[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[Nathan Pell]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

As others have pointed out, I believe you can look at the FTC and VEX program as real world data/examples of what happens with an open build season. You end up with some teams who don't want to be very competitive and they bring what they made and go home and are happy with it. Then you get the competitive teams who enter as many tournaments as they can to make improvements. As everyone knows the real test is when you put your robot on the field at an event and play the game. That is when you know for sure how the designs and mechanisms end up functioning. While I also completely agree the FRC build season should be like the FTC build season I think this would be difficult to do until all of FRC is district based. By having events close to your geographical locations makes it much easier to attend the events, and they are usually short thus requiring less time (if any) out of school. Here in Florida I don't see teams not attending the Orlando Regional just because it is 'early' and they aren't ready.

[JABianchi]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Could you explain this more? How would giving teams who only can afford or have time to build one machine be at a disadvantage from getting access to their robot over a long period of time?

Teams at the top end of FRC already have this with practice bot(s) and practice fields.

That quote was a summary from my entire post, whose main point was how resources would need to be stretched out further with a longer build time. Teams with more resources have more of an ability to stretch them out. (Please note that money is not the only, or even most important, resource.)

I understand your point that less-resourced teams would have more ability to develop a better robot, but wouldn't the same be even truer of a well-resourced team? Or would having no restrictions on stop build not change the way top teams develop their robots?

With Stop Build, all teams are still making some progress in their own way, but it's dampened progress, slowing down the acceleration of the gap between them.

(I think our vantage points on what constitutes a "top" team makes a big difference in this discussion. If we define it as teams that qualify for World Championships, do you think they all have fully-built practice fields? )

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

I want to share what I wrote in my survey, as I feel it represents a viewpoint that is not voiced much in this thread, which may be more representative of teams that would be thrilled just to have a competitive chance of making it to the World Championships.

-snip-

"In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

Respectfully, you're wrong. Eliminating stop build doesn't make 254 any better. It would help us spend a little less money and would make competition less stressful since we could implement upgrades at home instead of at the event... But overall it's not going to make our robots any better whatsoever.

Is it going to make the robots better for the teams that can't afford a practice robot and currently don't get to drive at all before showing up at their first event? I don't see how you could possibly argue it wouldn't.

But that's not what this thread is about (it's about the poll a middle school student could have written better), so I'll limit myself to this one response.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

I want to share what I wrote in my survey, as I feel it represents a viewpoint that is not voiced much in this thread, which may be more representative of teams that would be thrilled just to have a competitive chance of making it to the World Championships.

"Stop Build Day is an essential component to keeping FIRST equitable. With a longer build season, teams with many resources (money, school support, parent support) will be able to leverage those advantages to an even greater degree to the detriment of less-resourced teams' ability to be competitive and likely, less inspired. This is the same reason why we need to continue limiting the cost of the parts used on the robot.

"Additionally, coaches & volunteers that are stretched thin for those 6 weeks will feel compelled to keep up that break-neck pace for possibly double the time just to stay competitive, leading to much higher rates of burn-out. The way my team is currently structured, we would not be able to effectively compete without Stop Build Day. If FIRST is serious about reaching out to under-served communities, we will choose not to stack the deck further in favor of the privileged.

"The question is: 'Does FIRST want to be a club for the competitive elite or does FIRST want to create an equitable experience for a broad range of schools to realistically compete?' Far less than 20% of teams qualify for the Championship event each year. What can we do that will help that 20% have a high turnover rate?

"When the amount of time is limited, there is much more variance in a competition. This is why the NFL is the most equitable pro sports league in North America. Only 16 games, and single games determine elimination in the playoffs. On 'any given sunday', the worst underdog has a legitimate chance of upsetting the very best team. In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

1678 build three robots. Removing stop build day will save us maybe 500-1000 man hours and about $6k. We will still have 16 weeks to build, program and test.

5458 and 6174 (the rookie teams 1678 started) each build one robot. Neither qualified for WCMP in 2016. Neither can do driver practice with us because their one and only robots are in arbitrary plastic bags, while we are training our drive team and programming auto modes simultaneously during the competition season. These two teams have much more to gain from eliminating stop-build day than we do.

Teams already keep a "break neck pace" all season. Maybe you just aren't aware of it?

