[MrJohnston]

One thing that makes this conversation difficult is that we are largely talking in absolutes. The fact of that matter is that there is a continuum of every factor that leads to a team's success (or lack thereof).

*No robot is 100% mentor built. Likewise, there is no robot that doesn't benefit, at some level, from mentor support.

* Let's face it, financial health is a PART of any successful team's health. Power tools, milling machines, waterjet cutting, machine shop sponsors etc. all give a teams the ability to expand their abilities and be more efficient - thus enhancing their abilities.

* At the same time, infinite finances cannot overcome a complete lack of technical knowledge.

And so on...

The relationship between the students and mentors is at the very heart of FIRST's mission. There is a reason we call these adults "mentors" and not "supervisors" or "babysitters." There is a reason we have mentor parades and go out of our way to thank them. Students are learners and are only going to learn the fundamentals of engineering if they are working side-by-side with their mentors.

The real question is, "What is the appropriate balance between mentor and student labor?" I think of this much like I do my math classrooms. Some students just need a little bit of guidance and they are ready to fly. Others need prolonged attention and repeated modeling of processes if they are to learn. In education each teacher is expected to learn and work with the very specific needs of each child and each classroom. How is mentoring different?

If the job is "build the robot" and you have a group of very inexperienced students who can barely turn a screwdriver, the mentors will have to be very "hands on" just to keep the kids safe and get something rolling. With the same job, if you have students who have been around robots for several years, the mentors have a choice: either turn it over to them and let them put their knowledge to use -or teach them more advanced engineering. The latter would require more hand-holding, but would result in a better robot. What's wrong with that?

I have seen the these "elite" teams - and their kids know the robot. I see the kids making repairs. I see the kids talking about its functionality. The kids are learning - and loving it. They are inspired.

I also don't believe that "just any team" can replicate their efforts. They have mentors who are not only strong engineers, but have many years of FIRST experience and have, thus, developed a very strong familiarity with FRC robots and can think of half a dozen ways to successfully accomplish "new" tasks very quickly. Sometimes I look at it like this: If one school hires the best and most experienced football coaching staff, do they have an "unfair" advantage? If they have a former NFL QB working individually with their QB's, is this unfair? No, it's just a fantastic resource that they have.

I am certain that if you took all the Cheesy Poofs mentors away, replacing them with equally as many mentors from other teams but otherwise left them with all their resources, their performance would slip - even if the other mentors had the same level of "involvement" in the build as the current mentors.