One coach rule
 

Im not overly happy about the one coach rule, and speaking for my self I will explain.
We are very lucky to have a reasonably large amount of very dedicated adults who work very close with the students. They each deserve their moment in glory and to expierience the joy of being on stage, They worked for it and deserve it.
At a normal regional you might get 8 games and that would mean that only 8 adults get the chance to be on stage, When there were 2 coaches then 16 adults got to enjoy the thrill. We even had sponsors get the chance to go up on stage.
I really dont think in the 2 minutes of the game that adults make that much of a diference as the game plan is going to go the way its going to go. One good reason to have an extra adult on the stage is to help the students get off the field safely as many times when the team wins the students go into balistic mode, not that the adults dont but to a lesser degree.
I hope F.I.R.S.T. will reconsider this poor move or some adults may think that theres no reward for all the hard work they have done, now before every one shoots down my "Reward" word I only want you to understand that its a "Reward" as an EXTRA perk. I love the perks of being on stage, it makes me feel like a kid again.
Nick237....... 237 is the team # not my age.

see this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&threadid=1486

As I said in a previous post, the need to keep track of points this year just as in 2000 magnifies the need for a second coach/mentor or whatever. I believe this game requires the extar coach and thus this was the wrong year to reduce the number of people in the driver station.

I am not necessarily arguing that it should be two adult coaches. Some teams prefer strictly students as coaches. The point is to have the extra person up there to help keep track of whether you are winning or losing and by how much. And, of course, the idea of giving one more person, whether student or adult, a chance to experience being on stage is very important as perk or reward.

Raul

With a few exceptions for single matches, our team has always used a 5 student team. Only occasionally did we let an adult on.
I personally think that two coaches are necessary, be they students or adults, due to the need to keep track of the field as a whole for strategy to work best.

keeping track of the score
 

There are 2 coaches per alliance, they should be able to communicate pretty well... One of them could be used to keep track of the score... the human player could also be used in this respect (when he/she isn't busy lobbing halfcourt shots to even out the score).

I think this year we're gonna have to work on (just like in 2000) merging 2 team's "field crews" into one effectively working unit.

but... since it looks like I'm gonna be the coach... I wouldn't mind some help :D Im not sure If I want the kind of pressure that comes with coaching alone.

~JVN
Strategy Head, and reluctant coach for team 229
Clarkson U

I'm with Nick ....
 

I'm gonna stick my neck waaaaay out there with this statement but I believe that:

FIRST isn't ONLY about the students.......


There, I said it, now let me explain a little.

I'm here to tell you (especially those who want the adults held to minimal involvement) that we mentors often get "life changing experiences" when we experience the thrill of participating in a positive way with our students on the field. It is an experience I have never been able to justify with words. I've been elected to be a coach every year that out team has been in existence (5 years so far) and every time I go to the field, I fall deeper into my commitment to the values of FIRST. I always used the second coaching position to involve other team mentors and students so that they too can experience the thrill of the "Floor". The sounds, the point of view, the excitement, the thrill of victory, and the aggony of defeat are far more intensive when experience inside those white lines on the carpet. Just ask anyone who's been there.

If FIRST or the FIRST community continually detract from the "payoffs" of this experience, I fear that good folks may leave the program and that would be unfortunate. All of the mentors want to be important in some way at some level. To say they are not welcome or in some in-direct way say that they are not important would jeopardize their involvement. We all have ego's, it's a normal thing.

Once again, This isn't a student robot contest. It's a challenge to inspire students. Do this in whatever way your team chooses but don't write rules to limit the options.

Just my humble opinion.

I'll step off the box now........ :)

Quick questions amid confusion
 

Ok so the only people you can have in the player station is a coach two operators and a human player right. Out of these people you can have 3 students and an adult or four students. It seems to me that alot of the strategy this year is going to have to be taught to the drive team as now only one coach is going to be able to tell the kids what to do. People are saying use the human player to keep track of the game but he or she can't do that because he or she is launching balls at goals for the game plus a human player is always positioned in the back of the player station therefore they really can't see the development of the game. I believe that an excellent scouting team and an intelligent drive team is the key to victory this year.


Todd who sees a foreshadowing of watching qualification matches the night before the elimination rounds in the hotel room in Florida!!!!!!

now for my 2 cents.

The students are ninnies. But so are the coaches too.

This is both a good thing for some teams, and a bad thing for others. On my team, it was simple. One coach was there to strategize, the other was to coach the students on what NOT to do on the robot (dont break it, or dont overdo something).

