Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
You can't legislate culture. FIRST is all about changing the culture, inspiring Gracious Professionalism, and provides incentive for teams to do the right thing through awards. There's nothing wrong with providing incentive, but assigning teams to be mentors is not the right way for FIRST to go about it. FIRST provides all the information it can in a way that is easily searchable, and I know a lot of local area teams that help rookies.
As for your ranking system... I know regional winners I would not recommend mentor other teams. They may end up with a robot good enough to be on the winning alliance, but that doesn't mean they have a program that can adequately support and train a rookie team. I also know many teams that win awards but have robot issues every single year - they would not be a good match for helping a rookie team get something built. I also know teams that fall into both these categories, yet would not be willing to do more than a token e-mail to a rookie team if FIRST required it.
Just this past year MN set up a system of "hubs", designed to help rookies, organize team assistance, and otherwise increase the level of competition across the state. The system was set up via an opt-in approach, where a number of teams were invited to an initial meeting and signed up to be "hub leaders". Those teams contacted other teams in their area to start setting up hub activities and get the ball rolling, and it's worked out great - I know I've attended mentor gatherings for two different hubs and been able to give advise on specific issues teams were facing all season. The hub my team is in had several events, including group strategy sessions, group build sessions, and group Chairman's preparation. All on a volunteer basis with no incentive for the teams involves beyond what FIRST already provides with awards at the regionals.
|
Not true--you can legislate cultural changes. That's what the Civil Rights Act was about 50 years ago, and it was fairly successful. I can name a number of other Awards are not strong enough incentives alone. They haven't worked well enough, and the GDC appears to agree by changing the game design so much this year. The information provided requires SEARCHING--that's an important transaction cost that impedes this activity. (Working on this type of problem is one of my professional focuses.)
You may know lots of teams that help rookie teams, but that is apparently not enough. You haven't suggested an approach that INCREASES that level of assistance--that's what the GDC is aiming for. Instead you're defending a status quo that is not functioning to its best level. You need to prove your basis premise--that the current system is just fine and leaving less experienced teams to swim or sink is the best policy. Instead right now we have a high attrition rate as those inexperienced teams find it too difficult to manage in the current FRC environment. Why not take important steps to help them further?
Yes, there are teams that don't build great robots that win regionals and awards, but to be honest, its much more probable that they will have good robots and programs than teams that haven't won any of those honors--you have to admit that. In your world, rookies are left with NO information about how to screen which teams are potentially good mentors.
That's great that MN set up hubs. (We locally have started a similar program.) Who initiated that process? Was it the state organization? Why leave this to MN? Why not have all states implement such programs? And what proportion of rookie and 2nd year teams participated? Why wait for this to spread slowly through voluntary actions rather than starting a larger program across the board? I expect that participation would increase even more with a more active recruiting process on both sides. Experienced teams would have an even strong incentive to host such programs.
Why are you so resistant to the idea that FIRST should actively reach out to help new and struggling teams?