paper: Stop the Stop Build

[nuclearnerd]

Excellent report. Thanks for putting forward such a strong argument Jim. Hopefully it helps sway FIRST's decision.

[Chris is me]

The compromise solution presented here is brilliant, and is something that could be implemented immediately without any logistical changes on FIRST's end. 8 hours of unbag time a week for all teams would be a huge improvement over the current system, and I suspect it would eliminate the need for practice robots for many mid tier teams. Upper level teams may still choose to build one, but the advantage gained over everyone else would be reduced.

Unbag time in your own shop is one of the biggest reasons District teams improve so rapidly and play at such a higher level. Give this advantage to everyone, every week, and everyone is satisfied. The people who want to rest, can rest, with just one or two meetings a week they can work on the robot tops. The people who want to work can carefully budget their time and use their competition robot extensively during the period after Stop Build.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The compromise solution presented here is brilliant, and is something that could be implemented immediately without any logistical changes on FIRST's end. 8 hours of unbag time a week for all teams would be a huge improvement over the current system, and I suspect it would eliminate the need for practice robots for many mid tier teams. Upper level teams may still choose to build one, but the advantage gained over everyone else would be reduced.

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

Under current rules, District teams are suppose to respect the withholding allowance during the unbag time. Admittedly the only thing that keeps teams from unlimited spare parts is respect for the rules.

One advantage of district unbag is you are in your shop. You are allowed to fabricate unlimited amount of parts during the unbag window.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

The withholding allowance rules also apply during unbag windows. You cannot introduce more than 30 pounds of non-COTS parts machined outside of the window, during the unbag window. You also get just one withholdling allowance for both the unbag window and the district event the same week as the window (District unbag times are tied to competing at events) - so it's not like you can put 30 pounds on at the shop and 30 pounds more at the event.

You can introduce as many parts as you want that were machined during the unbag window, into the bag.

[Joe Johnson]

This is my main argument for just ripping the band-aide off rather than going with the 8 hour per week window: The rules around withholding are already a hot mess, I can see how this 8 hour per week rule could make this situation worse.

If the only way I can get rid of the stop build rule is to make this half step happen for a few years, then I'll take it and be happy but I would much rather just make a clean break. Kill the bags, kill the tags, kill the entire withholding rules...

Dr. Joe J.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The withholding allowance rules also apply during unbag windows. You cannot introduce more than 30 pounds of non-COTS parts machined outside of the window, during the unbag window. You also get just one withholdling allowance for both the unbag window and the district event the same week as the window (District unbag times are tied to competing at events) - so it's not like you can put 30 pounds on at the shop and 30 pounds more at the event.

You can introduce as many parts as you want that were machined during the unbag window, into the bag.

While definitely a sound interpretation of the 2016 withholding rules, that sounds awful to try to keep track of in the context of a weekly unbag period... Uh, how many pounds did we add on last week? Was that part made inside or outside of the window? What's the total weight of parts we made outside of the window between last event and our next one?

Would a withholding even be necessary with a weekly unbag period? I suppose that might hurt teams that use withholding to keep their control system out so that they can use it on a practice/twin or test bed without having to buy duplicates of all the (rather costly for some teams) components. Would also get messy with regards to sending out parts to a sponsor... since it couldn't be withholding and would be impractical to try to have the machining done during the same window of the time the team is meeting (and even if it was practical, that's an awkward interpretation of unbag time).

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Unbag time in your own shop is one of the biggest reasons District teams improve so rapidly and play at such a higher level. Give this advantage to everyone, every week, and everyone is satisfied.

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having time to work out of the bag. But, I think that numbers wise, there are a lot of teams that like the idea that the commitment expected of students is well defined and time limited. Doing away with the bag entirely would present a lot of headaches for teams with students that are attracted to many other activities. I think Jim's compromise is a great one, but I also suspect it is not something we will see implemented.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by jee7s

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having time to work out of the bag. But, I think that numbers wise, there are a lot of teams that like the idea that the commitment expected of students is well defined and time limited. Doing away with the bag entirely would present a lot of headaches for teams with students that are attracted to many other activities. I think Jim's compromise is a great one, but I also suspect it is not something we will see implemented.

