Originally Posted by Ivan Malik (Post 1272186)

Wins really don't matter regarding team bashing. What matters is how well the team being bashed appears to do. To continue using a sports analog, but changing sports to hockey because it is awesome and I don't know spit about football, look at the red wings. They are the single most hated (and loved) team in the NHL, but they only have 11 Stanley cups. Compare that to Montreal which has 24. The difference is that the wings have made the playoffs for what 23 seasons straight and are always at the top of the league.

Originally Posted by OZ_341 (Post 1269632)

Team 341 was recently stereotyped in another CD thread and we have been quietly disrespected like this for about 5 years now. So, I feel the need to speak out. But I promise this post has a positive outlook.

In 2005 our team became frustrated with losing on the playing field and funds were very low. At that point we had a choice to make. We could either, blame other teams and complain about all of the resources that the “elite” teams have or we could decide to work our tails off. We chose to be positive and just try really, really hard to improve.

Unfortunately some teams in the previously mentioned thread have not made that choice, as yet. While I can certainly understand the frustration that comes with competition, using another team as a punching bag really disturbs me deeply. I am upset mostly because teams, that don’t know anything about Miss Daisy’s history, make assumptions based on stereotypes. FIRST stereotypes are dangerous and are usually developed out of a need to target a source for built up frustrations.

I am not replying in an attempt to embarrass or attack anyone, so please do not take this personally. I just want to set a few things straight about the so-called “Elite” Miss Daisy. My hope is that maybe in understanding our team, you may look at other successful teams differently. I am sure that we also know very little about the inner workings of other teams.

Stereotype #1: “Miss Daisy is Rich”
I am the founder of our team and for the last 11 years, the team has basically run on my credit card, which gets frantically paid off in May with sponsor funds and fundraising. Many years we finish the season with almost zero left in our account. One year I was $5,000 in debt until July. I probably lose about 1 to 2 thousand dollars of my family’s personal money every year. Yes we have very kind and generous sponsors, but we are not what you think we are. Every year we start with almost nothing and fundraise like crazy. I won’t insult your intelligence by saying we are poor, but we are certainly not the rich team that you imagine.

Stereotype #2: “Miss Daisy has an unlimited machine shop”
No. We have a very small lathe, a small mill, and a cut-off saw. That is it. The vast majority of our robot each year (over 95%) is designed and built by our students in a high school woodshop with rickety tables. We succeed by using our resources wisely and knowing our limitations. We have mostly won by choosing very effective strategies and not by having the best machine on the field. In 2012, we built our best machine ever. Some visitors to our pit were visibly disappointed to find that our machine was a pile of extruded aluminum and urethane belting, just cleverly arranged and programmed.

Stereotype #3: “Miss Daisy is designed by Corporate Engineers”
We do not have any outside engineers that come to us directly from our sponsors. Every Engineer, CAD mentor, or Media coach on Miss Daisy is a former FIRST/341 student, a friend of a student, a team parent, or a teacher. We do not have a single engineer or professional on our team that is not in that category. Our fantastic engineering design mentorship comes from our former team members and their friends. We are an absolutely home-grown organization.

Stereotype #4 : “Miss Daisy always wins everything”
We had an anomaly in 2003 where we made it to Einstein. It was an amazing experience.
Do you know when we won our very first regional? The answer: 2007
That’s right. It only took us 7 years to figure out how to be a consistent winner. Before that we had never even been in the finals at any regional and had only made it to the semi-finals twice. Yes we win quite often now and I am very proud of our performance over the last 7 years. But it was due to the dedication and sacrifice of many students, just like any other team.

Summary:
In 2005 we made it a stated objective of our team to strive for sustained excellence both on and off the field, while maintaining all of the GP standards that we so deeply believe in. We collected resources, paid closer attention to winning team models, adopted a philosophy of continuous improvement, and always, above all else, treated other teams with the respect they deserve. We helped teams in need and looked up to “Elite” programs with admiration. We still do this.

Every team in FIRST can make this choice. Be positive, help others, and work like a maniac behind the scenes. This approach will bring you joy and satisfaction, whether you win or not. Attacking or mocking other teams will only lead to more frustration. I hope this explains who we are.
I am also hopeful that this post will make teams think twice before stereotyping another team. Instead, I strongly urge everyone to spend their energy learning from successful teams. Learning and striving creates positive energy.

As always, Miss Daisy wishes everyone a great off-season.

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1272754)

I love your guys' story. It's so inspiring, especially after Einstein with you this year. 303, too -- I don't know their whole story, but they went through a lot of sponsor & school changes in like 2007...and now they host their own district event! 1640's moved homes like 11 times in 9 years. I'm sure there are so many amazing that touch down on Einstein each year.

