[rourke]

This one should be easy to sort out. This predicament has been foreshadowed cryptically by FIRST in Team Update #10 as follows:

“FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce the 2004 rules as written. Team’s excellent and creative work that may not align / be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed.” This statement is no longer cryptic. It describes the collusion that has occurred between these two teams. I hope this is nipped quickly to stop the impending slide into mega-alliances that will eliminate the growth of FIRST.

The collaboration is indeed excellent and creative. But currently it is NOT in agreement with the rules. The robot was not designed and built by members of your team. Each team contracted a significant portion of robot manufacturing to non-team members (just because it was another FIRST Team doesn't make it okay). The manufacturing costs associated with this excellent and creative work MUST be valued per the rules. Or, I suppose that each team could REMANUFACTURE the offending subsystem with their team members prior to the deadline…..Otherwise, I don’t see how either team should be allowed to complete - unless it is under a single team number!

There are also some other basic flaws with the approach that are not aligned / in agreement with FIRST philosophy, as I see them:

1. It dilutes student involvement and creativity in the design and build concept of the ENTIRE robot.
2. It inspires students to collude in completing high school and college assignments. Doing somebody else’s work crosses the line. It isn’t the same as tutoring or coaching.
3. If this becomes the norm, it will gradually discourage rookie teams from forming unless they can find a mega-alliance to partner with. Established teams will start to drop out as the stakes increase each year and it stops being fun because they can’t compete on the same level.

Arguments that this is a unique strategy that benefits the students are way off base. Claiming this teaches students to “think outside the box” is a feeble attempt at rationalization. The FIRST competition gives you many opportunities to “think outside the box” without the need to “think outside the team”. You are robbing the students of some valuable learning experiences within your own teams. Who actually spent “hours on the phone and numerous emails between the teams”? Was it the students, or was it the engineers?