremely well-deserved clapping - Daisy students and mentors have the ability to both create very high-functioning robots and provide help to other teams, which they do regularly.

I feel my team has an interesting perspective on team 341. We lost to them in both of our district finals 2-matches-to-1. It's so easy to become annoyed frustrated after that, but I've heard my students instead asking, "How can our team become like that? What can we do to bring ourselves up on that level?"

It's fun to look at a match schedule and see that you're playing with or against such a potent team. If you're allied with them, you know there's a lot to be learned. If you're against them, you know that you're going to be forced to raise your game and develop an even better strategy.

Even though we're 2-8 versus team 341 in our first two years as a team, we're watching you closely... We're learning a lot... And we're looking up to you as role models. One of these years, we're going to beat you guys in elims and I hope you can smile when we do, knowing how much of our success has come from imitating MAR's best team.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Seems like IFI and AndyMark at least would let design the building blocks in exchange for dollar bills.

Also the first thing that popped into my head when I saw "corporate engineers":

I just imagine Corporate Engineer Benedict showing up in his corporate 3 piece suit to design the robot every day after work.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I can't figure out the cool multi-quote deal that everyone does, so one will have to do...
There are lots of ways to destabilize the core, I'm not sure why everyone focuses on just one: limiting the top. Propping up the bottom works just as well... Here are some rather un-nefarious ways that both have been done artificially recently:

2009 and this year were two examples of how the game design can affect this. The wheels presented a unique challenge that was new to everyone and frisbees have a relatively reliable path of travel meaning they are easier to work with. These two things created ripples in the norm and allowed many teams to fall and others to rise. The wheels brought the top down and the frisbees brought the bottom up; was there something wrong with either of these things? To me, no. The issue with 2009 is the year after things went back to the norm and the dominant stayed dominant the following years. I suspect next year will be much of the same. Is it the GDC's fault that the sea-saw of "who is great" didn't continue, no. The weight is not theirs to bare, but rather all of ours.

The district system is also a destabilizing factor because it ensures that everyone has the same chances to play and hone their skills. It artificially caps the core and gives the periphery more time/resources to develop over a season. Sure the core could travel to additional regionals, but that doesn't mean anything to those competing just inside the districts that would be most likely to feel the sting of defeat over and over again. In fact, when a powerhouse travels to another region, that it rarely compete in, it often times destabilizes that regional and creates inspiration instead of disdain.

Right about now a lot of people are thinking "great the problem is being worked on I can forget about this" WRONG! Even if the game helps the periphery and brings down the core, even if the district system helps to even things out a bit, the community still has the mindset that the same teams should win every year or be close to wining every year. How many times have phrases like "71 should be at champs they were world champs x times, they deserve to be there." or "217 didn't make champs by 1 pt, that is just wrong." been said here on chief, the unofficial nexus of all things FRC and the cradle of its culture? Statements like that are what cause the division and with it the bashing of the core. What is more striking is who said both of these quotes, they were two heroes of FIRST. The people that everyone looks to for inspiration. If a community is basing itself off of heroes that create division and disdain then I'm not surprised those on top get bashed and made fun of. It isn't the individuals fault either as they are a product of the general culture, they are just under the microscope and reinforce this meme.


This type of culture would be great if the FRC was just about creating a sport and inspiring those within its existing ranks, but it's not. It's about changing the wider culture of society and for that you need a sweeping approach, not a focused one.

Power houses are high powered, focused beacons of inspirations for teams in their area, but those in FIRST long enough to feel the sting of defeat tend to already be inspired to pursue STEM. It is those outside the light of the beacon who can't see the shadow that it creates that are important. Continuing the metaphor, what would be better for a plane trying to land, one powerful beacon on the control tower or lots of smaller ones all the way along the runway?

