View Single Post
  #69   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-06-2012, 23:54
BJC's Avatar
BJC BJC is offline
Simplicity is Complicated!
AKA: Bryan Culver
FRC #0033 (The Killer Bees)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Kettering/Greenville
Posts: 708
BJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond repute
Re: IRI Rule Changes - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetraman View Post
Team 0000 is not a good team with a subpar robot. It shoots good 3s and balances great, but lets pretend it's actually 20the in actual standings. Yet throughout qualifications this team was able to scrape up a ton of co-op points and make it to 3rd seed. The only reason this team was able to make it to the 3rd seed was due to the co-op points. And because team 0000 made it to 3rd seed using the rules of the game, they have the right to pick their alliance like all the other powerhouse teams that rocked the event.

So the question is, is having this subpar team 0000 in 3rd seed a mistake? Would having this team as 3rd seed be ruining the statement that "Only the best teams at the regional should be seeded"?

No. Using the rules of the game this team was able to make it to 3rd seed. Other seeded teams will refuse this 3rd seed left and right, as no one believes (or knows) that they can ever stand a chance winning with this 3rd seeded team, but still even after 4th-8th reject them they still get the right to pick yet again until they form an alliance to compete in the elimination matches.

This is my point - by removing the co-op points you alienate a group of robots who were able to reach a top seed because of those points. In effect, you are punishing those subpar teams from having the luck to gather points and end up in the top seed all for the sake of maintaining an ethos that "only the best robots at the event should be a top seeded team."

Granted the best robots at the event should be top seed, but in the same way one team maintained a top seed by scoring an amazing amount of points (as part of the game) another robot should be allowed to place top seed because of their skill with wrangling up enough co-op points (as part of the game).


Thats great. Our team does that too with mixed and minimal results. It's just how it ends up. Any chance you could PM me some of your team's pointers and tips for getting in contact with area business, how to get more parents involved and making presentations, as well as all other sorts of info like that? We could use some new directions to take if your team can do it and we can't measure up.
I think I fundamentally disagree with you. I believe that every team's final rank should be resultant from how much they win (how good they are) because that is what we are competing to find out. Everyone is competing to see who is the best, so when the ranking system utilizes a metric which has nothing to do with winning it throws a tremendous amount of noise into the ranking system. If the ranking system is supposed to rank teams by how good they are why should hypothetical team 0000 be ranked over hypothetical team 9999 when 9999 worked harder during the build season, can more effectively play the game, and won more qualification matches? Now if when team 0000 is playing team 9999 and comes up with a cleaver strategy to beat 9999 that is a completely different story. Here is a comparison. In the NCAA basketball teams are ranked 1-16 for March Madness (eliminations) based on their record in the normal season (qualifications.) Now imagine the outrage if team's rank was half-based on how awesome their mascot was? Do you see the problem? The co-op bridges are like mascots.

_________________
I'll PM you tomorrow. One of our parents is a public relations guy and really guided us on how to do this. I'll publicly say this:

-A professional looking letter (not email) begins the process.
-Actually going to the company to present one's team is absolutely key to recruiting sponsors.
-Bringing a cool-looking and performing robot to demonstrate and explain is also very important.
-The absolute most important thing is to have a bunch of enthusiastic, knowledgeable students explaining what the program is about and how the robot works.
-Firm handshakes and looking people in the eyes is extremely important. Teenagers are very bad at this. All our presenters actually practiced this along with their pitch numerous times.
-A follow up letter is very important to close the deal.
-Once we have a sponsor we try very hard to keep them. Every year we make plaques for every company that sponsors us signed by every student to show our appreciation. We also invite every companies CEO's to come to our kickoff party, robot unveiling party, and end of the year picnic. Most of them don’t come, but it’s the thought that counts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman View Post
Bryan - I wanted to comment on this point briefly. I do not believe Evan was referencing an example of a team who was experiencing a major funding catastrophe. He was describing a very logical reality that teams of all kinds face as they attempt to operate during the summer.

Some very stable teams don't have the leeway to budget for unplanned robot upgrade projects (especially during the summer), nor do they have full time summer access to their schools/shops where they can enter the building any time they want. Some amount of advanced planning and scheduling with school officials is required. There are certain union and administrative realities that block some teams from gaining access when the primary school team leader is away on vacation.

More importantly, most teams in such situations have little to no realistic recourse to alter those realities in the less than one month they have between now and the IRI competition.

We are going into battle at IRI with the robot we had at MARC, because we have already developed and tested triple compatible systems for the machine. It can do what it can do, which is a lot, including tripling with many teams in many configurations (including 67 and a standard widebot, apparently - alas...MARC practice only). Short of inventing a shrink ray, there is nothing more we can do to enhance its triple compatibility given the realities of our summer budget and school access. I imagine many others are in a similar or worse situation.
I love quotes. I’m going to toss some famous quotes at you that I believe apply to the situation.

“The great thing about working hard is that you can always work harder, the great thing about being good is that you can always be better.” -- unknown

“I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” – Thomas Jefferson

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” -- Beverly Sills

There is another in my signature. The point is that if these “stable” teams do not have the drive to find the money and/or shop space elsewhere to work during the summer, then you’re right. They won’t have a chance at IRI -- because IRI is filled with teams that have already taken that step. Ok, one more quote: “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” What I’m talking about doing does take more than a month. It may take more than a year. But it is a step that every “powerhouse” team has taken. Over the last couple years I have watch my team go from one that is all but inactive during the summer to one that participates in VRC, OCCRA, three offseason FRC competitions, is working on a drivetrain gearing optimization project, is further developing our 2011 drivetrain, and is improving our 2012 robot for IRI. There is no secret, there is only hard work.

Regards, Bryan
__________________
robot robot robot? Robot. Robot? Robot!
-----------------Team 33------------------

Last edited by BJC : 26-06-2012 at 00:54.
Reply With Quote