When Does Age of a Team Not Matter?

[Kims Robot]

Its always different, but I think its around 5 years that most teams start to reach their paces, find their niches and really start to reach stability.

There are a few factors that age often has impact on: Robot/Design ability, Team as a Role Model (aka chairmans credibility), and Sustainability.

Robot/Design is simultaneously one of the hardest and easiest things to master. We have seen some very young teams, even rookies, come out with some amazing robots. We have seen some teams 10 years old that just cant seem to pull together more than scrap metal. Its all about the experience of the team members and the adaptability to the FIRST design process. Some young teams have mentors from old teams or just "get it", other old teams will never change their ways. But generally after 5 years or so, a team that really tries and wants to grow will have reached a design process that is comfortable for them.

Team as a Role Model... its hard to burst out of the gate and be a role model for other teams, and in general you look at the FIRST rules, and Chairmans teams really have to have 3 years experience. After 4 years they have turned over a full class of their first graduates, and after 5 they have successfully learned how to rebuild. Are there some teams that are raring to go right away? Of course. Many are your Rookie All Stars. I like to think 1511 hit this mark, hosting the pre-ship Rally, driving 10 robots to drayage, and kicking off & running the Ruckus all in their first year. But they werent really a role model yet. It takes a good 5 years to build a program that is really solid and to get that kind of noteriety.

Sustainability... a big one and a really tough one for a lot of teams. After the first couple years of scrambling to figure out budgets and funds, I would think most teams settle in again around 5 years. They have some major sponsors, they know how to spend their funds, they know what travel costs, they have a reasonably stable team size, they know how to recruit and they know how to get the job done. Its a tough thing to manage especially when a lot of teams in the first few years really dont have stable funding. And we have seen plenty of teams that had funding for 8+ years lose major sponsors. But I like to think after 5 years they have enough of a program (in general) to not give up/die out. They have the will to push on and sustain themselves.

We are seeing more and more all of this coming out of the gate. Some of the Rookie teams have a huge leg up, building on the experience of mentors who have come from FIRST in the past. The more experienced the mentor across the ranges of the program, the shorter the "age not mattering" happens. But I think the general average is somewhere around 5 years before a team really hits their stride.

[Leeebowitz]

Coming from a team that is in its 6th year and has yet to be wildly successful, my personal feeling is that age barely matters. Of course, as a rookie team, most don't have a bot that rivals the amazing teams in FIRST; but as was mentioned, there are some teams that haven't lost a regional ever, from the onset of their rookie season.

In my own experience, a lot of what matters is not team age, but more of the things that make or break a FIRST team, in my humble opinion: Resources, policy, and student involvement.

By resources I mean money, machining tools/companies to make parts, mentors, engineers, etc. Some teams have a CNC laser cutter and a team of professionally trained machinists ready to make every part on the robot as soon as a student draws it up. Some have a drill press and some nuts and bolts. Obviously, the team with the laser cutter is going to be able to do a whole lot more than the drill press team. The laser cutter team has less to worry about in terms of "how are we actually going to make this" and more to worry about "is this the best solution for this year's game."

By policy, I mean what the students do and what their engineers and other helpers do. I have seen teams where the students take absolutely no part in the building of their robot, and I have seen teams where the team is student work from start to finish. A team of professional engineers and mentors doing all of the work is obviously going to trump the best of what a team of high school students can do.

By student involvement, I mean how motivated the students are about FIRST and spreading the message of FIRST, showing team spirit, and wanting to participate in the program. A team with 50 students who never show up and hope that somebody else is doing the hard work is never going to come close to the team with 15 students who work hard and do all they can to make their team a successful team.

I am not mentioning team names because I am not accusing anybody of things like having adults do all of the work or having unmotivated students or whatever else. It's just that these are the things that I see teams doing differently that make an impact on how their team and their robot turns out. Regardless of age, some teams have it all and some teams just never quite make it.

[TheFish]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Its always different, but I think its around 5 years that most teams start to reach their paces, find their niches and really start to reach stability.
... I think the general average is somewhere around 5 years before a team really hits their stride.

Originally Posted by Cartwright

When does the age of a team not matter? With robot-making, the age can start "not mattering" at 3 or 4 years, yes I agree.

- Jamie

Originally Posted by George A.

