The Stereotyping of Successful Teams

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by MisterG

In my own experience it was largely an education issue.......

I kept meaning to highlight this comment. This is what its all about on some level. In St. Louis, I had a conversation with some MAR Board members and a FIRST RD about this very topic. I do believe that the FIRST/CD public discourse and FIRST event behavior is going in the wrong direction. Coaches need to EDUCATE their students, parents, and fellow coaches about FIRST principles. The education has to be continuous because our programs keep turning over every 2 to 4 years.
We can't just repeat these principles for the judges. We need to live the principles at competition and within our teams at home. Thanks for making that post.

[Ivan Malik]

OZ_341 I missed the dual meaning of excellence that you meant and didn't think of it as personal growth, but rather as the "you can be just like us and win all the time" type.

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

I guess I don't understand what your point is. Are you suggesting that teams should not try to achieve repeated year-after-year success?

No... You are looking at it from a very different perspective than I am, hence why I said I'm looking at it from an FRC wide type of view and not an individual team view. Each team should always try and "sustain their excellence," but the larger system of FRC should not be designed so that the same teams can stay excellent. There should be some sort of factor that destabilizes things. Right now it very much so is designed so that teams that are ahead can stay ahead, if they don't have unforeseen factors like losing sponsors or build space, etc. This would be fine, but FIRST is also trying to enact cultural change and inspire not just its participants, but everyone. You can't do that if there is a natural division among the tools that are doing the inspiring, aka the teams. Other wise, the lesser teams eventually get so focused on wining that all culture changing avenues are ignored, GP and coopertition get thrown out the window. The concept that there is this semi-permanent group of upper echelon of teams and this lower group of teams, and that this is accepted, creates that division. In order for FIRST to achieve both its goals, of cultural change and establishing itself as a sport of the mind, there needs to be turnover of what teams are on top. I have nothing against the current top teams, they do awesome things and are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. This destabilizing factor can be an official thing from FIRST in the form of a game element or something else, it can be an idea that a group of teams decides to do, it can be a culture shift among the entire community of the FRC, etc. It really doesn't matter what it is, there just needs to be something that forces this turnover regularly. I thought that the FiM/MAR structure would do more of this, and it has. However the question of whether this is a change in sample size or a change in stability is the question. We shall see when the borders are removed.

I was a part of a team that went through both the stages of ripping into powerhouses and of being a powerhouse. I have talked to a ton of former FRC students. I understand both sides of the argument and why both sides see what they see. Now that I left FRC and am now looking back at it from an outsider's view with inside experience, I can see that something isn't quite right. That there is some factor missing to make it all work more efficiently.

I am really bad at explaining ideas like this through text so I am sorry for the long posts and horrible explanations. I'm working on communication skills.

Akash, I'd advise you to take a look at world systems theory. It explains some of what you are pointing to, if you understand it fully. (it is a really hard concept to grasp as it has many layers and applies more broadly than it seems, I don't even get it in its entirety) I have factored into this teams that have risen by the inspiration of the powerhouse teams, but those teams only help to accelerate the core's development leaving the periphery in the dust and creating the animosity. The teams that have risen are the semi-periphery, the powerhouses are the core, and the lesser teams are the periphery; using the terminology of world systems theory. All I am doing is applying a very basic anthropological concept to FRC, there is no opinion. I actually hate the fact that this works as elegantly as it does. It means I have to listen to my profs gloating about me doubting them in the near future

[OZ_341]

Ivan:
I don't pretend to have any knowledge of world system theory although it sounds like an interesting topic. I guess, I want to understand. Are you suggesting a handicapping system in which high-performing teams receive some pre-arranged disadvantage?

One problem I see with this is that the game changes every year. We have seen some pretty powerful teams fall from prominence because they misread the game challenge in a particular year.