The method of destabilization isn't what is important, rather the acknowledgment that they are needed that is. Then a solution can be found that works for everyone.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

That's an ironic statement, given that you're alliance was the only one not to take the #1 alliance to three matches. ;) Not to detract from either Daisy or your alliance, but the rest of the Philadelphia regional gave them a run for their money.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Someone asked me via private message for an example of a successful team that "misread" this years game. That is an easy answer....Team 341. We had a pretty good machine, but we at least partially misplaced our efforts.
We overestimated the value of hanging for 30 points and spent way too much design effort trying to cram a climbing device onto the back of our shooter arm.
We also decided to go with a long shooter arm because it had to double as a climber. The end result was that our large rotating arm was much less stable and accurate than we would have wanted. We also spent time working on climbing that could have been spent on shooter accuracy. The story of abandoned climbers is pretty common among veteran teams this year.
So why is this important in the perspective of Ivan's comments? Because I feel that this year's game design allowed many teams to break through. (2729, 3974 and 225 come to mind)
So why did this happen? I feel that many rising teams went for much simpler and more elegant designs. Many teams with a history of high level success (like 341) went for overcomplicated designs. I think we fell into the trap of trying to be a "Swiss Army Knife" to stay on top.
I don't know if the numbers are there to prove this idea, but I think we saw more success amongst rising teams than in any previous game. Just an observation that may be relevant to previous comments.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Never put a ceiling on teams. Always look to raise the floor. Economics are usually the worst examples for anything, but there's a reason we have a minimum wage and not a maximum wage. Putting a ceiling only stifles creativity, innovation, and most of all, inspiration. Putting a ceiling only hurts teams who haven't been at the top for long. Those who have been at the top know how to creatively work around limits places on them. Teams like 118 can't be held by a ceiling ( ;) ), yet some of the newer teams that have emerged this year may be hurt. If FIRST outlawed swerve drives, teams that just recently spent 3 years developing swerve drives will have to switch to a tank drive, something they haven't done in 3-4 years.

Instead of limiting anything, raise the floor. Start a grassroots campaign to help the lower spectrum of teams rise. If you can find one additional engineering mentor for all of the teams that have none or only one, you will raise the competition level by that much without having to place a physical limit. The competition aspect will remain, and students will get inspired from a raised level of competition. Perhaps FIRST ought to start a campaign, entitled with something along the lines of "an engineer for every team"?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Both statements are very true.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

(This isn't a have-not soapbox ... I have a wonderment...)

On our team, time has always been against us. The 6 week build season is hard, and it's tough to get time out of the work days during build season to get to the school without project managers going ape s---. "Only putting in 40 hours a week? Ha. There goes your technical career." It has led to a lot of mentor burn-out, particularly when the 6 week build season is stretched out to 16 weeks in the pursuit of making software and 30lbs of robot better. The few weeks after the end of build few of us even want to think about a robot, let alone have to tweak it. Even one of the prominent FiM guys REALLY wants to do away with the 6-week cycle altogether, exposing more teams with low mentor resources to more burn-out. I'd be curious to see how the more elite teams deal with this via their team structure, mentor recruiting, etc.

One last point: teams don't even need to perform very well on the field to be talked about negatively. Simply powder-coating the robot because a sponsor has requested it every year is enough for many individuals to treat a team with this type of disrespect.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

...

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

What would cause more mentor burn-out, trying to get a robot completed in 6 weeks, or trying to get on completed in 7, 8, or 9 weeks?

Teams are working non-stop right past the 6-week build window anyways, tweaking, practicing, iterating, etc...

We just stopped "working" on robotics this week, for basically the first time all year, this week!

Are we burned out? Sure. But, most of the issues were trying to build parts that couldn't be tested on a robot that was sitting next to us in a bag. This leads to a lot of problems that could have been easily solved in our build space. Instead we had to work all week creating parts, only to work all weekend at the competition getting them to work correctly.

Access to the robot has no bearing on whether we are away from home/work working on the robot.

Removing the barrier from the robot, and allowing more access to it, is supposed to allow low-mentor resource teams additional time with the robot, so they can keep up with the other teams that don't stop working when the 6-week build is over.

-Adam

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I agree with Adam on this one. I would be less burnt out if the 6 week limitation was removed. As he said, it sucked having to make a bunch of extra stuff to try and make a practice robot work, not to mention wiring another entire robot and making configurations in your software since you don't have identical speed controller/sensors/etc. on both robots. Even after all that effort the practice bot never works quite right so there's even more time spent fixing those issues.

