Quote:
|
Originally Posted by magnasmific
I would like to introduce you to a new Kettering University Robotics team, one without a name. A few of the scholarship recipients (Kettering gave out 9 last year) felt that we should do something in return to Kettering for the scholarship that we received. We recipients, and some extremely motivated FIRST alumni, are in the process of setting up a second robotics team.
This team is designed on the ideals of what we consider to be, the perfect team structure. One of our biggest complaints with our previous FIRST experiences was the structure of the teams. We felt that the students did not get as much of an experience as they could have, had they been in a system where their input was considered. In simplicity, it is a democracy.
We are straying from the politics of team structure, and letting the students structure themselves. We want fewer parents and engineers working on the robot, and more student involvement.
We plan to have a group of Kettering Students mentor the team. No engineers, no politics, no one in it for the wrong reasons. We want our students to enjoy their experience, learn as much as they possibly can, and have fun!
|
At this point, you have already mentioned Team 70 and their involvement with FIRST. You are also stating that you have 'very motivated' people willing to be involved in the start of a new team. If you are looking to show the university that their contributions to your tuition have paid off, and lo and behold, they already have a team, why are you reluctant to join the ranks of this team? Have you approached this team? Are there differences between teams? If so, that's none of the business of anyone on the forums here. But if not, you are essentially starting a new team for reasons that can prove fatal. How is Team 70 doing, as per sponsorship and such? Do you think you'd be able to compete? Is the University willing to have two teams compete against each other, both for sponsorship and on the field?
You have high hopes for a team - you have a set way you want things to run, and a set way of doing them. I must commend you for doing this, as some would be not as wise. However, you are not considering your personal interests, the interests of your other team, and the interests of the University.
Your issue is more complicated than you make it out to be. Currently, every year we see many more rookie teams coming to existence, which is excellent. However, we also sit back and see teams who have existed for years slowly fade away; should this be for lack of team sponsorship, involvement, etc. is irrelevant. The MAINTENANCE of teams is just as important as the growth.
Starting a new team is not always the answer. If you claim that other teams were not in FIRST for the right reasons, or that the students did not get the benefit they could have, your answer is NOT to start a new team, but to try to fix what you can. If another team is phazed out from your competition, is that a victory? No, it's a loss. We are a community, not a group of competitors that are out for blood. The same goes towards your team. The teams that I am personally excited about are the new teams that form in areas that were previously exempt from FIRST, not the teams that separate and form again. I also owed a debt in FIRST - for the great experience I received, for the knowledge I gained, and for the opportunities that were opened for me. Had there been a team at my particular university at that time, I would have joined it, not simply decided my debt warranted a new team.
Please reconsider your position, or try out a year or so of what we've proposed in the last few posts. At least then you can say you've given it a shot, you've gained more wisdom on what you'd like to define in your new team, and possibly you can figure out a way to sustain yourselves better.
Amanda Morrison