Lessons Learned - The Negative

[Brian C]

Well after reading through all the posts and contributing a couple that were a bit OT I have to say this.

- FIRST is NOT perfect.

- LIFE is NOT fair.

- Luck *good or bad* and opportunity will always affect what happens to teams.

After being involved with different aspects of FIRST for 10 years I will admit there are some flaws, in fact I would be amazed if there weren’t. But, as in other aspects of life there will always be flaws.

My advice to you is something I have been preaching as a mentor for many years;

Get over it! Learn from your experience. Adjust, adapt and overcome as you participate in FIRST (and Life).

If you don’t like the way an event is run – volunteer so you can help make changes. If you don’t like the way things are in your community then get involved and make an effort to change things for the better.

Most of all don’t expect things to be perfect. If you do you will always be disappointed and that’s not a great way to go through life.




**phew** thanks for letting me vent a bit.

[synth3tk]

Don't trust an school lacking trustworthiness at maintaining a team.

Don't expect a bad school to co-operate with a team.

Did I mention that we had issues with the school?

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

"FIRST is a microcosm of a real engineering experience because it's a problem too big, in a time too short, with a budget too small, and, in fact, a team too large."

Woodie has used that statement many times, and it is a true statement of engineering programs in general, that is why he uses it. I have never been asked to manage a program where i felt i had all of the information i needed, all of the time i needed, or all of the skilled resources i needed, or all of the funding i needed.

If i think about it, the addition of the "in fact, a team too large" does make some sense. It is difficult to get the right resources, and sometime you have to many people "helping" to be effective.

[Bill Baedke]

In the context of Continuous Improvement (or if I were King):
1. Match Screen in the pits at Atlanta: Make team numbers white on the red and blue backgrounds, not black. I was in Curie and we could not read the team numbers due to lack of contrast.

2. Scoreboard at field: Team numbers (in green background) are way too small to read. Make them bigger---plenty of white space available. Same with match numbers. (Hey, some of us are getting older every year)

3. At Pit admin. all competitions: Have a white board for teams to list need for help. Example: 217 needs Alum rod 3/8" X 10" or 217 needs wiring help or robot too heavy. Our team (217) members and most others are always happy to help other teams, but we need a central point to post needs.

4. At Pit Admin: Another board for teams to list tools they have and are willing to share. Our team would list: Lathe, Mill, Arbor Press, Sheet Metal Brake (small) etc. Then when the need arises, one would only have to go to Admin. to see who has taps and dies or pop rivets, or a bandsaw. What is usually shear panic would turn into just a short walk to borrow a tool. We can't all bring everything, but you know it is all there, somewhere.

5. Creativity: Have each team submit things or designs on their robot that they think are unique, maybe at check-in or before. Then the judges would have things to look for and could decide in advance if it has merit. Maybe this year traction control was creative, but how was it done?

6. Mentioned before and I agree that people in the pits want to watch the matches. Even a few TVs placed around would help.

7. Post the rules: If we are trying to get the public to come see the competition, we need to help them when they get there. Have a place at all Regionals and the Championship where a beginner could go to get a copy of the basics of the game (condensed to a small piece of paper). Have this place staffed with volunteer student team members to answer questions. Those students would have a complete set of rules, be knowledgeable, and be FIRST team members so they should be able answer most questions, and more importantly express their enthusiasm.

As someone above said: Engineers always see how to make it better. These are just starters, I know you can improve on them and add more.

Bill Baedke, Team 217, Thunderchickens mentor

[Steve_Alaniz]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I disagree with your argument. Why should when the support of this team was given, matter in the giving of an award? Teams are not judged on chairman's awards and etc from just the previous year.

The argument I was trying to make in my earlier post was that some teams take a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. They are a team, maybe just without a team number yet, or without a sponsor yet, but theyre still a team. If they are reaching out and supporting the community before they have even competed, that stuff should definitely count....regardless of when it was, summer, winter, months, or even years before they became a "team".