Additionally, most of the my burnout stems from having to leave work early and work until late at night because we have an artificial 6 week deadline. If I could work my normal schedule and get home at a reasonable time for another week, I would prefer that over the craziness that happens in the latter stages of the build season.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

National Instruments? A group there designs things like iPhone-controlled cars and real-life Mario Kart games.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Something I think is relevant to the discussion. Here in America, professional sports leagues have things like salary caps and playoffs which keep competition level and largely prevent "powerhouse" teams from winning the title year after year. As an example, the past 10 Super Bowls have been won by 7 different teams. Over in European soccer leagues, they don't have any of that, the top team after the regular season wins the league. Here is the same statistic for the top 4 leagues:

• England - 4 teams
• Spain - 3 teams
• Germany - 5 teams
• Italy - 3 teams

Less teams win, but it can be argued much more strongly that the best team in each of these leagues won the title each year. I would have to say that FRC is much closer to the NFL in this regard. Divisions, alliances, and eliminations ensure that we have different champions every year, and the widely regarded "best team" doesn't always win.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Sorry, Adam, but I must disagree. I believe it's known as Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the allotted time.

What I mean is this: Expand the season to 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 weeks, and I'm willing to bet that you will STILL spend multiple hours a day, multiple days a week, every week, trying to iterate a newer and better item, reworking the robot between Week 1 and your first competition when you realize that your design isn't working out, doing a lot of things to make the robot perform better, or even just driver practice.

The ONLY thing that will be different is... wait for it...

... You'll have your competition robot to do it on. That means you don't need to build a practice robot. Assuming that you did that after bag day anyway (or before building the competition robot), you really aren't saving that much wear and tear on yourself, because you're still running into the "Just one more tweak" from 3 or 4 different directions, which leads to more late nights, more nights, later nights...


Basically, what I'm saying is that by allowing teams to work longer, they will do just that, resulting in even more burnout. It's just human nature. I would almost go so far as to say that it won't help the teams you're trying to help, it'll hurt them. Almost.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I think an important thing to highlight in this conversation is that many of the stories provided describe a progression of improvement over a couple of years. Al described this in some of his initial posts where he talked about 341's focus around 2009 and on. I'm sure teams like 341 set small goals (probably this time of year) that they can use to build on annually to get them to another level. No huge amount of change is going to happen over night or from one year to the next. Patience and commitment will pay off.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

(I forgot I had this until just now)


I'm sorry but if you are seriously going to bash a team for any reason you have no place in the FIRST community at all.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I would just like to say that I too at one point thought the same way ("elite teams are mentor built", "They're all rich (I mean just look at that paint job that turns out to be just spraypaint!)" and ect.) I'm fairly certain that my entire team thought the same way. And we did horrible year after year after year.

With our lead mentor leaving this past year and a new guy coming in that had no experience with first, I somewhat took over in the summer and tried to turn this around not only for my team but for myself. We met in the local library over the summer, running workshops, writing letters to sponsors, and working our butts off to get somewhere. We managed to nab an incredible sponsor with amazing machining resources (they even donate some materials!) that we could never dream of having before. Now that the season is over we find ourselves with our first blue banner.

The students even turned around from "Its not our fault we stink, everyone else is just too good" to "These are the problems within our team, lets fix them". Right now we're working with the school board to improve our situation in the school (an actual robot room w/ machines!) and addressing team structure issues.

Its amazing what a little good ol' fashioned hard work and dedication can accomplish. Hats off, 341. Keep it up. You're an inspiration to the rest of us, its a shame some people don't take advantage of that.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Naturally there will be more repeat champions in a ~30 team league than a ~2500 team league. The fact that a number of teams have won multiple championships in the past decade is ridiculous as it is.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I don't want to drag this out, and maybe it's a topic of discussion for a different thread...

But, I can't believe that a "lower" level team having 24/7 access to their robot to practice with, iterate, etc... could be anything but a good thing.

I understand that will lead to more time committment and work for them, if they choose to continue to fill the time. But, is that worse than not having access to their robot and showing up to competition after competition not being able to execute the designed game tasks?

Maybe they needed another week to get a shooter working, or get a climber or drivetrain adjusted. It's pretty hard to do major adjustments and tweaking at a competition.

With more access to the robot, do they have to meet every day....or can they meet every other day? Can they adjust their schedules to get more time with the machine, but also a better mix of time at work and home as well?

As I said before, the top teams are already doing more anyways with a practice bot. 2056 and 1114 are practicing 4-5hrs every day. 254 is re-designing an already awesome climber to be even better. 67 is trying to get partially functioning climber working to it's full potential. This is already happening.

