[meaubry]

Hi all, it’s been a while since I posted anything, but this subject peaked my interest. Especially reading some very well thought out posts and historical memories.

I used to be involved on Team 47, Chief Delphi - started in 1997 (that was a magical year for us).

The historical discussion is interesting in that I find as time went by and things changed, so did FIRST.

It started as US FIRST, and I recall the emphasis in a speech stating the United States was in big trouble because it was being projected, that there would be more jobs in Engineering, Science, and Technology that were upcoming candidates. The US was losing the battle to just “keep up”, let alone maintain it’s status or not fall further behind the rest of the world. The clear emphasis in the early years was focused on one country. Later, the focus drastically changed and spread and became worldwide.

That is one example of how and why - FIRST is like most other expanding organizations impacted by all sorts of outside pressures, and influences.
FIRST changed as it grew (scale and quantity of teams and events to manage) and matured (became more philosophical in behavioral expectations of the participants), to best assure that it can position itself to continue trying to achieve it’s mission.

The goal or mission of this organization also seems to have changed over time. In the early years, the mission and goal was less complex and less philosophical - regarding how to eliminate the ugly part of many sports. This being the “in your face”, “win and all cost”, “if you ain’t cheatin - you aren’t trying” behaviors and attitudes demonstrated in many facets of the sporting world in the present and past.

Even with gracious professionalism and good sportsmanship being the focus, there was still room back in the early years of FIRST, for celebrating being #1 seed - regardless of how much or how little anyone cooperated with each other on the game field. Teams were ranked by winning and seeding selection rewarded teams that won.

Imagine FIRST being confined to just the game reveal & kickoff, on the first Saturday in January - followed by a 6 week build time.
Then it ended, with no way to see how successful anyone’s specific design and strategy played out on the playing field.

I believe FIRST leveraged the sport competition model, simply a "means to an ends". It provided the hook that was needed to fulfill the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. It provided a way to further get people/teams involved, and to see how successful the 6 week game playing robot design and build process worked out. Stopping without competing would have been a monumental failure (or as some have said nothing more than a science fair experiment).

Robots driven by students from each team competing against each other, in a game revealed 6 short weeks earlier that included rules on what was allowed and not allowed in order to beat the other team(s). The outcome a game winner - as defined by the rules of the game and it ended in a sports based tournament structure used for centuries in almost every competition known to man.

Robot competing against robot -while crowds cheer wildly, sing, and dance just because it is okay and fun to do! That might just get a few people to sit up and take notice. Helping kids learn that there are opportunities after high school and college in fields of study and occupations that use the same skill sets. Yep, that might just work.

But, don’t overlook that the real inspiration isn’t solely based on the outcome of competition. Many students that we participated with, were inspired just by interacting with us and walking through “the process”. Many students were inspired by the fact that they could help build, help program, help think of strategy, help brainstorm ideas, and be part of “the team” or perhaps a member of the drive team that went out to play the game. Much more than a robot was involved, and in many cases it was actually simply a sidenote - because there were far more students not really inspired by a successful robot or a not so successful one, but instead by a very successful team of people that believed the idea of participating in that program was worth every second - and all the blood, sweat, and tears that they put into it.

In the end - We shared a common bond, no matter what role everyone played - we were all part of “the team”.

I’m hoping that as FIRST continues to grow and as multiple championship event sites are considered, that the focus is not on a need to crown a single champion, but instead on a ways to improve the overall experience so that knowing which team is the greatest - doesn’t really matter.

Mike Aubry