On occassion, the students may come up with a strategy. But on some teams, the students arent that bright. On some teams coaches might fight. And on others, coaches might be too forceful. Though adults probably will not fight, students might.

So it is a mixed blessing. I still think they should not have done it. I think FIRST should ask us before they make major decisions like these.

After all, isnt this our competition too?

-anton

If my memory serves me correctly, this very topic was brought up at the MI team forum...it was a very heated discussion over whether there should be adults in the driver station...several possible solutions were presented(none of which I remember right now), but it appears they may have tried to take a middle ground by eliminating one person from the field team, rather than explicitely saying "one coach must be a student."

This Rule Inhales Audibly
 

Ed Sparks, I congratulate you on sticking your neck out and saying what many of us also feel.

This rule sucks for many reasons. IT DOES NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS! Or, at least it creates more problems than it solves. I will not list them all since many have already stated them in some form or another.

FIRST, if you are listening, I hope your reconsider!

I even have to change my title from "Engineer/Coach on #111" to "Engineer on #111"!:(

Raul

Honestly, I'm relatively insulted with what you people expect out of the students. Last year, I was the driver for my team. We had two adult mentors out for most of the matches, with a student programmer replacing one of the adults every now and then when we had potentiometer issues. The coaches job was to make sure the me and the other operator were aware of other things happening on the field that were not near our robot. They also helped count down time for us as well. I was the one who strategized with the other teams. I don't see how teams could do it any other way. The impression that I get in some of these posts is that adults need to be there in case something doesn't work that someone who knows about the robot could be there to know what's going on. I knew as much about last year's robot as most of our mentor's.

~Tom Fairchild~, who was a driver and a student and still knew everything about his bot.

edit: I feel like I should tag a little extra onto this post. Usually it was when mentors got involved in strategy talks that we got into problems. Yes, I realize that coaches also do many more valuable things, especially this year when they can keep track of score, but have a little faith in us "children." We'll do just fine.

One coach rule
 

Since FIRST reads these forums, I figure that the more people that complain, the more likely things will change. Therefore:

I agree with everything from Nick, Raul, and Ed Sparks. Ed really hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. The time I spend with the students during the matches is what keeps me energized throughout this whole thing. I would hate to have that taken away. I hope FIRST reconsiders this and makes a change before the first regional.

Ed and Rau, I agree with you
 

Ed and Raul, now that you have 'stuck your necks out,' I will do so as well.

I am now starting my seventh year as an engineer/mentor with our team. I have been involved because I feel that I am helping kids develop an interest in science and technology, but I have other, selfish reasons as well. I like being involved in competitions with machines, whether robots, model airplanes, or cars, and I like being "where the action is." The closest you can get to that as an adult member of a FIRST team is to be an on-field coach. I really like being in that position during matches, just as Woody likes starting the matches and Dean likes talking about FIRST while standing on his new invention.

I have been a coach for three of my six years on our team. I have earned the position largely because I "know the robot" and how it performs better than the other potential coaches, and I generally get along well with the students. I have lead the testing and evaluation our driver candidates most of my years of participation.

The bottom line is this. I am one of many adult mentors within FIRST who like being on stage during matches, and who feels that we have "earned" the chance to be there. There are a lot more of us than one per team. It is highly likely that with a "one coach" rule, I would never have had that opportunity because I am not the best negotiator on our team, and because I am not in an official "team leadership" position on the team. If there were only one coach, I would not have been that person, and I think I can safely say that, had I not had the opportunity to be a coach those three years, I would have "faded away" from involvement with our team years ago.

I don't expect to be "the" coach this year, not do I care too much because I have had my chance in previous years. We have other people on our team who would do a better job than I would in some ways, and who deserve the opportunity. The reason I agree strongly with Raul that 'this rule sucks' is that, had it been in place six years ago, it is very unlikely that I would still be involved in FIRST, and I am far from the only adult mentor who would be affected this way.

Lets all go have fun now.

Less coaches = less returning engineers
 

When TRW Automotive Electronics started a FIRST team, we had a number of engineers who volunteered their time. However, the time commitment is significant, and only a small core of engineers has returned year after year, until this core is basically all that remains. If the one coach rule had been in effect from the beginning, this core would probably be 2 engineers smaller or so. I imagine it would be a short time before we no longer had enough engineering support for a team. Is the 1 coach rule really helping the students? Perhaps in the short term by reducing the number of strategists, but I sincerely doubt that this will be positive in the long term. Was this the main goal of reducing the number of participants on the field? Probably. Will the trade-offs be worth it in the end? I suspect not.