Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A
I would absolutely agree, except this presumed effect during Lunacy never occurred, unless you're suggesting 67, 111, and 971 didn't deserve to win and just had great human players? In the end, the best robots won the competition, regardless of the degree of human player ability.
|
I am not questioning the outcome of any match, or who "deserved" to win. I just did not like the fact that a single action, performed by a human, with no robotics input or interaction, could make significant impact on the outcome of a robotics game. That action did not come after great engineering feats. It did not come after a group of kids learned something new and exiting. It did not inspire anyone to change their college major from banking or communications to engineering or science. It just showcased an athletic ability of a single individual. In many cases this individual was not even a member of the robotics team, and had only been recruited for his or her ability to accurately throw a ball.
FIRST has a stated goal to inspire kids to enter the field of engineering, math, and science. How inspiring is it for kids to design and build the best robot on the field, only to lose the game because the high school quarterback landed a supercell in their trailer from all the way across the field? (I am not saying this event actually happened, it is just a what if question). In my opinion, it does exactly the opposite. It tells kids that no matter how well they may do in school, no matter what great inventions they create, the person with the greatest physical skill and athletic ability will usually win.