The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Of course it's a choice. The question is whether or not we want to foster a reality where you either build competitive FRC robots or do anything else.

I don't think removing the build window alters reality that much. It gives teams with less resources the choice to build longer like many teams already do with practice robots. It give people more choices. There are competitive teams without practice robots now but its harder. There are also competitive teams that don't meet insane hours and take 2-3 days off each week.

The biggest point I'm going to keep restating is that removing the build window will allow a lot more time to help teams get better. More pre-event practice sessions, pre-event inspections and time to get help with problems. A huge subset of teams just plain need more time to work on their robot before it can be something that runs well at competition.

[pfreivald]

You are right that there's a difference between the teams trying to become functional and teams trying to compete with the best.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I don't think removing the build window alters reality that much. It gives teams with less resources the choice to build longer like many teams already do with practice robots. It give people more choices. There are competitive teams without practice robots now but its harder. There are also competitive teams that don't meet insane hours and take 2-3 days off each week.

The biggest point I'm going to keep restating is that removing the build window will allow a lot more time to help teams get better. More pre-event practice sessions, pre-event inspections and time to get help with problems. A huge subset of teams just plain need more time to work on their robot before it can be something that runs well at competition.

But the problem is that there's also a large subset of teams that will use that additional time to become EVEN MORE competitive at competition. Mid-tier teams will hit the performance previously reserved for elite teams, while elite teams will hit new highs. Teams that previously would have fielded unreliable boxes on wheels will field reliable boxes on wheels with unreliable game pieces ... and still come dead last, provoking CD conversations about "oh, they just need more time".

The problem here is this:
[2 week build] A team that fields an nonmoving robot among a field of barely-working robots will be uninspired
[6 week build] A team that fields a moving robot among a field of mostly-working robots will be uninspired
[4 month build] A team that fields a pretty decent robot among a field of 2013-einstein-level robots will be uninspired.

Teams that field relatively bad robots will not be happy. No matter the build length, someone will have a zero-and-N record, and those people will leave unhappy. What we currently build would look amazing to a bizarro FIRST that has a 3-week build season, but yet there are still unhappy teams. Similarly, what a 4-month-FIRST would build would look alien to us in terms of quality, but there'd still be teams that were unsuccessful. And burned out mentors.

So we know this:
-Low-performing teams will probably remain low-performing and still come away thinking the top 2/3s of teams are cheating/adult-built/insane.
-Mid-tier teams will probably kill their mentors and students chasing their dreams of being elite for 4 months instead of 6 weeks.
-Elite teams will either kill their mentors and students, or will have the luxury of working a bit less intensely thanks to excellent ingenuity or sponsor support.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Bongle

But the problem is that there's also a large subset of teams that will use that additional time to become EVEN MORE competitive at competition. Mid-tier teams will hit the performance previously reserved for elite teams, while elite teams will hit new highs. Teams that previously would have fielded unreliable boxes on wheels will field reliable boxes on wheels with unreliable game pieces ... and still come dead last, provoking CD conversations about "oh, they just need more time".

The problem here is this:
[2 week build] A team that fields an nonmoving robot among a field of barely-working robots will be uninspired
[6 week build] A team that fields a moving robot among a field of mostly-working robots will be uninspired
[4 month build] A team that fields a pretty decent robot among a field of 2013-einstein-level robots will be uninspired.

Teams that field relatively bad robots will not be happy. No matter the build length, someone will have a zero-and-N record, and those people will leave unhappy.

So we know this:
-Low-performing teams will probably remain low-performing and still come away thinking the top 2/3s of teams are cheating/adult-built/insane.
-Mid-tier teams will probably kill their mentors and students chasing their dreams of being elite for 4 months instead of 6 weeks.
-Elite teams will either kill their mentors and students, or will have the luxury of working a bit less intensely thanks to excellent ingenuity or sponsor support.

