What can FIRST do to increase FRC team sustainability?

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Knufire

I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that lack of inspiration or motivation were directly responsible, but that the discouragement of building a non-functional robot is a contributing factor to those key people involved in running a team "burning out".

Perhaps, but maybe not as much as you'd think.

A perhaps representative anecdote, from my own experience: Team 4464 very nearly folded in their third year (perhaps, in all truth, it should have). We attended championships in both of our first two years, but it was on the back of an overworked mentor base that shrunk each year. There was no plan for replacing human resources as they left. After the second year, our lead nontechnical mentor (the mother of the team captain) departed, as her son had graduated and quite honestly she had been handling a quantity of work that ought to have been done by at least three people. The resulting third season was, simply put, a mess. Had one or two more people decided to move on, it probably would not have happened at all. And this was a team that won RAS - a team that, from the outside, one would think was having a great deal of success. I think it's important to keep this in mind, when thinking about young teams: success can happen on the very brink of failure, often at the expense of abusing an insufficient pool of resources in ways that will eventually come back to bite you. On top of this, of course, were problems with funding (I loaned the team somewhere north of $2000 out-of-pocket to keep it afloat until we finally had funding come in, and I was not the only one) and issues with creating a sustainable base of student knowledge (which is a thing that's much easier to keep going once started than it is to get up and running). I think this is the type of situation one should have in mind when they consider the attrition rates.

I think it's hard to communicate to people who are considering starting an FRC team just how hard it is to run a team. Even 449, which is a fairly well-established team, scrambles to find year-to-year funding. FRC is difficult, expensive, and has a massive barrier to entry; and most of the difficulty is not in putting a robot together and getting it to competition for the first year - most of the difficulty is not even seen until the student base starts to churn and mentors start to leave. I honestly do not know how FRC can prepare teams for that.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Knufire

The argument isn't that removing bag time will level the playing field, or reduce the disparity between rookie and veteran teams.

The argument is that, with the current system, too many rookie teams build robots that simply don't function or accomplish any basic gameplay related task. These teams then get discouraged because they couldn't build a robot that positively contributed to the any of the alliances they were a part of, and decide that the time and effort they put into this program wasn't worth the disappointment at the end. Theoretically, moving to an open build schedule would give these rookie teams more time to reach this bar of performance, where they would have the rewarding experience that Jared's post talks about.

I understand the argument. I simply disagree with it. Struggling teams have plenty of time to build a modest, but useable robot already. That tells me more time isn't what they need. YMMV.

How can time be their biggest problem? A ready-for-inspection kit bot, basic software, and driver controls can easily be built in a weekend, *if* you know what you are doing.

Building the FRC equivalent of a Formula One car, or anything close to it, is not a job for any struggling team. However, the more time healthy teams are given for building, the more their robots become like Formula One cars. As those robots get more sophisticated, the challenge becomes even more difficult for the struggling or new teams who try to keep up.

If you want more teams to survive, make all the robots simpler, cheaper, and less time-consuming.

[Mark Sheridan]

To sort off peel of the longer build season discussion. I find it hard to help teams outside the build season but find hard to have time to help teams during the build season. There just so many learning opportunities during the build season, often too many. Outside of the build season, some team meet very little or have a tough time getting ready for the build season.

I did notice that in California, the formula for successful rookie teams appears to be starting teams with prior FRC experience. 3476 is an offshoot of 2493 and features mentors from 696, 980 and 3309. 5810 and 5805 have 3476 alumni and mentors leading those teams. Many successful teams in California are founded by mentors with more than 1 year of FRC experience. It seems to be a good formula for success and sustainability.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by gblake

*if* you know what you are doing..

Ahem...

Well that's where we come in right? Oh wait...

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

To sort off peel of the longer build season discussion. I find it hard to help teams outside the build season but find hard to have time to help teams during the build season. There just so many learning opportunities during the build season, often too many. Outside of the build season, some team meet very little or have a tough time getting ready for the build season.

This.

Also back to the point of curriculum, a longer build season would make it easier to apply the curriculum because you're not is as much of a rush to get things finished. You can put more energy in to training and teaching with the motivation that comes with the build season.

And if you aren't as concerned with those aspects you can put more energy in to raising funds and other resources during the season.

There are an infinite number of ways eliminating bag and tag could be used to help improve and sustain a team.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I do know that once you've experienced a handful of rewarding FRC moments, leaving the program becomes really difficult, even when life is calling.

Great point!
All this talk about how hard it is to stay in FRC. Leaving it after experiencing personal and team successes is much harder!

[adammiller3122]

Originally Posted by rwodonnell

This is great, thank you! (How do I read it?)

