Why do we bother bagging?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Racer26

Give me a few minutes and I will attempt to compare team zip codes median household income with a metric of team success for a similar timeframe (OPR, using 2008 data?)

So:

I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761

and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...zip/index.html

Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.



I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by Racer26

So:

I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761

and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...zip/index.html

Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.

Attachment 16343

I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.

But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.

While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Please don't interpret this as an attack but I feel you have made many statements in this thread without fully supporting them.

Originally Posted by Racer26

So:

I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761

and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...zip/index.html

Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.

Attachment 16343

I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.

Every teacher I've ever had would give you at most half credit for not labelling your axises. To the best of my interpretation your sample size is 26 teams in a single year. Why did you choose Maryland? Do you think factors like years of experience or that individuals on those teams might be completely masking any meaningful correlation? (We've seen what team Copioli made in 3 days using some drills and extrusion.) Would you mind sharing your data analysis experience?

I'm for this study to be completed seeing as it has the potential to effect actual funding.

Originally Posted by FIRST Robotics Canada

FIRST Canada is very fortunate to be working with Queen's University who is doing an arms length study for us on the effectiveness and benefits of the FIRST program . This study will be used to help with government and corporate funding submissions. In the past these funds have been used to support teams, events and scholarships. WE NEED YOUR HELP! http://queensu.fluidsurveys.com/surv...mentor-survey/

Originally Posted by Racer26

The thing with this argument is that usually, people make it as a way of saying "Those teams that are always at the top? We could beat them if only we were given more time.", completely forgetting that the only way to give you more time fairly is to ALSO give the powerhouse teams more time. Those powerhouse teams? They're already making better use of the time they're given than the complaining teams, that's why they're powerhouses. Giving them more time will only serve to make the performance gap bigger, not smaller.

Do you not believe in diminishing returns? How much better do you expect 118 or 148 to get if the build season was lengthened?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Racer26

If you think I'm being naive, can you show some real data that proves that on average teams that hail from regions with higher socioeconomic status do better than teams from poorer areas? I just don't believe the socioeconomic status of the region a team comes from has much to do with their success.

This can be done with some data analysis, I can work on it after exams. But think about it - say you are rural enough to only have one machine shop in a 50 mile radius. Low economic status, no *option* to acquire resources. The underlying assumption of your post is that every area every team is in has a surplus of local entities willing to sponsor teams. Geographically, this just isn't true. Also consider that engineers tend to be more economically advantaged than the mean. So they will very likely live in higher income areas. Consider the difficulties of traditional fundraising in areas where there exists far less disposable income. It's fairly easy to see why a disadvantaged economic REGION makes FRC success take more effort.

I don't like the idea that you can just put in X units of work and success pops out. Success is not equal to work inputted, but it is proportional to it. So yes, try as hard as you can, obviously, but there is a lot more to it than that. I would also add that anybody good enough to win is clearly trying extremely hard regardless of circumstance.

[Allison K]

[Snipped for being off topic]

Anyway, the topic at hand. I could do without "stop build." We continue working using a practice bot and our withholding allowance anyway, and we effectively pace ourselves regardless of the external controls placed on us. It's not the extra expense of the practice bot that gets to me, as we would build a second robot regardless, but the extra layer of bureaucracy with the paperwork and signing and deadlines. I think as more areas switch to districts and attending 2-4 events in a season (two districts, plus a third district and/or district championship) becomes more commonplace the deadlines and bagging/unbagging will become more cumbersome. As long as "stop build" exists we'll manage just fine and all, but I won't be sad to see it go if it ever does.

[cadandcookies]

To come back to the OP:

We bag our robots because those are the rules of the competition. FIRST has decided to use those rules, and I like FIRST and the people who work there (like that Frank guy ). Since they run the competition and I trust their decision making process, I trust that if/when they determine that it makes more sense to get rid of bagging and tagging they will make that decision. Clearly they have not determined that yet, so I'll be fine competing under current rules until they do.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

To come back to the OP:

We bag our robots because those are the rules of the competition. FIRST has decided to use those rules, and I like FIRST and the people who work there (like that Frank guy ). Since they run the competition and I trust their decision making process, I trust that if/when they determine that it makes more sense to get rid of bagging and tagging they will make that decision. Clearly they have not determined that yet, so I'll be fine competing under current rules until they do.

