**FIRST EMAIL**/Multiple Teams at One School

[Mark McLeod]

Greetings Teams:

In recent years there have been a few occasions where multiple FRC teams ended up working with the same sponsor, fabricator, school and/or mentors. We have received indications that several more teams may be considering similar arrangements for this upcoming competition season. So, before registration opens on Monday, we would like to share the policy regarding such arrangements with you.

We are going to conduct an experiment for 2008. In an intentional effort to minimize the number of regulations governing team operations, we are not going to impose any requirements on the structure or organization of a team, or how multiple teams may interact, collaborate, or coordinate during the build season. Specifically:


* We are not specifying a limit to the number of teams that may be hosted by a school or organization
* Multiple teams supported by the same school or organization may share mentors, facilities, resources and designs, if they so choose
* Students cannot be a member of more than one (1) FRC team
* Teams (whether co-located or not) may collaborate and coordinate their activities to the extent that they choose
* There is no restriction against teams sharing designs and creating identical robots
* There is no restriction against collaborating teams participating at the same event
* Note that the “Rookie Team Criteria” (found here - http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...t.aspx?id=6632 ) will still apply to all new teams – so any new team starting up at a school with an existing FRC team will be considered a non-rookie (under Rule #1)

We believe that this flexibility in team organization will enable teams to maximize student participation in the FRC program while sharing scarce mentor resources. We hope this will create an environment in which the mentors may have even more success inspiring students on the teams.

At the same time, we are conscious of the concerns that such arrangements may have on the competitions. We will be watching closely during the 2008 competition season to determine the affect, if any, that these arrangements may have on the competitions.

As we said, this is an experiment. There is no guarantee that this policy will remain for future years. We will be soliciting your feedback during and after the season regarding how this policy may improve the FRC experience.

We also want to take this opportunity to thank you, our team mentors. Without your commitment we could not put the FRC program within reach of the students who so strongly want to participate. You are the reason this program is so successful and continues to make the extraordinary impact in the lives of our youth.

Go Teams!

[Beth Sweet]

Wow, some interesting clarifications! Kudos to FIRST for increased communication on issues that are important to teams!

[Jimmy Cao]

Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?

I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.

Thank you,

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

* There is no restriction against teams sharing designs and creating identical robots

wow.... and some people thought it would never be said....

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?

I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.

Thank you,

The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.

Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.

Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Cory

Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.

Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.

Things like that are great. I'm all for them.

My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could drive Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Cory

I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.

Things like that are great. I'm all for them.

My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could driver Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.

Yep. I think, more than anything else, it's an example of what sort of situations FIRST gets themselves into by not thinking about how far reaching some of what they say can be. Of course, all of this is based on the speculation that FIRST wants teams helping one another out at any cost -- which may not be the case.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=56906

I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=56906

I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.

Team 228 won the Sportsmanship Award at the 2007 UTC Connecticut Regional for repairing and driving robots for some of the other teams who had to return home due to the huge blizzard during the regional and were unable to continue competing.

Personally, I was also asked at both the UTC Regional and the Championships in 2007 if I was available to be one of the backup drivers for 177 if they needed it.

Because of the situations like these, I think FIRST should further clarify this new rule about limiting a student to only being a member of one team. Under special circumstances where one team is unable (for reasons beyond their control) have a drive team, having a substitute drive team should be allowed.

Perhaps this can even be clarified by limiting all 'non-team-member' students on the drive team to a maximum of two or three matches; this way, one team cannot use another team's drivers for an entire competition.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors,

This was never against the rules. What could not be done was back-to-back time outs. Red could always use their time-out for any reason, except if Blue had just used theirs.

I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

Previously it was implied, but not stated outright, that there could not be substitutes from other teams driving your robot. The definition from game rules is

DRIVER: a pre-college student team member responsible for operating and controlling the
ROBOT. There are two DRIVERS per TEAM.

(emphasis mine) The new rule makes it explicit. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure. I think it's a case of making a rule to cover a situation - partner teams with co-designed robots, using one set of drivers. But it happens to now disallow an opportunity for gracious professionalism and teamwork (in the broader sense of all FIRST being a team).

This does bring up a question of what it means to be a member of a team. Each team has their own process of going about it. There is no "registration" such as you'd find in a sports league. The only thing close to it is the disclosure form you turn in at a competition, which has your team number on it. Can you switch from one team to another between weeks 1 and 3 of regionals?

[EricH]

Perhaps (once the Q&A forums are open) someone should ask about emergency drive team substitution. For example, "Team A is not able to muster enough people to drive for a short time during a regional due to unforseen circumstances. Teams B and C have spare people. Is Team A allowed to ask Team B and/or Team C for drivers until Team A has enough people present to form a drive team?" (Note: this means that you can't plan to have a short team show up and get help; only in case of something like the situations above can you request the help. Also, if I were FIRST and thinking clearly, I would give a person at the event to contact about who is driving the robot. I would also require that as many as possible be members of the team requesting the extra help.)

If the answer is "No," then there may be cases of good offensive teams being forced to play defense for a time. If the answer is "Yes," then all is well.

[RoboMom]

I agree that "the emergency drive team substitution" should be brought up in the Q & A. Like at UTC, Chesapeake had school systems recalling teams late Friday morning due to a fun mix of snow and ice. It was wonderful to watch the quick problem solving and the gracious professionalism that went on, as teams stepped in drive robots for teams that had to get back on the bus.

[Olde Bill]

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?
If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded. I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?