[cadandcookies]

So, there are three main issues that the OP brings up:

Originally Posted by Leav

• The marathons are probably going to stifle the creative process. If teams choose to watch they can easily be locked on an idea and be unable to shake it from their mind.

I find this idea insulting. Especially in FIRST, and even more so for veteran teams. Lock-in is something that happens regardless of outside research-- in brainstorming, my team likes to call it "group-think," and it's important to get rid of and avoid as much as possible. But blaming Ri3D for causing lock-in (especially before we even see the effects in 2013) is premature and probably not even correct in the first place. When you get a group together, people tend to gravitate towards certain ideas based on a variety of factors-- the charisma of the person who suggested it, the actual validity of the idea, whether they've had enough coffee to actually analyze the idea or not, etc. If a team is being stifled because of watching a video or three, there's probably a lot of group-think going on already.

Solution: Try assigning a creative or wacky student/mentor to suggest random ideas that are absolutely ridiculous and have little chance of working out-- the "duck-tape and hydraulics" solutions that are just flat out bad ideas. This stirs things up and lets other people bring out their ideas, which means you have more ideas and therefore a higher chance of getting a few good ideas. (We learned this technique from one of our sponsors, Skyline Exhibits, which was kind enough to bring in their "Research, Design, and Innovation" director to teach us their techniques. This was part of the process that lead to Windscape, which is a really freaking cool product.) OR This isn't a problem because the team is already pretty good at assimilating ideas and brainstorming (which I hope is the case if it's a veteran team).

Originally Posted by Leav

• Showing 5 working robots after 72 hours is going to probably cover most bases in terms of basic ideas for the 2014 season. This will rob teams of the sense of accomplishment which comes with brainstorming and deciding on your own robot.

These are two very separate issues, so I'm going to address them individually.

1: "Knowing five different types of robots is going to cover most of the general robot types"

This is not an issue. It gives everyone a tool that teams have been using for years: archetyping (at least that's what my team calls it). One of the parts of strategic analysis of a game is looking at what other people are going to do-- I seem to remember Karthik mentioning that the two main reasons that 1114 chose to climb instead of picking up discs were that they wanted the design experience and that they were confident that good third level climbers were going to be rare after game analysis. This helps teams that haven't traditionally considered what other teams are going to build as part of their strategy process add it in in a fairly easy to understand manner. I frankly don't see any negatives to this.

Solution: None needed, this is a good thing.

2: "Knowing the archetypes robs teams of the sense of accomplishment in brainstorming and deciding their own robot"

I literally rewrote this section a dozen times, but I think that knowing the archetypes and designing a robot based around the five robots we'll have in 3 days may actually be a plus for teams that have little experience with strategy in FIRST-- for some teams even coming up with reasonable solutions is a challenge, so having the option to analyze and look at real, practical solutions is a huge plus towards understanding how real engineering works. I would be happy for any new team to even have a chance to look at and analyze proven options for building a robot-- that seems like a very solid way to introduce new students to strategic thinking.

Originally Posted by Leav

• An obvious retort to the above point would be "just don't watch the marathons or look at their results", but we all know it will be hard to avoid. Also, there is a dillema here: these are robots built by professional FIRSTers, are you really not going to try and learn from them when you have the chance?
  

This is something that also falls into the "non-issue" category. Maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that two kinds of people will be watching Ri3D: those that desperately need help with their design and strategy, and those that want a peek into what competition season will look like. For the former, it is hugely beneficially to see our very own "FIRST rock-stars" working through the same problem-- they would likely not see anything like that level of expertise until at the earliest competition season. I have yet to hear a new team complain about Ri3D. For the former, Ri3D is more of an interesting background thing useful for research and developing competition strategy than it is something that will detract for the team's own ideas. While certainly it will have an effect, it's more likely to just help the team analyze what will be unique at competition and what they can do to stand out.

In conclusion, don't think any of these are issues that can solely be solved by getting rid of Ri3D or BB-- most of the issues are only so in very specific cases of new teams or teams without strong leadership, which are going to have problems anyways. And even for these teams, 3-day competitions are probably a boon, because they're likely guide them towards more reasonable solutions and therefore more time to refine those solutions.