POLL: Six Week Build Season

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by gblake

Additionally, while I can't see into the hearts of anyone else, I get a sense that most of the folks who want a longer build season, want it because it strengthens only the on-the-field, crown-a-game-winner part of the program; and that their main motivation isn't using that part of the program to strengthen the entire program.

Bad robots that cannot play the game are neither inspirational nor educational to build and to watch...but continuing to improve a bad robot and turning it into a good robot is one of the coolest opportunities available to teams in FRC.

The cycle of:
"Hmm, my robot can't do X" ->
"I have an idea! Let's try Y" ->
"No, that didn't work, but in the process I learned something that makes me think we should try Z" ->
"Hey! Z works pretty well! Our robot just did X on the field!"

...is the single most rewarding, inspiring, educational, confidence-building, team bond-strengthening, burnout-alleviating, sleep deprivation-justifying, life-altering aspect of the program that is available to all FRC participants to experience. The more of this that happens, the better. The greater the number and difficulty of X, the better. The greater the despair before you find your Z, the better.

(I challenge anyone who has experienced this as a student on an FRC team to disagree, regardless of where you sit on "competitiveness")

These cycles happen all the time, from prototyping, to CAD, to manufacturing, to developing software in your school gymnasium, to going to a week 0 scrimmage, to showing up at your first practice match at your first (or only) official event.

Currently a large portion of the available opportunity to experience these moments are not available to all teams because of the bagging day. Took too long to assemble your robots? Sorry programming students! No inspiration for you. Hastily bagged a bunch of parts because it's almost midnight (even though your regional is 2 weeks away)? That's okay, we'll spend 1/3 of our $5000 regional finishing building the thing, and spend the rest of the event paying several hundred dollars per match so the kids can learn how to drive it. Disappointed by your performance at your first event? Hope you spent thousands on a practice robot so you have a chance of making effective improvements before the next one!

Depriving any student of the opportunity to experience as many and as significant of these "A-Ha!" moments as possible limits the opportunity to make a real, lasting impact on FRC participants. The fact that more "A-Ha"s leads to more good robots, which leads to a more spectator-friendly and interesting on-field product is a great thing, but you don't need to start with that line of reasoning in order to arrive at the same conclusion. Crowning a winner is nice and all, and it's fun to hold a plastic trophy, but even after 15 years I enjoy watching my effective robot play the game far more than I enjoy blue banners.

Open robot access will result in more opportunities for more "A-Ha!" moments for more participants. Not all teams will benefit, but many will. Open robot access + multiple plays for all via districts + better local access to practice facilities? Now THAT'S what we should really be shooting for

TL;DR:
Putting artificial obstacles in the way of FRC's magical process in the name of:
* Tradition
* Helping adults with poor time management skills
* An elevator pitch about "six weeks"
* Teaching some sort of life lesson about "deadlines" (which is exactly what your first competition would become)
* Fairness
* Or any other reason you can think of

...runs contrary to the most fundamental, grassroots aspect of the program.