Those assumptions just aren't true. There don't have to be teams that have a zero and N record. Also the winless record isn't really the problem it's the perception that they spent a large part of their lives on something that wasn't even able to play the game at all because they were fixing frame perimeter issues or were overweight or they just didn't know what they were doing. I know of a very good team that winless recently because of problems and a very rough schedule. They are still very proud of their accomplishments because they were still playing the same game as everyone else. The problem is with the teams that don't get it and aren't playing the same game.

I'm pretty sure there is a limit to how much adding more time does for the already good teams. For example if you gave teams 6 years to build an FRC robot I don't think they would be that much better than many of the robots we saw this year.

The option of spending a huge amount of time trying to win is already there. I probably spent more time in my shop than nearly anyone in FRC (about 11 hours a day for almost all of build season and a large part of competition season, however very little of my time was spent working on the robot). How does giving mid-tier teams less work (not having to build a practice bot) make their jobs harder?

Assuming that low performing teams will remain low performing is just awful. Most of those teams just don't know better and giving more time for veterans to help them will open their eyes to what they are capable of.

Also, what qualifies a team as Einstein level? I think this year out of all them shows just what can be done by raising the level of competition. How many of the Einstein teams this year were traditional powerhouses? (I think only 2 had won it all before and for most of them it was their first trip.) Powerhouse teams didn't get that way by some sort of magic or right, they worked hard just like all the teams that were on Einstein this year. What I'm trying to say is that a pretty decent robot has a shot at winning against Einstein calabar robots, the gap isn't that big. However the gap from really bad to descent is pretty large and very noticeable to people watching our events.

[IanW]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

... Having an extended build season with some form of milepost along the way might be a worthwhile experiment.

One thing that bothers me during tech inspection is that there are teams that clearly have not read the rule book. It would be great to announce the game, publish the rule book, and then require teams to pass on online rules test before receiving their KoP. (I wish I could remember who originally posted this suggestion... I think it is brilliant.)
...
Jason

I'm surprised fewer people haven't touched on these ideas.

First, having a milestone during an extended build season would not only give teams more time to identify and address issues, but also prepare students for the real world where, as I understand it, milestones in design projects are the norm. I recognize that most logical milestones, such as a preliminary inspection, would be hard to implement. However, if one was developed, I feel that it could be very beneficial.

Second, using rules tests as a barrier to entry isn't anything new in student design competitions. I joined a Formula SAE team this year (Go GFR, btw), where rules tests are part of the process of applying to competitions. I feel that this would be easier to implement, though there would need to be penalties in place for late completion/failing to complete the test. However, the penalties also couldn't prevent teams from competing. A rules test could even serve as the milestone described above.

Just some thoughts I had.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by IanW

I feel that this would be easier to implement, though there would need to be penalties in place for late completion/failing to complete the test. However, the penalties also couldn't prevent teams from competing. A rules test could even serve as the milestone described above.
.

How about penalizing teams who have not passed or taken the rules test by forcing them to put their robot into a bag after 6 week while everyone else can keep working on their robot?


This tread is a little too serious. Well a more piratical solution we used this year was: we talked to an inspector who mentors a neighboring team. he pointed out our shooter needed a shield. Saved us some time on thursday.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I want to be there for the team when I am needed. Being needed more than a few days a week for longer than a month and a half exceeds my willingness to make FRC a priority.

If the build season were to be extended, I would have to scale back my involvement significantly. I think that is true of most mentors on the team. I am certain that a longer build season would make teachers more wary of participating. I believe the team -- and the students -- would suffer because of it.

This is where I disagree. If someone came to me at work and said, "We have a project for you, and you have two options of how you want to do it. You can do it in 6 weeks, or you can do it in 12 weeks." What would I choose? Let's see, the first option would cause me to work nights and weekends and alienate my family, and the 2nd option would allow me to go home at night and have my weekends off. It seems like the 12 week option would lead to a lot fewer issues with the personal life.

[Jim Zondag]

Much of this thread focusses on the smaller part of the issue:

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Much of this thread focusses on the smaller part of the issue:

Too easy, Jim. We just need a few (dozen) more District-model areas!


