Quote:
Originally Posted by eyu100
...so I guess I'm actually asking a question - is it better to help teams get resources, or to help them improve in other ways? I honestly don't know.
|
Perhaps "losers" "lose" in part because the "winners" aren't spending as much time with them as they could be?
I think the ultimate "loss" is a team
ceasing to exist after their first year or two because their initial funding runs out, and they've done nothing (and/or no one has taken the time to show them how) to become self-sustainable over that time period.
In a majority of cases, a young team failing miserably on the field is a big giant warning sign that they could be headed for the ultimate loss: self-termination. Very few young teams "get it" in all other aspects of FIRST outside the robot without at least being able to field a somewhat-capable machine. I met a bunch of rookie teams in TN filled with very nice people; however, in the cases of the teams with the worst robots, there were at most two adults leading them, and it was obvious those adults were in over their heads,
nor had they had the benefit of any veteran team guidance prior to their arrival at the competition. These teams are always appreciative of veterans at the events who help them get out on the field and compete, but I can't help but think that if the veteran teams in their own region would have spent just a bit more time with them during their first year, their experience would have been MUCH more productive, fun, and inspiring. We need more regional collaboration among teams, and anything FIRST and veteran teams can do to facilitate such collaboration would be monumentally helpful.
In other cases, you see veteran teams that have a long history of competitive failure and uninspiring robots. These are teams who continue to get funding somehow but who lack the leadership needed to grow their resources and use that funding efficiently. These are the teams who frustrate you to no end, because they are often led by stubborn types who refuse to admit they need any help, even if you offer it to them. You grit your teeth at the vast amount of money being wasted on such forcibly inefficient enterprises, and you feel bad for the kids trapped within such programs. The only solution here is to keep smacking their team leaders upside the head with common sense until they relent and accept your input.
So yes, it is MUCH better to show teams the best methods of obtaining more resources, to continue applying positive, constant pressure on them by periodically checking on their progress, and to show them how to better use the resources they already have at their disposal.
Once we understand WHY "losers lose", instead of continuing to marvel at them like they are some freak show exhibit, we must then ask ourselves, "OK - so what are we going to DO to help them become winners?" I think a concerted effort by FIRST and its experienced teams to
pay more attention to young and at-risk teams, not only during the offseason, but dare I suggest, during the build season, would help alleviate many problems, providing reassurance and confidence to new mentors that they have their teams heading in the right direction. It doesn't take much.
A whole other can of worms involves hooking up veteran teams with
potential rookie teams to help them determine if they should even start an FRC team in the first place. If we're asking teams to fully understand what they are capable of given their existing level of resources, then I imagine the answer they'd arrive at in many cases would be to start slow and form an FTC or VRC team instead.