Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Curtis
What years are FRC teams most likely to fail? I would guess something like years 2 & 5, but I'd love to know the actual answer. Can someone generate those numbers real quick?
|
Without any hard numbers to back it up I would agree with your guess. I would also think that year 3 could be difficult. We just came off a pretty amazing first year and next year I feel we will be under pressure to "do it again". We managed to be alliance captains at both our regionals after seeding in the top 10-12 in quals. We worked hard to find all the sponsors we needed and they were impressed with the outcome (not that winning is THE outcome, but it's certainly a useful metric to show sponsors).
With next year will come the first loss of students who graduate out of the team, and an influx of fresh recruits who saw us last year. There will be more work to train these students up and make up for the knowledge transfer that will need to occur.
Then we will either "do it again", establishing our reputation as a team who can "perform", and put increasing pressure in year 3 to do it a third time, ...or not, and put increasing pressure in year 3 to "recover". I also suspect the push to fundraise, to find and renew sponsors will start to wear on people.
How can FIRST increase team sustainability? Honestly it may come down to "they can't do much without changing the culture". It's very competitive and we see that as a good thing. Every team wants to win. But how do you ensure more rookies succeed? Either you find ways for them to "win" more (more, cheaper, closer regionals/districts?) or ensure that they know that "a winning team" does not necessarily mean "blue banner".
Remove bag day? Sure, that increases the rookie team's chances of fielding something, but that also gives powerhouse teams more time to build something that will wipe the floor with everyone else. It will increase the perceived divide.