Quote:
Originally posted by colleen-t190
Cause honestly.. it's a much more exciting game and a much better way to make and keep friends and teams as 'off-stage alliances' and such..
|
There is one thing that everyone who is discussing this issue is missing (or maybe I haven't read it yet). I'll be blunt:
This game was mean.
I personally did not enjoy telling another team that our robot was better at balancing than theirs was. If they didn't know it, I had to convince them that it was true. It was not something I enjoyed doing, and I often regretted it.
At our first regional in Grand Rapids, we were balancing pretty well, but we only did it 3 times out of 9 qualification matches. The other 6 matches, we were a role player, assisting other balancers who didn't do it as well as we did. Another coach (good friend of mine) on another team pulled me aside and pretty much chewed me out. He said that if I don't take charge and push for our robot to balance the goals 90% of the time, then I was doing my team a disservice.
From then on, I did my best to have us balance... unless we were paired with a better balancer. There were even times when I would not budge on letting someone else balance, knowing that they could not do the job as well as we did.
The real tragedy of this game was the numerous teams who were not able to use their robot as it was designed due to the fact that they were not quite as good as another team's robot.
I've kept to the sidelines on this issue, but I'll start speaking up about it. 4 on 0 was not as nice as it seemed to be. I agree with the rest of you who say that 2 on 2 is the way to go... at least teams know where they stand and they get a chance to do the job that their robot was designed to do.
Andy B.