Quote:
Originally posted by KenWittlief
if you are a rookie team this year, and another team has been around for 5 or 6 years
then which team has put more work into FIRST, one that has been here for 6 years, or a new team?
if the championship is a reward, which team has done more to earn it?
clearly the team that has 6 years of effort behind it, over a new team.
There are many things in life that you have to work towards. Somethings take years to acheive.
|
I disagree with this, I am
mostly happy with the rules in place, but I do not think that a rookie team has worked any LESS hard in the season than a veteran team. True, that veteran team has more experience, and more work behind them, but who's to say that a rookie team did not work just as hard, if not HARDER as a veteran team the first year they compete?
What I am trying to say is, for example if in 2003 a veteran team decided that because they had corporate sponsorship they could slack off, not apply for the Chairman's Award and just simply slide into the Championship competition based on their merit from last year, but a rookie team that struggled all year to find sponsorship, had a completely student built robot, no engineering help, and still managed to do fairly well in the competition against these veteran teams, does this mean then, that the rookies
STILL haven't put enough work in?
Championships should be based on a year-to-year basis. Yes, the first 6 teams should be grandfathered to the competition, and yes, I think it is fair to let veteran teams be merit accepted to the competition, but it feels like the rookies and last years rookies are being overlooked.
People seem to think that because they don't have the experience, they deserve less notice and less eligibility, and I think that is unfair.