So while I would agree that 4 years is enough for teams to find their stride, there are some teams out there that just as quickly (quoting the Rookie All Star Script) "just get it"

Originally Posted by Dancin103

I agree with the four years, that a team finds their niche at that age and gets going in the right direction.
Cass

Originally Posted by quinxorin

I think four years. This is because students only have four years of high school. Students become more experienced as they progress and see more games, and experience more years, but with the exception of the mentors, leave after four years. Therefore, total team experience maxes out at four years.

Note: I took some of the above quotes out of context... but the same point is still there.

So people here in general seem to think that it takes 4-5 years for teams to become relatively stable and have their age not matter.

Let me point out the last Einstein Finals alliances:
67 111 971 217 68 247 (2009)
1114 217 148 67 16 348 (2008)
190 177 987 179 71 233 (2007)
296 217 522 25 968 195 (2006)
56 254 64 330 67 503 (2005)

I´m not necessarily disagreeing with the responses posted... but it makes you wonder when 968, 971, 987 & 1114 are the only ones of a potential 30 (I understand there are some repeat-appearances for teams) that are less than 10 years old. That means 26/30 teams in the Champs Finals in the last 5 years have been very veteran teams.

It seems that even though, in your opinion, we should theoretically have equal expectations between 6 year teams and 12 year teams... the older teams are still always making Einstein and winning it.

Anybody care to shed light on why?

[rcmolloy]

The age of a team always never matters in my honest opinion. Every year there are new individuals entering FIRST and that's also new minds to the organization. It really doesn't matter how old the team is. If the team knows the objective and the rules, the opportunities are endless for how well the team could do. Teams that are older do have a step above the rest but by how much? A few mentors may have game experiences but there are new minds entering every year. The things that really make or break a team are organization, support, and knowledge. The teams without most of those essential needs really don't have a good chance against the game and competitors. For example, last year team 1647 was not organized what so ever. The support that we had was lacking and the knowledge was small. This year, we have become much more organized, gained much more support, and the knowledge we have gained is unbelievable. This can be attributed to how we did in the Philly Regional this year. Surprisingly, we have become a much better team and it did not take 5 years to do that. We hunkered down and focused on what was important.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by TheFish

67 111 971 217 68 247 (2009)
1114 217 148 67 16 348 (2008)
190 177 987 179 71 233 (2007)
296 217 522 25 968 195 (2006)
56 254 64 330 67 503 (2005)

I´m not necessarily disagreeing with the responses posted... but it makes you wonder when 968, 971, 987 & 1114 are the only ones of a potential 30 (I understand there are some repeat-appearances for teams) that are less than 10 years old.

In addition to the ones you identified...
In 2005 503 was 4 years old, 330 & 254 were 6 years old, 65 was 8 years old, 56 & 67 were 9 years old...
In 2006 522 was 6 years old, 296 & 217 8 years old, 195 was 9 years old
In 2008 348 was 9 years old


So actually using your analogy, 15/30 teams were less than 10 years old when they won championships. Thats 50%.

And while its an interesting point, you are only judging by robot performance at championship. There are A LOT of factors that I don't have exact numbers for but I would be willing to guess more "older" teams go to championship than younger teams. Rookies are ONLY allowed to go if they qualify.

[Sumathi]

I think the reason we consider age is for a few reasons.

• We like to see the growth made in the years
  We want to know how others manage things

However when it comes down to it, I believe that we all expect everyone to have a decent robot. When you are competing and scouting do you scout out the oldest team or the robot that compliments your team the best?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by TheFish

So people here in general seem to think that it takes 4-5 years for teams to become relatively stable and have their age not matter.

Let me point out the last Einstein Finals alliances:
67 111 971 217 68 247 (2009)
1114 217 148 67 16 348 (2008)
190 177 987 179 71 233 (2007)
296 217 522 25 968 195 (2006)
56 254 64 330 67 503 (2005)

This isn't any of those team's first year being in their stride. Many of them hit the ground running.

Also, not every team can be on Einstein. There are so many amazing robots that don't make it every year that you can't use "Einstein" as a synonym for "the team is successful".

