So I am an Alumni of Avergae Joes 3620 (as it says) and I am currently working on different aspects of our team dynamics. One thing I am working on is the travel team and the non-travel team; the no-travel team has fewer requirements than the travel team such as hours worked, events attended, meetings attended, etc. We have the capacity to have 55+ students on the team, but we are missing the dedication and desire from some; and frankly, we can’t have that many travel with the team.
One of my biggest challenges thus far has been determining the names for both teams (shocker, lol.) On the mentor’s side, we have Mentors and Senior Mentors that follow the same idea. One has more requirements than the other.
Currently I use “Learner Joes” and “Leader Joes” but in my opinion that does not sound professional enough. It works at the moment as a “fill in.” “Joes” and “Senior Joes” sounds good, but then people may get confused with having seniors on the team. “JV” and “Varsity” Sounds alright, but we aren’t two separate teams. That’s the LAST message we want to convey to others.
Do you guys have any suggestions? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Extra points for using “Average” or “Joes” in the names
We tossed around that idea, but we already use “Above Average” for a handful of processes. And we don’t want to discourage students who are just “Joes”
Plus we call ourselves Joes. To grab their attention we yell “Hey Joes” It’s the same idea as calling a Cubs fan a “Cub” Seems like it would be too confusing? If we can’t think of anything else, we may just use that.
we aren’t two separate teams. That’s the LAST message we want to convey to others
Sounds like you shouldn’t split the team into 2 labels then? Giving the 2 sets of people different names doesn’t bring any benefit in my view - being on the travel team as an additional qualifier sounds like enough differentiation.
Agreed. Last year (2016) we had to travel to our regional and could only take 12 people. So the captains and coach got together and decided who had the most necessary skills and/or had put in the most time. I don’t see a need to explicitly split the team in to two. In fact I think it’s detrimental because it trivializes the work that the “non-travel team” does, which is not the message I (or FIRST, most likely) would want to send. Then again, you are on a much more established team than mine.
I have to agree with the past few people… Do you really need labels for those groups? We have clear requirements to travel with the team, and those that don’t meet those requirements don’t travel. We make sure we communicate with those that look like they aren’t going to meet the requirements early so they have a chance to still travel if they want, but that’s a 1-on-1 thing. The only time we need to separate the two groups is when we do prep specifically for an event - and it’s easy enough to just say “meeting for everyone going to XXX”.
Maybe it would be a good idea to not have labels… I have only discussed it with a few people as of now and we haven’t had time to really have a good discussion on it (that’s why I posted on here!)
What if instead we had a “Student Status” that shows what goals/requirements they’re meeting?
For example, we have a requirement of 20 hours a month to stay a part of the team, or else you may face being kicked off the roster. For the “travel team” we have a requirement of 35 hours a month. What if instead we made a scale saying their “status” in that area of commitment? Then maybe they have to pass a certain percent of them to be able to travel?
Then they can see what area(s) they need to work on?
For example:
Hours per month
0-19 -> Below Average
20-34 -> Average
35+ -> Above Average
My high school team tracked hours for the purposes of travel. All students were expected to maintain 60% of team hours, and you were supposed to have 80% of team hours to travel with the team. Exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis depending on individual circumstances. The only groups that got additional “names” or “labeling” for travel/competition purposes were the drive team (“flight crew”), pit crew, head scout, and Chairman’s presenters.
In my experience, having an official split in the team generally discourages people who are in the “average,” “lower,” or whatever you call it category. If you need to have a separate travel team of some sort (with 50+, it seems likely that you do), having a minimum hour cutoff and mentor discretion if there’s still too many seems like it should be enough. Adding different names will just add to gaps between travel team/not. You don’t want to encourage the mentality of having two ‘teams,’ as you said. Why over-complicate it?
In 2015 and 2016 (perhaps a year or two earlier), we had a similar situation, and used “varsity” and “junior varsity”. I never noticed any confusion that these were qualifications within the team, not separate teams. The JV were fully part of the same build process, working in the same workgroups alongside varsity members. Varsity was usually named piecemeal over the course of the season. We didn’t link the difference directly to hours and such, but to how valuable/necessary the team members were. Essentially, you would almost certainly be varsity if you were on the core drive, pit, chairman’s, or scouting crews (though we intentionally did not name students who showed up occasionally, because these were all positions of responsibility). One or two each year were varsity because they had enough spirit and little enough self-consciousness to don a mascot costume.
The only time I would say it would be logical to make this divide is with the drive team, much like how other sports run. When you have a cap on players it make sense plus it differentiates those who want to work hard and make it to the next level from those who just want to be on the next level.
The rest of robotics is more of a business than an athletic team. With the caveat that employee capacity isn’t really constrained by the budget. You wouldn’t want to cut out any of the mental and physical bandwidth. That would just decrease productivity.
One of our new favorite places to go to is “Not Your Average Joes” Since it’s becoming our “go to place” I’d suggest the home team is called “Average Joe’s” and your go team “Not Your Average Joes”. In either case I’d be writing to them for some sponsor dollars. (www.notyouraveragejoes.com)
There was a suggestion about being the Mo Joes, which as a pun on Mojo, it kind of cool. Since I’m in Delaware, I’m used to hearing “Go Moe” from supporters of Moe Robotics. Teach your team to echo “Go Mo Jo” after their “Go Mo” and watch for the head snap. :rolleyes:
I agree with some of the other posters here; splitting the team into “travel” and “non-travel”, whether labeled or not, discourages the students in the “non-travel” group. FIRST teams should be more inclusive. Ideally, every team should have at least two drive teams and pit crews, unless there aren’t enough students to do so. At the very least, all team members should be allowed to attend the team’s competitions if they want and are able to. They all worked on the robot(or other parts of the team), why should they not be allowed to watch it compete live at the event? Additionally, the events are a major part of the FIRST experience. Robot-related skills can be obtained elsewhere. Events provide the opportunity to see different approaches to the game challenges up close. To talk to the teams about their designs, cheer on your alliance partners, assist other teams if needed, participate in venue-wide Macarenas, the heads-tails fan game or whatever your district does for audience participation, or even volunteer, among other things.
Bottom Line/TL;DR: If you have a maximum number of students you can allow at competitions, limit your team size to that number. For example, if you can only take 20 out of 50 students, only allow 20 students on the team.
I strongly disagree with this. If you have more people interested in the team, find a way for them to participate! Inspiration doesn’t just happen at competition, it happens in the shop too. Work to provide the best experience you can to as many students as possible. If you can’t have everyone travel, then find a different way to keep them involved and inspired. If part of the team is staying back during a competition, they can work within the school to spread the word about the event, show the live stream in public places, and in general get everyone else excited that the team is competing. If you can’t get everyone to the event, then you can run your own small-scale robotics competition over the summer, borrowing from FLL, FTC, VEX, BEST, or whatever other program you want. If you can’t get everyone to your FRC competition, then start up an affiliated FTC or VEX team can get some people to those competitions instead.
Don’t just give up and limit your team size. Find a way around it to keep as many kids involved as possible.
