Libby hit the nail right on the head... Sponsors define "successful" in different ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libby K
It was pretty interesting to hear different perspectives on what we should consider for criteria - but overall we came to a good mix between the picture of the team as a whole, level of need, and location (priority given to teams local to our offices).
...
In terms of what we were looking for, performance on the field is probably dead-last when it comes to deciding how we renew their grants for 2015-16.
...
But if any one of those teams stopped being an appropriate representation of FIRST's ideals - you can bet we'd drop them.
|
Successful could be quantitative: the number of wins, the number of trophies, the number of students on the team.
Or it could be quantitative in a different manner: the number of students pursuing college degrees in STEM fields, the number of students who win FIRST scholarships, the number of students on the honor roll who were on academic probation.
Or it could be qualitative: the impact the FIRST program has on the students, the impact FIRST has on the mentors.
When answering the OP's question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mipo0707
why is that so many successful teams dont get the big or even enough sponsorships?
|
I think the first question that should be answered is: "what is successful?"