What can FIRST do to increase FRC team sustainability?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by jman4747

You seem to be just barely missing the main point. "extending the build season gives you more options for scheduling parts build and delivery." Change that to, "extending the build season gives you more options for scheduling everything about how you run your team between Jan and April"

Forgive the bluntness, but nope.

Eliminating (or delaying) a bag & tag deadline will not give you any more scheduling options for anything which does not involve building a robot, because you have all those options already.

"This would be true if the only reason a student can't attend is an absolute lack of hours in the week to spend on the team." And? That's one more sub group of students that can attend that couldn't. Meanwhile the examples you mentioned aren't even hurt by the change. Explain how that is not a net gain.

The examples I mentioned can definitely suffer if the robot build takes longer. Don't you notice an obvious increase in "catching up" with schoolwork, chores, social events, etc. once the robot is in the bag? That's not likely to change just because the team meetings are an hour shorter. If the problem is time management in general, adding time is not a useful solution.

"I can see where the 54 comes from..."
Yes I spelled it out. I'll do it farther.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I think I might have been confused by a missing "not" (or at least a missing "'t" on the word "can") in your original post, and I know I was confused by failing to grasp that the 3 hour meetings were being changed to 2 hour meetings.

I mostly understand what you're saying now. I don't accept the outcome, because there are many unaddressed factors, but I do accept the math of what you do address.

You seem to think I think that everyone will benefit significantly and that for this idea to be valid everyone needs to. Of course everyone won't take advantage of it properly but their are people who will and if that ends up saving that team it was worth it.

I have seen many teams. I have seen how a lot of them work, and I have seen how a lot of them struggle. I can point to none of them as being able to benefit from applying their present build effort over a longer time.

If getting rid of bag & tag will help a team become more sustainable, it's going to be because they can spend more time on the robot, period. You have described well how to reduce the number of hours spent per week, but you have not shown any evidence that the number of hours spent per week is a problem.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

This thread has largely devolved into a "Will Not/Will Too" conversation. The opinions are so clearly opposite as to what will or will not improve sustainability, and no one seems to be shifting position, or even understanding the other side's arguments, as though we're having two different arguments. As a first hack at this apparent Gordian Knot, I'll ask (and answer) the question:

What does FRC sustainability mean to you?

My definition derives from a more general definition I found on line. Applied to an FRC team, to me it means:

The ability of an existing active FRC team to continue being an active FRC team indefinitely.

As lack of sustainability is the primary source of team attrition, attrition rates (or more precisely retention rates) are a good first order measure of team sustainability. Teams can improve their sustainability through diversification of their various resources (mentors, students, money, facilities, supplies), and even more so through implementing a plan or culture through which new mentors, students, and sponsors are regularly identified/recruited at least as fast as the existing ones cease.

Does FRC sustainability mean this, or something different, to you?

I agree with this definition.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by marshall

I agree with this definition.

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

I also agree with the definition, and would like an explanation in similar words how shipping the robot would do the same. Read as: why we're complaining about this now instead of 10 years ago.

(I'm an old-timer, when I graduated high school everybody stuck their robot in a crate and turned it over to the shipping folks by midnight on ship day instead of sticking it in a bag at midnight on ship day--and what's this thing about "withholding allowance" again?)

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

Second...

And to go off on a long limb (this does not reflect back on you or your comment, GeeTwo, just a tangent)...

What is so bad about attrition as long as the FRC pool of teams continues to rise? In essence - some teams die on the vine and others flourish. This is not a reflection on FRC but an exercise of Darwin's 'natural selection'. Teams that have what it takes can make it - and others do not. FIRST and it's sponsors have already done their work by spreading out their resources to teams that may need it - but how have those teams used these resources?

Or are we in a place in FRC that we all need equal access to all resources?

Yes, my team wants to have what the best of the best have - but we are confined to the resources in our area. And I will be honest with you, I believe that we have enough resources to compete with the 'best of FRC teams'. We feel that our greatest resource is 'time' with 'talent' being a close second.

