The Stereotyping of Successful Teams

[Ivan Malik]

I can't figure out the cool multi-quote deal that everyone does, so one will have to do...

Originally Posted by 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.

There are lots of ways to destabilize the core, I'm not sure why everyone focuses on just one: limiting the top. Propping up the bottom works just as well... Here are some rather un-nefarious ways that both have been done artificially recently:

2009 and this year were two examples of how the game design can affect this. The wheels presented a unique challenge that was new to everyone and frisbees have a relatively reliable path of travel meaning they are easier to work with. These two things created ripples in the norm and allowed many teams to fall and others to rise. The wheels brought the top down and the frisbees brought the bottom up; was there something wrong with either of these things? To me, no. The issue with 2009 is the year after things went back to the norm and the dominant stayed dominant the following years. I suspect next year will be much of the same. Is it the GDC's fault that the sea-saw of "who is great" didn't continue, no. The weight is not theirs to bare, but rather all of ours.

The district system is also a destabilizing factor because it ensures that everyone has the same chances to play and hone their skills. It artificially caps the core and gives the periphery more time/resources to develop over a season. Sure the core could travel to additional regionals, but that doesn't mean anything to those competing just inside the districts that would be most likely to feel the sting of defeat over and over again. In fact, when a powerhouse travels to another region, that it rarely compete in, it often times destabilizes that regional and creates inspiration instead of disdain.

Right about now a lot of people are thinking "great the problem is being worked on I can forget about this" WRONG! Even if the game helps the periphery and brings down the core, even if the district system helps to even things out a bit, the community still has the mindset that the same teams should win every year or be close to wining every year. How many times have phrases like "71 should be at champs they were world champs x times, they deserve to be there." or "217 didn't make champs by 1 pt, that is just wrong." been said here on chief, the unofficial nexus of all things FRC and the cradle of its culture? Statements like that are what cause the division and with it the bashing of the core. What is more striking is who said both of these quotes, they were two heroes of FIRST. The people that everyone looks to for inspiration. If a community is basing itself off of heroes that create division and disdain then I'm not surprised those on top get bashed and made fun of. It isn't the individuals fault either as they are a product of the general culture, they are just under the microscope and reinforce this meme.


This type of culture would be great if the FRC was just about creating a sport and inspiring those within its existing ranks, but it's not. It's about changing the wider culture of society and for that you need a sweeping approach, not a focused one.

Power houses are high powered, focused beacons of inspirations for teams in their area, but those in FIRST long enough to feel the sting of defeat tend to already be inspired to pursue STEM. It is those outside the light of the beacon who can't see the shadow that it creates that are important. Continuing the metaphor, what would be better for a plane trying to land, one powerful beacon on the control tower or lots of smaller ones all the way along the runway?

The method of destabilization isn't what is important, rather the acknowledgment that they are needed that is. Then a solution can be found that works for everyone.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

No, no, I have the best Miss Daisy is awesome story! Back in Philadelphia 2010, we were the captains of the fourth alliance. Of course, daisy and Moe were on the first. When the semi finals rolled around, we were up against the best striker and full field shooter in that alliance. We were probably the one alliance there that could challenge the eventual champions for the crown.

That's an ironic statement, given that you're alliance was the only one not to take the #1 alliance to three matches. Not to detract from either Daisy or your alliance, but the rest of the Philadelphia regional gave them a run for their money.

[OZ_341]

Someone asked me via private message for an example of a successful team that "misread" this years game. That is an easy answer....Team 341. We had a pretty good machine, but we at least partially misplaced our efforts.
We overestimated the value of hanging for 30 points and spent way too much design effort trying to cram a climbing device onto the back of our shooter arm.
We also decided to go with a long shooter arm because it had to double as a climber. The end result was that our large rotating arm was much less stable and accurate than we would have wanted. We also spent time working on climbing that could have been spent on shooter accuracy. The story of abandoned climbers is pretty common among veteran teams this year.
So why is this important in the perspective of Ivan's comments? Because I feel that this year's game design allowed many teams to break through. (2729, 3974 and 225 come to mind)
So why did this happen? I feel that many rising teams went for much simpler and more elegant designs. Many teams with a history of high level success (like 341) went for overcomplicated designs. I think we fell into the trap of trying to be a "Swiss Army Knife" to stay on top.
I don't know if the numbers are there to prove this idea, but I think we saw more success amongst rising teams than in any previous game. Just an observation that may be relevant to previous comments.

