paper: Stop the Stop Build

[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.

[D.Allred]

Jim,
Thanks for the analysis and interim proposal. I submitted the following comment in the survey since it seemed to lean toward an all-or-nothing approach.

You left out the option of out-of-bag time between competitions. At a minimum, we need time to practice and do some maintenance. Modifications and upgrades could still be done at competitions.

My hope was to lessen tendencies for teams to join the arms race by not eliminating regional withholding rules. Stop-build-day or something like it is still a good schedule milestone. Extra time and the hard stop of competition day will not make people better time managers.

In my opinion, teams will see most performance gains through practice and small improvements. Performing well with your existing robot will hopefully help with team retention.

Now we need a decent place for teams to practice…

David

P.S. Just to be clear to the other readers, I voted for no bagging requirements. It may simply be too large of a culture shock for FIRST. However, the teams need some type of relief. What other “sport” does not allow practice between events? "Sport for the Mind?"

[chapman1]

I oppose the elimination of Stop Build Day for two reasons:

1) One of the many benefits of FRC that I have touted is that kids are given a nearly impossible deadline of six weeks in which a robot must be envisioned, prototyped, built, tested and made ready for competition. "Nearly impossible" is the deadline that most often exists in real life. It's good practice.

2) From the perspective of a small, underfunded rural school team, eliminating the Stop Build Day would be one more way of favoring the larger, better funded urban teams:

2a) Our team has only a handful of mentors, and all are actively employed. Some have to take vacation time in order to attend after-school work sessions or to participate in weekday events. Further, when the competition season finally ends, we have to spend the next several months catching up with our personal and professional lives. Extending the build season would make it nearly impossible for us to ever catch up. We would lose mentors.

Similarly, students at our school are more often than not involved in multiple sports, drama, Business Professionals of America (BPA) and other activities - because there isn't enough kids to go around. They too do not need more time commitment.

2b) The larger, urban teams, with ready access to large corporate sponsorship already have an advantage by virtue of funding and resources. We drool at many of the machines we see, all CAD-designed and with parts cut by sponsors' waterjets. Larger teams can accomplish more in a day than can small teams - even without the funding & technology gaps.

Yet, smaller teams can still compete today - despite the "head start" the larger teams have - because their advantage is held to a specific period of time. If the amount of build days is extended any more, FRC might as well plan on an "elite" team-only competition - the gap between elites and the rest of the field would become so wide that smaller teams would have little hope of successfully competing.

__________________

[marshall]

Originally Posted by chapman1

I oppose the elimination of Stop Build Day for two reasons:

1) One of the many benefits of FRC that I have touted is that kids are given a nearly impossible deadline of six weeks in which a robot must be envisioned, prototyped, built, tested and made ready for competition. "Nearly impossible" is the deadline that most often exists in real life. It's good practice.

2) From the perspective of a small, underfunded rural school team, eliminating the Stop Build Day would be one more way of favoring the larger, better funded urban teams:

2a) Our team has only a handful of mentors, and all are actively employed. Some have to take vacation time in order to attend after-school work sessions or to participate in weekday events. Further, when the competition season finally ends, we have to spend the next several months catching up with our personal and professional lives. Extending the build season would make it nearly impossible for us to ever catch up. We would lose mentors.

Similarly, students at our school are more often than not involved in multiple sports, drama, Business Professionals of America (BPA) and other activities - because there isn't enough kids to go around. They too do not need more time commitment.

2b) The larger, urban teams, with ready access to large corporate sponsorship already have an advantage by virtue of funding and resources. We drool at many of the machines we see, all CAD-designed and with parts cut by sponsors' waterjets. Larger teams can accomplish more in a day than can small teams - even without the funding & technology gaps.

Yet, smaller teams can still compete today - despite the "head start" the larger teams have - because their advantage is held to a specific period of time. If the amount of build days is extended any more, FRC might as well plan on an "elite" team-only competition - the gap between elites and the rest of the field would become so wide that smaller teams would have little hope of successfully competing.

__________________

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

[chapman1]

Originally Posted by marshall

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

I have in fact. I have taken over ten years to consider my own perspective on the inevitable death of stop build day. I think Jim's paper does a great job of explaining all of the ways the system is currently broken and the compromised solution he lays out is more than acceptable to me. Your response did not lay out a structured argument to refute his claims but yet runs contrary to them, which is why I asked the question that I did. It wasn't meant as an insult though I see now how it could have been misconstrued as one.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

The reality is this: Teams who have the means to do so will work up until the last minute possible every time. These teams will likely be more competitive than those who stop working before the competition. That is a fact of life.

All eliminating stop build does is provide teams who didn't previously have the means to keep working up until the last minute possible the means to do so. This will not require anyone work more than they want to, but instead gives them the *choice* to do so, a choice many would not have otherwise. The top teams are still going to be the top teams. It may move some lower end teams up, but at the end of the day a non-top team isn't going to fare any worse on their own than they would have with stop build. This does not make it worse for teams who don't want to work more, it only opens up the opportunity to do so to teams who didn't have that opportunity before.

And before someone says "if we don't work more we'll get left behind while everyone else gets better", congrats, that's part of life. This is a competition. If you don't care about being competitive, great. Good for you. You don't need to work any longer than you'd like to. If your argument is that you won't have the means to work longer, but you still wanna be competitive, join FTC. Or VEX. Or any other competition. FRC isn't the end-all be-all best robotics program for everyone, but it is a program with a lot of potential for those who are willing and able to put in the work. The program shouldn't be limited just because of a few who would benefit more by being in another program.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

... This is a competition. ...

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't a competition.
FRC *includes* a competition.

I beg to disagree.
*FRC* is a competition.
*FIRST* includes a competition (FRC).


There may be methods to pursue the FIRST mission that do not include a competition.
However, the method FRC chose does include a competition.
It's in the name.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

Another point of view would be that a discussion that doesn't include the competition's place in the bigger picture, is a discussion likely to include mistakes.

The post I replied to appeared to tell someone introducing a bit of the bigger picture, that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

I think we can be confident FIRST HQ has an eye on the bigger picture that includes FIRST's primary mission, *and* on the health of the important competition that supports that primary mission.

Why not ensure both are emphasized in this conversation? I'm guessing that FIRST HQ and CD will find the result more persuasive than they would otherwise.

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

...that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

...

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by marshall

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

I think the point over mentor burnout is a big point that Jim's paper kind of ignored but semi-addressed with the 8 hour open bag time per week; which is something I think I'd support.

The one thing I was unclear on is what is the purpose behind FIRST considering this? Is it because the stop build is almost artificial anyway because of how many teams have a second robot and/or use a ton of time with the weight withholding? If that's the driving force behind it then I think Jim's solution is pretty solid.

I feel like if it's to increase competitiveness of the events then it's probably not the right solution. I think the solution needs to be two-fold. First, somehow as a community we need to find a solution to improve competitiveness of the lower to mid-tier teams that struggle (maybe a strong eMentoring program or something). Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams). But, I don't see the point penalizing the historically successful teams without doing something to improve the struggling teams; because that'll just lower the overall quality of the events.