Why Losers Lose?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

Perhaps as a community we are losing with so many teams not able to play the game at all.

I was hoping someone would recognize that.



Jane

[Jogo]

Here are things my team doesn't usually do that put us behind the powerhouse teams:

- Learn and use CAD
- Strategize
- Scout effectively
- Learn--from early regionals, from ChiefDelphi, and from local teams. Teams that were unaware of the "Minibot Ramp" trend missed out.
- Take on more than you can handle in 6 weeks
- Play in at least 3 events
- Practice: The year my team did best recently was Lunacy--we built a simple robot with a simple dumper, simple drivetrain--in 5 weeks. That week of practice makes a difference.

Not every team has the same culture of winning, the same number of mentor hours, and the same number of student hours. However, doing just some of the things above really helps.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

I think that any team can play the game provided a working drive train. A box on wheels can be a valuable alliance partner at the regional level if its team has the right strategy and a driver who practiced--and if your robot is a box on wheels, your driver is probably pretty practiced.

Of course, I have seen teams without working drive trains... but those are rather rare. I wouldn't say there are a large number of teams who can't play the game... the vast majority can't play the game well, but that's another story.

[eyu100]

Some people have kind of already covered this (by mentioning the "quality of the work during the season," for example):

Most people have been talking about the less obvious reasons why teams fail, such as poor time management and poor strategy. There is one obvious reason why teams lose that few people have mentioned (although I don't think many people overlooked it - maybe it just seemed too obvious to say) and that is a lack of technical expertise, money, mentors and other "resources."

Originally Posted by Karthik

- A failure to honestly and realistically evaluate one's resources (resources in this context are defined as time, experience, fabrication abilities and money), thus making you think you're capable of doing more than you can do.

A few others in this thread have a different idea of what losing is (they think only the top few teams win, and everyone else loses, while Karthik says performing at an average level isn't losing).

If not winning is considered losing, then having a good strategy, making good decisions and realistically estimating one's resources are not enough to avoid losing. You actually have to have the resources (most of the time). This is nothing groundbreaking, but no one so far has given reasons why helping teams improve their decision-making, strategy, etc. is more effective than helping them get more resources or advising them on how to do so.

...so I guess I'm actually asking a question - is it better to help teams get resources, or to help them improve in other ways? I honestly don't know.

[Akash Rastogi]

Experience.


If you lack design experience, there is less chance of success.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by eyu100

...so I guess I'm actually asking a question - is it better to help teams get resources, or to help them improve in other ways? I honestly don't know.

Perhaps "losers" "lose" in part because the "winners" aren't spending as much time with them as they could be?

I think the ultimate "loss" is a team ceasing to exist after their first year or two because their initial funding runs out, and they've done nothing (and/or no one has taken the time to show them how) to become self-sustainable over that time period.

In a majority of cases, a young team failing miserably on the field is a big giant warning sign that they could be headed for the ultimate loss: self-termination. Very few young teams "get it" in all other aspects of FIRST outside the robot without at least being able to field a somewhat-capable machine. I met a bunch of rookie teams in TN filled with very nice people; however, in the cases of the teams with the worst robots, there were at most two adults leading them, and it was obvious those adults were in over their heads, nor had they had the benefit of any veteran team guidance prior to their arrival at the competition. These teams are always appreciative of veterans at the events who help them get out on the field and compete, but I can't help but think that if the veteran teams in their own region would have spent just a bit more time with them during their first year, their experience would have been MUCH more productive, fun, and inspiring. We need more regional collaboration among teams, and anything FIRST and veteran teams can do to facilitate such collaboration would be monumentally helpful.

In other cases, you see veteran teams that have a long history of competitive failure and uninspiring robots. These are teams who continue to get funding somehow but who lack the leadership needed to grow their resources and use that funding efficiently. These are the teams who frustrate you to no end, because they are often led by stubborn types who refuse to admit they need any help, even if you offer it to them. You grit your teeth at the vast amount of money being wasted on such forcibly inefficient enterprises, and you feel bad for the kids trapped within such programs. The only solution here is to keep smacking their team leaders upside the head with common sense until they relent and accept your input.

So yes, it is MUCH better to show teams the best methods of obtaining more resources, to continue applying positive, constant pressure on them by periodically checking on their progress, and to show them how to better use the resources they already have at their disposal.

