Quote:
Originally Posted by ahartnet
I'm afraid to ask because I know the PayneTrain doesn't stop...but what is your less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag line?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottandme
#tsimfd
|
This is pretty close. What I really mean is that calling it the Varsity Sport for the Mind is a good tagline that FIRST uses, and we use the same idea behind that tagline to form the recruitment process of our program. The long term goals set for 422 is to get strong, long-term investment of all stakeholders to ensure the longevity and alleged potential for any remotely interesting success in the far off future.
(this is at leas half a joke)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.
|
That's fair. The splitting of the event is a forgone conclusion and a fact that is baked into the existing value proposition for teams, for better or for worse. I am of the opinion that 4 @ 100 can provide the best possible experience for everyone at each event instead of 8 @ 50. You sacrifice division intimacy for what I would call a "balanced match schedule" that allows teams a fair number of plays and a lot of time to do the things at championship that aren't just the matches, a volunteer base that will not go from strained to structurally dangerous, and a better on-field product. I think having 128 teams in those eliminations would provide a better experience for all parties instead of the 192 you would get for 8 @ 50 (assuming that we drop backups).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I'm going to agree on this.
I'm also going to reiterate a point I made the last time this came up, that some people, who think this is a robot building contest, are in serious trouble--and that's actually from Dean or Woodie at Kickoff some years back.
This is a robot building contest, yes--but it's also a bunch of life lessons, a passel of inspiration, and hopefully some recognition. It's also a pretty severe time sink... Treating it as just a robot building contest is not accurate.
What I'd be hoping for would be 8 divisions, 50 teams each, NO MORE THAN 12 matches per team. (Wait, what?) Before you all start going crazy, I'd also say that no fewer than 10 matches would be acceptable. And the reason for that is to allow either more free time or less overall time. This would particularly benefit smaller teams, in that they could get out more and see more of the event, if the free time route was chosen, or that they might be able to cheat a little bit on travel and come in on Thursday morning with minimal loss of time in the pits. More inspiration, less time sink/burnout... interesting dilemma, I'd say.
|
2015 was a robot building contest and the community very soundly rejected it. Most years however we do still have a robotics competition. It is still called the FIRST Robotics Competition. The powers-that-be have the ability to change the name of the program if they see fit. Until then, the competition should not necessarily be the end-all-be-all of every FIRST event (if only because it violates the internal logic of this argument, the name FIRST Robotics Competition does still have "FIRST" in it) but it also not something to be actively ignored.
I am pretty thankful that we usually do not have robot building contests because frankly I am very terrible at building robots but do what most would describe as a remotely passable job or at least a somewhat disguised impersonation of a coach for a competitive team.
12 matches per event in the district system is very much pushing many team's limits in terms of in-event upkeep and the time spent at the venue. I think the 12 matches per event is GREAT at the local level. For large scale travel, I think it could be considered a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Ore
|
FIRST has trademarked "Sport for the Mind" and describes FRC as the varsity "Sport for the Mind." While I initially found your semantics here to be grating, my frustration at the USPTO database to attempt to explain myself is currently... considerable. Guess the joke's on me. I can't find it anywhere on there, but someone had it down as a trademark in the championship program. Take it up with them.