Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)
Don't want to get too much into this conversation but in regards to hours vs performance. ...
To summarize, giving both a lower and higher tier team extra time, the lower tier team is likely to improve more than a higher tier team using more of that extra time.
|
Struggling teams that we want to help/retain instead of lose, are, by definition, "struggling".
You used the phrase "lower-tier". There are plenty of nuances a reader can read into that term, but I'm pretty sure "lower-tier" and "struggling" are different in some very important ways.
With that in mind, I don't think that a struggling team will convert extra hours into results at a much, much lower rate than a non-struggling team will, regardless of whether the non-struggling team is a fierce competitor on the field, or is less strong on-the-field.
The transformation of hours into results will be affected by how far the team needs to "go" to satisfy their goals (that is your point), and by whether or not they are struggling, and by other factors.
Thinking about those two different effects, I agree that what you described is a real effect and that it applies in some situations; but my very strong hunch is that whether a team is "struggling" or not has a much, much greater effect on the benefit (or not) of a longer build season, than how far a team is from reaching it's goals.
For that reason, I don't think a longer build season is a good approach to helping struggling teams (helping them both stay in FIRST's FRC program, and become healthy teams). YMMV
Blake
PS: Remember that fielding a middle-of-the-road, or simple, or low-scoring robot doesn't identify a struggling team. Our goal isn't building robots, it's attracting students into STEM fields. A simple robot in the hands of a good FRC team can be a powerful tool for attracting students into STEM fields. Teams that accomplish that are the *good* teams.