When Does Age of a Team Not Matter?

[Jon Stratis]

Even the best, most seasoned teams have off years. Key students graduate and no one steps up to "fill their shoes". Key mentors stop participating for whatever reason (get a job out of state, for example), and the team struggles without them. Or maybe the team just reaches a little too far one year and can't get everything working. I've seen it happen to veteran teams. And i worry every year that it might happen to us...

The problem with setting expectations based simply on team number comes when people don't meet your expectations. if you expect someone to be one of the best robots there and they aren't, you're going to think they're a lot worse than they really are. Likewise, if someone is bad year after year and they suddenly do decently, you'll rank them a lot higher because of the surprise.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by TheFish

So my question is this: for how many years do you guys subsidize your expectations of teams because of how long they have been around?

Originally Posted by TheFish

It seems that even though, in your opinion, we should theoretically have equal expectations between 6 year teams and 12 year teams... the older teams are still always making Einstein and winning it.

Anybody care to shed light on why?

Maybe this is lack of 10 years of experience talking, but to me a non-subsidized expectation doesn't imply an Einstein appearance. What I'm saying is, I expect most teams with roughly 4 to at least 12 or so years of experience to preform about the same--average, as the case may be. I'm usually unsurprised to find out their age. I don't subsidize my expectations of them; they're likely to build decent robots, have solid teams, and maybe win a couple awards every few years. But I don't expect to see them hang up blue championship banners either (though I'm happy being pleasantly surprised).
Now, of course, there are a few teams I do expect to stand out in Atlanta every year (and they rarely disappoint). I don't base this on age, but they are by-and-large more likely to be older than the norm. However, I don't see them as a reason to scrap the 4-5 year mark for at least on-par performance from everyone else; just my $0.02.

[Mark McLeod]

Just for curiosity, the average age of all FRC teams last year was just under 4 years. This year it's probably around 4.1 years.

[WJF2011]

Mentoring and strategy are way more important than experience.

[Jstack14]

What matters the most is the resources and the goals of the team. The team I am on is student lead and student run. We pride ourselves on having us students work on all aspects of our team. We strive to live up to all of FIRST ideals and go for all the awards from website to spirit to animation and chairmen’s. Our mentors help guide us in the right direction but ultimately it is the student’s choice as to what we do each year for the robot and other elements of our team. Since we don’t only focus on the robot, and don’t have the resources other teams have, our robot is good but not outstanding every year. Some years we do really well and some we struggle. In our fifth year we were seeded 9th going into the eliminations and unfortunately lost our first two matches. This is not because of lack of experience, because as many people stated 5 years is plenty, rather it is because of the way we run our team. I personally like the way we run our team because we learn the most by making mistakes and getting guidance from mentors but making educated decisions ourselves. With this approach we won’t have a powerhouse team every year but once in a while we may come up with an incredible robot. So long story short, age is a small factor, but how your team operates and the resources available matter much more.

[wireties]

Experience matters but new teams can make up for that quickly. It takes an extended 12-month commitment from sponsors/mentors/leaders and access to a talented pool of students. The mentorship of a nearby established team helps. This may sound funny but I think year-round access to a dedicated work space and good tools are a key ingredient. Every great team I ever visited had an awesome shop.

Some of these rookie FIRST teams are current BEST beasts - they start kicking butt from year one!

[JaneYoung]

Young teams can step up and hold their own. They do it.
Young teams can also flounder. They do that, too.

There are a few keys to success with every FRC team but with a new team, a major key is the mentors and their grasp of the FRC competition. It also helps a young team tremendously to be open to help from other teams. One of the worst mistakes that will slow growth and progress in a team is the refusal to acknowledge that the team may need some help and support. You can see that at the competitions when help is turned away and teams aren't passing inspection in a timely fashion because their pride or stubbornness is getting in the way.

As far as the age of a team - I think it always matters. Always. Every year is a building block of potential and opportunity for the team.

Jane

[Lil' Lavery]

If we look at some of these teams who start winning right out of the gate, I think you'll find one factor is present among many of them. They had knowledge of FIRST programs before their rookie year.

2753 grew out of a very highly successful FTC team (who won the FTC championship in 2008).
2775's lead mentor has mentored multiple other teams and is an alumnus of 768.
2377 has mentors who were FIRST veterans.
2826 has mentors who worked with 93 in the past.
2056 was mentored by 1114 and their 2010 WFFA is an 1114 alumnus.
A number of 1114 mentors were involved with 188 before joining 1114.

Etc. etc. etc.