What can FIRST do to increase FRC team sustainability?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by gblake

...

I frankly couldn't give a toss about counter-argument vs argument in the way that my post wasn't really there to take a side on any opinion on B&T; I just wanted to make sure I was not alone in witnessing a stunning lack of awareness of some posters.

On the topic that you were pushing in to, I have a loosely developed idea of how a Division II of FRC could work in some areas but it's not hammered out really well right now and is part of a larger post that this thread at the moment would not benefit from...

Essentially a Division II FRC would take place from August to December, playing a modified version of the game Division I experienced from January to April.

Targeted benefits of Division II
-Cheaper registration fee: Division II events would essentially be FIRST sanctioned offseasons in their structure and venue. You are playing on a worn field. You could/should be able to register a team for $1000 and get two district events?
-Allow Division I teams to mentor Division II teams: it's out of season for potential division I teams so they can use some outreach efforts just by taking their robot to a division II team shop and showing them what they did, or they could invite a division II team in to their shop.
-Train up new volunteers in new roles: pretty much moving a benefit from an offseason competition into a "second season" competition.
-Try out new higher-level rules like no bag and tag, motor allotments, bumpers.
-Give COTS manufacturers time to develop and stock relevant items to lower the cost for these teams
-Probably more benefits

I could also list the drawbacks that I have already considered but frankly I'm interested into seeing how people try to rip it apart. At the administrative level it's hard to see how this can work in anywhere that isn't Ontario, Minnesota, California, or Michigan, and these teams likely would not go to a postseason exposition like Division I has, but the idea is that they might not be able to afford it anyway.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

... I have a loosely developed idea of how a Division II of FRC could work in some areas but it's not hammered out really well right now and is part of a larger post that this thread at the moment would not benefit from...

Essentially a Division II FRC would take place from August to December, playing a modified version of the game Division I experienced from January to April.

...

When I thought about creating a division-style split among the teams in order to help struggling teams, I thought of some reasons that discouraged me from suggesting it

A) It would definitely have an effect on struggling teams, but I think the change doesn't directly attack a root cause of teams' struggles. I think those root causes are being ill-prepared for starting the build season part of FRC, plus a few others.

B) I think that struggling teams need a foundation of being better prepared, and need a safety net. Competing in a lower-performing division is still competing (that will include some learning), and competing is distracting. To me creating two divisions didn't shed enough of the problems teams encounter in the current annual rhythm, and didn't focus enough on zero-risk education and practice (that would carry over as a safety net in the Spring).

Blake

[EricH]

Caution, long post.

If I can summarize the B&T debate succinctly so we can get back to increasing sustainability, and be advised that the numbers are just to identify, and assigned in no particular order:

Side 1 says that eliminating B&T makes more sense, would help them more, and teams can still choose to follow B&T if they want to. Side 1 says Side 2 just doesn't get it (and rather openly, I might add).

Side 2 says that keeping B&T makes more sense, and would help them more, for usually opposite reasons than Side 1. And Side 2 also says Side 1 doesn't get it (also rather openly).

Side 3 (a very small minority, generally landing with side 2) says that Side 1 and 2 are both wrong and we should still be operating under robot shipping rules as far as withholding goes.

And no side is willing to back down. I guess Side 4 would be "It doesn't matter what we say, we'll see what FIRST says, now can we get back to discussing sustainability?"

So how about we agree to disagree on that topic (at least for another six months or so, when FIRST announces whether or not B&T is back), assume that at least as far as sustainability is concerned it's a wash either way, and continue on?


Sustainability. What I see there isn't necessarily something HQ can actually do much about. I mean, short of lowering the barrier to entry (anybody not want to pay $4K instead of $5K?), the financial side is always going to be problematic. (I figure a rookie team budget for their first year to be an absolute minimum of $10K--registration, robot, and maybe some cheap T-shirts and tools.) If a team can get that part taken care of, they might or might not be sustainable--let's go with they'd be 33% more sustainable if they can guarantee a revenue stream (and remember, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, including the last two.) Maybe Dean's Homework this year will help. Maybe it won't.

Mentoring can be a problem too. I've got a challenge for all ya mentors out there. I see that a lot of experienced folks move to a new area and end up with an established team. A team that's got mentors and has been around a while, and is sustainable. How many teams could you help turn from "maybe they show up with a robot" to "sustainable" by simply working to mentor them instead of the more established team? Think about it. (There's other considerations, I'm aware--for example, the team actually needs mentors because they're set on the rest but NOT mentors--but that's kind of been niggling at me the last 3-4 years.)

