Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
Folks,
Could we try to cleave a little more closely to the topic, please? Perhaps include some actual historical perspectives in our posts?  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.
|
Historically (
), FIRST did something pretty new this year, because in general, the Hall of Fame Teams are perennial competition winners and (largely) would have qualified for the World Championships based on on-field merit alone.
The following Hall of Fame teams would have qualified based on performances at Regionals or Districts every year since 2012:
1114, 359, 341*, 842**, 67, 254.
The following are also Hall of Fame teams that have put up very strong showings in recent years:
27***, 1538, 236, 365.
And then we have 111, who I have to include here because they were an undeniable powerhouse back when they won Chairman's in 2006.
So yes, that's
every single Hall of Fame team stretching back to 2005 that has achieved at least moderate levels of on-field success. This seems to point towards what many others (especially CitrusDad and AdamHeard) have been saying: the "top 1%" (or maybe consistently top 10%) of FRC teams are the most inspirational and impactful, and are the best at growing FRC.
(That's not to say that the 99% don't pull their weight - they do. But generally, FIRST has seemingly paired on-field accomplishments with the Chairman's Award, at least at the highest level. What does this say about splitting the on-field competition, and its possible effect on motivation and inspiration?)
* Would have missed this season but will give them a pass after years of dominating MAR
** Also would have missed this year despite previous dominance over Arizona stretching back to 2011
*** Would have made the first list but they didn't quite make it after needing the Chairman's Award to qualify in 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by popnbrown
For example: Teams that have won World Chairman's continue to do the work of a role model FRC team, even though they do not have the chance to win the award for another 5 years. Why is this?
|
Because Culture is incredibly hard to change (see FIRST's every effort to become "LOUD", and still have such little media / external support (in terms of awareness from people / corporations not involved in FIRST)). And these teams have changed their team culture, so it's doomed to stay that way.
Having had the incredible opportunity and experiences of working closely with a Hall of Fame team, it's a total top-down thing. They changed their culture to one of success and Gracious Professionalism, and now new members learn the same attitudes from the veterans and mentors. Rookies get automatically assimilated and upgraded with these values. Yes, I just likened all the Hall of Fame teams to Cybermen.
This is incredibly heartwarming for me, because it says that inspiring teams can't stop being inspiring (unless of course, they just stop existing). But, in general (speaking as someone currently working in Marketing), CitrusDad is right: people need incentives to do stuff. There will always be the Trailblazers, who do cool stuff just because, but the common adopter needs a little poke here and there.
________________________________________
I do want to take this time to thank EricH, Dr. Joe, and many, many others who have chimed in regarding their experiences and /or knowledge of the Early Days of FRC. I'm a firm believer of knowing where you came from in order to know where you're going, and I find these sorts of history lessons invaluable. So, kudos.