Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Wow, what a shift in topic!

For the past few years, FRC has has picked up on sports analogies as a means of inspiration by making the games rather sportlike (half have balls, and most have defense), and has supported worldwide integration and sports-hype through the crowning of a single championship alliance each year.

This year, the game is definitely non-sports-like. I had accepted this as an anomaly, a one-year-in-four placement (rather than throwing) game. The introduction of two separate championships looks like a solid step into systematically diluting the competition aspect of FRC.

In a world with two (and later probably more) championships, I see two possibilities:

1. Teams are assigned a priori to compete for a specific championship. This will result in two separate "Leagues" that (at present) will not have a "World Series" or "Super Bowl". It would also further confuse the "interleague games" when a team from one division decides to travel to the other division's turf. (Do you forbid this? OBTW, if you select based on event, what happens to teams that qualify in both leagues?)
2. Teams are randomly assigned to one or the other championship as they qualify. This will probably result in even worse "over-pre-booking" of hotel rooms by the powerhouse teams (here defined as teams that reasonably expect to qualify for championships each year).

At the end of the day, there doesn't seem to be a solution to the latest solution, at least not yet.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

What if the students on another team find it inspiring to work side by side with their mentors on the robot? Why do so many people involved with this program feel the need to impose their opinions and practices on other teams?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The answer to your second question, Dave, is arrogance. If someone wants student-only build culture on your team, great. YOU DO YOU. But, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be brought down to your level because the ideology of majority of FIRST doesn't match up with yours. But as for myself, and many others, the students that I've worked with embrace full collaboration, because they want to see all the possibilities in engineering a world-class robot; and to bring everything the team can, to be not only the best team, but the best future engineers they can be.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

There is a huge difference of working side by side and mentors building the robot for them.

Why do adults find the need to be on a drive team for a veteran team? If First wants to get more kids involved then let more kids be involved by leading their teams in competitions. It needs to become a culture to let kids design, build and compete in First Competitions.

Do teachers take the test for their students??

First needs to get back to basics on why this was developed, not for adults but for our kids.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Here you go, Don. This seems to be more your style. It's a great organization, and no mentors ever design or build the robot.

http://www.bestinc.org

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I am amazed at how many people can't answer a question but want to tell you what to do.

I asked a simple question and have not gotten an answer.

The question was: " Why do adults find the need to be on a veteran teams drive team?"

Maybe people just need to see the definition or mentor. So here .
mentor
noun men·tor \ˈmen-ˌtȯr, -tər\
: someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sometimes, the need presents itself. Students sometimes need game-time guidance from an on-the-field mentor. (Oh gosh, someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person; do you think would this fit the description? Do ya?) Being a coach in no way means you're taking the test for them. Here's an example. And another example. And another example. I just gave examples from the sports world, and our own world on how coaches aren't taking the test. They'll assist in making sure that students are well prepared to take the test; but in reality, the three students' individual decisions will decide whether you go home with a blue banner, or end up looking from the outside in on the celebration. The coaches I highlighted help their players/students to realize that, as well as become independent in their own right to make in-game decisions to become elite. Everyone has their own opinion on what the basics really are. But few are the ones that actually understand and realize the definition of what the basics are. What the mission and vision of FIRST is.

Now, I realize that there are some overbearing coaches in FIRST. Sucks. Sorry. But, another fun fact: you can be an active part in changing the culture on your team. If you want to change the interactions between your mentors and yourself, sit down and talk with them. But if your only solution is changing everyone's situation so that they miss out on an opportunity to learn and succeed, just because you don't have the cajones to do what's needed; that's just hella shameful.

Maybe you're just making excuses. That's what I think. Michael Jordan said it best. People that want they want hard enough, work to make that a reality. Few want to put that above-the-level work in. That's why only few become legendary, few become immortalized.

So, you think that change on your own team can make you legendary? Great. Try that for yourself, and tell us how it works out. But remember the actual mission of FIRST, and the vision of FIRST:

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission:
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The students asked me to.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Are you not also bothered by adults contributing to the strategy, design, and construction? From your posts it seems you explicitly stated that.

But to answer you question about drive team.

(A) adults don't drive, and they may not interact with referees. They may serve as coaches on the field.
(B) because students may need a mature presence to help them focus, or to prevent them from overreacting to setbacks in the heat of competition.
(C) to increase communications between alliance partners.
(D) other.

