Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes
Jim shows in Point 3 of his paper that there is a reasonable correlation between OPR and team retention. Everyone knows that correlation is not causation, but the correlation does allow us to use OPR as a reasonable proxy for team retention. Teams that have low OPRs are also more likely to fold than teams with high OPRs. Likewise, teams that fold tend to have lower OPRs. Team retention data is probably near to as close as we can get to quantifying the "success of FRC teams" using publicly available data.
We can disagree about how specific policies will impact OPR distributions, team retention rates, or the correlation between the two, but at the present time, OPR does indeed seem to be a reasonable proxy for a given FRC team's success.
|
Even if we suppose that there is currently a correlation between OPR and team retention (
which I have some dispute with, at least until more data is released), that doesn't mean that correlation will carry forwards if you take steps to increase OPR. That is to say, the concept of eliminating bag day to raise OPR of teams doesn't mean that fewer teams will fold since we have yet to establish a causal relationship between OPR and team attrition. If teams are folding from a variety of other stressors (under funding/under mentorship/no school support/burn out/etc), raising their OPR will not save those teams from folding.
To put it another way, basing actions purely on the correlation is treating a symptom, not the disease.