Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

OK. With the week 1 competitions about 1 week away, I wanted to ask the CD community-at-large for their opinion on something that has been bothering me. Please note that I know what the FRC rules on the topic are. I'm more interested in the popular view of what the rules should be (after all, it is an ethics question)...

Question 1:
How "Rookie" does a rookie team need to be to be eligible for Rookie All-Star, Highest Rookie Seed, and Rookie Inspiration Award?

Question 2:
Should a team that is rookie in name only bow out of accepting rookie awards?

Details:
Situation 1:
A large well-established team (A) forms a second team (B) for all of their first-year members. They collaborate and mentor the new team, but each team is responsible ultimately for their own designs, fundraising, sponsorship, community involvement, etc. Is (B) a true rookie team? Should they decline consideration for rookie awards?

Situation 2:
A team (C) has a rift (the reason is unimportant) and a number of very experienced members and mentors leave to form a new team (D). The two teams operate independently in all ways. Is (D) a true rookie team? Should they decline consideration for rookie awards?

Situation 3:
A new team (E) is formed in a town with no previous FRC experience. They collaborate via Skype with a more experienced team (F) 200+ miles away. Is (E) a true rookie team? Should they decline consideration for rookie awards?

I know that all three of these situations have occurred either in 2013 or 2014, so the scenarios are not unreasonable. However, at what point should a team graciously bow out of consideration for the rookie awards?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

This situation isn't applicable in my opinion, because a team under this circumstances isn't considered a rookie team.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

The team in Situation 2 generally wouldn't be considered a rookie team either, would it?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Yes it would. If I remember some history, that's kind of how 1592 was formed from 233. And we won a few rookie awards in 2005.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Based off the 2014 Rookie Team criteria, I would say it does as it meets the following lines:

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

I don't see a problem with any of the "rookie" teams in any of those cases winning awards.
2056 is the best example of a "rookie" team that started out with all the experience of a veteran team.
Unfortunately "rookie team" is usually synonymous with "crappy team". More teams should learn from the example of 2056 (and other teams like 4334) and seek the help of a veteran team in their first few years. A group also shouldn't start a team unless they know they have the resources to be successful.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

So you're saying that a prospective team should deny themselves the inspiration and all the other benefits FIRST can bring, just because they may lack some resources?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

All good questions.
In my opinion, Situation 3 is the only rookie team of those examples.
**Edit.. And probably Situation 1 if they are on thier own and only getting advice from the mentor team.

I've heard of another scenario where "team A" is a rookie team (started by some experienced mentors) exists for a couple years, then looses it's school and funding. Then the experienced mentors form a new "team B" somewhere else, and are considered a rookie team and all the rookie benefits. I don't know what they brought with them such as tools, supplies, etc. I assume they started over, not sure.

What do you think about that?

I guess you could argue that anyone, experienced or not, starting a new team for a new organization, needing new funding, equipment, sponsors etc is going to struggle I think.... and should be considered a rookie team.

I haven't read what the criteria is to be a rookie team, these are just my thoughts.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

A prospective team should do some research ahead of time to determine the resources, time commitment, etc. a FRC team requires to reach a level of success they find acceptable (whether that be complete a season, contend for RAS, play in elims, etc.). If they can't reach those amounts of resources, time, etc., there is probably another program that will better serve their needs.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

It must only be defined by FIRST as a rookie team. I've been on and around teams that get the air-quote treatment, and you know what? Experience makes the process of starting a team hardly any easier. We grind just as hard to recruit, to fundraise, to get grants, to do outreach activities without a robot. The only thing a few experienced hands have an advantage with is knowing how big to dream.

See Question 1. There's no such thing.

No, because that team is not considered a rookie team by FIRST. (It's not explicit in the linked rookie criteria, but a combination of items 1 and 3 get it close enough. And in practice, this is what FIRST does. See 11 and 193, among many others.)

If they meet the criteria of Item 6 in the criteria, yes. A couple people who know what they're doing is no substitute for an experienced team.

HECK YES they're a rookie team! Collaboration is just another form of mentoring, and has been established as a perfectly valid approach. You'll have a hard time doing demos, fundraising, and generally getting exposure in the community over Skype.

My stance should be clear by now that a rookie team is a rookie team. The only time 4901 will even entertain standing down is if we win Rookie All-Star at Palmetto (our first event), such that a rookie team at the Orlando Regional (our second) has a chance to reach Championship as well.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

William,

Being the Lead Mentor for FRC 11 & 193, I can tell you that in our case in 2013 FRC 193 was not considered a Rookie Team in the eyes of MAR/FIRST. We were however able to obtain a Rookie KOP from FIRST since on the operational point, they were a "rookie" team and needed the basics to get up and running. We operate 11 & 193 as two separate teams, we help out when needed but both teams operate independent of each other. We're very fortunate that our FRC 193 team is mentored by MORT Alumni who have come back to help our program. It's allowed us to provide a very unique opportunity to our students and in just one year of having this JV team in place we have already seen the benefits for FRC 11.