Brandon, you miss the point. FIRST defined what a rookie team is and what the award entails. FIRST is free to define it anyway they see fit. But as it is at this snapshot in time, I see a contradiction in the very definitions FIRST has given.
FIRST defines the rookie season time frame and I think they need to be as specific as they are with the time frame of the build season.
It is the time frame that seemed a bit unfair. There was no "level" playing field for a team that may have just managed to convince their school board to allow a team at the beginning of the school year and so missed the opportunity to work on the All Star Rookie award the previous summer. If they have no chance ... FIRST shouldn't allow them to believe they do.

I think 3091 might have won without the summer having been taken into consideration. They DO fantastic work and I have nothing but praise for that work. Perhaps the summer was NOT taken into consideration by the judges and Woodie misspoke. It wouldn't be the first time.
It doesn't really matter... the award has been given and that's that.
FIRST is a really great organization... but even FIRST needs to be watched and called to task occasionally for inconsistencies.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by BurtGummer

Well, I have nothing against 3091. But they did have FTC and FLL experience from what I have read. Summer camps or not, they have robotics experience. It might not be FRC experience, but FTC isn't something simple. In my opinion, if a team has experience in robotics, that needs to be put in consideration, or maybe a separate award.

Compare 3091 or 2753 with us, 3020. We have never touched a robot before this year. But from what I have read, both 3091 and 2753 have, and 2753 has been champions in FTC. Rookie to FRC yes, Rookie to robotics, not in the slightest.

I think FIRST needs to take a closer look at things like these.

Depending on a team's circumstances, I would often recommend a team compete in FTC for a year before FRC. Obviously, if you already have students/mentors with FRC experience, or far too many students for a FTC team, or a major sponsor (like Boeing for 3020) by all means jump right into FRC. In most other cases, I think a team would benefit greatly from some FTC experience, and be prepared for their rookie year of FRC. After the FRC team is started, the FTC team can be kept as sort of a junior varsity (we have an FTC team for the freshmen on our team).

Over my years of helping teams and inspecting, I have met many rookies teams with only a few students, 1 mentor and no money for anything other than the kit. They just dont have the manpower or resources to compete in FRC, and it can be discouraging for the students. However, they are well suited to FTC. While competing in FTC, they can recruit more students, mentors and sponsors. I worked with a rookie team last year that decided to compete in FTC this year. Although I am sure they had a good experience overall in FRC, they probably would have had a better experience in FTC.

My point is that we should be encouraging the FTC to FRC transition and FTC as a way to prepare for FRC. It shouldn't disqualify them from awards. FRC is different enough from FTC that it is still a major step. If your team wants to go directly into FRC more power to you, but their is nothing wrong with an FRC rookie competing in FTC previously. FIRST doesn't really tell you how to run your team and the rules to determine a rookie status are pretty much based on FRC experience not FTC, FLL, Vex, Botball, etc... FIRST doesn't want to make things to be more difficult than necessary for rookie teams.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

Thats understandable, but when you lose mentor support/school sponsor support, thats a whole different thing, FIRST needs to make this appealing to schoolteachers and make it worthwhile for the teachers to stay after their scheduled hours. A lot of teams fold because of funding, or a ridiculusly high percentage of their kids are graduated the previous year. or just overall support for the program has donwhill.

It isn't FIRST's job to make this appealing enough to school teachers. It is the job of teams to communicate the value of FIRST programs to policy makers including the general public that this is an important program.

Teams should help policy makers and educators learn how to embrace FIRST programs as a critical co-cirricular activity that reinforces classroom learning. Far too often the educational establishment view robotics as a "club' and not as a serious adjunct to learning.

At this past Championship the message was clearly stated. Corporations, Foundations, students and volunteers have donated an enormous sum of money and effort to promote STEM education. This group has voted with their time and money. This vote serves as a clear statement of dissatisfaction of the methods of how STEM education is currently taught.

Institutions do not like to be told they are wrong. They have to go through the Kubla-Ross stages of grief as they process this information. If FIRST'ers persist these institutions will eventually get the message and you will be able to ask them to build into their structures proper teacher stipends and other support resources.

Transforming the public culture and attitudes, including the institutional attitude is precisely the goal of FIRST.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by BurtGummer

Well, I have nothing against 3091. But they did have FTC and FLL experience from what I have read. Summer camps or not, they have robotics experience. It might not be FRC experience, but FTC isn't something simple. In my opinion, if a team has experience in robotics, that needs to be put in consideration, or maybe a separate award.

