Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

As an alumni, I appreciate this. Much of 234's direct awards-level success at the Championship was directly spearheaded by students. I remember putting countless hours into the 2008 Inventor Award entry, and the same was done by the design team in 2010.

When I came to Purdue to mentor another team, I began to realize the value of having a unified team driven toward producing a quality product for all facets of the program. 234 does a very good job of inspiring students to succeed in everything they do. I truly enjoy mentoring 1747, but I constantly look back to the team I came from for inspiration of how to improve how we mentor our students, as accepting nothing less than success in what you do in high school can encourage that same paradigm in college and beyond.

When I see the top teams perform at competitions, I cannot honestly believe that any of them would be a totally mentor-produced operation. As a student, I would find that so amazingly boring. We have given our students lectures and classes about robotics topics, and they have told us flat out that the best thing we can do is keep everything hands-on and everyone involved. I find it very hard to believe that mentors on a top team would be so insensitive as to not allow students to do any technical work for the robot. I am very encouraged and inspired when I read on CD about students and mentors working collaboratively together to produce working products and sponsoring companies being so impressed by the students that they hire them as interns while they are still in high school.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

I have experienced this situation a lot. My junior and senior year of high school my team ( 67, HOT) won worlds back to back. I remember hearing snide comments all the time. When we were on the field, in the pits, or just hanging out with other teams.

As a student on the team hearing these things really angered me. No team has the right to accuse another team of things, when they have no idea what goes on during build season. In 2009 our robot was designed by a then senior, his name was Nick Orlando. His design was then taken by our design team, made up of nearly 15 students, and was done in CAD, refined, and then sent to the machining group to make. I personally made parts for that robot. Whether it was on the water jet, lathe, mill, etc I made them. If you ask any mentor or student, other then training, every part is made by a student.

I spent nearly 40 hours a week making parts, testing, and assembling the robot. Winning that year was not because of an unlimited budget either, that was during the bankruptcy of GM, so other then the shop, our robot was nearly completely student funded. We rode to Atlanta on a city bus, with no storage, no air conditions, hard plastic seats, and it broke down while in Atlanta.(That's 722 miles)

We didn't win because it was mentor built, or from an unlimited budget. Our skill came from years of experience, great strategy, and the countless hours of work we students put into our robots.

So before you go bashing a team, maybe you should get to know them. Talk to the students, and find out what the team is really like.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

The sentiment is annoying when it comes from teachers and students but when it comes from judges it is outright a problem. Awards are supposed to celebrate great things but if the people choosing those things don't understand that these machines don't have to be student built. What does it say to students who get t work alongside mentors to build a really awesome system only to be passed up for an award because it doesn't look student built?

We need to celebrate great things because good enough isn't inspiring.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

That's HOT.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Back in 2008 when GHWB commented that "FIRST is like the WWF, but for smart people”. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that statement at the time. Reading posts/threads like this one and seeing/hearing it first hand, particularly starting last year, FIRST definitely can be compared to an American publicly traded, privately controlled entertainment company with revenue sources coming from film, music, product licensing and direct product sales. FRC has its own versions of Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and Vince McMahon, in our case it’s Teams that people love to hate, just because of who they are.

Wonder if GHWB would say “FIRST is the WWF for smart people” after listening to how we talk and treat each other these days?

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Martin,

I'm going to try and share some insight to your situation, but I hope you don't take it the wrong way.

I know many won't agree with me, but it is perspective nonetheless.

At some point, strong teams will need to understand that opponents saying "no" to coopertition is not some kind of personal attack against your team. Opponents may just be giving themselves the best chance at winning the regional.

Despite information which may have been spread about the GTR-E event, very few teams actually "hate" the powerhouses. In fact, if you read the dialog on CD, it's overwhelmingly supportive. Nearly all say they've pushed the level of competition in Canada to a level never before seen, and the community has benefitted immensely from the bar being set so high. They are directly responsible for the high quality of robots in this country. As someone actually in Canada, who has competed in the these competitions and interacted with a large number of students and mentors up here, the level of "hate" up here is greatly overstated.