So here is what sustainability means to me:

Build/create a strong mentor core that can withstand the exit of student talent. Have a SWOT plan in place so that we can withstand long-term ebb and flow of sponsors/student talent/space/etc. Creating a Booster Club to aid in our fundraising efforts and back the team/club when the School Board is making significant changes that effect our funding. Founding and supporting FTC and FLL teams that will produce the new wave of innovation for the FRC team. Creating a HUB from teams in a similar geography to aid each other in time of need.

You see, none of these rely upon FIRST - and none truly go back to the students themselves. If your FRC team is set up to succeed - it is set up so that the students can succeed as the mentors and support groups do the work that they are designed to do. Yes, it takes a lot of work by the lead mentors; and yes it may take years to establish this culture... but for us in Becker, MN - it has served us well. FRC 4607 is a success as it graduates 10-15 students each season and we look to bring in another 10-20 that can take the place of those that graduated. How do we do this? By creating opportunities for those in the lower grades. Last year we started 3 FTC teams and 3 FLL teams.

Last Wednesday we registered students for our FTC teams and we are now creating 2 more teams... and by September I am expecting to create 2 more. That means in a town of 4500 people, we will have 6-7 FTC teams. These teams will be made up of kids from Becker, St Cloud, Big Lake, Clearwater, etc. And I am certain we will have at least 5-6 FLL teams as well.

Oh - and our largest sponsor gives us $3500 a year. Most of our sponsors give between $250-500 (cash and in-kind). And we have 24 of these - all of which we worked our butts off to bring into the fold. And we are in Central Minnesota, in the middle of Potato Fields - 9-15 miles in every direction.

edit - I am not saying that teams need to fold, but teams need to have strong leadership. Money can entice leaders, but it does not guarantee strong leaders.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

How about when a first year team has a miserable first year because they can't iterate on their design due to a stupid plastic bag...

How about when a first year mentor gets scolded by an LRI because they lost the B&T form and that causes them to have a terrible event experience (seriously, happened this year)...

Explain to me how keeping B&T keeps teams alive. You can use big words though.

I can't guarantee that giving teams more time to iterate on their designs will help everyone but it has the ability to help some and it is a reasonable idea. Eliminate the bags! #NeverBag

[Sperkowsky]

Story time.

In 2015 our team was coming off 2 terrible seasons. We had designs both those seasons but failed to execute them running out of time every year.

We had a design and executed the whole thing in time. Our issue however was that, that design did not work. We could have probably fixed all the flaws and had a decent season but, we found this out on bag day.

I even frantically posted this thread for help - http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=134801

But.... It was too late.

We went to our one and only competition spent the entire time trying to get it to work only to ultimately fail due to our lack of tooling and time.

We finished in dead last and continued our 5 year streak of no awards.

If bag and tag was not there we may have been able to gut the old system put a new one and compete at the very least.

This year we finished week 3. I guess that's a result of SBDSD.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

People have been doing this the whole time, but you don't really consider their arguments valid or correct, so why bother?

The biggest impact is on teams barely going to two events - they have a robot in the bag they know can be fixed but their chance to fix problems is artificially limited by a garbage bag that a third of FRC has a stronger emotional attachment to than the actual goals of the program. This was my old team, 2791, for many years. Small changes we could make, big changes we could not. We went to the CT regional in 2011 knowing we were terrible, that we had almost no chance of making the elimination rounds, and with really no opportunity to make improvements to the robot. The team almost died that year. Obviously there's more to the story than "the robot was in a bag" but these things were related.

Several people are posting arguments to the effect of "well, some teams will still be bad, therefore it won't completely solve the problem, therefore we shouldn't do it". What a bunch of hogwash. If even a few struggling teams do better this way and can play at a more sustainable and competitive level, isn't it worth it? This will make some FRC teams more sustainable, it's just a matter of if we're willing to do it, or if the people that don't feel like trying after 6 weeks without the self control to stop themselves will make the entire league worse for the sake of an outdated tradition.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

It may not outright kill teams, but it sure isn't doing us any favors when trying to grow & sustain FRC teams.

