Role of Sponsors at Competition

[DavisC]

Hello,

I wanted to share a story from the Virginia regional that just really made me think about the role of sponsors at a competition.

In 1 of our qualification matches our alliance (spoke with every member on the drive teams) had a whole plan set up (planned in queue line), which was for nobody to do an autonomous ball because each of us knew our robots wouldn't score it. We also knew it would be a close match.

However, when we set up the robots on the field, 1 of our partners set up an autonomous ball. We of course asked why and if it would score. He said "the robot is most definitely going to miss in autonomous". We of course asked for them to take the ball out and expressed our feelings of not wanting to deal with a leftover ball.

The driver of that team then said "we have to put it in" so we asked, why? And he said ,"our sponsors are basically forcing us to load an autonomous ball".

The ball of course missed and we loss the match by only a few points... Are these sponsors one's that truly embody the ideals of FRC? Also should teams continue their relation with sponsors that act this way?

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by DavisC

The ball of course missed and we loss the match by only a few points... Are these sponsors one's that truly embody the ideals of FRC? Also should teams continue their relation with sponsors that act this way?

As important as that match was for the alliance, at the end of the day, the team's budget and sustainability is more important (in my opinion). However, these things should be relayed to and/or discussed with the alliance partners beforehand. Sponsors want to see their investment in action, so it is not really an uncalled-for request.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

As important as that match was for the alliance, at the end of the day, the team's budget and sustainability is more important (in my opinion). However, these things should be relayed to and/or discussed with the alliance partners beforehand. Sponsors want to see their investment in action, so it is not really an uncalled-for request.

I wonder what sort of sponsor sees the FRC robot (rather than the team) as an investment.

Performing well in your qualification matches is as much a part of FRC as showcasing your robot.

It's a poor lesson to teach students to compromise their alliance's performance in order to superficially look more impressive. In a real engineering environment, if your product doesn't work, you don't try to demo it.

[Caleb Sykes]

Sounds to me like the sponsors in question do not understand the game well enough. IMO, it is the responsibility of this team to educate their sponsors about the design/strategy choices that they have made. I'm sure that the sponsors would much rather see the team win than to see them try and fail consistently.

[Max Boord]

I disagree. Your sponsors should have no say as to direct on field actions beond mabye there logo on your robot. If your sponsors are forcing you to load an auto ball, they should also provide the programing mentors to guarentee it works. The botom line is sponsors exist to indirectly help you win matches so moment they direcly cause you to loose is the moment they become unless.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I wonder what sort of sponsor sees the FRC robot (rather than the team) as an investment.

The robot is a tangible short term way for them to see a return on investment.

If a $10,000 sponsor asks you to demonstrate your autonomous, you can explain it doesn't work, but still ask your partners if it is okay to demonstrate it on the field. It is up to the team to teach the sponsor why they are/are not running it.

In my opinion, not a huge deal. If it was someone on my alliance, I would understand their rationale for wanting to try out auton in front of a sponsor.

Edit: in this particular incident, since the other partners aren't confident they can make the balls in quickly after a missed auton shot, it obviously isn't the smartest choice. But if the partners are confident, it isn't a big deal.

[lpickett]

As a mentor/sponsor, I feel it is not my right to tell the drive team what to do in a match. They are suppose to know the capabilities of the alliance members and make whatever decision needs to be made in every match. The variables are different each match and unless I have done scouting on every team, I can not make an informed choice on what needs to be done. I am only here to guide the students and give them monetary support to enable them to build what they consider a good robot.

[FrankJ]

I suspect, by using my internet X-Ray vision, that there is more to this story. I cannot see a sponsor asking for an particular action on the field. Or maybe the drive team was confusing "sponsor" with "mentor". For instance we have mentors on the team who work for & represent some our sponsors. But that is one person wearing two different hats.

Our sponsors are important. Without them, we wouldn't be where we are. If they make a request we will generally bend over backwards to meet it. But when we cannot we will explain the reasons. Good communications are key in all things.

[DavisC]

Just to give my personal opinion on the matter clearly, i believe that based on the circumstances, the actions were wrong. And on another note, i was quite annoyed at the matter...