Basically, when there is work to be done...we put in whatever time is required to get it done. Example - Last year we rolled out of the gate at Waterford and the robot was essentially "perfect". After that we did not mess with it or tweak it at all (outside of some minor autonomous improvements), all season. This year was different. We were not ready and continued to work all season to get to the point we wanted to get too. We (67) are going to do what it takes to attempt to meet our goals. If we don't need to do more work, we won't. If we need too we will.

We've talked about raising the floor. Giving the "floor" more access to their machine does exactly that. Jim Zondag has data that shows more competitions and more access to the robot leads to better performance.

Will it just create a mean shift of performance for all teams? Yeah, most likely, but it may also tighten up the difference between the best and worst teams. We are probably approaching the limits on how much better the best teams can get.

This thread just seems weird to me, that a discussion about how 341 worked harder to be better, leads to an arguement that handicapping the best teams and restricting access (not having more access) to the robot for lower level teams is for the betterment of FIRST's mission.

IDK, maybe my perspective is just one sided.

-Adam

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I have had the same thoughts about this for a while. If you take out the need for teams to build a practice robot it saves a ton of resources and tightens up the competiton.

"Six Weeks" is a fallacy now anyways. It's really six weeks to build 75% of your robot (by weight).

And software isn't included so if you want to keep up with the "elite" or just have auto code that works you need to build a practice robot so you have a platform to test your code on.

And bumpers and controls aren't included, so you don't need to worry about them until after bag day...

So when does "Build Season" stop exactly?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I want in on this topic as well- so I'm going to make a new thread.

-Brando

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Once again no multi-quote thingy... really need to learn that trick.
Wins really don't matter regarding team bashing. What matters is how well the team being bashed appears to do. To continue using a sports analog, but changing sports to hockey because it is awesome and I don't know spit about football, look at the red wings. They are the single most hated (and loved) team in the NHL, but they only have 11 Stanley cups. Compare that to Montreal which has 24. The difference is that the wings have made the playoffs for what 23 seasons straight and are always at the top of the league.

Blue banners don't breed contempt. Not getting a shot at it when others almost always have a shot at it does. This is another reason that districts are good, more blue banners + semi-same number of events per team = more shots.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Protip, just copy the [quote] tag that appears at the top of your text field when you quote someone

In this example,
[quote=Ivan Malik;1272186]

Then copy and paste whatever you want to quote after that, then close it with a [/quote]

[quote=Ivan Malik;1272186]Blue banners don't breed contempt.[/quote]

Saw this in another thread, so I'll cross-post it here without the poster's name:
O_o
I think the rest of this thread already sums up why this thought is patently wrong, but the above post was made after the inception of this thread, so I think it speaks to the general nature of the students/parents/mentors who make these generalizations.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

It is very sad when I see/hear people making statements such as the one that Aviana quoted. I have to wonder if the person making the statement is using the "superior resources" of teams such as 118 as an excuse for not having put in as much hard work or thought as the elite teams do. It saddens me to see/hear this since this attitude will most likely hold back the person holding this point of view.

I noticed that on Thursday and Friday evening at CMP the teams that were still working in their pits were the teams that eventually won and the teams that everyone was putting their money on. They were either making improvements or doing maintenance work. When the team members are so willing to back up their passion with hard work, success is inevitable. This is true in so many fields. If there is to be a stereotype of successful teams, this should be it.

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

Hi, we are a 3rd year team and work out of a 2-car garage and build our robot out of 1/4-20 bolts and aluminum extrusion. We worked really really hard, used a solid strategy and design process, and after countless iterations of our robot's design we won our division at championship.

NASA or not, you can strive to be the best you can.

The Robonauts have an incredible group of friendly, dedicated, and inspired kids. They recruited more and more students- and have a huge, well organized team that inspires the FIRST world year after year. Why would you ever hold that against them?

Re: The Stereotyping of Successful Teams
 

I love your guys' story. It's so inspiring, especially after Einstein with you this year. 303, too -- I don't know their whole story, but they went through a lot of sponsor & school changes in like 2007...and now they host their own district event! 1640's moved homes like 11 times in 9 years. I'm sure there are so many amazing that touch down on Einstein each year.

I think we should have a site to archive these team stories together.
Particularly for Worlds' award winners (HoF, EI, engineering and team awards, Einstein, etc), but really for everyone. It'd be a great place to direct the perhaps under-educated in our community to gain a lot of inspiration.