There are a lot of reasons why many teams never qualify for WCMP, but I'd wager stop-build day widens the gap, rather than leveling the playing field.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, mine is only one more among many.

Best,

-Mike

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

snip

+1

[Nathan Pell]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

I want to share what I wrote in my survey, as I feel it represents a viewpoint that is not voiced much in this thread, which may be more representative of teams that would be thrilled just to have a competitive chance of making it to the World Championships.

"Stop Build Day is an essential component to keeping FIRST equitable. With a longer build season, teams with many resources (money, school support, parent support) will be able to leverage those advantages to an even greater degree to the detriment of less-resourced teams' ability to be competitive and likely, less inspired. This is the same reason why we need to continue limiting the cost of the parts used on the robot.


"Additionally, coaches & volunteers that are stretched thin for those 6 weeks will feel compelled to keep up that break-neck pace for possibly double the time just to stay competitive, leading to much higher rates of burn-out. The way my team is currently structured, we would not be able to effectively compete without Stop Build Day. If FIRST is serious about reaching out to under-served communities, we will choose not to stack the deck further in favor of the privileged.

"The question is: 'Does FIRST want to be a club for the competitive elite or does FIRST want to create an equitable experience for a broad range of schools to realistically compete?' Far less than 20% of teams qualify for the Championship event each year. What can we do that will help that 20% have a high turnover rate?

"When the amount of time is limited, there is much more variance in a competition. This is why the NFL is the most equitable pro sports league in North America. Only 16 games, and single games determine elimination in the playoffs. On 'any given sunday', the worst underdog has a legitimate chance of upsetting the very best team. In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

To your first point, this has been happening for probably over a decade. The teams with 'many resources' are building two robots and attending multiple events to increase the likelihood of qualifying for world championships. Having a closed build season has not been FIRST equitable as you mentioned, and I believe removing the stop build day will have little change on how those teams operate - we would surely not build two robots and would probably enter more tournaments instead.

We lost two of our FRC mentors to our FTC program exactly for the reason you mentioned the 'break neck speed'. Spouses are now happier and they have both come back for another FTC season. Your team is already now competing with teams who don't stop building, improving, practicing, etc. We always tell our students we don't stop working on the robot until the last match on Einstein at the World Championships. Only then is it 'done'.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

That quote was a summary from my entire post, whose main point was how resources would need to be stretched out further with a longer build time. Teams with more resources have more of an ability to stretch them out. (Please note that money is not the only, or even most important, resource.)

I understand your point that less-resourced teams would have more ability to develop a better robot, but wouldn't the same be even truer of a well-resourced team? Or would having no restrictions on stop build not change the way top teams develop their robots?

See my post above, but to answer directly: Eliminating stop-build day would have very little effect on how we develop our robot (see Cory's explanation as well)

Originally Posted by JABianchi

With Stop Build, all teams are still making some progress in their own way, but it's dampened progress, slowing down the acceleration of the gap between them.

(I think our vantage points on what constitutes a "top" team makes a big difference in this discussion. If we define it as teams that qualify for World Championships, do you think they all have fully-built practice fields? )

Many teams that qualify for WCMP do so for off-field reasons (Chairmans, IE, RAS, Waitlist), so I think you'd have to evaluate a certain sub-set of teams at WCMP to understand how stop-build day impacts "top" teams.

I think many "top" teams (district points Qualifiers or Regional Alliance Captain/1st pick winners) have either a practice bot(s), practice field, or both. That's just my guess though

Best,

-Mike

[JABianchi]

Originally Posted by Cory

Respectfully, you're wrong. Eliminating stop build doesn't make 254 any better. It would help us spend a little less money and would make competition less stressful since we could implement upgrades at home instead of at the event... But overall it's not going to make our robots any better whatsoever.

Is it going to make the robots better for the teams that can't afford a practice robot and currently don't get to drive at all before showing up at their first event? I don't see how you could possibly argue it wouldn't.

But that's not what this thread is about (it's about the poll a middle school student could have written better), so I'll limit myself to this one response.

Respectfully, there are very few teams in the same league as 254!

I would be curious to know how far down the FRC totem pole your sentiments run true. If you represent the top 1% who make a habit of winning multiple regionals each year, does your statement about 254's lack of value from eliminating stop build hold true for the top 5%? 10%? 20%?

