[FRC Blog] Stop Build Day Survey Results

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by EricH

But here's the thing. There seems to be a fair amount of support for Don't Stop Building--getting up towards a decent tipping point, I suspect within the next few years.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think there's motion on the overall attitude towards stop-build? I won't claim to know either way, but we had shipping to regionals through 2011, I think, with a slight overlap with Bag and Tag... that means there's been at least 5-6 years of wide spread bag and tag usage, and even longer of Stop Build day. I'm not aware of other surveys like this one going out to give us an idea of what the community thinks of the Stop Build deadline. I just don't see how we can infer any sort of trends from this single data point.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Out of curiosity, what makes you think there's motion on the overall attitude towards stop-build? I won't claim to know either way, but we had shipping to regionals through 2011, I think, with a slight overlap with Bag and Tag... that means there's been at least 5-6 years of wide spread bag and tag usage, and even longer of Stop Build day. I'm not aware of other surveys like this one going out to give us an idea of what the community thinks of the Stop Build deadline. I just don't see how we can infer any sort of trends from this single data point.

I'd answer with "what makes you think there isn't motion", but obviously that isn't an answer.

You're right, I have no hard data. What I do have is that the discussions on the topic have had a nice uptick in more recent years--time was, Ship Day was an absolute. Ship, or don't compete (without a waiver). Nowadays, I'd say for the last 2-3 years especially, there's been a decided move towards "Hey, so why do we have to be totally hands-off the competition robot again?" I don't think that started before districts and their bags (and out-of bag time--yeah, I'm lookin' at you, MI!) in '09, and I'm still pretty sure that it didn't start before the regionals started using bags a couple years later. I don't think there was much of any serious discussion for a couple years even then.

So there's a bit of an uptick in the discussion activity. I would say that that means increased awareness. (HQ just sending out the survey probably meant that they'd become aware of the discussions, which means they're getting bigger, too--or else somebody asked directly.) Increased awareness will generate some discussion and some thinking. I suspect that several people will change their minds--or have changed them--during the discussions.

[bduddy]

Increased discussion where? I think one of the key things people should be taking away from this data is that discussions on CD do not reflect the larger FRC community.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Increased discussion where? I think one of the key things people should be taking away from this data is that discussions on CD do not reflect the larger FRC community.

That is true.

The thing is that CD tends to attract the mid-to-upper tier teams. And the vocal ones. The teams that tend to be at the forefront of testing out and thinking out new ideas.* You can bet that an awful lot of teams and team members that got the survey went "Huh?" Does that mean that discussion is not increasing? NO. On CD, discussion increased--witness the 2-3 threads besides this one on the topic. As a result of the survey, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of teams are going to be wondering "what was that about?"

If enough teams ask questions, things start happening. I don't see the discussion being fully revived until May, at this point, but I do think that HQ will be processing the results, and maybe asking better questions later on in a followup. I'd give it about 4-5 years before there's some sort of tipping point. Seems like that's how long it takes to make major changes like that.

Now starting a pool on which happens first (officially): video review, ending stop build day in some form, or moving Kickoff...


Now, this post does come with a bit of a reminder:
If the top X% of teams are able to drive a solution that works for them, without consideration of the rest of the teams--teams that maybe can barely play the game, in a good year--then I do not see that solution as being a good one. With all the discussion of "stacked events", those not-so-highly-performing teams are often overlooked pretty thoroughly. 6 powerhouses and a dozen mid-upper-tier teams don't make a regional... What about the other half to two-thirds of the teams?


*Did you know? The card system wasn't developed by HQ. IRI used it for years; FIRST HQ adopted it during 2010's soccer game. Districts were developed largely by teams in MI, at least initially--and so was bag-and-tag. Just something to ponder...