COTS: How far should it go?

[Dalas]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Yes, I have been on teams that did poorly consistently.
Success on the field =/= inspiration.

I will agree that winning CAN inspire, but so can learning from those that beat you.

I agree. The last two years my team has done pretty horribly, and while I've definitely been demotivated at times the overall effect has been to inspire us to do our absolute best this year. I'd rather pour my heart out and lose than only partially try and win.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by marshall

I like this thread way more than the last one... the absurdity is high here.

[Sunshine]

Getting side tracked........

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this BUT....... if you are constantly in the bottom 5% you are either doing something terribly wrong or you are in the wrong competition or both. Seek help. There are a lot of great teams willing to show their support. There are also other competitions out there whose focus and model may be more in line with your goals.

Make it easier? Heck, I bet there are others like me who would like it a little harder. I'm tired of living in a PC society where we dumb down things for little Johnnie so he can feel good about himself. Here's a little surprise. Little Johnnie is smarter than you think and eventually figures out that you lowered the bar on his behalf. It doesn't make him feel better about himself.

The moment an organization like FIRST tries being everything for everyone they loose their original focus and end up pleasing no one.

Just a thought. I bet the bottom 15% at competitions are the same 15% voting for the purchase of complete robots on the poll. Not sure how to interpret that. Want a quick and easy fix to a complex problem?

Boy, I can't wait till we start talking about two championships again...... Lol

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain misquoted by TechHelpBB

-Students should design the robot and force the mentors to build buy it COTS

Let me make a little adjustment here.
There looks more like the marketing material .

I mean most of you students are broke anyway so .

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

...
Boy, I can't wait till we start talking about two championships again...... Lol

Hey that's a great idea!
A mostly COTS Championship, and a mostly nots Championship!

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

Hey that's a great idea!
A mostly COTS Championship, and a mostly not Championship!

I actually was thinking that before.
You know what might stink though?

The mostly COTS-bots might still get their butts handed to them.
Entirely undermining the reason we went down that road.

Might make for some hurt feelings but some great metrics.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Make it easier? Heck, I bet there are others like me who would like it a little harder. I'm tired of living in a PC society where we dumb down things for little Johnnie so he can feel good about himself. Here's a little surprise. Little Johnnie is smarter than you think and eventually figures out that you lowered the bar on his behalf. It doesn't make him feel better about himself.

...

Just a thought. I bet the bottom 15% at competitions are the same 15% voting for the purchase of complete robots on the poll. Not sure how to interpret that. Want a quick and easy fix to a complex problem?

FIRST can lower the barrier to entry while still maintaining "The hardest fun you'll ever have". Nobody is saying you prevent teams from doing the hard stuff.

I would vehemently argue that my team isn't in the bottom 15% (we won a regional and the MN State Championship in 2013 and were 2nd in state as alliance captains in 2014), and I voted to allow the purchasing of complete robots.

I'm 100% sure my team would be too prideful to buy the complete robot, but they sure as heck would learn from it.

[pwnageNick]

Wait, normal teams buy bearings?

Peasants.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Just a thought. I bet the bottom 15% at competitions are the same 15% voting for the purchase of complete robots on the poll. Not sure how to interpret that. Want a quick and easy fix to a complex problem?

I'd be happy to take that bet and you might as well get the envelope and stamp out now to mail it.

Lots of other people have pointed out that the full robot doesn't get you a win. You still need all the drive team, software, maintenance, pit crew, blah, blah, blah .. to make it. You could buy a full featured robot in 100 $399 chunks and still not be able to win with it. How many robots have we seen drive 3 second and stop because the battery connector wasn't tight.

I would suggest that the 15% of the people in the poll understand that the balance of the world won't move that much by having full kits. Teams that can machine and entire robot out of a single block of unobtainium are going to do so. Teams that are struggling might buy a full kit, but then they might not even know that is a possibility. Maybe we can get RC to give us a report on the number of teams that buy the full kit, but to be honest, most of us really don't care.

