pic: Team 3129, The Green MacHHHHine, at CalGames 2009

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think they're bringing four mentors previously on 971...

I don't see that having a mentor or two from another team is a bad thing; if anything it should be encouraged! One of the most helpful things a team can provide for a rookie is help in the way of mentorship. Team 1675, who was a significant part of 1714's first year or so (to the point where they were listed as a "sponsor" in our team's name) shared mentors with us (all I know off the top of my head is Kevin Kolodziej, who served as field coach for both teams for two years). I believe former rookie 2826 had a shared mentor or two with 93.

I think there has to be a line somewhere as to what "rookie" is defined by, and FIRST has a nice one. If I started a team tomorrow, would you really call that not a rookie team? Perhaps 3129 toes near it, but I wouldn't call them "non rookie" just yet.

4 students and a couple mentors are a decent approximation of the core group of workers on many smaller teams.

Not to mention, these are from a team that went undefeated (and was #1 seed) at San Jose last year, had a great robot, and oh yeah, won the world champs last year.

More competitive teams and helping others is always nice, I just think it's unfair to label them as rookies. Now, if they only have 4 students, it isn't their fault, as they're just following the rules. But still, one has to point out it's kind of ridiculous.

If myself and a few other cal poly mentors started a new team tomorrow, with not experienced students, I would personally feel bad about claiming to be rookies.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

If myself and a few other cal poly mentors started a new team tomorrow, with not experienced students, I would personally feel bad about claiming to be rookies.

What if 973 were to graduate all the students and have 3 kids left for next year?

Would FIRST let you start a new team and get rookie status?

It brings into question their entire process of labeling teams as rookies or veterans.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Cory

What if 973 were to graduate all the students and have 3 kids left for next year?

Would FIRST let you start a new team and get rookie status?

It brings into question their entire process of labeling teams as rookies or veterans.

An even further interesting question: If 1717 (which I believe graduates their entire team yearly) had four mentors, would they be rookies every single year?

I wonder how much of this rule is hard and fast and how much of it is common sense interpretation by FIRST officials.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

An even further interesting question: If 1717 (which I believe graduates their entire team yearly) had four mentors, would they be rookies every single year?

I wonder how much of this rule is hard and fast and how much of it is common sense interpretation by FIRST officials.

Somewhere on the rookie team criteria page on the FIRST site it says each case is subject to review.

[Nuttyman54]

Just like there is a wide range of experience in veteran teams, each rookie team is unique in it's makeup of mentors, students and combined experience. Every year there are veteran teams which struggle due to large member or mentor turnovers and low funding, and there are rookie teams which blast onto the scene with amazing success (1902, 2056, 2753, the list goes on). A lot of these teams have quite a bit of previous experience, be it mentors who participated in FIRST, or FTC.

Whether or not a team qualifies for rookie status is very situation dependent. I fully believe FIRST has made the correct decision in allowing 3129 to be considered FRC rookies. They have worked very hard to put together a brand new team in the Bay Area, and I wish them the best of luck in 2010.