BTW, on the rules test and penalties: I suggest that if implemented, a team that averages above X% by a certain date gets to keep working on their competition robot. A team that averages below Y% (which is some reasonable amount below X%) must stay in the bag for an additional Z time, potentially up until their event. Teams in between X and Y must bag their robot, but if they reach X% within N attempts following bag day they may unbag immediately. Of course, the implementation of said test is a bit of a challenge, as is the enforcement of penalties.

[Taylor Nicholson]

Originally Posted by Bongle

But the problem is that there's also a large subset of teams that will use that additional time to become EVEN MORE competitive at competition. Mid-tier teams will hit the performance previously reserved for elite teams, while elite teams will hit new highs. Teams that previously would have fielded unreliable boxes on wheels will field reliable boxes on wheels with unreliable game pieces ... and still come dead last, provoking CD conversations about "oh, they just need more time".

The problem here is this:
[2 week build] A team that fields an nonmoving robot among a field of barely-working robots will be uninspired
[6 week build] A team that fields a moving robot among a field of mostly-working robots will be uninspired
[4 month build] A team that fields a pretty decent robot among a field of 2013-einstein-level robots will be uninspired.

Teams that field relatively bad robots will not be happy. No matter the build length, someone will have a zero-and-N record, and those people will leave unhappy. What we currently build would look amazing to a bizarro FIRST that has a 3-week build season, but yet there are still unhappy teams. Similarly, what a 4-month-FIRST would build would look alien to us in terms of quality, but there'd still be teams that were unsuccessful. And burned out mentors.

So we know this:
-Low-performing teams will probably remain low-performing and still come away thinking the top 2/3s of teams are cheating/adult-built/insane.
-Mid-tier teams will probably kill their mentors and students chasing their dreams of being elite for 4 months instead of 6 weeks.
-Elite teams will either kill their mentors and students, or will have the luxury of working a bit less intensely thanks to excellent ingenuity or sponsor support.

I disagree with your measure of inspiration here. There will always be differences in how others are inspired, but normalizing it to the level of robot competitiveness is not a model I would agree with.

The following representation is, in my opinion, how I think it might play out, going by your metrics:

[2 week build] A team that fields an nonmoving robot among a field of barely-working robots...

This team is uninspired. Even if they reach the level of their peers, they still have a barely-working robots, and I don't think anyone is inspired here. (not that anyone here would argue for less time)

[6 week build] A team that fields a moving robot among a field of mostly-working robots...

(If this is what we consider where we currently are…) This team is inspired to work hard to keep improving their robot, trying to get their robot to a fully functional level to compete against their peers.

[4 month build] A team that fields a pretty decent robot among a field of 2013-einstein-level robots...

Or the never-ending build... This team has worked all season learning and improving from their peers in parallel with competing with them. This team sees how to improve, and now has the time now to do that. They are inspired to try and reach a higher level because they are now within reach of it.

I think teams are far more inspired by being able to accomplish building robots fully capable of competing and playing the game, than just simply being inspired by how well they did. The latter might set a very bleak picture of FRC. If we were to assume inspiration based on success, then I think improvement in FRC would be very staggnant, and we would be lacking many up-and-coming teams. Fundamentally, teams, and individuals, drive to improve would be lost.

Why do some of us here think that 6 weeks, a somewhat arbitrarily set time, is the perfect length for build season? I think the 6 weeks is the reason for much burnout, not a limit being set to prevent more.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by IanW

Second, using rules tests as a barrier to entry isn't anything new in student design competitions. I joined a Formula SAE team this year (Go GFR, btw), where rules tests are part of the process of applying to competitions. I feel that this would be easier to implement, though there would need to be penalties in place for late completion/failing to complete the test. However, the penalties also couldn't prevent teams from competing. A rules test could even serve as the milestone described above.

Agreed. I think they really could pull off a rules test without much trouble, actually. Just throw the ref & inspector tests (or lite versions) onto STIMS and TIMS, and require say 70% of those registered to pass before the team has access to their PDV voucher codes. All electronic, totally enforceable. Even if teams go open book or take group tests, they'll still absorbing the information better than some do now.


