[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

This is an old topic, and a long dead horse; constantly rehashed here on CD by a tiny, egregiously-lopsided fraction of the total FRC participants.* I haven't spotted a single new idea or argument in this iteration of the conversation.**

Surely neither I nor any other proponents or opponents if SBD/etc.need to repeat what has already been said a zillion times before. Instead this entire thread should be just a collection of hyperlinks to past posts.

While I'd agree that there are some people who really don't have anything new to add to this thread, there are students and mentors from whom I have never heard an opinion on this issue posting in this thread, and I personally see value in them sharing their opinions and experiences with us. If you don't, that's alright, but I'm pretty sure there are others who share my opinions on this.

On another note, you've rehashed this argument in a dozen other threads-- the truth is, clearly other people see a value in periodically discussing issues like this again. We can use our emojis all we want, but if we just throw all the controversial issues in the freezer since, clearly, nothing ever changes when it comes to FRC, we're not going to get new and valuable ideas on them.

Originally Posted by gblake

What the subject needs is some rigorous, properly-conducted research by an unbiased investigator(s), advised by the people who created, and still guide, the program.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? It's hard to argue against asking for good science/engineering experiments; but it's easy to argue that this thread isn't going to turn into one.

It does sound reasonable to me for FIRST and the community to work together to do research on this subject. Unbiased investigators might be a bit of a stretch, but certainly investigators with diverse perspectives and backgrounds would be reasonable. I do hope that some of those complaining about the issues with the survey have offered to help with further research on the subject. To any of those people who haven't already, getting in contact with Jamee (the current FRC team advocate) would be a good idea if you're interested in helping or suggesting this to FIRST. The email address is at the end of the survey, but if you can't remember, here it is: FRCTeamAdvocate@usfirst.org

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by gblake

Side note, I'm really, really growing weary of seeing the words "competitive" and "elite" in discussions like this.

Better call up FIRST and demand they remove 'competition' from FRC. The FIRST Robotics Science Fair Demonstration has a nice ring to it.

Once again - just because you don't like the topic doesn't mean others can't discuss it and propose ideas that could actually improve the program. That's what this forum is all about.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricH

He did.

Let's start with the Witholding Allowance. 30 lb? .25 robot? Nope. Particularly with the amount of COTS items these days, that's a LOT. 12 lb, or .1 robot, would make teams think a lot more about what they're holding back to work on. No limits on raw materials/COTS items--but, you know, you do need to do work on those at the event for them to be useful, even if it is just duct-taping them to your robot. (That's just an example weight, BTW--could be 15, 10, 5, 0... less than 30, though.)

Eliminating multiple competitions is an answer--but, TBH, the howling would pretty quickly convince HQ that that was a very, very bad idea. The "obvious" alternative would be districts for everybody, mind you--not that I'm opposed to that. (Since X cannot be eliminated, it shall henceforth be required, and all that.) BUT, you'd have to get rid of the unbag time before events. (Or count it as part of build season--as in, we have a 6-week build season, plus some quick check time right before competition.)

Practice robots aren't going to be easy to eliminate. There's practically nothing that can be done other than to specifically tell the teams that "We are putting in a rule that says you cannot have a practice robot, and we are making you sign a legally binding document at inspection that says that you adhered to all the rules." And then, of course, trust that they follow the rule. (And I would take a pretty good gamble that if Frank made THAT announcement, the Team Advocate--and Frank--would be swamped within 47 minutes by angry team emails.) Wouldn't try that.

Eliminating Stop Build isn't the only course of action. But continuing to insist that it is means that you've got blinders on.

All of these lower the level of play, and reduce the quality of the show.

[Sperkowsky]

So in the f4 chat we hashed out ideas a bit presenting some arguments and I remembered a remnant from our 2015 mess of a stop build day.

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=134801

So, sorry sam from 2015 stop build day no miracle this time and sorry geetwo Einstein would have been fun.