I've personally witnessed team success drive team sustainability. Many argue that robot performance does not matter at all, that it has zero bearing on if a team will succeed or fail long-term. I believe that this is false and that long term sustainability and long term improvement - both on and off the playing field - share a common link.

A team that plays well and to the best of their abilities and has some measure of success at a competition is an inspired team. They're excited, they're happy, they're proud. The students, mentors, & sponsors feel good because all of the time and effort they put into their teams paid off in some tangible way. Not an intangible "we really learned a lot this year, have a pat on the back" way but "wow, we programmed 3 autonomous modes that worked in 90% of our matches and won an award because of our consistency, and made it to the elimination rounds."

There are teams that never have that second moment I just described, ever. And at some point enough is enough - the students, mentors and sponsors don't see the students getting excited and they as a team aren't feeling inspired. Those are teams that fold after repeated years of feeling not so great after competitions.

Could ending bag and tag help improve the above scenario? I'd argue yes, it very well could for many teams. It gives teams a little more time to have that 'ah ha!' moment and get things working. It doesn't punish teams that can't build an extra drive base to put their 30 lbs of withholding allowance on to continue to practice and iterating. If we can raise the bar even a little bit for the lower and mid-tier teams, isn't that worth it?

Look to the VEX robotics competition if you want an example of how it should be done - no bag and tag. Constant robot access for iteration, improvement and practice. Would VRC be half of what it is today if they had a tools down / bag & tag policy? I'd argue no.

I still haven't read one statement arguing why bag and tag is still necessary other than statements that hint at "It's the way we've always done it!" I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to continue to do it. There were plenty of people who shot down the district model because it was different. Now it's the future of FRC.

As a community that's supposed to be innovative and trying to drive culture change, we sure are afraid of trying anything new.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

... their chance to fix problems is artificially limited by a garbage bag that a third of FRC has a stronger emotional attachment to than the actual goals of the program.

Zing!

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

B&T is the epitome of doing something just because we always have. FIRST is about innovation and inspiration. Removing B&T has a huge ability to do both.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

I still haven't read one statement arguing why bag and tag is still necessary

For the sake of giving you an answer, since you've asked a few times, and because adding more chaos sounds like a great idea. 6 weeks has always been a selling point. We always tell potential sponsors/students/mentors how we build this robot in SIX WEEKS.

So while I can't argue it's necessity, the value it does provide is a universal limited time frame that's apparently significantly shorter than real world projects. I view it as a really really good opportunity to learn about project/time management.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

For the sake of giving you an answer, since you've asked a few times, and because adding more chaos sounds like a great idea. 6 weeks has always been a selling point. We always tell potential sponsors/students/mentors how we build this robot in SIX WEEKS.

So while I can't argue it's necessity, the value it does provide is a universal limited time frame that's apparently significantly shorter than real world projects. I view it as a really really good opportunity to learn about project/time management.

Which doesn't go away if you lose bag and tag. Tell your sponsors you have an 8 week or 10 week build season. They are still going to be hella impressed at your time management.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Well, damm. Please 'splain to me in small words how bag and tag kills teams.

Is B&T actively killing teams? No. Absolutely not.

Is removing it going to make FRC harder for at risk teams? I don't have evidence to believe so.

Is keeping it making life harder for those same teams? I believe so.


What benefit does B&T really bring to our program besides an artificial constraint? And is that artificial constraint important to the goals of the program?

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

For the sake of giving you an answer, since you've asked a few times, and because adding more chaos sounds like a great idea. 6 weeks has always been a selling point. We always tell potential sponsors/students/mentors how we build this robot in SIX WEEKS.

Every time I tell someone we built our robot in six weeks, my nose grows a few inches...