Quote:
Originally Posted by fintelia
For a thread about not stereotyping elite teams, there is an awful lot of stereotyping of low performing teams...
Perhaps the most alarming (and absolutely false) allegation is that these teams do not put in as much hard work or thought as the elite teams do. It just simply not true. All teams work hard and employ the resources available to them, as they should.
As far as eliminating bag and tag, I think a lot of people are over estimating the effect it would have for low performing teams. Time is already one of the most evenly distributed resources. Having a few extra weeks of (less productive) time comes out to be around 1.5x as much as teams that only work the 6 weeks. By contrast these same times may have 4 or 5 times as many members, vastly larger budgets, and (most significantly) many more mentors. I also suspect that the best teams would be able to use the extra time far better, making the gap between the best and worst teams wider not narrower.
|
The point is that time is NOT an evenly distributed resource as is. Teams, like my own, with substantial enough resources for a second practice robot and a full size practice field at our disposal have 4 months to work on the robot. Teams without these resources have 6 weeks followed by 2 and a half months of far less useful time. That's an oversimplification, but the point remains: high resource teams can work around the bag and tag limits while low resource teams are truly limited by them. And this stark difference between high resource and low resource teams is brought about by an arbitrary rule with its origins in logistical and practical reasoning for considerations that no longer apply. This is a point for another thread, but it is telling that the teams that inspire us most treat FRC as a 4 month season and not a 6 week project. That inspiration is what FIRST is all about.
On to the other point about stereotyping low performing teams. My team is a high resource team. However, in my four years on the team we have been both a low performing and high performing team. GSR 2012 was our worst performance in 22 seasons of team history whereas 2013 was one of our best seasons yet.
Both years I have been extremely proud of the effort my teammates and I put forward. However, recognizing that the results from 2012 were caused by MISGUIDED hard work, and doing the even harder work of changing to get better as a team and under respected leadership, allowed our hard work in 2013 to pay off. There are some low performing teams that are not trying as hard. There are also some that are trying just as hard or even harder. It is in no way cut and dry. What is critical is understanding the causes of low performance and what is necessary to get better. Either work harder or smarter. Or find more resources. Each situation will be unique, but having clear team goals with effective leadership will make a world of difference in directing efforts properly.