All that is from my own experience as drive coach. This year, a senior student took over the role and it worked out great, but I was prepared to step in if needed. But I can only speak for myself and my team; who are you trying to speak for? Run your team according to your best practices. If you can't stand seeing what you think are other teams doing otherwise, then I don't know what to tell you. I've already given you a link to an organization (which my team also participates in, by the way) that more closely aligns with what you've expressed.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

What a great idea! I'm on my way to talk to the football coach to tell him he is no longer needed. This may catch on...... He says tongue in cheek.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

This again?! To anyone else who might not already know this: this topic has been discussed to death many times before. Please use the search function to see previous opinions on it instead of bringing it up again, especially right before champs when everyone is tired and stressed.

Some teams (like mine) have students as drive coaches. Some teams don't. It's up to individual teams to decide what works best for their team. If a team decides an adult drive coach is best, it is their choice and they have the right to make it. If students learn from and are inspired by their adult drive coaches, they're getting as much from FIRST as anyone else.

Do adult drive coaches drive the robots?
Do students teach themselves the subjects?

What if kids can learn more and be more inspired by working closely with adults who have more experience than they do?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I've debated back and forth on this one. For our team, we made it to Einstein with a student drive coach in 2013, and we made it to Einstein in 2014 with a mentor drive coach.

The biggest difference? Our student coach had to focus pretty much on our team and more narrowly on the roles of the other alliance members. Our mentor coach was able to step back and coach the other alliance members, even before the matches. Having a mentor coach allows us to reach out to other teams more directly which I think benefits a broader spectrum of the community.

I'll also say the drive coach is in that grey area between direction and playing, so there's not a bright line. We've used student coaches at off season events recently.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

When the two season finale event plan first came up around a student I was talking with, I first had to convince him that it was really true. He didn't believe me.

When I finally convinced him that there would be no world championship in 2017, his response was "Don't they understand that this is a sport?"

As I have said elsewhere, I don't have a real opinion on whether or not we should have a world championship. (I refuse to even discuss the possibility that we will have two world championships. That's self contradictory.) I can see why cost factors and school schedules might make a single world championship impossible as First grows. I don't know of any other high school competition that has a world championship, and not many have national championships, for exactly the same reason. Those calculations involve too many factors for me to weigh in on.

However, I do have an opinion on the sporting aspect. I think it's very important to maintain the sport connection, and to treat FRC as a sport. I think that's why it works. I'm hoping the 2016 game goes back to something more sport-like.

As for having a single world championship versus two - - league championships? Sports fans, and players, like world championships, and that should be one factor, but only one, in the decision.

I think the final decision should be driven by consideration of a recent slogan associated with First. "Make it loud!" Make it loud enough that people who aren't present in the stadium will notice it. That's why I've ended a few posts lately with "think outside the walls."

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

It's AMAZING how a discussion of "Does multiple World Championships hurt the mission of FIRST, to inspire students"... turns into the age old Mentor-built vs. student-built argument. Honestly people. Haven't we talked about that topic enough yet? (No!)

CD has a search function; please use it.



Back to the Topic at hand. If FIRST really wants to achieve ALL it missions (inspire while still being indeed a competition), then they are absolutely right when they say that allowing more teams to progress is the key. Seeing the best of the best is so awesome and so motivational to do better. But if they don't want to make the competition side of things a complete joke, there needs to be one undisputed Champion (looking at you, 20th century college football).

The obvious solution (to me it's obvious) is to make the Championships (soon to be plural) local/regional championships, and hold one Grand Championship of the Championships.

...Oh wait, districts already do that...

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

This thread has diverged from it's topic to a perennial favorite controversy that has pages and pages of it's own posts...can I ask that we do the quick search on adult coaches - and post in one of the many threads already dedicated to that subject?

Regarding the "Clash of Objectives" I had a quick conversation with my Regional Director the other day - and was surprised to find that she was in favor of the Championsplit idea...On reflection, however, it made more sense that those in the positions of "providing" the program are more likely to favor the idea, where those who "receive" the program may be more opposed. In my opinion the providers want to get that experience out to more teams, while the customers tend toward liking the experience being a more exclusive thing.

A clash of objectives may be exactly the issue. My fear is that an outcome that favors the FIRST HQ vision of what's best will do so at the expense of the FIRST Team vision of what's best. Both of which are valid, and both of which were nicely coexisting before this season. FIRST is either sure that they are right, or don't care (which I refuse to believe). While they are asking for input, survey responses, and a town hall forum - each of these requests is preceded by "In 2017 there WILL BE two championships..." I'm not so sure they are right, and I'm kind of hurt that the tremendous backlash of opinion hasn't resulted in language like "Beginning with 2017, we are still considering holding two championships, but realize now there may be other alternatives. Let's talk."