Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

The few posts I think that have real merit to the top 1/3rd of teams getting much better with an open season are those that believe they would build entirely new robots for championship. We see this in VEX a lot yet rarely is it the team that copies someone that is winning the World Titles but I guess the meta-game of trying to beat the current fad copy machine could be a bad thing.

However I just don't think this will happen in FRC or at least not at the scale that it happens in VEX. It's just much harder and resource intensive to copy most mechanisms in FRC and get them right. If the game allows for something very simple to be copied that dramatically improve effectiveness then teams will do it and already are Minibots, ball magnets, etc. However I just don't think many teams would see something like 1114's climb in Week 2 and have a duplicate/improved machine ready to go for championship. There are teams that are good enough, have the machining capabilities and drive to do this sort of drastic overall and rebuilds and some of them do it now. However since you can't build an entire FRC robot in a weekend or at least not one that can compete for a world title like you can in the smaller robot competitions I don't think you will see nearly that many direct copy robots or even complete rebuilds.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Let's look at this from a pure competition standpoint because I believe that much "burnout" occurs in competition due to the fact that many teams want their students to at least field a competitive robot so that their team does not lose say 125-10 and feel that their efforts ment very little as far as being competitive playing the game. So now let me ask a question to either alliance captains or their first pick that had won regionals this year.

Did any team end up winning a regional as an alliance captain or first round pick while not building a practice robot or keeping their withholding allowence under 5 lbs.? For teams in a district setting I would ask the teams this same question for those that qualified for championships based on robot performance.

If the total amount of teams that answer yes to this question is over 60% of the total amount of regional winners and district qualifers then I say we keep bag and tag. If it is under 60% I would say that we eliminate bag and tag to give us underfunded teams a chance.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Of the last several pages, this stood out to me the most.
This is every bit true for me and I'm sure many others!
I dont live a balance lifestyle. For me, I have to add my 4 year old daughter, wife and immediate family to that list of things that get neglected.
I do blood tests every 3 months, and my diet is at its worst, during build season and while we travel.

During any event, I ignore the lunch and dinner schedules. All that matters is when our next match is!

Sounds bad, but this is reality.


On the other hand, Joe brought up some good points about working smarter and NOT harder. I think in general, our team does that. However, if we plan to take the next step and make those hard decisions to take greater chances in robot design, we'd have to be even smarter about it.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

For all of your arguing that we should go to an open season and for the purposes of spreading out the work, since many of us have already commented that we wouldn't, what about going back to my original idea of mandating a "FIRST Teams may work 6 (or 5) days per week, and must declare a consistent non-work day".

I'd be more inclined to be in favor of a longer build season if there was no legal way to work more than 5 or 6 days per week. So long as teams are free to work as many days and as many hours as you can, teams will, and we will to remain competitive.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I just don't see how this is any different from it is now. There are a few teams that already work 7 days a week for 4 months and most of them aren't world champions. Yet there are teams that work 4 or 5 days a week and constantly produce top 25 robots in the world. I strongly believe there is a limit to how much time can really help in terms of getting from 90% to 99% in terms of robot quality. You could give some teams half as much time as everyone else and they would still build a world class robot, they have been doing it longer and just are better at than other teams.

However, getting from the bottom 20% to the middle of the pack, time can make a huge difference.

My team meets nearly everyday, but that's not because we think we have to if we want to compete to be world champions. It's because we like seeing each other and I believe it's good for the program. Every team has their reasons for doing what they do.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Indeed. That's why I'm also for a severe limitation (or elimination) of withholding allowance.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I can certainly confess to this Glenn, It has gotten so bad that the parents have actually assigned someone to make sure that I eat.
It is simply in my nature to be competitive and to give my students 100% of my effort.

It isn't so much about the winning... it is about the competing.

I can tell you that the key to having more balance in the mentor/coaches lives is to create a really good parent/mentor/coaching system by giving everyone something of value to do and to celebrate that.

I don't think switching a few hours/days/regulations here or there or forcing change on the FIRST system will do anything to reduce the "mentor burnout". It will always be there no matter how much time is allowed. Of course it might help individuals one way or the other... but it is not a real solution to this "problem"

Our team has been blessed with a wonderful group of mentors and parents...it allows us to do things that other teams have difficulty doing. If everyone gets the same amount of time... teams that have this kind of support are going to do better. It is really that simple.

Invest your off season time... gain support from somewhere...find people who want to volunteer... make them part of your team... Time spent doing this will solve so many problems that you have..

What you are doing is incredibly interesting and it has great value.. and its a great deal of fun for mentors and students alike... let it shine... make it loud... reap the benefits... How many times have you heard
" I wish they had a program like this when I was in school..."
Well NOW they can be in this program....