By the way, if I understood how to give the little green dots, I would give you some for this...

Just click on the "balance" icon in the top right corner of the post.

[staplemonx]

here is some data that may be useful

Why teams are successful http://team1389.com/why-do-teams-succeed/

Why teams fold http://team1389.com/why-do-frc-teams-fold/

[DaveL]

My view of high school student behavior is that many students are motivated by deadlines.
We meet year round and only a hand full of students show up.
We get a big turnout on kickoff weekend and the last week of the build season.

On a side note, we only have a 5 week build season, because we take off the 3rd week to allow students to study for finals.
Do other teams have this constraint?

Dave
Mentor in the Pacific North West

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by DaveL

My view of high school student behavior is that many students are motivated by deadlines.
We meet year round and only a hand full of students show up.
We get a big turnout on kickoff weekend and the last week of the build season.

On a side note, we only have a 5 week build season, because we take off the 3rd week to allow students to study for finals.
Do other teams have this constraint?

Dave
Mentor in the Pacific North West

In my early years as a coach, I also did not schedule meetings during finals week. Later on, I was asked by the seniors to not dictate that. They said I should schedule the optional meetings and whoever wanted to come can come. Many seniors who applied early decisions or early actions already knew where they were going before build season starts. It was their last year on the team. This is another example that mentors/coaches should check with students before implementing rules thinking they were doing the right thing.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

This is another example that mentors/coaches should check with students before implementing rules thinking they were doing the right thing.

While I agree with this and I think it will help most teams. Every team is different.

I want really badly to suggest that FIRST create a example "team handbook" to send out and help teams with but I honestly don't know if it will help or hurt the majority of rookie teams. I do feel that most teams would benefit from a handbook but that a lot of teams initially miss the point of them (writing down esoteric rules rather than trying to codify what their team is about). Not to mention that every team is different (Maybe a team is about esoteric rules?). I know plenty of teams that function without them but I am so VERY VERY happy that my team has one now and that my students want to continue to improve it. I think it aids in our long term sustainability.

[DaveL]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

In my early years as a coach, I also did not schedule meetings during finals week. Later on, I was asked by the seniors to not dictate that.

Exactly. I don't schedule meetings, I just list my availability.
If the students want to meet during finals week, it's fine with me.

Dave

[2544HCRC]

I would like to chime in as a mentor of an older weak team. We (2544) have been in the game since 2008 and on the edge of survival since then. Had there been an active FTC base in the area we would have moved to that I am sure.

1. I completely agree with the elimination of bag day for the reasons given above. We have never been rich enough to produce a 2nd robot. We MIGHT do it this year because we were trying to have enough money to go to a second event and failed.

2. There were a couple of years where I was it. I was THE mentor for the entire team along with trying to hold down a full time job. I was super lucky as my job duties at the time allowed me time during the work day to spend time on robotics. When I was put back in a classroom as a teacher I strongly considered folding the team. A couple of engineering mentors came along and that was enough to keep the team afloat. Not running well, just afloat. I don't know how some of the mentors do it but if you are on a team hug your mentors, really. I have read some stories on here about students and mentors clashing and as a stressed out mentor I can read the stress between the lines. Mentoring is a hard thankless job as there are SO many things that have nothing to do with building robots. Ask me about the time the superintendent called me because I forgot to forward the list of students to the attendance secretary... It's all those tiny tasks that need to be done. I think the six week build season is really hard on mentors. My point is that anything can be the last straw for a mentor. A couple of bad parents, students, an administration that becomes unsupportive. A purchasing system that moves at glacial speeds. I know a mentor from another team that ended up in trouble over lesson planning because he was mentoring and didn't have the time to plan for school. With the new teacher evaluation system the paperwork has increased substantially. Look for more teams folding in the future over this one. Solution- Promote mentor teams and provide training for teams of mentors.

3. Funding- Thank god for GE. I know they get a bad rap in the press for being the equivalent to the empire but for us they are an amazing sponsor. We have Mike Hayes (and yes I am calling him out by name because he is amazing) inside GE working tirelessly for us. Mike has been a Woodie Flowers award winner and deservedly so. He is the mentor that isn't for us. His work has meant that the base funding is a non issue for us. I look at other teams and have no idea how they do it. We would have folded long ago without Mike or GE. See number 2. Funding might be that straw as mentor time is chewed up chasing down dollars. Solution- divert the FIRST stream of funding to individual teams. Teams should GET $5,000 from FIRST to go to a competition not give $5,000 TO FIRST.

