Should FRC Account for School Size?

[Nemo]

If FRC got so huge that you could afford to divide the individual regions into divisions and still have enough teams to fill up the local events at each level, then I suppose you could have a tiered system that simply didn't have any specific criteria for dividing the teams. You'd just put the teams with the best historical track records into the top division, and the other teams would need to prove themselves over time to be selected to move into the top division. The top division could initially be populated with teams according to some algorithm taking into account past competition performances and awards, leaving some space for adding new teams in the future.

But that would have some disadvantages, such as not allowing newer teams to bump elbows with the really awesome veteran teams.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Nemo

If FRC got so huge that you could afford to divide the individual regions into divisions and still have enough teams to fill up the local events at each level, then I suppose you could have a tiered system that simply didn't have any specific criteria for dividing the teams. You'd just put the teams with the best historical track records into the top division, and the other teams would need to prove themselves over time to be selected to move into the top division. The top division could initially be populated with teams according to some algorithm taking into account past competition performances and awards, leaving some space for adding new teams in the future.

But that would have some disadvantages, such as not allowing newer teams to bump elbows with the really awesome veteran teams.

Everything else made me say "No." This idea made me think. The way I see it, it seems analogous to a Promotion and Relegation system used prominently in European football (soccer) leagues. I still don't like it much, because I would rather see a large team population dealt with the district way, to keep everything reasonably organized.

Also, who's to say big schools do better? There's all these other awkward stepping stones like multi-school and non-school teams, team age, and team success. My team has been around for 15 years, but only the last three have we been a school-associated team. The school we work in has about 1200 students, but we also recruit from another school (in a different district). Our history has also been incredibly varied. If you base the split on this year's performance, we were mediocre (missed MSC) and also good (Division Finalists). If you look at the last three years, we didn't go to Championships one year, and our robot didn't move the other. The year before that we were on Einstein. In short: Few teams are consistent enough performers to eve make a tiered system effective, let alone ethical.

And one more thing: Remember the I in FIRST.

[daniel_dsouza]

I can safely say that size isn't the best factor you could use to determine competitiveness.

For example, Corona del Sol (my school) has a population of about 3400 and growing. We have been a team since '07, but we aren't what this thread would consider successful. We have to pull students from another school just to have enough kids to build the robot!

If you want another factor, in addition to ones suggested within this thread (mentors, budget, resources, experience), consider team spacing/influence. There are 2 other schools within several miles of Corona that have FRC teams. We compete for sponsors, funds, and students. Compared to a team (maybe 20mi away) that draws students from 5 schools, the reason for our lower scores becomes apparent.

[JohnBoucher]

No. This is a game of the mind. Size does not matter. If anything is a factor, it's experience.

A low resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy will beat a high resource team any day.

[Aroki]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

A low resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy will beat a high resource team any day.

A high resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy would have a distinct advantage over the low resource team, while having the less problems to overcome. I don't think a tier system would work due to the complexity of making one, but I do recognize the gap between high and low resource teams' ability to compete competitively

Originally Posted by Aroki

A high resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy would have a distinct advantage over the low resource team, while having the less problems to overcome. I don't think a tier system would work due to the complexity of making one, but I do recognize the gap between high and low resource teams' ability to compete competitively

A high-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy competing against a low-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy would make a very even, yet entertaining match. Especially if the low resource team wins.

Although I do see what you mean by this.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

A high-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy competing against a low-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy would make a very even, yet entertaining match. Especially if the low resource team wins.

Although I do see what you mean by this.

Assuming most rookie teams start out as roughly equal in terms of size and resources (a few dedicated students and mentors in a small, poorly supplied shop), soon both the intellectual and physical resources will become concentrated in upper level teams. To use SuperNerd's terminology, " a low-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy" will soon become a "high-resource team with a well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy." Teams tend to attract physical resources (money, tools, sponsors) after winning with intellectual resources (namely, a "well-thought-out robot and a smart strategy"). Soon, the both types or resources become concentrated.

[holygrail]

It seems clear that school size alone is not the best factor to consider when trying to account for the resource gap in FRC, but that doesn't change the fact that some teams have far more resources than others. It also seems clear that a team with high tech manufacturing capabilities, full size practice fields, and practice bots has a distinct advantage over an equally brilliant and dedicated team that lacks the space and/or money for those things.

So to re-frame the OP...
What, if anything, should FRC do to minimize the gap between the high resource teams and those that struggle to afford a single entry fee as we move into the future? How do you think that decision could impact the sustainability of FRC in coming years?

Clearly this could be an extremely complex issue. But I also know the CD community doesn't shy away from an issue just because it is difficult and complex.

Thank you all for your insights.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by holygrail

So to re-frame the OP...
What, if anything, should FRC do to minimize the gap between the high resource teams and those that struggle to afford a single entry fee as we move into the future? How do you think that decision could impact the sustainability of FRC in coming years?

