paper: Stop the Stop Build

[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.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by nobrakes8

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).

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

Originally Posted by jman4747

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

This is an interesting observation. All I know is that 9 women can have a baby in a month.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

I would assume most people who want to keep the bag beleve the latter is more stressful?

There's a couple of disagreements, I think.
--More often over shorter time, or less often over longer time? (Assumes the same number of meetings, or very close.)
--More meetings over more time, or same meetings over same time? (Assumes that teams maintain current schedule and simply move crunch time later.)

I would suspect that the disconnect is this: Teams that want to keep the bag are likely to assume that the SECOND part is the key. Teams that want to ditch the bag are likely to assume the FIRST part is the key. Basically, number of meetings vs time available to have 'em.

Originally Posted by marshall

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

Having two different classifications for teams is pretty much an automatic nonstarter. Bring the floor up, not the ceiling down. If you are going to have two different classifications, have completely separate competitions.