Compare 3091 or 2753 with us, 3020. We have never touched a robot before this year. But from what I have read, both 3091 and 2753 have, and 2753 has been champions in FTC. Rookie to FRC yes, Rookie to robotics, not in the slightest.

I think FIRST needs to take a closer look at things like these.

I respectfully would like to point out to you that the way 2753 and 3091 started their FRC teams is exactly what FIRST intended and is what is expected of new rookies. Do NOT criticize these teams for taking the leap into FRC correctly or take away from their accomplishments, as a mentor I would really expect to hear better than complaints of awards. Students like me are the ones who complain about awards.

Frailty in rookie FRC teams is common but is avoidable when the team is initiated properly. Big name PA and NJ teams have been with 2753 every step of the way, and we can vouch for them in saying that they have built a strong foundation by themselves AS A HOMESCHOOLED TEAM. When they needed help from anyone, THEY ASKED.

Do not downplay the accomplishments of these teams because they started out the way FIRST intended them to start out, through FTC and FLL.

The best lesson learned for team who feel 2753 or other successful rookie teams this year had the upper hand: Learn how to have the upper hand. There is always a way, just find it.

[BurtGummer]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I respectfully would like to point out to you that the way 2753 and 3091 started their FRC teams is exactly what FIRST intended and is what is expected of new rookies. Do NOT criticize these teams for taking the leap into FRC correctly or take away from their accomplishments, as a mentor I would really expect to hear better than complaints of awards. Students like me are the ones who complain about awards.

Frailty in rookie FRC teams is common but is avoidable when the team is initiated properly. Big name PA and NJ teams have been with 2753 every step of the way, and we can vouch for them in saying that they have built a strong foundation by themselves AS A HOMESCHOOLED TEAM. When they needed help from anyone, THEY ASKED.

Do not downplay the accomplishments of these teams because they started out the way FIRST intended them to start out, through FTC and FLL.

The best lesson learned for team who feel 2753 or other successful rookie teams this year had the upper hand: Learn how to have the upper hand. There is always a way, just find it.

I'm sorry to see you failed to understand that I am not downplaying the award(s) they won, or their achievements.

I have not see anything, anywhere, of how a team should start in FIRST. If it should be that way, then it should be a requirement to start in FTC or FLL.

Once again, I will state that FIRST needs to look into something here. We are not the only school who has started out in FRC and not FTC or FLL. I did not set our team up, our sponsor rep did. We didn't even know what FRC was. All I am trying to say is that there are two different types of rookies in FRC. Rookies with prior robot experience in FTC and FLL, and complete newbies to the entire field of robotics. I think that is a fair statement, and not one which criticizes any teams that do have prior experience. It isn't their problem, it's something FIRST should look into.

I apologize that my post sounded like I am criticizing these teams. I found the facts about their history, and I applaud them for it. It is a deal with how FIRST is handling it, not them.

[David Brinza]

Burt,

Just like in the real world, there will never be a level playing field in FIRST. Some teams will enter as rookies with FRC-experienced mentors and generous sponsors, others will enter with a teacher, a few students and a NASA grant. There are veteran teams with an army of engineering mentors, full machine shops with seemingly limitless resources and there are student-run teams who struggle just to compete in one regional. That's just how it is.

FIRST can only do so much to make the program reasonably equitable for such diversity in their constituency. The KOP, robot rules, short build season, cost restrictions, and a new alliance-based game each year are there to avoid total domination by a small number of veteran teams. Yes, there are a few teams that are top competitors year-in and year-out. Many teams look at those powerhouse teams as role models. Those same powerhouse teams will do almost anything to help fellow competitors to succeed. Learn about the Techno-Kats, ThunderChickens, Bomb Squad, MOE, and so many other top-notch FIRST teams. They are willing to share their knowledge (i.e. you can get team handbooks by searching CD media).

Successful teams set goals for improving each year. If the focus remains on inspiring as many students as you can reach, your doing the right thing and will be a winner in everyone's book. The awards may or may not come...but the real trophies are the students.

[dwaynetrip3119]

My team could just become a little more organized at the beginning of next season.

[santosh]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

As a whole I did enjoy this game very much and I liked the complexity of building a truly competitive robot to accomplish the various intricacies of this game.

