Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
It appeared to me that XaulZan11 assumes that looks = quality, when that may not be the case.
|
Obviously I'm not going to pick a team that can barely drive but has nice powder coated over a team that can score 3 tubes a match but looks like crap. But, if the decision is between two teams with 6 wheel drives and similar driver abilities, the team that has a powdercoated, more organized looking robot, more organized pit is *probably* less likely to not understand the rules, get penalities or break down. Of course I'm not saying a good paint job causes a team to not to break down, but I think it is correlated with not breaking down. If a team takes the effort to make their robot look good, they are probably more likely to understand the rules and have a better built robot.
Midwest last year was very very shallow with a lot of teams just struggling to drive. There were probably only 10-12 teams that could kick balls over 1 bump and only a few more who could consistently score from the first zone. Once we knew we would be one of the top seeds and had the top seeds pretty well ranked, we knew we needed to find a team that simply wouldn't hurt us by breaking down or causing penalties. 3352 stood out as a basic kit bot, but appeared clean and well built and had an organized pit. So, we picked them after picking 16 (who lost Kansas City earlier that year due to penalties by their 3rd partner) and won the regional. 3352 never broke down and never got any penalties and did everything we asked of them.
Again, these factors are like the last resort tie-breaker. Of course, we have extensive scouting data to make our decisions, but when your in a shallow regional/district and your picking the 22-24th best robot, and you simply can't decide between a couple of teams, these factors, such as powdercoating, do matter.