Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
You know, it bugs me a bit when people talk about "quality of robot/competition", like it's a bad thing that not everyone at champs has a perfect robot. I think it really misses the point of the whole competition - rookies, smaller teams, worse performing robots can all gain inspiration from being at an event with better teams. Teams of all flavors can gain experience, friendships, and show and receive recognition from teams from across the country and the world. It's one thing to play at your local even with pretty much the same teams every year. It's something completely different to play in an environment where you don't know everyone.
Is Champs all about the robot, or is it about Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology? Those teams that only get to go to champs rarely, if ever, can find it a transformational experience. Those teams that are always in contention for Einstein may not see the event as inspirational when they look around at glorified kit bots... but maybe that's because they're supposed to be the inspiration.
Instead of bemoaning how "watered down" champs is becoming, we should be trying to figure out how to make the event great for every team there.
|
I think the discussion of 4@100 vs 8@50 is directly related to the quality of experience teams can have at either of the postseason expositions. Pros and cons of each of these layouts and the ones in between have been discussed (and have not yet been discussed to the length that might be merited here). Drawing from the well of "bad robots are great for FIRST" is tangential to the conversation here and comes off as bait (that some of the posts between this one and yours have unfortunately taken). Bad robots have been at the Championship Events since 1992. Teams with a volatile pool of resources usually have not been catered to in these events. There is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InFlight
The stated reason to going to two championships was to give more teams the championship experience and to accommodate growth. The experience is being emphasized over competition. Many dislike that fact but it is the direction FIRST is going. Eventually with team grow the quality of completion will improve, but it will be a different experience for all involved.
1) I fail to see the gracious professionalism in cheating your way through the playoffs with altered balls. Cough. Cough.
2) No team name needed.
|
I really don't know where to start with or finish with this post, so I guess I'll just ask "Why?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
Does Dean refer to Championship as the Super Bowl of Smarts? Or FRC in general?
|
FIRST has trademarked "The Varsity Sport for The Mind" as the tagline for the FRC program. Considering churches have been sent cease and desist letters by the NFL in the past for hosting "Super Bowl Chili Cookoffs", I'm going to assume a multimillion dollar not-for-profit also is discouraged from referring to the AFC-NFC Championship Game's title in any official capacity.
"The Super Bowl of Smarts" has morphed into a bit of a colloquialism. I am sure Dean has referred to the Championship Event being "like a Super Bowl" in the past, and you can find articles about the Championship event being referred to as "The Super Bowl of Smarts."
I have always agreed with using the tagline "The Varsity Sport for the Mind" and we will continue to use a less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag when we pitch our program.