I cant say there were too many intricacies... there was 1 goal. put balls into a trailer.

FIRST, please take this back to 2004 with multiple things happening at once. I understand the idea of leveling the playing field for rookies and making them competitive with everyone, and I agree with it. But look at a complex game such as 2004. and rookie could have gathered balls effectively and score them.

These 1 dimensional games are getting kinda old for me atleast. And I mean 1 dimensional in scoring (yes I understand the super cell).
2005 - place tetras on goals, 2006 - throw balls into a goal (fun but 1 dimensional), 2007 - put ringers on a rack, 2008, throw a ball over a rack (one of the most boring games ever to watch)
But in 2004 you had the bar, the balls, and the 2x ball. that year the beast was able to do everything and win, but other younger teams like us (alumni 1002) did just fine only doing one task, the bar...

It makes it a lot more fun to watch and more fun to play. Lets be real. how much fun was it to watch 6 robots collide in the center of the field and roam around slowly. this is not a shot at the GDC, a close mentor of mine is on it (Jeremy Roberts). that is just my opinion. But

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by BurtGummer

I have not see anything, anywhere, of how a team should start in FIRST.

The FIRST Tech Challenge (FTC) mid-level robotics competition:

* Provides a more affordable, more accessible opportunity to participate in FIRST
* Creates a bridge between the FIRST LEGO League and the
FIRST Robotics Competition

(Emphasis mine)
http://usfirst.org/what/FTC/content.aspx?id=382

I did not mean to call you out either and I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by santosh

These 1 dimensional games are getting kinda old for me atleast. And I mean 1 dimensional in scoring (yes I understand the super cell).
2005 - place tetras on goals, 2006 - throw balls into a goal (fun but 1 dimensional), 2007 - put ringers on a rack, 2008, throw a ball over a rack (one of the most boring games ever to watch)
But in 2004 you had the bar, the balls, and the 2x ball. that year the beast was able to do everything and win, but other younger teams like us (alumni 1002) did just fine only doing one task, the bar...

I beg to disagree. Most of these games weren't entirely one dimensional, and I'd say 2007 definitely had two dimensions.

2005- Stack tetras on top of goals or place tetras under goals
2006- Shoot balls through upper goal or deposit them through lower goal
2007- Place Ringers or lift robots. (This game was definitely not one dimensional
2008- Hurdle Trackball over overpass or Herd Trackball under overpass or race around the track
2009- Put balls in Goal

Granted, in 2005 good teams all stacked. In 2006 though, 195 and 1902 rose to fame playing exclusively with the lower goal. Other teams may have too, but my memory is starting to fail me. 2007 definitely was not one dimensional, as those bonus points for lifting robots were important, and lifting robots was not an easy task. 2008, most good robots did hurdle. However, at GSR a herder (58) captained an alliance all the way to the finals, and 148 played an integral role in the RoboSimChickens Championship victory. This year, we all did the same thing though.

That said, I'd love to play another 2004-esque game.
(It seems FIRST Frenzy is quickly acquiring some sort of cult status as a magical perfect game around here...)

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

I beg to disagree. Most of these games weren't entirely one dimensional, and I'd say 2007 definitely had two dimensions.

2005- Stack tetras on top of goals or place tetras under goals
2006- Shoot balls through upper goal or deposit them through lower goal
2007- Place Ringers or lift robots. (This game was definitely not one dimensional
2008- Hurdle Trackball over overpass or Herd Trackball under overpass or race around the track
2009- Put balls in Goal

Granted, in 2005 good teams all stacked. In 2006 though, 195 and 1902 rose to fame playing exclusively with the lower goal. Other teams may have too, but my memory is starting to fail me. 2007 definitely was not one dimensional, as those bonus points for lifting robots were important, and lifting robots was not an easy task. 2008, most good robots did hurdle. However, at GSR a herder (58) captained an alliance all the way to the finals, and 148 played an integral role in the RoboSimChickens Championship victory. This year, we all did the same thing though.

That said, I'd love to play another 2004-esque game.
(It seems FIRST Frenzy is quickly acquiring some sort of cult status as a magical perfect game around here...)

I think 1902 started in 2006.