Had MAR/FIRST allowed 193 to be considered a Rookie Team in 2013, we would have declined as that would have been the right thing to do. We went the route of adding 193 to our MORT family due to the shear numbers of students we have participating and too many freshman/1st year students were not getting the full FIRST experience.

Good Luck in 2014!

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Just curious, but is 193 like a 1st/2nd year MORT member team or can the students pick which team to be a part of?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Beta is run as entirely separate team, with its own goals, decision making process and culture. It consists of first-year freshman and sophomore MORT students, with the intent of giving them hands-on experience that they would otherwise have to compete with upperclassmen for.

After spending a year on 193, Beta students graduate to 11, where they become some of the most productive students on the team.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

I was actually a little surprised when I found this out, but I guess it makes a kind of sense.

So ...

We have agreement that (E) is Rookie. I'd have been surprised otherwise.
We have an example that (B) is New, but not Rookie.
We seem to be looking at Rookie Criteria 6 for (D):
So, I guess if (D) has more than 5 members with prior FRC experience, regardless of their qualification under Criteria 1, they're New, not Rookie?
Would that be correct?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

The easy way to tell if FIRST has been satisfied that the new team meets all the rookie criteria is the team number that they are assigned.

This year for instance, Rookies are only those teams with numbers 4900 and higher.
They are the only teams eligible for rookie awards.

New "veteran" teams, like 193 was last year (rookie #'s started at 4450 last year), are given new team numbers that are below this year's 4900, usually a never been assigned number that is close to any associated parent/sibling team number. None of these new teams are eligible for rookie awards of course.

This year we have 388 rookies eligible for awards and 10 new veteran teams not eligible for rookie awards.
Not eligible new teams:
265
746
1285
1786
3134
3886
4413
4415
4416
4418
4524

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing this information. Why is 5513 considered a non-rookie but has a higher number than 4900?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Because I cannot transcribe. (I see you share my problem :))
It's 44 rather than 55

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

I believe 1285 should be on this list too.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Yes, they should.
Apologies to 1285.

The number had previously attempted to be issued in 2011 for a Sarasota, FL new vet, but they never competed and the number was returned to the never issued fold.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

Ah, but FIRST can only provide that based on the information the team provides. I personally know of a situation where a team above 4900 has received a Rookie Grant and should be excluded from Rookie status based on criteria 6 (over 5 previously competing FRC students) unless a waiver was issued.

However, the original question seems to have been drifted away from, so I'll focus it a little bit....

If a team is awarded Rookie status but has a decided leg-up in experience over other Rookie teams (8 members out of 15 with more than two years each in FRC), should they decline consideration for Rookie awards?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

And these waivers are issued from time to time. 5180 is based at Blythewood HS, where 1959 competed until 2011. In theory, they're within the three years and under the rules would've had to revive the old number. But considering there's only one student even left at the school from that era, the 2011 1959 squad only registered one match win at their lone regional, new teacher in charge, and so on, they apparently succeeded in getting FIRST to agree they're rookies. No disagreement from me.

If they do not meet the criteria of a rookie team and haven't been given an exception from FIRST, then they're not a rookie team. While I've never heard of a team getting renumbered mid-season, I'd hope they would get this across to the judges.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

I personally know of a team issued a number over 4900 that at its inception had 3 students with 3 years experience, 1 student with 2 years experience, and 1 student with one year experience. Now this team has 2 additional students with one year experience and 10 new members. This team formed after a split with an established team due to mentor/student issues. This team has maintained their gracious professionalism and not aired their issues with this previous team nor have they brought their very valid concerns to FIRST.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

The problem with trying to type on CD from my iPhone. :o

Though I've been part of FIRST for 11 years, I did not know that there were different ways to rank "new" FRC teams. I just assumed that a new team was a new team and given rookie status, so this thread is an interesting read for me.

I do know that starting a team, whether with experienced mentors/students or not, is a very difficult thing to do. I've also found that teams often struggle more their 2nd and 3rd years, due to loss of mentoring from other teams.

I'd be hesitant to say that a team should ethically turn down a rookie award without being in their shoes and knowing what they went through to create their team.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question
 

I feel if a team was made and then had to overcome common rookie issues (funding,resources,etc.), even if that means partnering with a veteran team, then they deserve the awards. Say High North wants to help rookie High East, High East is still a rookie team. However, if a team was made from the get go to be a "freshmen" or "2nd" team, then they should disqualify themselves from rookie awards.

So teams started by former members of other teams are still a rookie team if they had to start from scratch.