Once we understand WHY "losers lose", instead of continuing to marvel at them like they are some freak show exhibit, we must then ask ourselves, "OK - so what are we going to DO to help them become winners?" I think a concerted effort by FIRST and its experienced teams to pay more attention to young and at-risk teams, not only during the offseason, but dare I suggest, during the build season, would help alleviate many problems, providing reassurance and confidence to new mentors that they have their teams heading in the right direction. It doesn't take much.

A whole other can of worms involves hooking up veteran teams with potential rookie teams to help them determine if they should even start an FRC team in the first place. If we're asking teams to fully understand what they are capable of given their existing level of resources, then I imagine the answer they'd arrive at in many cases would be to start slow and form an FTC or VRC team instead.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

In a majority of cases, a young team failing miserably on the field is a big giant warning sign that they could be headed for the ultimate loss: self-termination. Very few young teams "get it" in all other aspects of FIRST outside the robot without at least being able to field a somewhat-capable machine. I met a bunch of rookie teams in TN filled with very nice people; however, in the cases of the teams with the worst robots, there were at most two adults leading them, and it was obvious those adults were in over their heads, nor had they had the benefit of any veteran team guidance prior to their arrival at the competition. These teams are always appreciative of veterans at the events who help them get out on the field and compete, but I can't help but think that if the veteran teams in their own region would have spent just a bit more time with them during their first year, their experience would have been MUCH more productive, fun, and inspiring. We need more regional collaboration among teams, and anything FIRST and veteran teams can do to facilitate such collaboration would be monumentally helpful.

In other cases, you see veteran teams that have a long history of competitive failure and uninspiring robots. These are teams who continue to get funding somehow but who lack the leadership needed to grow their resources and use that funding efficiently. These are the teams who frustrate you to no end, because they are often led by stubborn types who refuse to admit they need any help, even if you offer it to them. You grit your teeth at the vast amount of money being wasted on such forcibly inefficient enterprises, and you feel bad for the kids trapped within such programs. The only solution here is to keep smacking their team leaders upside the head with common sense until they relent and accept your input.

So yes, it is MUCH better to show teams the best methods of obtaining more resources, to continue applying positive, constant pressure on them by periodically checking on their progress, and to show them how to better use the resources they already have at their disposal.

This is a truly fantastic post. I spent my high school years on a team that sounds incredibly similar to the "veteran teams with a long history of competitive failure and uninspiring robots," trying, and largely failing, to change the team from within. It wasn't an easy place to be, but I'm not done trying to help them out yet. The advice I would give to successful teams who want to help a team like mine is, don't stop trying to help, and start with the kids. One common point I've noticed about teams like this is that they tend to be very student driven, or at the very least, have a far higher student:mentor ratio than most teams. Invite them to your shop, and show them "how its done." Give them direct examples of how you got funds, resources, mentors, etc. When you help at competitions, help out the eager student who maybe hasn't had a proper mentoring experience, rather than the leader who is locked into their views. If enough students "get it," the team will begin to. And if enough students "get it," the smart ones will seek out all the extra help they can get. That's how I found Chiefdelphi...

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

I am very outspoken and opinionated. Which in itself is great in my honest opinion, but the flaw was in the execution of those opinions.

There are ways to have strong opinions yet not make enemies. Eventually you'll master those ways (or be out of work a lot), best to start now. Ask for help from unlikely adults, you might be surprised.

Originally Posted by eyu100

is it better to help teams get resources, or to help them improve in other ways?

Do you mean "get resources" like improving their ______? (Fabricating capabilities, fundraising techniques, scouting, strategizing, award submissions, time management, etc...)

Resources are not always tangible. Things like experience, integrity, honesty, and work ethic are resources as well.

So the answer to your question is "Yes".

[AcesPease]

There have been a lot of excellent posts on this site. And this may be more emphasis than addition but here goes:

Mentors need to be sure that the team is on track to have a working robot ready. Students can do almost everything, but they need help watching the calender. Even if your ideas turn out bad, if your robot is inspectable and running when you arrive at your first event, anything can happen.

[Marc S.]

