Practice bot morality

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

FRC isn't meant to be fair. We go into it each year knowing full well we'll never have the funding of the Chickens, the facilities of the Robonauts, or the machining systems of the Wranglers. We've been a team for 6 years, and we've never won a regional. The kids still show up and have a great time. If you make it all about winning competitions, you're going to be disappointed and so will the kids. If you make it about personal successes and learning, you'll have a much better experience.

How much money does it take to create a good business plan and win some business awards?

1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by nitneylion452

His point was that in high school athletics, there are schools that have top facilities, and those that don't. But just because a team has a better weight room and better coaches, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to win a championship. It's more about motivation and desire. We often hear the phrase "Who wants it more?" This applies well to sports and FRC. In FRC, you need to want to do well. That's not to say that having better facilities and more resources doesn't help, but where do you think the teams with those facilities and resources came from? They also probably started with limited facilities and limited resources. Everyone starts somewhere, it's about building up from where you are to where you want to be.

Actually that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that schools already have programs that cost* them at least as much (if not much much more) that provide similar benefits to a select group. These schools have decided that this is worth their time and money to be competitive at the highest levels for those students. However, they complain when our program asks for the resources to compete at the highest levels for our students. If the schools don't want to compete at those levels they don't have to put up the resources. There is VEX or FTC or BEST for those schools. I fail to understand why schools expect the varsity program for engineering to be any cheaper to run than a varsity football team.

What I'm saying is, we all accept that, with our program, you get out of it what you put in. Why should money not work that way? If you want a top tier team you need to ensure that you have the proper resources and one of them is money. Another is committed students. Saying that a low resource team that spend $5000 a year and builds out of a garage with 3 students and a parent making sure they don't cut off each other's hands should be on the same level with the 254 type teams is just plain dumb. In many of those teams cases they put in significant effort to get where they were at.

TL;DR - Wanna run with the big dogs ya gotta take the time to train.



*Yes, I am well aware that SOME schools make money off their athletic programs but I highly doubt that every school does.

[Ben27Lacrosse]

My team (1296) is greatly looking forward to having a practice robot this year. We have made two of everything and assembled it all as we go.

[AlexRoberts]

Our team (3556) isn't planning on using a practice bot at all; we're putting all of our efforts into the actual bot.

[1986titans]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'm saying that schools already have programs that cost* them at least as much (if not much much more) that provide similar benefits to a select group. These schools have decided that this is worth their time and money to be competitive at the highest levels for those students. However, they complain when our program asks for the resources to compete at the highest levels for our students. If the schools don't want to compete at those levels they don't have to put up the resources. There is VEX or FTC or BEST for those schools. I fail to understand why schools expect the varsity program for engineering to be any cheaper to run than a varsity football team.

It makes sense to throw support behind athletics for most schools. Why? Sport is something that's been established for a long time. Most sports at the high school level have been around for decades or longer. They've been tried over and over again. They generally keep students out of trouble. Newer sports (like lacrosse, at least around here) don't start out with the huge budgets right away.

Robotics doesn't have that security of being something established. At least not yet. Yes, there are teams that have been around for 10+ years, but the age of most teams is far less than that -- I'm sure there's a stat somewhere on the Registration thread. Budgets are tight for a lot of schools/school districts, and it's an easier argument to throw money at something that's seen as "it has been good for the students" rather than "it could be good for the students."

The right argument? Being a FIRSTer, I'd have to disagree. I was just trying to see it from both sides / devil's advocate. Robotics also has more of a club vibe to it and not a sports vibe - it's just the nature of what comes to mind when people hear the word "robotics". FIRST seems to be changing that perception, which is good.

Practice bots aren't something for a team to just jump into and do. Reading through some of the recent posts, I got the vibe from a few posts that everyone should be building them. I think that it's something a team has to mature towards, and I'd say after the second year would be a good time to start considering building a practice bot.

Teams have been and can be successful without building a practice bot.

One final thing to chew on: What's more useful, building a practice bot or going to a second regional?

[PayneTrain]

That's a toughie, and why I like how the district system gives teams two for the price of one.

A practice bot can teach the importance of iteration and practice behind the scenes to create a solid project to put in at one regional. However, you would be cashing in all of your chips for an event that can be about luck of the seeding as much as skill (unless you are a 254 or 1114 that both have the resources for both regionals and practice bots and the skill to build top-tier robots that wipe the floor anyway).

If you go to two regionals, you can end up putting a poor product on the floor that lowers team morale and really damages the look of your team (2011 for us), then fix it by the second regional.

Even though we do the opposite, I would suggest a second robot over a second regional competition.

[Craig Roys]

It seems that some have the idea that the rules should tilt in favor of the rookie teams and I disagree with that. I'm not against rookies being successful, I just believe that the success should come from hard work...not from an advantage in the rules.

When we started in our rookie year (2006 - a game many of you have researched this year!) we expected nothing to be handed to us and we expected it to be hard. We weren't disappointed...we went 1-7 in our first competition and the one win happened because we were lucky enough to be paired with 1114 in that match. But we learned from all of it and used it to improve. We played better at the next competition...and at the FIRST Championship.

Every year we've used our own experiences as well as learning from the successful teams around us to continually improve. We don't expect to be better just because we've been around another year...we expect to be better because we work hard to do so. Maybe one of these days we'll get that blue banner! Not having one just gives me more incentive to keep going and work to continuously improve.

