Quote:
Originally Posted by iVanDuzer
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
|
You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the elite teams aren't, in large, influential off the field as well. What I'm arguing against is the mentality that many have taken in these debates. The mentality that the high end teams both inspire more than other teams, and the implication that as a result their desires should trump those of other parties. I both reject the premise (there are countless teams that are not "elite" that are among the cultural leaders in FIRST) and the implication. Even if the elite teams were doing more to inspire than others, it doesn't automatically mean that their whims trump those of FIRST's organizational demands or other teams. Elite teams should not necessarily have a veto power over how Championship is held, regardless of how certain individuals feel about the incentives it lays forth. While I know it's not intended be to arrogant, this attitude certainly comes off as arrogant. It reads like "We're really good at this, we know what's best for everyone!" Overall, I simply reject the concept that trickle-down inspiration is the only way to go.
To frame this in a historical perspective, this is not the first time that prominent teams and mentors have been upset about change coming to FRC. Everything from changes in the FRC control system, changes in the platform used for FTC, the introduction of the serpentine draft, the introduction of alliances, the introduction of districts, specific regions shifting to a district model, and even previous changes to the Championship qualification structure have drawn the ire of some of the high profile and highly successful members of our community. Yet the vast majority of them have remained intact in their commitment to the goals of FIRST. People have cried "Doom!" before, but the end has yet to come. That doesn't mean that they're wrong in this case, but rather than there are plenty of other perspectives to be considered here.