[Nikhil Bajaj]

Nearly everybody works incredibly hard in FRC. But why do we have great teams and then good teams and then, just...teams? If performance in FRC was just a function of how much work and time that was put in to the robot, we'd have significantly better robots today. Everyone would have perfectly-running vision code, buttery-smooth drivetrains and mechanisms, and minimal robot breakdowns. But we don't have that.

We have teams that work incredibly hard and all they can field is a box on wheels. On the other side, we have teams that work incredibly hard and they come up with elegant, dominating machines. Why? That's complicated, and has to do with resources, brain power, organization, strategy, work ethic, and sometimes luck. But in the end, the why doesn't matter.

To the "haters" as they have been referred to in this thread: Come on guys, grow up. This is how the real world is. You know that. We all know that. So why would it be different in FRC, which is as real-world a competition as it gets?

Where FRC is different from the real world is NOT THE COMPETITION. It is in the culture surrounding the competition. Here's the difference. Let's say you have a company that is beating the crap out of its competitors in certain fields. Go to that company, and say "How did you do it? Tell us your strategies, your great technologies, and the secret to your success!"

If you are a competitor, that company is going to tell you to buzz off.

HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE: If you asked 148, or 1114, or 217, or 71, or 111, or 233, or 67, or WHOEVER you think is a great FRC team...THEY WILL TELL YOU THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THEY WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE SUCCESS LIKE THEM.

People who think otherwise are dangerous to the success of FIRST in general.