[bEdhEd]

I started similar thread before defending powerhouse teams, and it got out of hand, but here's my input before this thread gets closed:

I personally believe that a sign of a strong team with fewer resources than powerhouse teams is one that gets encouraged by being outperformed at a competition. I see that as motivation for a team to do more fundraising, more projects, more outreach (if we're also talking chairman's), and more involvement overall, from students, parents, mentors, and sponsors.

In the six years I've been in FRC, I see powerhouse teams as something to emulate, rather than feel inferior to. And all these six years have been on 701, and by being encouraged by defeat instead of discouraged, I've seen my team become better and better.The team didn't get its first blue banner until its 13th year, and in that same season we followed that first banner with two more. Plus, in that same season, we were accused of being mentor built when the reality was that our robot was built by students only. I think that shows how far inspiration can go if you define and implement your priorities, and improve little by little. None of that would have happened if we had any doubts about ourselves as a team.

Powerhouse teams don't happen overnight. They had to work to that level too, regardless of who is involved.

This reminds me of a Confucius quote: "By three ways we may learn wisdom: first is by reflection, which is noblest; second by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience , which is the bitterest."