A decent, but no means universal metric for a team's strength is having a robot consistently "in the hunt". I honestly would not say there is a specific number of years for this to happen. Pick any strong team and the year they entered the hunt consistently could vary widely. I'll grab some teams and analyze data to prove my point later.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by Leeebowitz

Coming from a team that is in its 6th year and has yet to be wildly successful, my personal feeling is that age barely matters. Of course, as a rookie team, most don't have a bot that rivals the amazing teams in FIRST; but as was mentioned, there are some teams that haven't lost a regional ever, from the onset of their rookie season.

In my own experience, a lot of what matters is not team age, but more of the things that make or break a FIRST team, in my humble opinion: Resources, policy, and student involvement.

By resources I mean money, machining tools/companies to make parts, mentors, engineers, etc. Some teams have a CNC laser cutter and a team of professionally trained machinists ready to make every part on the robot as soon as a student draws it up. Some have a drill press and some nuts and bolts. Obviously, the team with the laser cutter is going to be able to do a whole lot more than the drill press team. The laser cutter team has less to worry about in terms of "how are we actually going to make this" and more to worry about "is this the best solution for this year's game."

By policy, I mean what the students do and what their engineers and other helpers do. I have seen teams where the students take absolutely no part in the building of their robot, and I have seen teams where the team is student work from start to finish. A team of professional engineers and mentors doing all of the work is obviously going to trump the best of what a team of high school students can do.

By student involvement, I mean how motivated the students are about FIRST and spreading the message of FIRST, showing team spirit, and wanting to participate in the program. A team with 50 students who never show up and hope that somebody else is doing the hard work is never going to come close to the team with 15 students who work hard and do all they can to make their team a successful team.

I am not mentioning team names because I am not accusing anybody of things like having adults do all of the work or having unmotivated students or whatever else. It's just that these are the things that I see teams doing differently that make an impact on how their team and their robot turns out. Regardless of age, some teams have it all and some teams just never quite make it.

I agree with almost everything, except for student involvement, slightly. But that belongs in a "Student-built Vs Mentor-built" thread. Let's just say that this is about teaching the students.

Our team has been around for exactly 8 years now. FIRST's website states that we went to ATL in 2002 and 2004, though nobody on the current team went. Whether we paid our way or won a regional, no one knows. What I do know is our team has suffered organizational and monetary problems since I've been on the team, until this year. 8 years is definitely past the 4-5 year estimate in this thread.

But beyond our lack of quality robot performance, we have bright young minds who are willing to learn about the process of running a successful team, including building a cool robot. Parents, teachers, and open-house guests are amazed at our "crappy" robots, not because of their on-field performance. It's because students had a leading role in designing and building that machine. And as of this year, we have the growing support of our Board of Education, school staff, and community. Along with that, we now have more funding. Not much, but enough to attend off-season events, buy some new toys (like a dedicated programming laptop and omni-wheels), and much more.

Getting somewhat back on-topic, though, I think we're missing another important aspect which can cause our age estimation to vary greatly: How long do you do what you do? Our team, at least for the 5 years that I've been involved, have never met past the last week of our regional, and our meetings start roughly two months before kick-off. That's including recruitment, setting up our shop, finalizing sponsors, but more importantly, freshmen training. This year, we had about 6 freshmen students, and they appeared to be more useless than a left-handed screwdriver for the first few weeks. We had to teach safety, tool/machine training, get them somewhat acquainted with the rules/limitations of FIRST. The point I'm trying to make, is that a year-round team that is going into their third year will probably perform much better than a 5+ year team that barely meets before and after each season.

tldr: Age never matters, at least when it pertains to FRC teams.

[Jon Stratis]

Even the best, most seasoned teams have off years. Key students graduate and no one steps up to "fill their shoes". Key mentors stop participating for whatever reason (get a job out of state, for example), and the team struggles without them.

[Jon Stratis]

Even the best, most seasoned teams have off years. Key students graduate and no one steps up to "fill their shoes". Key mentors stop participating for whatever reason (get a job out of state, for example), and the team struggles without them. Or maybe the team just reaches a little too far one year and can't get everything working. I've seen it happen to veteran teams. And i worry every year that it might happen to us...

The problem with setting expectations based simply on team number comes when people don't meet your expectations. if you expect someone to be one of the best robots there and they aren't, you're going to think they're a lot worse than they really are. Likewise, if someone is bad year after year and they suddenly do decently, you'll rank them a lot higher because of the surprise.