Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

I disagree with what you are saying, or at least how part of it is worded.

the FIRST Robotics Competition is about FIRST, first,
No it isn't. FRC isn't about FIRST - that is a myth.
( it is also the 1st instinct of any institution to promote itself, but I digress )
FIRST is about the mission of FIRST, not the institution of FIRST
This is a concept that is lost on a lot of people, including the occassional judge. Dean and Woodie have been clear on this issue, both in their public announcements and in the direct conversations I've had with them.

JrFLL, FLL, FTC, FRC are all just tools that help drive that mission. There are things that are outside of those four competitions that teams do that help drive the FIRST mission.

FIRST has had a call for months for information from teams that do things outside the realm of normal competitions, applications of lessons learned from FIRST to other real world problems, other applications of creativity. Those other activities also help drive the mission of FIRST.

Coopertition accelerates the development of teams. The teams and their robots compete fiercely and everyone gets better. Teams push efforts to promote the mission of FIRST in their community, and they compete, and they all get better ( think Chairman's )

All of the awards are a competition. Running a winning team, whether it is a robot win or a chairman's win, requires a lot of demanding attributes that employers demand.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

This is a question that I often ask myself and some of those close to me in FRC.

Is FRC truly competitive? It's really not a black and white question. The level of competitiveness seems to vary heavily based depending on the region and the teams ideals.

From what I've seen, the highest level of FRC is highly competitive. Teams are constantly striving against one another to be the best, to win, to outplay, or out build their opponents.

Then once you move down a few tiers you'll find teams with a different attitude than those in the top tier. Many of these teams have the attitude of 'we're all winners' as long as they show up with a moving robot. Which, yes they've accomplished the basic goal of the competition (depending on who you ask) but are they really winners? Are they really competitive? Guess it depends on who you ask.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

Very true. but that doesn't mean that FIRST isn't a sport or isn't competitive. It is just that teams choose to not really compete.

There are plenty of high school football teams that don't really compete.

There are a zillion examples of businesses that barely eke out a living because they choose not to really compete and a lot more that go out of business. Have you ever seen the TV show "Restaurant Impossible" on the Food Network ?

Even though some studenst don't really care about competition, hopefully we can inspire students to learn how to effectively compete against one another, and then later in life they can carry those lessons into the marketplace. The advantage of FIRST is you can learn via coopertition.

That is one of the gems here. You are not just learning how to build a robot. You are learning how to survive. And that is an extremely competitive proposition.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

Do you need a textbook definition to find the answer to this question?

If you've ever been on a drive team in an elimination round where both alliances have one win and the third match is about to begin the answer to this question is obvious. It doesn't matter what regional you are at, there will always be some level of "We gotta beat these guys, we gotta win this or we're out."

Helping others does not diminish from the level of competition, it makes it more exciting!

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

This is MY opinion on competitiveness and FIRST:

The competition is part of what makes FIRST fun to participate in. If I ever feel the rush of the competition start to lessen I will have difficulty coming back for another season (FYI this will be my 10th season).

I am a naturally competitive person, its what drives me to be better and find ways to improve and I feel my team has the same make up. I don't like going on a field and getting beaten up to the point of embarassment. I will never understand people who think that is okay. If I go out on the field and lose big it is humbling and just causes me to want to work harder to improve and get better.

My team didn't get picked at our only regional in 2008 because we were aweful and didn't deserve it. Our robot barely hurtled and just wasn't good. We used that motivation of embarassment from not being competitive to fire us up and build our scoring mechanism for champs during our fixit windows and not only got picked but won the division. That drive to constantly improve and get better comes from being competitive.

Competitivness is what drives people to be sucessfull in life and avoid stagnation.

If you compete and get humiliated from not being prepared it should make you go home and worker harder for the next time. If you just walk away and accept defeat you will never become better. You can also be the second best team in the world and acknowledge that someone better beat you. You don't have to be happy with it though. You can take that as the inspiration to improve and get more sponsers, resources, mentors or whatever you feel you needed to improve. Just don't stay static and accept mediocraty.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

Of course FRC is competitive. That's why nobody likes it when referees make calls against them. :rolleyes:

But it's a different kind of competitiveness. Certainly not the cutthroat competitiveness that is so prevalent in many other areas, at least not most time. And the general willingness to help others, whether that means you will be up against a stronger opponent or allied with a stronger partner.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

Complacency as the best has kicked many firms off their pedestal as well. Just look at the current state of RIM (go to the 5 year view), and what almost happened to the Ford Motor Company.

On the other hand, driven firms with vision can accomplish remarkable things in short time frames, look at the meteoric rise of Apple or Airbus.

This is fantastic. If anyone ever gets mad at the regulators, it is competitive. :rolleyes:

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

Sorry, I did mean that and not the self-serving institution version. I need to stop posting things when I'm tired because I keep saying things poorly. Shall we say that FRC is about IRST instead? Dropping the F out of FIRST makes the grammar a little easier.

Unfortunately, I seem to be in contention with the general consensus here, which is that FRC is competitive (for a variety of reasons). I wonder if by saying that we treat FRC competitively instead of cooperatively, we detract from the message of FIRST. I thought we were supposed to be culture-changers, proving that "competition" can and should be more about what we do for each other than what we get for ourselves, and that the award is not as important as the process. Even if you went in wanting to win the competition, you should walk away prouder of what you've done than what you've won.

Maybe I'm just buying into the preachiness of FIRST too much. I'm sorry, but I feel that FRC is meant to be more than a competitive nerd fight, and that we shouldn't let it shift its focus in that direction.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

FRC, by definition, is a competition. But, because it is run by FIRST, it is not just a "competitive nerd fight". It is a celebration, a cooperative competition, and a healthy dose of competition. As long as we continue to realize that the competition is just a vehicle to accomplish the real goal of FIRST, there should be no problem.

Re: Is FRC truly competitive?
 

^this :)