And if you are basing your bet on my post of me being in the bottom 10% multiple years in a row then you missed it. I was making a point. I often in my posts use strawman or what if arguments. I'm not above (or is it below?) using hyperbole in an argument. Lots of us do that, it's a common debate technique often seen at business meetings.

But then on the other hand, I have driven home after events going "well at least we were not last!"

Next, you can't glean anything out of the poll bars other than it has pretty colors. If you think so, give me a call, I can put you in touch with campaign staffs and political pundits, they love charts that they think have meanings. "Look, people that like cows also like Candidate B, therefor he will win!". It was put together in fun with random levels of quotients in the choices. Even the poll poster (does that make them the OPP?) said so in a later post.

Finally, we all "Want a quick and easy fix to a complex problem?" I want to weigh 185 again. I want to have color back in my hair. Actually, I'd settle for hair. But I know none of that's going to happen, much as easy fixes to complex problems don't happen. Not one person reading these words has thought there was an easy fix to anything in recent memory.

TL;DR - The 15% are not people in the bottom 15%, there are people posting that it's not true. Send my bet winnings to the MAR committee, they can use the money.

[cbyrne]

So, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Every team can and should identify what their priorities are. (Especially if they are mentor diversity challenged, or student diversity challenged.)

• Our robot is average, but we know how to optimize every aspect of the game, and we have practiced for all contingencies. [Strategy focused]
• Our robot is mostly a kit bot with some added zip ties, but by golly we have optimized the sensing and path planning code we run, and the robot really does a 2:30 auto period [Software focused]
• Everything on our robot is beautiffully machined on a 5 axis CNC machine, every piece is custom designed, it is a mechanical marvel! [Mechanically focused]
• We are a new team, but we were able to integrate components from many different places together into a working robot that conquered obstacles and did it on a tight timeline to boot! [Systems Engineering / Integration focused]
• Etc...
• Some combination of the above as well...

I worry that I see a lot of "well, if you didn't cut, drill, tap, sand, bolt, wire, program, integrate, test and advertise that robot all by yourself, you didn't learn enough" responses. For certain teams, maybe they don't need the mechanical focus, or don't have mechanically inclined students. (Same for software, business, electrical, systems integration, whatever.) That should be OK, as there are still many aspects of STEM education involved in a FIRST challenge.

I say allow everything, and let each team decide where & how they want to focus their efforts.

[Sunshine]

No Foster, I was not referring to you or your post in any way. It's not about you........ really.

Thanks for setting me straight (he says tongue and cheek), now I get it. The 15% are the enlightened ones. Obviously intellectually superior to the rest of us. You must be republican?

Yup, I can see it now. Two championships, one for the modified bots (race car reference) and one for non purchased robots.

Nationally we have finally figured out that you cant fix education by lowering the bar. I hope FIRST doesn't experience the same painful cycle.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Mr S, keep it professional. Politics doesn't come into this.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Nationally we have finally figured out that you cant fix education by lowering the bar. I hope FIRST doesn't experience the same painful cycle.

Nobody is saying that we should lower the bar. Lowering the barrier to entry and "lowering the bar" are very different things. The bar is as high as each team sets it for themselves. The bar to win Einstein will always be high.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Mr S, keep it professional. Politics doesn't come into this.

COTS suppliers are just tools of the lamestream media!

RI3D-->3 sides to a triangle-->triangle = illuminati = Real Illuminati Triangle Development!

Einstein 2012 was a false flag!

As someone who typically operates in the top third of FRC and still finds myself struggling sometimes, I wonder why HQ pushes for proliferation of teams that will doubtlessly occupy the bottom 2/3. My team can only do so much compared to stronger teams, and even they can do so much compared to suppliers when it comes to lowering the barrier to entry to create a functional team.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

<snip> COTS and Dog Shifters living together...

Nice!