What can FIRST do to increase FRC team sustainability?

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Remove bag day? Sure, that increases the rookie team's chances of fielding something, but that also gives powerhouse teams more time to build something that will wipe the floor with everyone else. It will increase the perceived divide.

Honestly, the powerhouse teams all build two robots anyway, so they're already spending the time building more. As it is, I don't think the 30lb withholding allowance is really much of a hindrance to them. I think giving rookie teams a better shot at fielding something (and the rest of us a break on our budget) is more than reason enough to drop bag day.

The other thing FRC needs more of is off-season competitions, and practice fields. Robotics will never be sustainable unless we can have the equivalent of "pick-up" games. Our team is hoping to host more of these next year.

[Knufire]

You can't solve a problem you don't understand. Before you can address the issue of sustainability, we need to figure out (in more certain terms than just a logical debate) why teams are folding.

I know IndianaFIRST surveyed teams that have folded over the past few years. The results were presented at a statewide mentor meeting, and can be found below. I hope that other regions within FRC can implement a similar survey.



Now two of the top three reasons have been discussed here. The one that hasn't, which seems to be the most prevalent among teams in Indiana, is lack of school support.

What can we do to make FRC more appealing for schools to integrate into their programs? There has been talk recently of forming an FRC curriculum; based on this data that would go a long way in improving sustainability.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Knufire

I know IndianaFIRST surveyed teams ...

Do you have a more detailed breakdown of the numbers that would show if the teams were 10-year veterans that hit a major rough patch, or were 2-year hot-house orchids that wilted on the first sunny day because they didn't have a good root system?

There is a heck of a big difference in those two extremes of that spectrum (and I realize that the crudely defined spectrum I have in mind is only one method among the many ways to categorize teams).

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

Do you have a more detailed breakdown of the numbers that would show if the teams were 10-year veterans that hit a major rough patch, or were 2-year hot-house orchids that wilted on the first sunny day because they didn't have a good root system?

I pulled how long each of the listed teams were active off TBA, along with any rookie awards or championship attendances they might have had.

Interestingly enough, two of the listed teams returned for the 2016 season. One was a 6 year veteran team that only took the 2015 season off, another was a one-and-done 2013 rookie that resurrected.

I don't have the data to match which factors affected which teams.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

What years are FRC teams most likely to fail? I would guess something like years 2 & 5, but I'd love to know the actual answer. Can someone generate those numbers real quick?

Not sure why I had the years 1-3 as the toughest for a team, I meant to say years 2-4.

[ArtemusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

What years are FRC teams most likely to fail? I would guess something like years 2 & 5, but I'd love to know the actual answer. Can someone generate those numbers real quick?

I hope my post is not redundant, but there were few graphs posted recently (probably as a result of this thread):
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43846
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43845
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43844
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43843

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by rsisk

2. Provide resources that can be used by schools to increase the value of the FIRST program to the schools. Curriculum schools can use would help a lot.

This might be the most important step. VEX offers a curriculum that allows school districts to justify assigning a teacher to the program. If FIRST could offer a dual track then that allows the districts to start supporting the program. That's been a big help for us in the last couple of years.

As a friend who works in international development said, non profits can come up with innovations and pilots, but to scale up to widespread adoption requires embedding the program in an institution such as a school or a government. In the U.S. sports are in the schools with salaries for coaches paid by schools. In Europe, sports clubs are subsidized by governments. This is an educational program that benefits many more than just students participating.

It's time for FIRST to take the next step and offer a model that schools find useful for accomplishing their mission.

[evoluti1]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

It's time for FIRST to take the next step and offer a model that schools find useful for accomplishing their mission.

This x1000. The fact that many FIRST teams don't get enough support from their schools to sustain for more than a few years, while these same schools give enough support to sustain other forms of sports and education for many years, all while FIRST markets itself as combining the best parts of sports and education, should tell us we're doing something wrong.

[Gregor]

This post by Jim Zondag summarizes the history of bag day and why it's obsolete.

Continue reading down that thread for more relevant posts by Jim.

EDIT:
Also the obligatory:

[IronicDeadBird]

FIRST needs to start showing data that actually mean something outside of the FIRST scene. Compiling hard data and showing that these programs actually mean something and have a positive impact would be far more beneficial then a team coming home with a blue banner when it comes to winning over school boards and sponsors.
I'd ask FIRST to leverage the connections they have to help teams contact sponsors at higher points instead of trying to get a message from the clerk at gas station up to the appropriate people.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

FIRST needs to start showing data that actually mean something outside of the FIRST scene. Compiling hard data and showing that these programs actually mean something and have a positive impact would be far more beneficial then a team coming home with a blue banner when it comes to winning over school boards and sponsors.

You mean like the Brandeis University studies?
http://www.firstinspires.org/about/impact
http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...ngs-year-3.pdf

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You mean like the Brandeis University studies?
http://www.firstinspires.org/about/impact
http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...ngs-year-3.pdf

Yeah except as someone who is casually into FIRST and mentors I don't like the odds of expecting a sponsor or a school board to keep up with them.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Yeah except as someone who is casually into FIRST and mentors I don't like the odds of expecting a sponsor or a school board to keep up with them.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that teams shouldn't have to reach out to sponsors and school boards to sell them on the merit of FIRST?

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that teams shouldn't have to reach out to sponsors and school boards to sell them on the merit of FIRST?

This response is so late that I feel bad but roughly speaking yeah a teams resources should be going to growing themselves instead of advertising the benefits of FRC.
FRC has the ability to represent itself better then any group of students (come at me people who disagree) because the people in FRC have better points of contact in industries where if we got more support we would be better off. If we grow the relations between the real world and FRC then a team has a better platform and more support to stand on. If companies more actively came out and sponsored teams as opposed to teams going to companies that sends a pretty strong message. That says this company supports what we are doing, a business is investing actual time or money into these students (or both). That is some great evidence for a school board or a parent who goes "what have you been doing after school?". That would mean that the small team of 5 students and some crazy mentor have some real solid proponents and advocates that help when dealing with naysayers.

IMO...

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

What I think teams need, and which has only been mentioned a couple times in this thread, is institutional support from FIRST in procuring human and financial resources.

Like the FIRST Senior Mentor position, you mean?