Nomadic teams tend to have problems too, I'd think. Imagine having to move every. single. year. Can it be done, sure. I've heard of those teams succeeding despite all the moves. But I think it can be argued that an established "home base" can do a lot more for a team's sustainability than overzealous parents can. At least they know where to find the team...

And then there's the dedicated student factor. As in, the students so dedicated that when they graduate the collective team knowledge is gone... Or not dedicated enough to bother showing up.

How many of those

What can FIRST HQ do? More seminars on team management (fundraising, recruiting and retention, finding places to build--that's a start, maybe include "replacing your primary sponsor"). Lower costs of entry. And more Senior Mentors to help teams find those missing pieces. That'd be my top 3 for things that FIRST can do.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by EricH

If I can summarize the B&T debate succinctly so we can get back to increasing sustainability, and be advised that the numbers are just to identify, and assigned in no particular order:

Tricky thing about sustainability - the two resources are time and money. If all of the members are stressed out and burned out at the end of the season, the team risks folding because low participation time the next year.

--- (my musings on this thread) ---

At this point, I'm of the opinion that most school-based teams would be better served if their finances were a split between a school district and an independent NPO. So many state and local legislatures screw with how extracurriculars are funded/allocated that, IMO, the booster club model is the only real way to sustain a team that doesn't have one large central sponsor. I wonder what FIRST would come up with if they analyzed creating a membership-based financial arm that served as that NPO entity for teams. This would allow GREAT fundraising by a single group of students/adults to really have an impact in later years - something that usually isn't possible in a school budget.

The B&T debate (for me, FWIW) isn't about competitiveness or challenge so much as it is about the stress of a season. As a team who has consistently made it to Worlds we know that our competition season extends the build season by another 8-9 weeks. Even take away all of the CA wins, we would consistently make it to DCMP's now, meaning the season is another 6 weeks after build season.

The 6 week season is a lie for participants who are held accountable for robot performance, and has been for about 8 years. B&T stresses every single one of my build team members - adults and kids - long after 'bag day'.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JesseK

I wonder what FIRST would come up with if they analyzed creating a membership-based financial arm that served as that NPO entity for teams. This would allow GREAT fundraising by a single group of students/adults to really have an impact in later years - something that usually isn't possible in a school budget.

It should be informative to look back at this year's PNW funding structure and see the influence it might have on team sustainability.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I frankly couldn't give a toss about counter-argument vs argument in the way that my post wasn't really there to take a side on any opinion on B&T; I just wanted to make sure I was not alone in witnessing a stunning lack of awareness of some posters.

On the topic that you were pushing in to, I have a loosely developed idea of how a Division II of FRC could work in some areas but it's not hammered out really well right now and is part of a larger post that this thread at the moment would not benefit from...

Essentially a Division II FRC would take place from August to December, playing a modified version of the game Division I experienced from January to April.

Targeted benefits of Division II
-Cheaper registration fee: Division II events would essentially be FIRST sanctioned offseasons in their structure and venue. You are playing on a worn field. You could/should be able to register a team for $1000 and get two district events?
-Allow Division I teams to mentor Division II teams: it's out of season for potential division I teams so they can use some outreach efforts just by taking their robot to a division II team shop and showing them what they did, or they could invite a division II team in to their shop.
-Train up new volunteers in new roles: pretty much moving a benefit from an offseason competition into a "second season" competition.
-Try out new higher-level rules like no bag and tag, motor allotments, bumpers.
-Give COTS manufacturers time to develop and stock relevant items to lower the cost for these teams
-Probably more benefits

I could also list the drawbacks that I have already considered but frankly I'm interested into seeing how people try to rip it apart. At the administrative level it's hard to see how this can work in anywhere that isn't Ontario, Minnesota, California, or Michigan, and these teams likely would not go to a postseason exposition like Division I has, but the idea is that they might not be able to afford it anyway.

So how would this fit into the existing offseason events? It might be more fruitful to modify the offseason events to emphasize the experiences for the Div II teams. Changing the draft rules to break up power teams could be one small step. Changing rules to increase the value of easier tasks is another. Other ideas?