We ended up with a robot that never lifted a game piece. It had potential to work but it was too much work to get done at the regional. It was a week 5 regional and our only regional. If we had 5 extra weeks we would have had plenty of time to fix the design and if we had 8 hours per week for 4 weeks we would have been able once again to actually field a working robot. We could have potentially fixed the issues in the withholding allowance the issue was though that we didn't know what would fix it. Would more wire wraps fix all of our issues? New rails? Now after the regional I know we would have needed a new plate with 2 levels and 8 more rollers, New rails this time tubing, as well as a more wraps or just a normal winch. But, we had no way or figuring it out and we couldn't really afford building a second one.

Being stuck not knowing if you can fix your robots issues with no real way to test it, is frustrating, sad, and sure as he'll not inspiring. In fact after that season we lost 2 hard working members as it wasn't worth their time anymore. I have yet to hear an argument strong enough to warrant me supporting a bag that can result in hindering a team to that point.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

All of these lower the level of play, and reduce the quality of the show.

First off: I'm inclined to agree. But... What does that have to do with enforcing a 6-week build period? Which, if I recall correctly, is the current topic of the thread, at least in a general sort of way.

Right. Not much. (And, just to troll a little bit, you been warned: If you want "quality of show", advocate for more Regionals. Without the production company, the show quality drops. [/troll] [/sarcasm])

Also note that I did point out that at least the second and third ideas were non-starters--either team outcry or sheer impracticality. Matter of fact, I think the inverse of the second needs to be the case, where teams are "required" to do multiple events--see also "Districts"--but some areas are still trying to figure out how to get there (and some of those may need some "input" from teams and/or HQ).



I'm inclined to agree that the level of play will probably go down. The question is, will it go down simply from "elite" to "really good", or will it drop even farther, and how much of a drop in play can we tolerate? Remember that most of the teams in this specific discussion are at least average, ranging up to elite, and I'd also suspect that almost all are working towards being up in that elite/powerhouse range. What about the teams that AREN'T at that level? What are their opinions? I think the survey will be rather interesting in that regard. If there's a clear divide, particularly with the high-level teams saying "take it away" and the lower-level teams saying "keep it", that'll be an interesting discussion leading into 2018, to put it mildly.

I seem to recall hearing--or hearing about, it's been a while--where someone (I want to say a rookie team) AT KICKOFF asked Woodie why so short a time as 6 weeks. And the answer was something to the effect of "Because we're trying to make it easier for you", followed by a more detailed explanation that I can't remember all of. Now remember, this is back when 2v2 (I'm pretty sure it was before 4v0) was the latest and greatest game twist, so times have changed.


Basically, you can't have it all. You cannot have an "enforced" 6 weeks without extra rules and giving up level of play. You cannot claim 6 week builds and have teams continue working beyond that, legally. You really cannot allow unbagged primary robots right up until competition and call it a 6-week build! (Unless you're Palmetto '16... )



What I think is going on, possibly, is that FIRST has realized that they're in the state where a majority of teams legally work beyond the 6 weeks, despite bags, "Stop Build Day", and encouragement to put tools down. So NOW (some time too late) they're trying to figure out how to extricate themselves from this, and how the teams view the "Tools down" signal, and whether they need to do anything about it. They may be (rather desperately) trying to get teams to say that having a Stop Build is better than not, in order to justify putting the lid back on Pandora's Box. Given the response here, I'm betting that they decide to phase out Stop Build, but it won't be all at once.

To be honest, without the 2010 (or was it '09?) snowstorms, I'm not sure we'd be this far along this soon. That's the first time Withholding was increased from 25 lb, and it never went that low again (65 lb was the number due to the snowstorms in MAR/NE/NY, as I recall). Had that not happened, we might still be discussing the value of bagging robots instead of shipping them, rather than discussing the value of bagging vs. not bagging.

[Big Ideas]

I just took quick pole of lead mentors in my area. The group was split evenly with ALL of the teachers saying "We need our Bag Day" and us non teachers saying No Bag would help the team. I didnt expect that perfect a division.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by gblake

Scoring points in matches is simply not the correct proxy/metric to use to gauge the success of FRC teams.

