Thread: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2005, 08:59
Unsung FIRST Hero
Matt Leese Matt Leese is offline
Been-In-FIRST-Too-Long
FRC #1438 (The Aztechs)
Team Role: Engineer
  
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 937
Matt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt Leese
Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
When I first read this idea, I thought that it was one of the dumbest ideas I'd heard of. After thinking about it, I'm still skeptical, but it doesn't sound quite as bad. As many have said, the major disadvantage is burnout. I think that coupled with that it would be more difficult to recruit mentors for such a long commitment period.

There's a statement made that this will be helping the "rich" at the expense of the "poor." Contrarily, in my opinion, the opposite will happen. This will provide the "poorer" teams with less resources the ability to better compete. Why? Will a team do better because they went from having a good robot with a small amount of practice to a good robot with a large amount of practice or because they went from a barely functional robot to a good robot? I'm betting that going from barely function to good will help teams more. And which teams are most likely to be in the second category? I'd say the "poorer" teams are.

Matt
Last edited by Matt Leese : 21-10-2005 at 09:05. Reason: Yes Jess, I can't spell
Reply With Quote