Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
Perhaps it's the lack of parity that makes the uberbots so compelling.
If we all had unlimited time and budget to design and build robots, we'd all have designs that score 15 discs autonomously from the top of the pyramid.
But we don't, so the teams that can do that are few, far between, and a-m-a-z-i-n-g.
The 6-week restriction is a big part of what makes FRC great, what makes it different. Using "we can't do it because we didn't have enough time" isn't a valid excuse - we've all got the same amount of time.
Also - the notion of teams arbitrarily self-limiting their schedules in a longer build season paradigm is laughable. We're engineers, scientists, teachers. We don't do things that are arbitrary. We do whatever it takes to try to be the best at accomplishing our goals.
|
A few questions:
1) Do you really believe that we could "all" have designs to score 15 discs in auto from the top? Who is "all"? (I find it uncompelling to attribute on-field success solely to money and time, and I'm not sure that's what you intended.)
2) I don't understand the assertion that we all have the same amount of time. In addition to practice bots, we can glance back at
Jim's awesome charts. One of the biggest benefits that would come out of a more open build season is the removal of this disparity, even if it just meant everyone could unbag on competition weekends (e.g. for scrimmages). It's never been about time per say, it's about time to bring resources to bear. The more time we all have, the more resources we can all share. Yes these lower teams could raise more money and travel more, but if they haven't been inspired yet, is it really a realistic expectation?
3) I agree with Jared on your last statement. Virtually every team I know
already limits themselves to prevent burnout during the season. They may not succeed in avoidance, but how many teams actually work every day of build? The same long hours every night and weekend? How many work every day of those 4 months? Do you? To be honest, if someone doesn't limit themselves or their students, that their own problem, and I hope they learn quickly. We've all learned, most of us the hard way, that working harder/longer after a point quickly leads to diminishing returns. That's why we call it burnout in the first place. I stop because I know I'm not supposed to burn myself or my students out. Because I know it has negative consequences on
everything we're trying to do. Self control. Honestly, the applies in now just as much as in open season.
I'm fired up on this, but I've waited and come back to it, and I'm ready for the consequences.
This will anger a lot of people, but I cannot abide by the idea that a season designed to protect the top/middle for ourselves is somehow more important than a season that allows us to bring the bottom up: hold scrimmages, save money for rookie workshops, consistently cross-mentor more teams, etc. Self-discipline. VEX manages it. FTC manages it. FLL manages it. We manage in our work lives, and we expect students to manage in their own. Don't cram for your exams, work on the long term schedule even when there's nothing breathing down your neck, be responsible for your own health. I can understand other reasons behind the 6 week bag, if you want to talk about teaching quick deadlines (disagree, but ok), international logistics, etc, but not that one.
Chris, good question. I don't have a definite opinion besides the fact that shortening would result in the same problems that not lengthening it does (no scrimmaging, etc...unless you left the off weeks there as ran more events, which is intriguing). Ignoring 4 weeks vs. open and concentrating on 4 weeks vs. 6, the issues I see are this:
- Even assuming the game is correctly designed for 4 weeks, I stand by the assertion that inspiration is not solely relative to competitive performance. Some absolute things are simply inspiring and an of themselves, based on the work put in rather than how many other people do it. With less time, there's less opportunity to do things like this.
- It burdens sponsors (and shipping costs) more. This can be avoided in design, but it then also avoids giving students the opportunity to work with such things, and teams the opportunity to build as strong sponsor relationships.
- In some ways, less time inherently means fewer students and mentors can come. Whether or not teams meet more often, it's simply a smaller target: if you're traveling, catch another bad blizzard, or get sick, it's basically over. Already true in a 6 week season, just made worse.
There are probably some others. I don't know that I would walk out if it happened, but I don't see what problems it solves. I like design tradeoff debates as much as the next person, but I think it's possible to work them into the game--this year did well.