This part of the discussion has been discussed over the years here in Chief Delphi and elsewhere. One example I can give is during NEMO meetings that I've facilitated over the last few years. When this topic has come up, the answers aren't always the ones that people want to hear. Can it be frustrating that a team in a region can only afford to attend one FRC competition and another team in the same region can afford to attend 2+? Yes, it can be frustrating for both teams, if you think about it. It's frustrating for the team who can only commit to one competition because they know that is it for their season. Within that knowledge is the weight of not being able to go forward with working out the bugs, giving the drive team more experience, having the opportunity to compete in the season again, and bringing everything learned from the first competition to the next one. For the team that can compete in 2+ competitions, it can provide frustration in that the team has learned from its first competition and is bringing that experience and hopefully, improvements, to the next competition. The team that can compete in 2+ competitions continues to build on their strengths by identifying their weaknesses throughout the season. They may possibly be frustrated by having to compete against teams at each event they have entered - who only have the single event to compete in.

How does this impact the sustainability of FRC? I don't think it does. Teams compete as best as they can, using the resources that they have. Does this create opportunities to think about creating tiers rather than trying to keep the playing field level? Absolutely. Does it create opportunities for teams to look at weak regions vs. strong regions built on team reputations? Yes.

To me, the district plan has been more of a threat to the teams/regions than the amount of competitions the teams can travel to. I say this because there are regions who are not ready for districts and will not be for a while. Those regions will have to work very hard to be able to do that. Because I'm in Texas, I'm very aware of the opportunities and the frustrations that are built into this part of the discussion. Texas is one of the regions that I feel needs to get more ducks lined in a row before it can consider a district model. It is also a region where there are teams who compete in one competition and teams who compete in 2+ competitions per season. It is also a region where some newer teams are still learning the basics such as - it is ok for teams to travel to more than one competition. In the long run, a district model will help a region like Texas but not without lining up some ducks first. I'm not worried about FRC sustainability. I was 3 years ago but I'm not anymore. To me, it is becoming a survival of the fittest. That doesn't have as much to do with the amount of resources a team has as much as it does organization and management, the tenacity of spirit and attitude of the team, and community support.

Another topic of discussion that I like to bring up in NEMO meetings (and with anyone I talk to about the FRC program) is the bigger picture. That picture includes the dreams and aspirations of the students who are involved in the teams and in the program and what they do with those dreams and aspirations. The gap between the high resource teams and those that struggle, doesn't really come up in that topic other than to showcase that students in both types of teams have dreams, aspirations, and the potential to be inspired.

Jane

[Tom Line]

I look at this sort of thing from a different angle than most.

I hate complexity, for any reason. Spare parts complexity, management complexity, any additional complexity. Complexity is inefficiency. It's distraction.

I would much rather FIRST increase it's focus on overall cost-savings. Increasing partnerships that result in decreased team cost. Lower fees and lower entry costs through initiatives like 4H and JC Penny.

I believe that maintains a lower level of complexity that starting to initiate a number of 'social' programs that try to help lower-funded teams compete. Keeping a single-minded focus on lowering overall costs and increasing the quality of the experience is a very simple non-comlex message. Starting to create tiered systems of payment that require documentation, verification, management, and people is not something I want my FIRST money working towards.

Simply. Minimize. Reduce. It's a good engineering rule, and an even better management one.

[Ravage457]

Unless u did it like how they do it in high school football, like here in Texas, the size of the school(# of students in the school) would determine what class district the school would be in, for example South San High School(Team 457) would be in district 28-5A, Brandeis High School (Team 3481) would be in 25-5A. Now from their if both teams made it to the State Championship, depending on the enrollment in this two school would determine what division the school would be place, for example Team 457 would be District 5A Divison 2, and Team 3481 would be District 5A Division 1, now the other teams that are not part of any school district, Could be place in 6M1 or 6M2(6 Man Division 1/6 Man Division 2, since those school can only field 6 players on thier team) due to the size of thier Team, it can be done, but the state would have to be in a district format, and FIRST would have to know how many students are in each school and in non school affliated team, other than that u couldnt place team in divisions by the size of the school if you were doing this nation wide, maybe if you were doing it in a state that has district format

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ravage457

Unless u did it like how they do it in high school football, like here in Texas, the size of the school(# of students in the school) would determine what class district the school would be in, for example South San High School(Team 457) would be in district 28-5A, Brandeis High School (Team 3481) would be in 25-5A. [...] it can be done, but the state would have to be in a district format, and FIRST would have to know how many students are in each school and in non school affliated team, other than that u couldnt place team in divisions by the size of the school if you were doing this nation wide, maybe if you were doing it in a state that has district format

We just got done saying that size of school has nothing to do with the size of the team, and the size of the team has little or nothing to do with how competitive they are. A team of 15 can compete with the big boys, or a team of 40 or more can be the last seed. A team of 15 could also be at the bottom of the standings, while the team of 40 could be first at every event. I think you get the picture.