^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Libby K

^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.

Exactly. And I trust them to use that data in addition to internal discussion to make the decision that they consider best.

[geomapguy]

Originally Posted by Libby K

^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.

^^^^ This is awesome!! I can definitely see some correlation between CD and the Team Updates

[nxtmonkeys]

Originally Posted by Racer26

One of my biggest FRC related pet peeves is rookie teams pulling the "woe is us" card.

I can think of plenty of examples, from several recent FRC seasons, of rookies that show up and perform well on AND off the field.

2013: 4814, 4451
2012: 4334
2007: 2056

I really, truly believe that FRC does a pretty good job of being able to transcend socioeconomic status of its participants, and that in 99% of cases, the result a team has is directly proportional to the effort they put in, and has little-to-nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the teams members OR its geographical area.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The powerhouses aren't great because they have great sponsors. They have great sponsors because they have a great program that the sponsors feel is worthwhile to support.

I'm not pulling that card. I'm just saying that some other teams may have problems. My team doesn't have a second anything.

I think that our robot is awesome. We'll have no trouble with it, but it would be nice to practice.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by rben13

This is my first year mentoring and I'm fortunate enough to be working with a very well established team. Personally, I think bagging is a bad idea that gives a huge advantage to veteran well-funded teams and penalizes new teams and ones without a lot of financial resources.

At the very least, it seems like exceptions should be made for first year teams and/or teams that have had trouble raising funds. I'd prefer everyone be able to work on their robots up until inspection, that way we can all bring our very best to the field.

The thing with this argument is that usually, people make it as a way of saying "Those teams that are always at the top? We could beat them if only we were given more time.", completely forgetting that the only way to give you more time fairly is to ALSO give the powerhouse teams more time. Those powerhouse teams? They're already making better use of the time they're given than the complaining teams, that's why they're powerhouses. Giving them more time will only serve to make the performance gap bigger, not smaller.

[MichaelBick]

I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by MichaelBick

I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.

Actually it is a lot more work when you don't have the resources, materials or the dollars to purchase said resources. We have cannibalized last year's robot to build this year which is a good use of resources, but not enough for two bots. Fortunately we have a couple great sponsors that allows us to get parts we need to build a robot that does the tasks it needs to, but we try to budget so we have money to start next year, so there is not a lot of fluff to work with.

We are a second year team and I agree with others on here that some of these rules need to be looked at. I don't get having a $100,000 budget for a team. I don't care were you are from. How is that in the spirit of FIRST? In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations. If you get the big corporate sponsorship, then I guess more power to you, but I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.

I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot. That is were we see some really sophisticated robots that other teams will most likely never have a chance to build based on resources. Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.

Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot. We did what we were suppose to do. Get our kit of parts, put it together and build up from there. We used last years robot to learn programming, use it for presentations and driving practice until we had to start robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the spirit of FIRST I thought the rule was for you not to build components that would be used for build season. You can argue with me about the semantics in the rules, but I am sure in "the spirit of FIRST" that was the idea behind the rule. Not to have a jump start on the drive train or other pieces before build season.

What started out to be for kids to get interested in STEM is turning out to be almost commercialized in the fact as in life money becomes the deciding factor of who comes out on top unless you are picked to be on the winning alliance team. Life isn't fair and we have to deal with what we have to work with, but I also don't think FIRST is about helping promote that idea. If it is, maybe I don't understand why FIRST exists then.

I would like to see FIRST consider the following:

1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.

2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.

3) Look at starting an FRC Open class. Teams that want to go all out can. If you are not in open then you use a standard drive base and allowed to change gears. You could still run the same amount of matches and teams at a regional, just group them accordingly.

4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.

We are all coming off of a 6 week build and for some of us a challenging one due to weather issues, but speaking from a young team, I would say it is time for FIRST to evaluate some of these rules to allow new teams to feel encouraged they have a chance. There will always be those who find the loop holes and loose interpretations and go beyond them. After all that is why have them to begin with. In the end it comes down to the people involved. Like basketball, the ball is the same ball for every team, but it is the coaching and the players that make the difference. I would just like to see FIRST be more about having each team use close to the same ball and let the rest be decided for itself.

[Alan Anderson]

There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:

Originally Posted by dibblec

In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations.

I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:



I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".

Excellent point.