[Anupam Goli]

2009 and this year were two examples of how the game design can affect this. The wheels presented a unique challenge that was new to everyone and frisbees have a relatively reliable path of travel meaning they are easier to work with. These two things created ripples in the norm and allowed many teams to fall and others to rise. The wheels brought the top down and the frisbees brought the bottom up; was there something wrong with either of these things? To me, no. The issue with 2009 is the year after things went back to the norm and the dominant stayed dominant the following years. I suspect next year will be much of the same. Is it the GDC's fault that the sea-saw of "who is great" didn't continue, no. The weight is not theirs to bare, but rather all of ours.

Never put a ceiling on teams. Always look to raise the floor. Economics are usually the worst examples for anything, but there's a reason we have a minimum wage and not a maximum wage. Putting a ceiling only stifles creativity, innovation, and most of all, inspiration. Putting a ceiling only hurts teams who haven't been at the top for long. Those who have been at the top know how to creatively work around limits places on them. Teams like 118 can't be held by a ceiling ( ), yet some of the newer teams that have emerged this year may be hurt. If FIRST outlawed swerve drives, teams that just recently spent 3 years developing swerve drives will have to switch to a tank drive, something they haven't done in 3-4 years.

Instead of limiting anything, raise the floor. Start a grassroots campaign to help the lower spectrum of teams rise. If you can find one additional engineering mentor for all of the teams that have none or only one, you will raise the competition level by that much without having to place a physical limit. The competition aspect will remain, and students will get inspired from a raised level of competition. Perhaps FIRST ought to start a campaign, entitled with something along the lines of "an engineer for every team"?

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

...... They'll just figure out how to work around it.....
......I want to get to their level and win because we EARNED it.

Both statements are very true.

[JesseK]

(This isn't a have-not soapbox ... I have a wonderment...)

On our team, time has always been against us. The 6 week build season is hard, and it's tough to get time out of the work days during build season to get to the school without project managers going ape s---. "Only putting in 40 hours a week? Ha. There goes your technical career." It has led to a lot of mentor burn-out, particularly when the 6 week build season is stretched out to 16 weeks in the pursuit of making software and 30lbs of robot better. The few weeks after the end of build few of us even want to think about a robot, let alone have to tweak it. Even one of the prominent FiM guys REALLY wants to do away with the 6-week cycle altogether, exposing more teams with low mentor resources to more burn-out. I'd be curious to see how the more elite teams deal with this via their team structure, mentor recruiting, etc.

One last point: teams don't even need to perform very well on the field to be talked about negatively. Simply powder-coating the robot because a sponsor has requested it every year is enough for many individuals to treat a team with this type of disrespect.

[Adam Freeman]

...

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Even one of the prominent FiM guys REALLY wants to do away with the 6-week cycle altogether, exposing more teams with low mentor resources to more burn-out. I'd be curious to see how the more elite teams deal with this via their team structure, mentor recruiting, etc.

What would cause more mentor burn-out, trying to get a robot completed in 6 weeks, or trying to get on completed in 7, 8, or 9 weeks?

Teams are working non-stop right past the 6-week build window anyways, tweaking, practicing, iterating, etc...

We just stopped "working" on robotics this week, for basically the first time all year, this week!

Are we burned out? Sure. But, most of the issues were trying to build parts that couldn't be tested on a robot that was sitting next to us in a bag. This leads to a lot of problems that could have been easily solved in our build space. Instead we had to work all week creating parts, only to work all weekend at the competition getting them to work correctly.

Access to the robot has no bearing on whether we are away from home/work working on the robot.

Removing the barrier from the robot, and allowing more access to it, is supposed to allow low-mentor resource teams additional time with the robot, so they can keep up with the other teams that don't stop working when the 6-week build is over.

-Adam

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

What would cause more mentor burn-out, trying to get a robot completed in 6 weeks, or trying to get on completed in 7, 8, or 9 weeks?

The top level teams are working non-stop through the 6-week build window anyways, tweaking, practicing, iterating, etc...

We just stopped "working" on robotics this week, for the first time all year.

Are we burned out? Sure. But, most of the issues were trying to build parts that couldn't be tested on a robot that was sitting next to us in a bag. This leads to a lot of problems that could have been easily solved in our build space. Instead we had to work all week creating parts, only to work all weekend trying to get them to work correctly.

Access to the robot has no bearing on whether we are away from home working on the robot.

I agree with Adam on this one. I would be less burnt out if the 6 week limitation was removed. As he said, it sucked having to make a bunch of extra stuff to try and make a practice robot work, not to mention wiring another entire robot and making configurations in your software since you don't have identical speed controller/sensors/etc. on both robots. Even after all that effort the practice bot never works quite right so there's even more time spent fixing those issues.