Many teams misread this year's game. I also remember that in 2009 when we all had to play with the same wheels on a slippery surface, some pretty powerful teams struggled that year.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

No... You are looking at it from a very different perspective than I am, hence why I said I'm looking at it from an FRC wide type of view and not an individual team view. Each team should always try and "sustain their excellence," but the larger system of FRC should not be designed so that the same teams can stay excellent. There should be some sort of factor that destabilizes things. Right now it very much so is designed so that teams that are ahead can stay ahead, if they don't have unforeseen factors like losing sponsors or build space, etc. This would be fine, but FIRST is also trying to enact cultural change and inspire not just its participants, but everyone. You can't do that if there is a natural division among the tools that are doing the inspiring, aka the teams. Other wise, the lesser teams eventually get so focused on wining that all culture changing avenues are ignored, GP and coopertition get thrown out the window. The concept that there is this semi-permanent group of upper echelon of teams and this lower group of teams, and that this is accepted, creates that division. In order for FIRST to achieve both its goals, of cultural change and establishing itself as a sport of the mind, there needs to be turnover of what teams are on top. I have nothing against the current top teams, they do awesome things and are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. This destabilizing factor can be an official thing from FIRST in the form of a game element or something else, it can be an idea that a group of teams decides to do, it can be a culture shift among the entire community of the FRC, etc. It really doesn't matter what it is, there just needs to be something that forces this turnover regularly. I thought that the FiM/MAR structure would do more of this, and it has. However the question of whether this is a change in sample size or a change in stability is the question. We shall see when the borders are removed.

I read this as you want to punish the powerhouses.

To paraphrase Karthik, to equalize the playing field do you want to drag the top tier down, or raise the bottom tier up?

[davidthefat]

This thread reminds me of a quote I saw on Reddit: "The reason we struggle with insecurity is because we compare our behind-the-scenes with everyone else's highlight reel."

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

Stereotype #3: “Miss Daisy is designed by Corporate Engineers”
We do not have any outside engineers that come to us directly from our sponsors. Every Engineer, CAD mentor, or Media coach on Miss Daisy is a former FIRST/341 student, a friend of a student, a team parent, or a teacher. We do not have a single engineer or professional on our team that is not in that category. Our fantastic engineering design mentorship comes from our former team members and their friends. We are an absolutely home-grown organization.

I have always thought that "XYZ is designed by Corporate Engineers" is a patently ridiculous statement. Most of us don't design frisbee launching, basketball shooting, innertube plucking, soccerball kicking robots for our day jobs. Even as you move up the engineering world and become really good at what you do, just because you can design a really awesome [thing] does not necessarily mean you can build a top quality FRC robot.

To be sure, engineers are great people to have around. But just because they have the title does not automatically make them good at robots off the bat. (But you may have a hard time getting this past our egos. )

[Aroki]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Most of us don't design frisbee launching, basketball shooting, innertube plucking, soccerball kicking robots for our day jobs.

Where do I apply for a day job that does those things?

[Jaxom]

Cherry picking some of Ivan's statements; I'm not trying to interrupt his flow & hope this doesn't do that.

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

Each team should always try and "sustain their excellence," but the larger system of FRC should not be designed so that the same teams can stay excellent.

There should be some sort of factor that destabilizes things.

In order for FIRST to achieve both its goals, of cultural change and establishing itself as a sport of the mind, there needs to be turnover of what teams are on top.

This destabilizing factor can be an official thing from FIRST in the form of a game element or something else, it can be an idea that a group of teams decides to do, it can be a culture shift among the entire community of the FRC, etc.

It really doesn't matter what it is, there just needs to be something that forces this turnover regularly.

Gregor paraphrased Karthik; I'll paraphrase a Zen story I read years ago and probably don't remember correctly. If you have a shorter piece of string than your neighbor, the way to change the situation is to lengthen your piece of string, not try & shorten his.

I don't know how you can artificially make the "powerhouse" or "elite" or "whatever you want to call them" teams less of what they are. The only way to change them is for them to stop being themselves. There are pages of CD posts talking about this, so I'm not going to expound. I'll admit that I'm not a good out-of-the-box thinker, but I just don't see how FIRST putting anything artificial into the system is going to change these teams. They'll just figure out how to work around it.

