Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I admit that I'm giving arguments that go against something that I personally believe: playing more matches is an appropriate goal. But I don't think I'm doing it just for the sake of arguing. I am honestly trying to answer people who seem to be asking why everyone else doesn't wholeheartedly agree that an 8-match schedule is a priori unacceptable.
|
Alan,
I appreciate you playing devil's advocate on the issue. I think this thread has made the benefits of more matches for more successful teams clear already, but there are a couple of reasons that struggling teams could also be motivated by playing more matches:
1. They are more likely to win and play with good teams. For some teams, just winning a match, even if they are contributing marginally, can be a great confidence booster. There was a rookie toaster-bot in Iowa who must have gone 2-8 or so, but every time they won a match their drive team was elated. By this same token, playing with a good team can help a robot contribute to a greater accomplishment than they would achieve on their own. If a team can only score one low goal in match, it's going to be much more exciting for students to see that boulder be the final one needed to capture the tower, than to be the only boulder scored in a match with two tortuga'd alliance members. At 10K Lakes, there were only about 3 really good robots, making it hard for the other 60 teams to get in matches with them.
2. They are more likely to have a mechanism work. There are some robot add-ons that need to have the stars align in order to work. There isn't necessarily a good fix for it in the pits, some teams just build mechanisms that need to have some luck involved to work (i.e. making the tolerances too small, or using pneumatics that are too weak to work reliably). My team's climber only worked once throughout the entire 10K lakes regional, but when it did, it was an incredibly exciting and inspiring moment for the team, and especially for those who had spent the most time on it.
And going the extra step to districts would obviously help, as there is clear data to show that scores rise at a team's second event.
I understand that it is incredibly difficult to free up time/space for more matches in MN right now, but saying that struggling teams would actually prefer having fewer matches is absolutely ridiculous. You can't give teams improper resources to succeed and grow (which is what's perpetuated with the 8-plays-a-season super regionals), and then use their lack of success as an excuse to continue those same practices.