Quote:
Originally Posted by Pault
But what incentives would this actually give teams? It is J̶u̶s̶t̶ a̶s̶ more likely that the team you are helping is going to be against you as it is that they are going to be on your alliance. If I magically made everybody in New England 10x better except for my own team, we would have a much harder time, regardless of the game.
I am personally of the opinion that FIRST should stop trying to force coopertition on us with the games. All I see it doing is getting teams mad at other teams who can't do what they say they can do/refuse to play defense for a match because they want to show off their skills and screwing up the rankings. The teamwork and good sportsmanship can happen off the field, where it really matters.
|
I believe most mentors want to see a higher level of play across the board. Not supporting the younger teams leads to a lower level of play, and for the more proficient teams, a smaller pool of available competent alliance partners during eliminations. The drag from a non-functioning alliance partner is much worse than the potential loss from facing a more competent opponent in this game. The best teams have taken that lesson from this year's competition, not the lesson you propose here.
And if the more experienced teams are given an incentive to engage those teams in the pre-season, then you are less likely to see the resistance to suggested strategies that you note (and others have noted as well--see the thread "the ethics of saying no".)
Engaging other teams to increase teamwork across the organization is an important goal. Remember that FIRST is not the NFL--the objective is not about winning a championship trophy; it's about increasing education and engagement in STEM. Competition is only a means to an end, not the other way around.