AND...if you ARE able to find a way to force the kind of turnover you appear to think is healthy, I don't want it. I don't want to beat 1114 or 2056 or 469 or 67 or <insert the appropriate team here> on the competition field because FIRST made it harder for them than it did for me. I don't want to win Chairman's over 1108 (for anyone not familiar with KS teams, they've won something like 7 RCAs at various tournaments) because FIRST did something that gave them a harder set of standards. I want to get to their level and win because we EARNED it. There's no way I'm going to take any satisfaction in a trophy that I got because I got to use both legs in the race and my opponent had to hop on one.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

To be sure, engineers are great people to have around. But just because they have the title does not automatically make them good at robots off the bat.

We have a couple engineers of non-mechanical fields-- a nuclear engineer and a chemical engineering PhD. They're great people to have around, but as I understand it it was a bit of a learning curve for them to work on an FRC robot. Ultimately, their greatest value to the team for a while wasn't extensive technical knowledge of FRC robots, but rather the problem solving and design skills they brought to the table and taught to the students.

[josmee443]

wow, thats such an inspiring post. Team 1758 looks up to 341 with admiration!

[Gregor]

I don't understand the notion of it at all.

Lets use 2056 for an example. One of the best teams EVER in FIRST. 17 regional wins in a row, never loosing once. Dominates every year, builds Einstein quality robots every year. Has never won a championship. Is this an "elite" team that you should destabilize? I'm sure they'll do just fine with whatever you throw at them, but they have still yet to win the highest robot honour. Why should they be penalized?

Now lets look at 67. Another perennial powerhouse, 3 time champion of the world, CCA winner, and more blue banners than I care to count. Did not win an event this year. This is arguably the strongest team in FIRST, ever. Do they qualify to as a team to destabilize?

My point is that even if this idea was ever even approved, there is no metric to measure "eliteness." What is "too elite." Never in a month of Sundays will this get approved, but if the thought of it ever does, it simply cannot happen because you cannot measure it.

[rachelholladay]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

No... You are looking at it from a very different perspective than I am, hence why I said I'm looking at it from an FRC wide type of view and not an individual team view. Each team should always try and "sustain their excellence," but the larger system of FRC should not be designed so that the same teams can stay excellent. There should be some sort of factor that destabilizes things. Right now it very much so is designed so that teams that are ahead can stay ahead, if they don't have unforeseen factors like losing sponsors or build space, etc.

There is particularly excellent short story that I would greatly recommend called 'Harrison Bergeron' by Kurt Vonnegut. (For just the summary, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Gregor

My point is that even if this idea was ever even approved, there is no metric to measure "eliteness." What is "too elite." Never in a month of Sundays will this get approved, but if the thought of it ever does, it simply cannot happen because you cannot measure it.

Even if you could measure it, Jaxom's post sums up the point. What's so Inspiring about beating someone who had to face a harder challenge than the rest of the community? Besides, all giants fall from time to time, as Gregor has shown. But they work hard to get back up and go even farther than they had before.

[MisterJ]

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but I don't think I can any more. Kudos to the posters above for their support of team 341, who is a well-tuned group of hard-working students and mentors. With such a big team - yes, it requires a heck of a lot of clapping when they head to the field after winning an award, but it's extremely well-deserved clapping - Daisy students and mentors have the ability to both create very high-functioning robots and provide help to other teams, which they do regularly.

I feel my team has an interesting perspective on team 341. We lost to them in both of our district finals 2-matches-to-1. It's so easy to become annoyed frustrated after that, but I've heard my students instead asking, "How can our team become like that? What can we do to bring ourselves up on that level?"

It's fun to look at a match schedule and see that you're playing with or against such a potent team. If you're allied with them, you know there's a lot to be learned. If you're against them, you know that you're going to be forced to raise your game and develop an even better strategy.

Even though we're 2-8 versus team 341 in our first two years as a team, we're watching you closely... We're learning a lot... And we're looking up to you as role models. One of these years, we're going to beat you guys in elims and I hope you can smile when we do, knowing how much of our success has come from imitating MAR's best team.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Aroki

Where do I apply for a day job that does those things?

Seems like IFI and AndyMark at least would let design the building blocks in exchange for dollar bills.

Also the first thing that popped into my head when I saw "corporate engineers":

I just imagine Corporate Engineer Benedict showing up in his corporate 3 piece suit to design the robot every day after work.