Jim shows in Point 3 of his paper that there is a reasonable correlation between OPR and team retention. Everyone knows that correlation is not causation, but the correlation does allow us to use OPR as a reasonable proxy for team retention. Teams that have low OPRs are also more likely to fold than teams with high OPRs. Likewise, teams that fold tend to have lower OPRs. Team retention data is probably near to as close as we can get to quantifying the "success of FRC teams" using publicly available data.

We can disagree about how specific policies will impact OPR distributions, team retention rates, or the correlation between the two, but at the present time, OPR does indeed seem to be a reasonable proxy for a given FRC team's success.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Overall I feel like it wouldn't be the end of the world for FIRST to at least try out no stop build day. Someone mentioned that we launch a study but I really don't see how any study is going to be worth anything unless it's actually implemented. Everyone has their idea of what the effects of no stop build day would be but no one really knows for sure. If FIRST can survive trying out regolith, minibot/can arm races, the 2010 ranking system, and no defense, I don't think it is that unreasonable to implement no stop build day for 2018 just to see what the actual results are.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Overall I feel like it wouldn't be the end of the world for FIRST to at least try out no stop build day. Someone mentioned that we launch a study but I really don't see how any study is going to be worth anything unless it's actually implemented. Everyone has their idea of what the effects of no stop build day would be but no one really knows for sure. If FIRST can survive trying out regolith, minibot/can arm races, the 2010 ranking system, and no defense, I don't think it is that unreasonable to implement no stop build day for 2018 just to see what the actual results are.

While it wouldnt hurt per say, I dont think FIRST should just try it out. If they ever decide to stop the stop build day, there is no turning back.
They created this situation by allowing an xx lb allowance back when teams were unable to access their shops/robots because of forces beyond their control. As a result, that little window they allowed has drastically changed the landscape for many teams in how they approach the build season and the philosophies that go with it. What magnified the situation was the creation of bag/tag to alleviate the growing demand, needing more and more sponsorship from FedEx to send robots to events as the standard. While the mentality towards build season has changed for many teams....i.e. building 2 robots, I dont believe that FIRST overall has changed their philosophy for why they created FRC. Even with the new strategic plan demonstrated by the pillars of FIRST, I think that mission, while updated, fundamentally remains unchanged.
With or without this survey, I believe they are at crossroads because the vehicle they created of getting kids inspired by STEM was a competition. You have folks that care more about the inspiration part and you have others that are passionate about the competition part. I see FIRST having to bend on some of their initial philosophies and mission in order to get rid of the 6 week build season window, while at the same time, making it easier for teams that want to compete at a higher level.

Once you stop the stop build day, the "6 week" term goes out the window forever and the ramifications will be enormous. I just hope that whatever suggesions are made and used, will be a positive step in the right direction for all.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Jim shows in Point 3 of his paper that there is a reasonable correlation between OPR and team retention. Everyone knows that correlation is not causation, but the correlation does allow us to use OPR as a reasonable proxy for team retention. Teams that have low OPRs are also more likely to fold than teams with high OPRs. Likewise, teams that fold tend to have lower OPRs. Team retention data is probably near to as close as we can get to quantifying the "success of FRC teams" using publicly available data.

We can disagree about how specific policies will impact OPR distributions, team retention rates, or the correlation between the two, but at the present time, OPR does indeed seem to be a reasonable proxy for a given FRC team's success.

Nope - For exactly the reason you just gave. Correlation definitely is not causation. Both of the symptoms you mention, and more, could easily be symptoms of something more fundamental that would be essentially unaffected by the SBD. My belief is that this is the case. They are symptoms of a more fundamental problem that is insensitive to SBD machinations. In recent previous discussions I have explained that.

And
Eliminating a true- or pseudo-SBD is certainly not the only way to affect a struggling team's retention (and/or OPR); and IMO isn't the best way. For a reason to agree, see the recent post in this thread that describes some teachers' feelings.