I think we should have a site to archive these team stories together.
Particularly for Worlds' award winners (HoF, EI, engineering and team awards, Einstein, etc), but really for everyone. It'd be a great place to direct the perhaps under-educated in our community to gain a lot of inspiration.

Originally Posted by hunterteam3476 (Post 1273336)

.......everything on the robot was student CAD, student build, we work in a two car garage......

Originally Posted by OZ_341 (Post 1273410)

I do want to make one point however. A mentor from a very successful team recently sent me a PM making the point that teams with resources and mentors should not be ashamed of the fact that they have these advantages. That is absolutely correct. Especially when these teams are sharing their knowledge with others.

When I originally posted about some of our little known difficulties it was not to say that we were better because we had some troubles. I am not proud of the fact that we run out of money each year. I was merely pointing out that people make inaccurate assumptions about teams based on their level of success and that you really don't know a team until you ask. You should respect all teams, even if you do think they have more resources.

So, we should have respect for each other regardless of whether we are building our robot with a Waterjet or a Hacksaw. Construction methods will vary widely, but honoring your competitors should be universal.

Originally Posted by fintelia (Post 1278650)

For a thread about not stereotyping elite teams, there is an awful lot of stereotyping of low performing teams...

Perhaps the most alarming (and absolutely false) allegation is that these teams do not put in as much hard work or thought as the elite teams do. It just simply not true. All teams work hard and employ the resources available to them, as they should.

Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1278662)

Yes. There's this notion on CD that if you work really, really hard, and get as many sponsors as possible, you can be a "top team." As many lower tier teams can attest to, is simply isn't true.

In my experience, what makes the difference isn't really time or resources or whether or not a team makes a practice bot. It's the experience and intuition the real team leader has (it can be a mentor, or much more rarely a student) and their ability to cohesively lead the team. Combine that with ample amounts of time, machines and money, and an elite team is born.

Originally Posted by fintelia (Post 1278650)

For a thread about not stereotyping elite teams, there is an awful lot of stereotyping of low performing teams...

Perhaps the most alarming (and absolutely false) allegation is that these teams do not put in as much hard work or thought as the elite teams do. It just simply not true. All teams work hard and employ the resources available to them, as they should.

As far as eliminating bag and tag, I think a lot of people are over estimating the effect it would have for low performing teams. Time is already one of the most evenly distributed resources. Having a few extra weeks of (less productive) time comes out to be around 1.5x as much as teams that only work the 6 weeks. By contrast these same times may have 4 or 5 times as many members, vastly larger budgets, and (most significantly) many more mentors. I also suspect that the best teams would be able to use the extra time far better, making the gap between the best and worst teams wider not narrower.

Originally Posted by Tungrus (Post 1278756)

It is easy to say work your butt off and get sponsors...in real life, companies are not so generous to open their pocket, there may be few exceptions. Even the big companies that sponsors veteran teams don't take new teams unless they go through FIRST or some sort of association. Just thought one should know.

Originally Posted by Tungrus (Post 1278756)

It is easy to say work your butt off and get sponsors...in real life, companies are not so generous to open their pocket, there may be few exceptions. Even the big companies that sponsors veteran teams don't take new teams unless they go through FIRST or some sort of association. Just thought one should know.

Originally Posted by fintelia (Post 1278650)

For a thread about not stereotyping elite teams, there is an awful lot of stereotyping of low performing teams...

Perhaps the most alarming (and absolutely false) allegation is that these teams do not put in as much hard work or thought as the elite teams do. It just simply not true. All teams work hard and employ the resources available to them, as they should.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1278709)

Sorry that I am coming to this discussion late. I hear these statements year after year about "successful teams". Have you noticed that those teams have:
1. Students who are really engaged.
2. Students who spend a lot of time researching, gathering data, working hard.
3. Have a team that functions as a team at all times.
4. Has been around for a while and although they add new tools every year they maintain what they have acquired in the past.
5. They build on their past accomplishments, analyze what works and what doesn't.
6. They spend their money wisely, because it is so precious.
7. Appear to have a mentor designed, mentor built, mentor maintained robot because of all of the above.

As far as adding something to the competition to "break the cycle", that already exists. It is called graduation. Every team gets new students every year and that changes the dynamic. New students, new parents, new ideas, new build teams, etc. How a team reacts to that change is what starts to separate the good from the great.

If you want to know a secret, using the Chairman's Award as a goal is a great way to organize your team function. Teams that begin to look at that as a goal start to think differently, act differently, organize their team differently, work and plan and look to the future differently. While some will look at that award as being unachievable, others will look and say "that's hard but we need to try".

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1278709)

Sorry that I am coming to this discussion late....