While I agree districts are the future of FRC and their benefits are a great motivator, I don't think FIRST should artificially hold regional teams back for the sole reason of trying to force them into districts. The teams in the regional model shouldn't be punished for the lack of action of the administration of the region or even just landscape(Southwest is very spread out). In addition, if a region won't see much real benefit transitioning to districts, maybe it shouldn't become a district in the first place. That being said, I think there are enough real benefits in the district model that it will eventually make its way to every region.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by jee7s

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Given the plethora of other benefits to districts, this mentality, while probably true, is sad. Holding team's potential hostage like that isn't fair to said teams who are stuck in the middle of the debate. If one can improve, improve.

Most of the benefits of districts require districts to execute. This example isn't one of them. Other than the cost of extra bag ties, there isn't any additional cost to FIRST, so fiscally it's a wash. If they have legitimate reasons to not expand unbag time to everybody, fine, but withholding it purely to steer areas to districts isn't right IMHO.

[Greg Woelki]

Great read, thanks for posting!

Minor stats comment: Fig (5) is a little concerning because each curve represents a different population of teams, so it isn't a very clear way to show the trend of increasing performance as teams have attended more and more events. It is unclear to what degree teams from the left-hand side are moving rightwards as they attend more events or if most of those teams simply aren't included in the next curve. While it can be surmised by looking at the right-hand bounds of the distributions there are some performance increases, the graph would more directly support your point if a single population of teams (perhaps the 304 that competed at 4 events or the 765 that competed at 3) were tracked across their multiple events instead.

Edit: Please disregard the second part, I had misinterpreted the next figure

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Greg Woelki

...the graph would more directly support your point if a single population of teams (perhaps the 304 that competed at 4 events or the 765 that competed at 3) were tracked across their multiple events instead.

Isn't this what is shown in the following Fig 6?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Greg Woelki

Great read, thanks for posting!

Minor stats comment: Fig (5) is a little concerning because each curve represents a different population of teams, so it isn't a very clear way to show the trend of increasing performance as teams have attended more and more events. It is unclear to what degree teams from the left-hand side are moving rightwards as they attend more events or if most of those teams simply aren't included in the next curve. While it can be surmised by looking at the right-hand bounds of the distributions there are some performance increases, the graph would more directly support your point if a single population of teams (perhaps the 304 that competed at 4 events or the 765 that competed at 3) were tracked across their multiple events instead.

To answer: Fig(5) is this graph:

Each population of teams is a subset of the previous group.
3114 teams played this year, they all played at least one event (Blue)
Of these teams, 1928 teams played at least 2 events (Red)
Of these teams, 765 teams played at least 3 events (Green)
Of these teams, 304 teams played at least 4 events (Orange)
Of these teams, 58 teams played 5 or more events (Black)
The chart shows the progression of skill improvement by the population with each consecutive event played.

This trend is basically the same every year, regardless of the game, the only change is the magnitude of the vertical axis, which is a function of the annual game design and how many points are available to be scored.

To see the trend more clearly, the dotted black line in Fig (6) shows how the averages of each of these group subsets increases through the season.


So, in a nutshell, if you choose to play late, odds are there are more experienced teams in the house who have progressed in skill while you have been waiting.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

So, in a nutshell, if you choose to play late, odds are there are more experienced teams in the house who have progressed in skill while you have been waiting.

It's interesting to see the 4 event teams every so slightly above the 5 event teams in events 1-3. Does this hold for prior years? Would you think it is a function of event spacing (4 event team plays weeks 2, 4 and 6 and champ while 5 event team plays weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and champs) while the game is learned, or teams in districts more likely to be a 4 event team?

I like your suggestion for unbag time for each week, I hope it gets implemented for next season.

[FrankJ]

The teams that are playing 4 and five event are likely influenced by being mostly district teams progressing to worlds or well funded regional teams. In either case likely high performing teams. It seems that would skew the graphs.