Err...I think I've forgotten how this sub-topic connects to the thread title. Put me down for what Jim and Chris said.


I also agree with Taylor's paths of inspiration. We've never been 0-N exactly, but we went 2-9 at Pittsburgh 2007, with similar results elsewhere 07-08. We moved-ish mostly, in a direction or two. The most inspiring years of our team's history. I can trace it directly to our swerve drive, and in fact to every banner we've ever achieved. I just wish we'd had the opportunity to iterate more back then and receive more team mentorship to get better faster. The team is 9 years old and our first winning season was 2011. (thanks MOE!) We're now happy to be a mid-level team eagerly--but manageably--chasing the elites for 4 solid months of the year.

[waialua359]

Perhaps I may be a little biased being where we're from.
Since participating in FIRST in the 2000 season, and from personal observations, I think the #1 reason new/fairly new teams quit is because of money.
Many grants and/or regionals have startup funds to get teams going. After that, the real struggle begins on addressing sustainability, as opposed to mentor retention and being "not-inspired" as the primary reasons.

I personally like the 6 week build season. It teaches a lot of life lessons and skills for everyone on the team.
However, I am not opposed to eliminating Bag/Tag and allowing for continuous improvement throughout the season. Less time and less resources building a practice bot.

[Tetraman]

I see a lot of posters tossing around the word 'inspiration' as if it blusters an argument. The assumption of "something that could add inspiration being inherently good for FIRST" is not a healthy one. Remember what inspires students more than any other part of the FIRST program: Mentors/teachers/coaches/parents/people. I really don't care if additional time to the build season inspires these kids - I want to know if this additional time actually solves the problem of mentor burnout so our mentors can continue to be the main source of leadership, innovation and inspiration for students.

And I think the answer is pretty basic: We don't know. As some of the mentors have already posted, if the build season does become extended they will feel hurt even more to keep up with the added time demands. On the other hand, other mentors say the additional time will increase their flexibility. So ultimately we won't know the true effect on ourselves and our teams if the build period is extended.

I think the worst part about this issue is that changing it will anger a lot of people but not changing it keeps a lot of people angry. The true answer is for FIRST to choose in what direction the program wants to take. If FIRST doesn't want to alter the system then that's fine with me. If FIRST does change I may not like it but I'll still do everything I can for my team and the problem because I believe in the program.

Otherwise I really have no answers to solve the problem of mentor burnout - except one: Is FIRST really the program for you?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I think the #1 reason new/fairly new teams quit is because of money.
Many grants and/or regionals have startup funds to get teams going. After that, the real struggle begins on addressing sustainability

Glenn, I completely agree. FIRST has a 20 year old pricing structure on a league that has grown about 100x its original size in this period. One of the things that I see is that teams join FIRST to build robots, but after a few years, a noticeable amount of their effort shifts toward raising money. Many mentors (including me) really don't enjoy this type of thing, and it takes away from the core expereince. This is a big factor in sustainablity.

FRC is too expensive, I think most of us agree. Comparted to a mainstream sport, the enrollment fees are many times higher. This is not something that we have been able to change (yet).

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

FRC is too expensive, I think most of us agree. Comparted to a mainstream sport, the enrollment fees are many times higher. This is not something that we have been able to change (yet).

Yes and no.

2815's long been a two-events-and-go-from-there team. Right now, that means six hotel nights (check in Wednesday night, check out Saturday), four days with a bus, and $9,000 in registration. We will write grants until our hands wear out, sweat and freeze selling programs at USC football games, cohost SCRIW (I don't walk the next day), and so on and so forth to be able to pull that off.

Okay, so being able to watch the game after we wrap up sales is kinda fun...and we wouldn't put on SCRIW if we didn't think it was worth it...but you get the idea. It's hard!

Were we in Michigan, we're down to two hotel nights (if that), four bus days (if that), and $5,000 in registration.

If our area had the team population (and density) to pull districts off, I'd be jumping on that train quickly!