Quote:
Quote from Matt
I guess I'm proposing that older, more established teams might have more money for travel, which tends to allow them to attend more than one event, and because they're more established, they tend to build more competive machines, which tend to perform better at nationals.
I would bet that you'd also find a very similar breakdown in terms of teams numbers (age of team existance) and competitiveness.
<kidding>Should FIRST mandate that teams with numbers less than 500 not participate for 3 years to allow the newer teams time to gain experience to level the field?</kidding>
|
There was only 1 team under 500 and attended only one regional that made it into the top 8 of the four divisions (3%). Hmmmm, I would have also expected what Matt had noted but it tends not to be the case. Thanks Matt, that made me feel MUCH better about our team's (118 only attends one regional) chances to ever crack the top eight at the Championships
Also, thanks for picking 500 instead of 400 because then our odds go to 0%! 456 (Vicksburg, MS) was the only team under 500 that made it into the top 8 of a division while only attending one regional ... they were 8th in Newton. The only reason that I point out team 456's success is because I'm proud to have been associated with their beginnings.
Matt, thanks for the pick-me-up
Lucien
P.S. I am a steadfast preacher that it is not all about the 'bot but our 'bot may be the only way we will get to the championships next year so we can expose our students to the atmosphere that has 15,000 students excited and cheering about engineering.