If we graphed (the value-added to robot performance by eliminating stop-build) vs. (some measure of competitive performance), I would assume that some parts would show a mildly rising slope while further on it may level off. Perhaps my feelings about this proposal are indicative of where my team is on that curve.

I appreciate the reply and information. Perhaps the dialogue on CD can be even more informative for FIRST than the poorly worded survey.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

"Stop Build Day is an essential component to keeping FIRST equitable. With a longer build season, teams with many resources (money, school support, parent support) will be able to leverage those advantages to an even greater degree to the detriment of less-resourced teams' ability to be competitive and likely, less inspired. This is the same reason why we need to continue limiting the cost of the parts used on the robot.

Most of the elite and many of the mid tier teams in FRC are already building well past the end of the season. WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, multiple competitions, practice robots, etc Allow teams like mine to barely notice "Stop Build Day" at all. The elite teams aren't putting their tools down after build season is over they are finding ways to attend 3+ competitions before Championships and they are scrimmaging with near by teams on the other weekends with their practice robots to get even better. Any team that isn't putting in more time after build season is either choosing not to or doesn't have the resource to do it. "Stop Build Day" isn't keeping low resource teams competitive it's dramatically removing their ability to iterate and perfect their designs. It's stopping them from the awesome of experience of practicing with friends and learning from them without the pressure of a competition. It's stopping volunteers from holding pre-inspection nights leading up to events to get teams ready for inspection and allow them to fully utilize the limited practice time at events. "Stop Build Day" needs to be abolished.

Originally Posted by JABianchi

"Additionally, coaches & volunteers that are stretched thin for those 6 weeks will feel compelled to keep up that break-neck pace for possibly double the time just to stay competitive, leading to much higher rates of burn-out. The way my team is currently structured, we would not be able to effectively compete without Stop Build Day. If FIRST is serious about reaching out to under-served communities, we will choose not to stack the deck further in favor of the privileged.

If you aren't compelled already to manage your time and continue improving I don't think getting rid of "Stop Build Day" is going to change that much. Teams that are trying for a world title are working at unbelievable and inspirational levels. "Stop Build Day" isn't leveling the playing field it's making the playing a mountain that only the teams that push even harder to get the resources necessary to climb are able to summit.

Originally Posted by JABianchi

"The question is: 'Does FIRST want to be a club for the competitive elite or does FIRST want to create an equitable experience for a broad range of schools to realistically compete?' Far less than 20% of teams qualify for the Championship event each year. What can we do that will help that 20% have a high turnover rate?

I don't agree, lets make our district, regional, district/state Championships events even better so that teams that come away from any FRC event feel as inspired as teams that leave the championship. We shouldn't be bringing the top down to meet the bottom. Lets raise the bottom, put in safety nets if we need to for teams that fall off and find a way inspire more students at an even greater level. Making the competitive teams worse doesn't increase inspiration. We shouldn't ask anyone to slow down so that others can catch up. Lets have everyone work together to bring everyone up to top speed.

Originally Posted by JABianchi

"When the amount of time is limited, there is much more variance in a competition. This is why the NFL is the most equitable pro sports league in North America. Only 16 games, and single games determine elimination in the playoffs. On 'any given sunday', the worst underdog has a legitimate chance of upsetting the very best team. In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

The problem with that statement is that it's not true. Sure the underdog always has a chance but they do in any sport. Someone can get injured, or a robot can break at just the wrong time for that alliance. Every team has a chance the problem right now is the lowest resource teams have even less of a chance against the elite then they ever have. At one point there was only a championship and everyone largely had the same amount of time to build, then their were a few regionals around the country but going to multiple was rare, now if you have the money you could attend 4-7 events before Championships and there is more than enough data that proves as you go to more events and iterate your robot, train your drivers and improve your strategy you're likely to increase your performance. Going to more events, building practice bots, and iterating with the withholding allowance currently takes a lot of resources. Abolishing "Stop Build Day" would allow more teams to use the time that many teams are already using, if they wanted to.

#BanTheBag

[Nathan Pell]

I couldn't agree more, and I love your hashtag!!