In fact, I'm willing to bet some of this "hate" has been attributed to me PERSONALLY, and I can unequivocably state that I do not "hate" any of them.

However, I and much of the community here really want to beat them. Badly. And I don't think you can blame us for that... this IS a competition after all.

To address the comments about the student vs mentor or high vs low resource teams. I can only share my personal opinion:

I couldn't care less if your robot was fully conceived and built by a crack team of engineers with limitless manufacturing resources, and constructed entirely of pure unobtanium. I couldn't care less if your robot was fashioned from common household goods, and held together with an adhesive based mostly on the hopes and dreams of your all-student crew.

I do care if your team is REALLY REALLY GOOD, and is about to lay the smack down at my regional.

If saying "no" to coopertition helps me compete against you, I will do it.

Nothing personal.

It's not an attack on your team or how it operates.

And who knows, maybe I'll be eating my own words in a few days when teams are declining my offers of coopertition. If they do, I'll chalk it up to them playing smart. Not due to hatred against us.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Guys, I totally agree. We're all mentors (note the obvious exclusion of students' opinions) in this thread discussing the gravity of this issue but really it seems there is a simple solution.

Don't just assume, interact with students on the team, find out how they're experience has been like. There is a reason why teams become elite, it is because they are doing things the right way. Why not just learn from them?

When in doubt, go to the grass roots and really review what FIRST truly values.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

While what you say rings true, it does not coincide with what Martin pointed out:
That, to my mind, equals ignorance and prejudice. Not cooperating with a team is one thing; making hateful statements is entirely different.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Which makes it even more important that we not confuse one with the other.

Just because a team doesn't wish to coopertate, don't assume they hate you.

I think this is a point that needs to be reinforced, as the discussion here seems to link the two.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

After watching this thread develop, I am surprised that no one has compared this to the game we are playing this year: Basketball. More specifically, the NCAA March Madness is going on right now. Don't most spectators (who do not have an allegiance) cheer for the underdog? Isn't it cool as a spectator to watch a big upset on a "powerhouse" team?

These spectators also like to make excuses for why the powerhouse always beats the underdog. People, who do not have an allegiance, like to cheer/support/motivate the team that is not supposed to win. This also means that they are willing to slander/bad mouth/be rude to the "powerhouse" teams.

I sense that this translates to FIRST as well. By no means am I say that it is right, I am just saying that FIRST as a sport will also create sports spectators.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

I've always wondered why people get upset when even haters admit that their robot looks and performs well enough to be designed and fabricated by a group of professionals.

When I was on the team, I wish people would come up to me and say that we were doing so well we had to be cheating. Being a driver, I would have felt pretty good!

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

We're arguing opposite sides of the same position. I think you interpreted the exact opposite of what I tried to say.

I don't think, and have never thought, you or your team acted in a poor manner, and honestly I didn't even equate coopertition/noncoopertition with the statements quoted by Martin. There was no confusion; I was intending to point out, much like you are, that the two are indeed separate. Compete like crazy on the field, but leave it on the field. You did this; some of the teams at Peachtree allegedly did not.

I apologize for not being more clear in my statement. I will try to do so in the future.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Taylor,

You are right, we are saying essentially the same thing from opposite sides of the coin. There is no dispute here!

Thanks for being so gracious and professional.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Rivalries can be fun, but they can also be taken too far. My hope is that the sports model stolen by FRC, infused with a dose of gracious professionalism, would allow for friendly rivalries (which in some cases it does - check out some of the historic pranks between 148 and 118). Unfortunately, some teams forget that while we may have different numbers, we're ultimately all on the same team.
This almost exact conversation took place last year. It's a struggle, it's a battle, of education vs. ignorance.

Re: Sippin' on the haterade
 

Pretty much the struggle everyone around the world needs to overcome about many different topics.

Over time all we can do is educate those around us about each others' teams. Its a never ending problem because new students come and go. If mentors who are the foundations of teams would start educating their students with FACTS about other teams from the start, then the problem would go down by a bit. But it will never go away.