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

Every year we've used our own experiences as well as learning from the successful teams around us to continually improve. We don't expect to be better just because we've been around another year...we expect to be better because we work hard to do so. Maybe one of these days we'll get that blue banner! Not having one just gives me more incentive to keep going and work to continuously improve.

Hang in there, keep working hard!

It took us 8 years on team 11 to get our first regional win, and it took us 10 years to get one on team 125 (although 125 won the Championship in 2001).

-Brando

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only won 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I would like to point out that there is rather large number of rookies in picking position at each regional and many are on winning alliances. I would also like to remind folks of 2041 (coming from an inner city, largely Hispanic population) taking Silver medals with one robot, eight students total and only three engineering mentors in both the Minnesota Regional and 2010 Champs. And let us not forget my all time favorite hardworking team, 842, Falcon Robotics. When I think of what a team can accomplish, I think of what that team, student and mentors, are able to accomplish.

Al, this is one thing I think you are mis-representing. Yes the rookie class has elite teams and the veteran class has elite teams, but these two are not comparable. What is the highest team number ever to win champs? 1114.
Some awesome things can be done with a lot of dedication and very little resources but I don't remember the last time one of those brand-new, little teams knocked out your alliance at champs.

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to compete with the best your going to need comparable resources.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by lemiant

Al, this is one thing I think you are mis-representing. Yes the rookie class has elite teams and the veteran class has elite teams, but these two are not comparable. What is the highest team number ever to win champs? 1114.
Some awesome things can be done with a lot of dedication and very little resources but I don't remember the last time one of those brand-new, little teams knocked out your alliance at champs.

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to compete with the best your going to need comparable resources.

Two rookies made Einstein in 2010. In 2009, a single rookie made Einstein. Two years before that, in 2007, a sophomore team made Einstein (and that same team almost went the year before; their robot started having parts fail in division finals). And it took 2056 multiple years to make Einstein; they still haven't won it, despite having not lost a single regional they've attended since starting up. (They were Galileo semifinalists their rookie year.) If you're looking for winning the Championships as your measure of winning, 3/2353 teams will win it this year; that's 0.127%, which means it's pretty tough on just about everyone to win it. (Odds improve to about 0.88% if you just factor in the roughly 340 Championship teams.) Yes, those are under 1% chance for any given team.

[pfreivald]

Since when are any of us owed victory?

A couple of rambling thoughts on this meandering topic:

One of the coolest moments in 1551 history was when the Thunder Chickens were worried we weren't going to pick them at FLR in 2010. (We did pick them, and we won, and it was another of the coolest moments in 1551 history!) No one gave us that; we earned it, and it's more special because of it. ...and yet the trip to championship was near disaster on the field, thankyouverymuch, as we learned some important lessons about durability when you do multiple events. (Murphy camped in our pit in Atlanta, but everything that went wrong was, ultimately, our fault.)

There's nothing wrong with the bar being set very high (as in, as high as other teams choose to set it within the bounds of the rules), but there could be something to better educate the rookie teams on what they're getting into. Pulling in kids and adults from other districts for a year or two before spinning them off into their own team gives them a much firmer foundation, and a much better idea of what they're getting into.

Talk to the mentors of 217 and 254 and 1114 and 2056 -- they'll happily tell you what they've done to get to where they are. Use that information as you see fit, whether it's a team overhaul or incremental improvement. Don't bemoan the circumstances that put your school or team at a disadvantage, or do, but either way take them as a challenge and circumvent them as best you can.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only one 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

That is stunning actually.

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by EricH

Two rookies made Einstein in 2010. In 2009, a single rookie made Einstein. Two years before that, in 2007, a sophomore team made Einstein (and that same team almost went the year before; their robot started having parts fail in division finals). And it took 2056 multiple years to make Einstein; they still haven't won it, despite having not lost a single regional they've attended since starting up. (They were Galileo semifinalists their rookie year.) If you're looking for winning the Championships as your measure of winning, 3/2353 teams will win it this year; that's 0.127%, which means it's pretty tough on just about everyone to win it. (Odds improve to about 0.88% if you just factor in the roughly 340 Championship teams.) Yes, those are under 1% chance for any given team.

This is what I said. Rookies can be great, and I don't doubt that it is only a matter of time until one of them actually wins champs, but the odds ARE against them. Resources help you win, I don't think anyone here is going to challenge that.

And just for fun here's some math (Admittedly filled with all sorts of assumptions):

Last year, with numbers almost all the way to 4000, the un-weighted odds of a single team on the winning alliance being below 1000 was 25%... All three teams on the winning alliance were below 1000! The odds of that were 25%^3 or ~1.5%. that means that statistically the odds of all three teams on the wining alliance being below 1000 were just higher than the odds of any individual championship team winning. Obviously that is absurd! I could predict that the same will happen this year with at least a 50% chance of being right, you couldn't pick a winning team with anything approaching certainty.

Or take it one step further. 1114 was founded in 2003 so no team founded in a year after that would has ever won the championship. Assuming the ~2800 teams founded between 2003 and 2011 were founded in even increments of 350 teams per year the odds of none of these teams winning championships between 2004 and 2011 are:
((1200/1550) * (1200/1900) * (1200/2250) * (1200/2600) * (1200/2950) * (1200/3300) * (1200/3650) * (1200/4000)) ^3
or .00000054%.

I believe we can effectively determine from that number that veterans winning is not just statistical variation