Additionally, most of the my burnout stems from having to leave work early and work until late at night because we have an artificial 6 week deadline. If I could work my normal schedule and get home at a reasonable time for another week, I would prefer that over the craziness that happens in the latter stages of the build season.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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

Originally Posted by Aroki

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

National Instruments? A group there designs things like iPhone-controlled cars and real-life Mario Kart games.

[PVCpirate]

Something I think is relevant to the discussion. Here in America, professional sports leagues have things like salary caps and playoffs which keep competition level and largely prevent "powerhouse" teams from winning the title year after year. As an example, the past 10 Super Bowls have been won by 7 different teams. Over in European soccer leagues, they don't have any of that, the top team after the regular season wins the league. Here is the same statistic for the top 4 leagues:

• England - 4 teams
• Spain - 3 teams
• Germany - 5 teams
• Italy - 3 teams

Less teams win, but it can be argued much more strongly that the best team in each of these leagues won the title each year. I would have to say that FRC is much closer to the NFL in this regard. Divisions, alliances, and eliminations ensure that we have different champions every year, and the widely regarded "best team" doesn't always win.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

What would cause more mentor burn-out, trying to get a robot completed in 6 weeks, or trying to get on completed in 7, 8, or 9 weeks?

[...]

Are we burned out? Sure. But, most of the issues were trying to build parts that couldn't be tested on a robot that was sitting next to us in a bag. This leads to a lot of problems that could have been easily solved in our build space. Instead we had to work all week creating parts, only to work all weekend at the competition getting them to work correctly.

Access to the robot has no bearing on whether we are away from home/work working on the robot.

Removing the barrier from the robot, and allowing more access to it, is supposed to allow low-mentor resource teams additional time with the robot, so they can keep up with the other teams that don't stop working when the 6-week build is over.

-Adam

Sorry, Adam, but I must disagree. I believe it's known as Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the allotted time.

What I mean is this: Expand the season to 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 weeks, and I'm willing to bet that you will STILL spend multiple hours a day, multiple days a week, every week, trying to iterate a newer and better item, reworking the robot between Week 1 and your first competition when you realize that your design isn't working out, doing a lot of things to make the robot perform better, or even just driver practice.

The ONLY thing that will be different is... wait for it...

... You'll have your competition robot to do it on. That means you don't need to build a practice robot. Assuming that you did that after bag day anyway (or before building the competition robot), you really aren't saving that much wear and tear on yourself, because you're still running into the "Just one more tweak" from 3 or 4 different directions, which leads to more late nights, more nights, later nights...


Basically, what I'm saying is that by allowing teams to work longer, they will do just that, resulting in even more burnout. It's just human nature. I would almost go so far as to say that it won't help the teams you're trying to help, it'll hurt them. Almost.

[nlknauss]

I think an important thing to highlight in this conversation is that many of the stories provided describe a progression of improvement over a couple of years. Al described this in some of his initial posts where he talked about 341's focus around 2009 and on. I'm sure teams like 341 set small goals (probably this time of year) that they can use to build on annually to get them to another level. No huge amount of change is going to happen over night or from one year to the next. Patience and commitment will pay off.

[LemmingBot]

(I forgot I had this until just now)


I'm sorry but if you are seriously going to bash a team for any reason you have no place in the FIRST community at all.

[Brandon_L]

I would just like to say that I too at one point thought the same way ("elite teams are mentor built", "They're all rich (I mean just look at that paint job that turns out to be just spraypaint!)" and ect.) I'm fairly certain that my entire team thought the same way. And we did horrible year after year after year.

With our lead mentor leaving this past year and a new guy coming in that had no experience with first, I somewhat took over in the summer and tried to turn this around not only for my team but for myself. We met in the local library over the summer, running workshops, writing letters to sponsors, and working our butts off to get somewhere. We managed to nab an incredible sponsor with amazing machining resources (they even donate some materials!) that we could never dream of having before. Now that the season is over we find ourselves with our first blue banner.

The students even turned around from "Its not our fault we stink, everyone else is just too good" to "These are the problems within our team, lets fix them". Right now we're working with the school board to improve our situation in the school (an actual robot room w/ machines!) and addressing team structure issues.

Its amazing what a little good ol' fashioned hard work and dedication can accomplish. Hats off, 341. Keep it up. You're an inspiration to the rest of us, its a shame some people don't take advantage of that.