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

In my opinion, not a huge deal. If it was someone on my alliance, I would understand their rationale for wanting to try out auton in front of a sponsor.

I agree with you on this, the problem i had with this scenario is the drivers on that team didn't feel that they should do an autonomous ball; while the sponsors were telling them that they have to.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by DavisC

The driver of that team then said "we have to put it in" so we asked, why? And he said ,"our sponsors are basically forcing us to load an autonomous ball".

I think there is more to this than the above quote.

I've been a sponsor and all that we ask is that our name appear on the robot and if there are other sponsor names to appear on the shirt. Some teams have structured costs like $x for shirt, $y for logo on robot, etc. some don't.

I used to ask for a shirt but with 2.3 million of them, I'm a little out of space.

In the beginning, I once showed up to ask what they were doing with the money, that's how I got sucked into being a mentor.

But I don't think as an outsider I would even make a suggestion.

Lets hear more of the story ....

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It is up to the team to teach the sponsor why they are/are not running it.

It is up to the STUDENTS to determine what is best for the match, and determine what is going to not only make their team look good but their partners. It's about working together, so wouldn't you want to show that.

Additionally there are a few things here - It is one thing if the drive coach / mentor of the team is an employee of the teams largest sponsor, but it is another for a sponsor, or anyone but that strategy teams and drive teams involved on an alliance to dictate how the game is played. And really the sponsor should be concerned about investing into the future of the students and community, the rest will fall into place.

My two cents.

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

In my opinion, not a huge deal. If it was someone on my alliance, I would understand their rationale for wanting to try out auton in front of a sponsor.

Wouldn't winning a match and ranking higher be more of a positive outcome at the end of the event then demonstrating that an autonomous mode functions?

Originally Posted by DavisC

The ball of course missed and we loss the match by only a few points...

From my experiences, sponsors love to be able to make the claim of "the robot we sponsored ranked 15'th out of 40" and not "the robot we sponsored has a autonomous that shot the ball; but because it wasn't accurate, the robot ranked near the bottom"

Just my $0.02

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

It is up to the STUDENTS to determine what is best for the match, and determine what is going to not only make their team look good but their partners. It's about working together, so wouldn't you want to show that.

Certainly. It's also up to the team to retain their sponsors, which--for whatever reason--would seem to include explaining how their autonomous (doesn't) works and what bearing this has on game play. (I think that's what Akash is saying.) Of course the students chose, but it's also important to teach them that justifying their decisions, particularly to those who cut checks, is also an important part of life.

[dougwilliams]

Originally Posted by Foster

I think there is more to this than the above quote.

...

Lets hear more of the story ....

I was a drive coach/mentor at Virginia and I had the exact same experience, and I'm guessing the same team (although I honestly don't remember team name or number at this point). We had the same discussion and the team ensured they would not load a ball.

After deploying our bot and running back to the driver station, the match is about to start when we look up and notice they loaded a ball.

The story we were told in queue was that it was their (adult)coach/mentor who insisted. (All members of drive team and drive coach were students on that team).

What I did see in between matches was someone (an adult) on that team (I assume a coach or mentor) who was being very ... loudly insistent. Given the circumstances, I didn't want to push the issue too much with the team on a last minute run out to the field to remove the ball.

So, unless there were more occurrences of this happening, my belief was that it was not a sponsor; but I don't blame the students on that team for saying what they did, after what I thought they were going through. My guess was they were told very specifically what they were to do on the field.

I did my best to thank them for their performance and keep spirits up.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by dougwilliams

What I did see in between matches was someone (an adult) on that team (I assume a coach or mentor) who was being very ... loudly insistent. Given the circumstances, I didn't want to push the issue too much with the team on a last minute run out to the field to remove the ball.

Thanks for adding your story. All I can say is /sigh. I always feel for teams that had logic. reason, thought, facts, and science fall aside to volume. But if you watch TV today that's what you see. It's not the person that has all their facts line up win the argument, it's the person that can be rude, speak over top others and have a louder voice. It's sad to see it move from blowhard pundits to the robot event floor.

So sadly, I have little for the original poster.