This year my team focused realy hard on design and effectivness. But in the two regionals we competed in this yearwe didn't even make finals. The reasons:

1. Loss of robot comunication.(whether it be the controboard, robot, or field at fault)

2. Making that last second discision to hang another tube with only 15sec(or less) to go.

3. Something on the robot breaks.(arm, manipulater, minibot,etc.)

4. Team isn't being consistant.(scoring lots of points only counts if you can do it again.)

In san diego we went into quaters and won the 1st match 80-38. 2nd match we were hanging many tubes while our opponents only hung 1. During the endgame we hung a tube at 10sec and weren't able to align with the pole in time. Lost the match 50-53. 3rd match we lost communication after autonomous and completely blocked one of our own racks.This was caused by a malfunctioning usb port in the control board. Lost 29-71. Just painfull.

In L.A. we flew by quarters with scores of 129 & 128. In semi's however we lost the 1st match because of a communication problem, 28-60. The robot didn't even move in automous. The banebot 775's we were using shorted out and caused the robot to reboot(something that also caused 781 to be disabled in einstein finals. The next match the same thing happened but communication was restored half-way through the match. Our partners minibot wasn't working properly and didn't go up the pole, ours did but according to the judges it was to high, something that never happened before and never happened since. Lost 61-86.

In champs qualifications we got rid of the com probs but ran into little probs that kept us down.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

In san diego we went into quaters and won the 1st match 80-38. 2nd match we were hanging many tubes while our opponents only hung 1. During the endgame we hung a tube at 10sec and weren't able to align with the pole in time. Lost the match 50-53. 3rd match we lost communication after autonomous and completely blocked one of our own racks.This was caused by a malfunctioning usb port in the control board. Lost 29-71. Just painfull.

We were alliance partners in the SD elims. Our Ubertube wiggled off the rack at the end of autonomous in that second match - just as much our fault as anyone's that we didn't reach semi-finals. Luck plays a big factor in matches, so don't dwell too much on what could of (or should of) happened.

I'm happy, in the end, everything worked out so well for 973.

How about a post from you in the "Why Winners Win?" thread.

[GGCO]

Generally, when all team members aren't on the same page and when the team doesn't realistically asses their resources and derive a plan from that assessment is when they set themselves up for failure.

[Camren]

I believe losers lose because of unorganization and unprepared teamates

[Bongle]

Why do losers lose? Here's my tree of reasons:
1) Because they don't build a good robot
1.1) Because they didn't have time
1.1.1) Because they didn't have enough students
1.1.1.4) Because they didn't run active recruiting
1.1.1.5) Because they didn't keep the students interested year-round
1.1.1.5.1) Because there wasn't enough teacher/mentor availability year-round to run meetings?
1.1.1.5.2) Because there wasn't enough enthusiasm among the students to run meetings by themselves?
1.1.1.6) Because the students didn't have the skills they needed to be effective during build season
1.1.1.6.1) Because they didn't run year-round meeting? (see 1.1.1.5)
1.1.2) Because they didn't have enough mentors
1.1.2.1) Because of an anti-mentor bent among the team members?
1.1.2.2) Because of insufficient mentor recruiting?
1.1.2.2.1) Because of a lack of involvement in the community?
1.1.3) Because they didn't have the money to have things built professionally (see 1.2)
1.1.4) Because they bit off more than they could chew
1.1.4.1) Because they lacked experience (see 1.4)
1.2) Because they didn't have money
1.2.1) Because they didn't do enough community outreach?
1.2.2) Because they didn't do enough in-school fundraising?
1.2.2.1) Because of not enough teacher/mentor organizing involvement?
1.2.2.2) Because of not enough student enthusiasm? (see 1.1.1.5)
1.4) Because they lacked experience
1.4.1) Because they're a rookie team
1.4.2) Because they don't live and breath robots and robot designs
1.4.2.1) Because of a lack of enthusiasm?

Interesting that for me, lots of things come down to "lack of enthusiasm", "lack of community outreach", and "lack of year-round program"

[Kusha]

Some reasons I've noticed my team fails at doing and therefor leading to the ultimate game losing is:
Focusing on designing the robot.

We never design around the idea of points, we always design around the idea of doing everything in the field. For example, our minibot was a last minute add on we made. NOT EVEN TESTED!