Should FRC Account for School Size?

[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.