Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerborn
Watching that last semi-final match was insane I was on the edge of my seat. I think MrJohnston also made some points that I feel are correct. Recycle Rush at its core was a game of consistency. I am personally not a fan of telling robots to sit and just wait for the end of the game (especially since this year there was no defense, or endgame. Finding a job was more challenging).
|
This was my first year getting to know FRC and seeing what it was all about so my understanding of past years may be a bit foggy. I've talked with countless teams at several events this year and have heard stories from all sides. I can understand where you're coming from with a distaste for teams being told to sit on the sideline. I remember one team in particular I worked with struggled early on. It was heartbreaking to see how down the team was about being told to stay out of the way during qualification rounds. It was also very gratifying to see the difference in their faces as we fixed issues they were having and had them climbing the charts and being a larger part of their team's success.
But, that's apples to oranges. None of the teams in this thread feel pushed aside. In fact, it's strange to me to suggest a can burglar staying out of the way the rest of the match isn't an integral part of the team. The consensus agrees the most important part of this year's strategy was the can race. If we agree this is true, the most important part of a team's success is the robot grabbing the cans. Even if they're idle the rest of the match, they play the most important role on the team. How is this fundamentally different than a robot with the sole purpose to go disrupt the other team's strong robot? The amount of time being active doesn't change the importance of a robot nor that team's role in decision making. Why are we acting as if it does?
I think we're losing something in all of this debate. FRC isn't about robots. You can gather the purpose behind FIRST from Dean's promos. It's about inspiring the next generation to find a higher purpose than idolizing shooting a ball through a net. Too many of us forget there's more to being an engineer than putting together an amazing machine. The soft skills some of these kids are showing are just as incredible as the machines they put together. Are we really preparing them for the real world if we penalize using soft skills to collaborate? We're quick to credit 1114 for designing half the robot. We're slow to recognize 900 for putting together a base that could accept that robot and stepping out of an engineer's comfort zone to work with peers. We're ignoring the team was able to successfully network with their peers, their competition, and staff to come together towards a common goal. Isn't developing those skills a key component to what FIRST is about?
One of the teams I worked with this past weekend was a second pick at their regional. If you look at the three teams, it's not difficult to see which robots were handling the event. Their robot wasn't a strong robot at the competition. But, that's not all there is to the event. They worked with their alliance to develop a strategy that won. At worlds, they weren't frustrated about that experience. They were proud of their banner and one of the more solid teams I worked with. When obstacles came into their path, they were telling their mentor how they were going to move forward. They maintained relationships with the teams from their regional and used these relationships to help get through their current obstacle. With this, they spread their network to include other teams all while showing poise that left me in awe. Their networking skills helped them be selected to elimination rounds at worlds. They're leaving multiple events with new friends and new resources they can use to build their knowledge and excitement. Isn't that at the core of what FIRST is all about?