[Joe G.]

I see FTC teams as falling into one of two categories, which call for different levels of mentor involvement. Both these styles of teams will likely continue to exist in FTC for a long time.

Many FTC teams are created with no connection to an FRC team. For students on these teams, FTC is likely the highest level of robotics that they will compete in, because for whatever reason (time, space, resources, money, mentors, etc.), FRC isn't feasible for them. For these teams, I see increased mentor involvement as a good thing. There's no reason to deny these students the experience of working with and learning from professionals, just because their robots are smaller. These are the types of teams more likely to take FTC seriously, and just like in FRC, mentor involvement results in a less frustrating, more rewarding experience.

Other FTC teams are used as "Feeders" for FRC programs, often limited to underclassmen. For these teams, although the mentor dynamic can be just as valuable, other factors mean that an FLL-style approach can be more effective. First, since the team has a close bond to an FRC team, older students on the team are more likely to be in a position to serve as effective mentors, both due to technical knowledge from FRC, and from the FRC time commitment, which likely prevents "mentoring" from turning into "taking over the team." Since the FTC program is seen more as a stepping stone, the argument that mentors are needed to ensure success is less valid. Additionally, experience in a challenging program with relatively sparse mentorship can be beneficial for students coming into a more mentor-driven FRC program. FTC will give these students plenty of basic technical knowledge, but it will also teach them "how much it is they don't know." And this is a critical thing for the FRC team; students who realize they have much to learn will generally be more accepting of teachings from mentors.