Blake

[DaveL]

I've read all the posts and re-thought what would help level the playing field.
In the NFL, each year top teams lose players and that keeps things interesting.

So let's give each team in a district that failed to reach a regional, extra unbag time or a bag free next season. Team on the Regional system that failed to make the elimination rounds, get the same offer.

Either that or just to a test year and give everyone a bag free year!

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Everyone has their idea of what the effects of no stop build day would be but no one really knows for sure. I don't think it is that unreasonable to implement no stop build day for 2018 just to see what the actual results are.

Having to wait for 2018 is harsh. I found it very disruptive to deal with the possibility of not having 775 motors. That was a way bigger issue than not needing to build a 2nd robot. I would like to see Frank change his mind and kill the bag for 2017.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DaveL

I've read all the posts and re-thought what would help level the playing field.
In the NFL, each year top teams lose players and that keeps things interesting.

So let's give each team in a district that failed to reach a regional, extra unbag time or a bag free next season. Team on the Regional system that failed to make the elimination rounds, get the same offer.

I'm reading this as "if you failed to reach eliminations at all last year here is some benefit to help you".

As a concept, I like the idea. However, I'd like to see some evidence to back it's usefulness. Is there any evidence that extra time with the robot would be effective for these teams? Many of the perpetually underperforming teams I've observed have larger systemic issues that will not be addressed with a 6 month build season let alone an extra 6 days of hands on time with the robot.

[DaveL]

What is the risk of trying?

If it doesn't it doesn't make a difference, I don't see a downside.
If it does make a difference, great!
More competition and more teams learn the value of iterating their design.

Either way we learn from trying something new.

Dave

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DaveL

What is the risk of trying?

If it doesn't it doesn't make a difference, I don't see a downside.
If it does make a difference, great!
More competition and more teams learn the value of iterating their design.

Either way we learn from trying something new.

Dave

There isn't really a downside to trying it. But I prefer not to add logistical headaches without some basis in fact.

I'm for stopping bagging. But I also understand that it would have minimal real impact for low performance teams on their competitiveness [1]. More impactful would be figuring out why so many teams continue to ignore the resources placed in front of them (Ri3D, kitbot, various build days hosted by teams) and figuring out how we can develop more resources and get them used.

Example - how many teams at your events failed to reliably drive? I seem to see at least one per event that's using the kitbot but wiring or programming was too hard. How many fail to move in auto? For me, way too many teams fell into that category. So, the question becomes why? The kitbot can be put together by following instructions. The wiring can be done similarly. And for the most part driving should work fine out of the box. But why is it still so hard?



[1] Yes GBlake, I view this as an important goal in itself, I'm not speaking to "success". I'm solely looking at methods of addressing teams that consistently miss eliminations. I have reasons for this and am more than willing to discuss them via PM if you'd like.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Jim shows in Point 3 of his paper that there is a reasonable correlation between OPR and team retention. Everyone knows that correlation is not causation, but the correlation does allow us to use OPR as a reasonable proxy for team retention. Teams that have low OPRs are also more likely to fold than teams with high OPRs. Likewise, teams that fold tend to have lower OPRs. Team retention data is probably near to as close as we can get to quantifying the "success of FRC teams" using publicly available data.

We can disagree about how specific policies will impact OPR distributions, team retention rates, or the correlation between the two, but at the present time, OPR does indeed seem to be a reasonable proxy for a given FRC team's success.

Even if we suppose that there is currently a correlation between OPR and team retention (which I have some dispute with, at least until more data is released), that doesn't mean that correlation will carry forwards if you take steps to increase OPR. That is to say, the concept of eliminating bag day to raise OPR of teams doesn't mean that fewer teams will fold since we have yet to establish a causal relationship between OPR and team attrition. If teams are folding from a variety of other stressors (under funding/under mentorship/no school support/burn out/etc), raising their OPR will not save those teams from folding.

To put it another way, basing actions purely on the correlation is treating a symptom, not the disease.