Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
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.
|
You're right, I did miss the point of your post. I was more pointing out that, while the Wolverines aren't a traditional powerhouse team, many if not most of the Hall of Fame teams are.
However, what I'm still a touch irked by is the fact that FIRST did not make any attempt to communicate with these teams before making a huge decision like this. Historically, they haven't in the past, either, but maybe they should start. I never suggested a "veto" process where top teams can dictate what happens to the program, and while I believe that there are many roads to inspire students and mentors alike, I also believe that we cannot ignore the not-insignificant "trickle down" inspiration model that these teams represent.
I 100% believe that if FIRST had asked these teams what they thought of the Championsplit, they would have gotten feedback that considered both the competitive and the inspirational implications of the decision. Instead, we have a contrasting message where FIRST has traditionally given their Highest Honour to competitive (if not dominant) teams, and yet created a system that (at least initially) nerfs the competitive aspects of the program. Likewise, I would like to think that if FIRST informed the then-Hall of Fame teams about the adoption of alliances, they would have seen the point about increasing the coopertative aspects of FIRST (which I believe are one of the main hallmarks of the program).
Quote:
Originally Posted by popnbrown
Why should the poke just be winning the competition or being the best robot builders? Why can't we emulate the poke to be something greater, to be what the same as those amazing HoF teams which you mention above?
|
This "poke" for non-robot-centric teams already exists -- it's called the Chairman's Award. The Chairman's Award uses the same "bait and switch" that the robot uses: you get lured in with a possible shiny trophy, and along the way you change a slice of the world.
Is this true for every team? Definitely not. But in my experience, if you ask the teams that are perennial contenders for the Chairman's Award why they started to run all these programs, why they started to develop these resources, and why they started to work so hard at spreading STEM, you'll mostly get the answer "To win the Chairman's Award."
Quote:
|
I think Adam mentioned this, but I don't see the motivation to win as being contrary to the end goals of FIRST. I just think it's limiting the potential of what can be achieved.
|
And I am of the personal opinion that competition turns into motivation which turns into success which turns into inspiration. This isn't a model that works for every team, obviously.