4. The curriculum issue is real people. Most of us are school based and schools want to see value. Explaining the reality of robotics is very difficult. Only half of students in the program learn about robotics. The other half are designing t-shirts, setting up hotel reservations, sending out sponsor letters and thank you letters, etc. On the robot side we are set up in a programming group, build group, etc. So the build group has only a passing knowledge of the programming and vice versa. We try to cross train and do training in the fall but it has varying levels of success. During build only so many students can fit around the robot. Rarely do we have students with the talent to machine parts so those go off site based on our drawings and specs. Students have to be self motivated to find a place. I see many students that don't have that drive to make themselves useful. They get frustrated and stop showing up. We try to find things for them to do but then these same students don't like being assigned to "menial" tasks. During build there is very little time to train students. It is go time and there is no time. Solution- Provide more off season opportunities as well as some sort of mini bot that can be programmed in the same way as the larger bots. I know FTC was supposed to fill this role but the timing is off. FTC should happen in December when FLL is happening, maybe at the same event as FLL or the next day. Make FTC use the same 4 x 8 field as FLL so event tables can be dual purposed. This might provide a way to train people and have students work in smaller teams on more inexpensive robots.

5. Sport maturity- This happens in motorsports all the time. Look at trans-am in the 1970's if you want to see an analogy to FRC or look to formula 1 now. A few teams dominate the season and seem to do so year over year. And every year it gets a little harder to compete with those teams. A couple of posters eluded to this in the posts. The advice was that rookie teams shouldn't build a sophisticated robot. I agree, but you aren't going to go up against a sophisticated team and win or get selected for an alliance. Personally, I had to make a decision that FRC was only going to take up x number of hours in my life. We are never going to be a powerhouse team with me as lead mentor. I just don't have the time or expertise. I am totally willing to step aside into a support role if someone wanted to step in and lead the team to greatness. So far that person hasn't shown up. Solution- Elimination of bag day, Divisions system like Formula 1,2,3 or SCCA car classes. Or any dirt track that has semi late and late model races. Teams have different focus. Maybe there is a "super stock" class that requires a kit frame, kit motors, etc. And an open class that allows more sophisticated builds. Waterjet frames, unobtanium bearings, etc. Maybe allow teams to field robots in EACH class if they want. It sets up a bit of a jv and varsity system. I know FTC is supposed to provide this jv system but it doesn't now. FTC should overlap on the field that is FLL or FRC. It shouldn't be it's own thing.

5. School support- I don't know about your team but my students want to be recognized for what they do but they aren't the type of students that seek out public recognition. As a matter of fact most turn a bit pale at the thought of speaking in front to their peers. We usually have one or two students that are really good at that PR piece to put out front but sometimes we don't. We also are in our robot hole for six weeks and then we go to 1 hard to explain competition. It is hard to explain ranking, alliance selection and eliminations to someone that asks "How did you do?" Solution- More events in a "season" Your $5,000 should buy you into 2 events at least if not more. Maybe 2 smaller events and then a regional. If there was no bag day, maybe more off season events could happen in the weeks leading up to a regional.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

What years are FRC teams most likely to fail? I would guess something like years 2 & 5, but I'd love to know the actual answer. Can someone generate those numbers real quick?

Not sure why I had the years 1-3 as the toughest for a team, I meant to say years 2-4.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by marshall

I want really badly to suggest that FIRST create a example "team handbook" to send out and help teams with but I honestly don't know if it will help or hurt the majority of rookie teams.

Having just come off our rookie season, THIS. We get great documentation about the game and the rules, but not a lot about what happens (when and why) at a competition, how much scaffolding (money, mostly) we may get (and how) in our 2nd and later years, and example ideas / timelines on how to recruit sponsors and find funds.

Sadly, If it weren't for CD....

[mac]

1. Some how prevent main one mentor teams from burning out.
2. Teams having trouble in there school system, a escape route to any kind
of building. With money or without money given to secure building. Like 4
months rent, if not free.
3. 10 or more central locations having a full size field set up on day one of
build season. Minus electronics.
4. 10 or less equipment hubs open to any an all teams. Good for that snowy
week to bring your robot into.
5. Allow some events to in whole or in part keep same 3 teams on same
alliance side. Put these 3 teams together in pit area. If this would be to
big a can of worms for all my friends here. You tell them, that they can
do it for one season only. Then they must get a divorce. At a later time
they could get remarried. We would not want to create any more power
house alliances around the neighbor hood.
6. FIRST website you can navigate in 2.5 seconds.
7. Allow that 12 year old motors to pass inspection. Oh that's right it happen
to us on a Friday night after passing inspection. Lead Inspector comes
around. What you got there boys. I won't mention any names.
I could think of more later. Thomas (just give me crabcake) McCubbin