Quote:
Originally posted by JVN
Let's see:
Bristol Meyer Squibb 2000
CHAOS 2000
Beatty 2001
WildStang 2001
Beatty 2002
RAGE 2002
WildStang 2003
These are all "winning" or at least finalist robots from nationals. They are all elegant, amazing, unique designs in their own right. When my students see them fight to the end, and see that they are "the best" it sparks a flame in them to try harder for next year. Without the competition, without the "winning" I do not believe this would be possible.
|
However, there has easily been an equal or greater amount of unique designs, strategies, and mechanisms that were
not on winning robots. I know you're not suggesting otherwise, but I think it's important that it gets mentioned.
FIRST can't really show us which of the 800+ teams that compete is truly the best because there's just no way for every match between all teams to take place. It's entirely possible, though, that a combination of a unique strategy, or singular unique design on another robot not competing at an event could've beat any one of those robots.
My point, I guess, is that there
are other circumstances that affect a team's potential and ability to perform well at an event. This season, there could very well have been a robot or three that could've beat the winning alliance, but they were all sitting at home in a crate.
Furthermore, by getting as many teams into the Championship Event as we possibly can, we're exposing more kids to those great designs. In FIRST, everyone learns from everyone, and the more people there are hanging around, the more learning is taking place.
I think that a system of goodwill as Wayne's suggested could go a long way toward curtailing the increasing emphasis on winning. Winning is the result of a great design, yes, but it shouldn't be a prominant piece of criteria in determining if you and your work should be allowed to inspire, nor if you should have another opportunity to be inspired.