Mythical Six Week Build Season

[pabeekm]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

John might have a definition of "competitive" that is relevant to most teams.

I’d argue there's a definition of "competitive" that we can all agree with; it’s a drive to always do things better, gain more experience, and meet new personal bests. I don’t care how many banners a team has: if they have that drive, they are a terrifying and inspirational competitor who will eventually earn any measure of success they want.

It's worth noting that extra time on the robot can make a team more competitive in that respect, whatever their on-field goals are. It's an opportunity to put extra passion to work and learn more as a result. Practice bots aren’t necessary for teams to succeed on the field, but they can push a team’s experience and performance to levels they couldn't reach otherwise. That may sound cheesy, but it's true and awesome.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by pabeekm

I’d argue there's a definition of "competitive" that we can all agree with; it’s a drive to always do things better, gain more experience, and meet new personal bests. I don’t care how many banners a team has: if they have that drive, they are a terrifying and inspirational competitor who will eventually earn any measure of success they want.

It's worth noting that extra time on the robot can make a team more competitive in that respect, whatever their on-field goals are. It's an opportunity to put extra passion to work and learn more as a result. Practice bots aren’t necessary for teams to succeed on the field, but they can push a team’s experience and performance to levels they couldn't reach otherwise. That may sound cheesy, but it's true and awesome.

That's an admirable suggestion, but I'll bet you a lunch that 90% of the folks using the word "competitive" in this thread, mean "builds a robot that has a strong chance of doing well during tournaments".

I doubt many use it to mean what you just described, or to mean simply "able to compete". Able to compete is probably the more correct definition (if a dictionary was consulted, or if we focused on the etymology of the term).

If I won my bet, the definition of "doing well" would still be a big source of fuzziness, but it is definitely tilted in the direction of participating in the eliminations.

In my experience, "competitive" is a notion that means so many different things to so many different people that I have learned to avoid it. Using it creates waaaay too many opportunities for talking past one another. Parts of this thread are good examples of that.

Blake

[Rich Kressly]

It's been a pretty long time since I considered all these things - my last "on team" FRC experience was 2010. At that point, after a decade in the game, I was pretty much toast, but not totally because of "the game" and "the robot" but more because of the totality of game, robot, outreach, school integration, work with area teams as an SM, etc, etc.

So, with that in mind, I'll provide you with no answers, but rather I'll pose additional questions ...
- What's the best use of time for an FRC team when mentors are with students?
-Is more time on "the game" and "the robot" a good thing in terms of culture change or does it "only" provide better competition robots?
-What metrics should be used to measure this stuff?
-does having unenforceable rules (even if everyone is honest and gracious) make any sense?

I'm honestly not sure, even after all this time, exactly where I stand on the overall issue - I'm just adding questions to the pile. I think, if I were back on a team, I'd lean toward JVN's kickoff-to-competition and spread out the meetings, "teach" more, get home before my whole family was asleep ... and probably shut the "robot switch off" at some point and use more "in season" time for outreach, community service, etc.

The one thing I am sure of is I don't want good folks to burn out ... however, I can't say I know the exact cause of burnout in FRC or if it's even the same thing for all who need a break.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by gblake

That's an admirable suggestion, but I'll bet you a lunch that 90% of the folks using the word "competitive" in this thread, mean "builds a robot that has a strong chance of doing well during tournaments".

I doubt many use it to mean what you just described, or to mean simply "able to compete". Able to compete is probably the more correct definition (if a dictionary was consulted, or if we focused on the etymology of the term).

If I won my bet, the definition of "doing well" would still be a big source of fuzziness, but it is definitely tilted in the direction of participating in the eliminations.

In my experience, "competitive" is a notion that means so many different things to so many different people that I have learned to avoid it. Using it creates waaaay too many opportunities for talking past one another. Parts of this thread are good examples of that.

Blake

For me, competitive means playing saturday afternoon. Playing Saturday means your team is excited and energized. It means you have something positive to bring back to your school and tell them about how far you got. And we've seen enough upsets to know that anything can happen, so long as you're playing saturday afternoon.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

For me, competitive means playing saturday afternoon. Playing Saturday means your team is excited and energized. It means you have something positive to bring back to your school and tell them about how far you got. And we've seen enough upsets to know that anything can happen, so long as you're playing saturday afternoon.

Based on last year... Einstein or nothing, then?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by JVN

Einstein or nothing

QFT.