Don't just say " Our team has no mentors.... we can't find any more"...go out and tell people about your team... you will find supporters... once you have a few... getting more will be easier and easier...

The one thing you can't do is just sit back and wait for them to appear.
Or expect someone else to do it for you.

Make it happen...

sorry for the soap box... You may now return to your scheduled broadcasting...

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I am not sure I agree. I believe the top 5% or 10% of teams already make significant use of the time between build and competitions so they may not see as much of a benefit. But there will be some, and I know these teams would find even more ways to take advantage of the extra time. Probably the top 20% or even 30% could benefit more from a longer season, and are also likely to be in a position to take advantage of it. But from what I have seen of the bottom 20% or perhaps even the bottom 40 or 50% is that many of these teams are mostly resource and mentor limited. These teams are in the worst position to take advantage of any extra time. I believe that making the season longer is more likely to cause them to fall further behind the pack and become less inspired. If you really want FIRST to become more competitive this is the area that really needs to be addressed.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

In my opinion, I think Mr. Gregory summed it up pretty nicely. It's not so much time that teams need, (although I think a 7th week might help quite a bit, rarely do I see even from the top FRC teams a bot ready to go week 1) but it's the motivation to want to be better that is required. FRC is a serious time commitment, and I'm having a tough time believing that teams won't make efforts to squeeze every bit of time out that they can. Again, it's a choice, but I think more teams will try to use it all rather than use it effectively.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I've been doing this for years, with mixed success. I'm not sure that the vast majority of people appreciate what living twenty miles from a stoplight really means in terms of running an FRC team.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

On our team the students have figured out that when I'm sick our team has an amazing competition/wins awards. I typically skip breakfast/lunches at events because food isn't the priority at the moment!

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

This argument reminds me of what Karthik is fond of saying, though -- that you can increase your relative competitiveness either by raising your own team up, or by dragging the best teams down.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

It's not dragging the best down - their absolute performance might be worse than it is with the current ruleset or a official longer build period, but they're still going to win. It's not like proposed (as in, often proposed in whiny threads on CD) rules against spending, tools, sponsors, or shop-built robots that would disproportionately hit elite teams. 1114 was great in 2003 (I was there) when there was no withholding allowance, and they're great now. Their relative performance would almost certainly not change. But everyone's mentors and teachers would see their families more, and you'd have an easier time retaining teachers (having been on several teams where the massive time commitment has put a strain on the teachers involved).

To put it another way:
-A build season that was actually 6 weeks long would remove exactly the same amount of build time from every team rich or poor, big or little. We all get the same amount of time.
-Rules against spending or tools or sponsors or high-end COTS components or software disproportionately fall upon top-end teams, and would more fall under the quote of "trying to drag others down".

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Part of the hard part in being competitive in nearly everything has been getting myself to trust the other mentors on my team who do not share in the same philosophies with respect to designing for and playing an FRC game (CAD first, we only have self-imposed restrictions, #35 chain on the drive train IS ok, etc). My wife has been paramount in helping me let go of decisions that shouldn't matter to me to begin with. That type of thing definitely helped reduce stress when thinking pessimistic thoughts out loud concerning the smaller robot size constraints while CAD'ing at home.

For the first time in 5 seasons, we will have a significant amount of our students returning next year. I hope it will help reinforce lessons learned with the adults come next year.

New mentors are sometimes a mixed bag the first season (especially with alpha-types). It also helps (I think) that I am finally no longer mistaken for a student by new mentors* :rolleyes: In retrospect, after everyone survives a season with others' personalities, new mentors can definitely become the people us competitive vets lean on at critical times in future years.

*Still happened once this year, even though I just turned 30 in St. Louis...

No soapbox there -- that's genuine inspiration.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I'm lost in the comparison. Isn't the argument that tool/sponsor limits affect top teams because such teams take advantage of them currently? If so, isn't that the exact same case with the withholding allowance? It removes the exact same potential time from all teams, just like limiting tools remove the exact same tool options from all teams. Could you explain further?

I'd also like to point out that pulling the top down is not inherently relative to competitiveness. It could well be absolute: what if no one (ok, fewer, some miracle workers didn't need the extra time/allowance) had pulled off a 7 disc auto? Or a 12 second climb? It might not cut the competitiveness, but it cuts the inspiration. What if Einstein had looked more like Week 1?


To answer nicholsjj, no, we never have. We've been second pick for all our wins except Philly 2011 (alliance captain), made semis as first pick and got skipped in MAR points since we won--every single one involved a practice bot, most involved 10+ lb withholding allowances. We might have pulled Philly off without a practice bot (we basically rode the minibot), but every other one needed it.