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Fun fact, the FTC rule was written way back in the day when it was still FVC (FIRST VEX Challenge). That same rule was used in the new VRC for a few years, however we adopted the subsystem breakdown in response to teams trying to find ways around the rule and switch between robots during a tournament. As always, a simple rule became more complicated and bulletproof in an effort to stop some edge cases.

Really interesting. I can't say I'm surprised given the history of the programs, but it's nice to hear some of the actual history.

All those darn edge cases, man...

[Oblarg]

All the questions except for the last one are pretty bad, but the last one is rather important, I think, so claims that there won't be anything useful from this seem to me a bit overblown.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

Respectfully, there are very few teams in the same league as 254!

I would be curious to know how far down the FRC totem pole your sentiments run true. If you represent the top 1% who make a habit of winning multiple regionals each year, does your statement about 254's lack of value from eliminating stop build hold true for the top 5%? 10%? 20%?

If we graphed (the value-added to robot performance by eliminating stop-build) vs. (some measure of competitive performance), I would assume that some parts would show a mildly rising slope while further on it may level off. Perhaps my feelings about this proposal are indicative of where my team is on that curve.

I appreciate the reply and information. Perhaps the dialogue on CD can be even more informative for FIRST than the poorly worded survey.

I did a poll in an Arizona FRC group on Facebook during the season asking which teams had a practice bot. 13 of the 50 Arizona teams confirmed that they do in fact build a practice bot. That is just of those that responded too. I'm relatively sure there are others too but can't confirm for sure. Even with 13 though, 25% of Arizona teams have a huge competitive edge over the other 75%. Now none of the Arizona FRC teams are a 254 and I'd imagine removing build day would be a big help even to the teams that build practice robots here. However, I personally think it would be an even bigger help to those that don't have the resources to build one.
-----
Another point I'd like to make is that bag day removal would help balance the scales for regional vs district teams. I know the goal is to make every region a district but that isn't going to happen anytime soon for a lot of places including the south west. District teams get more hands on time with the competition robot from more matches per event and two of them, two 6 hour open bag periods in their shop, and if they do well, a state championship. Overall they get way more practice and development with the competition bot than a regional team even if the regional team also builds a practice bot. Giving all teams equal access to the competition robot would be a way to make things more fair between a district and regional team. This I feel is especially important when it comes to the two championships where North got almost all the districts and South got mostly regional teams. Who knows, maybe removing bag day would even make South champs a much stronger event than what it is predicted to be, especially for low to mid tier teams.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

When the amount of time is limited, there is much more variance in a competition.

While I agree that greater time periods tend to minimize variance, your next statement really doesn't seem to hold water.

This is why the NFL is the most equitable pro sports league in North America.

Here was an article I found which pretty decisively shows that MLB has far more variance than the NFL:
http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/201...he-postseason/




I'm not sure about this claim though:

In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

I guess I would have to better understand how you define "a shot against" to assess the validity of this statement. If you mean captaining the winning Einstein alliance, you are probably incorrect. If you mean captaining a regional winning alliance, you are also probably incorrect. If you mean any given qualification match, where the under-resourced team happened to get decent-ish partners and the "better team" has below-average partners, you are probably correct.

I can crunch some numbers for you if you want to make a more quantifiable hypothesis.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

I would be curious to know how far down the FRC totem pole your sentiments run true. If you represent the top 1% who make a habit of winning multiple regionals each year, does your statement about 254's lack of value from eliminating stop build hold true for the top 5%? 10%? 20%?

If we graphed (the value-added to robot performance by eliminating stop-build) vs. (some measure of competitive performance), I would assume that some parts would show a mildly rising slope while further on it may level off. Perhaps my feelings about this proposal are indicative of where my team is on that curve.

Just to give you another data point. I would consider my former team to be in the top 10-15% in the last 5 years. We build two robots. We have a partial test/practice field and access to full field from our friends. Eliminating stop build day will also not help us get any better. We are already getting the best robot we are capable of to our events. We already worked as many hours as we are capable of putting in. Without stop build day, we will save money, meet less often during the 6 weeks which is good for students and mentors and a lot less stressful. We will be able to spend more time helping other teams to get their robot working to their fullest potential. Right now we help other teams but we have to worry about getting our competition robot finish and into a bag. After that we can't help other less resourceful teams because their robot was already in a bag. I hope you see my point.