Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve W
I respect JVN but I know that we disagree about winning being a way to grow teams. There are over 1000 teams and only about 100 winners.
|
Clarification:
I don't think I ever said "winning" was required.
In my mind, being competitive is important. Being "in the hunt" is important.
There are only 100 winners, but there are significantly more teams "in the hunt". In my ideal world, everyone would be "in the hunt". (Unpopular statement: this is not true at the average FIRST regional.)
Example:
188 did not win, but they were "in the hunt" at all three of their events.
My argument is that teams who consistently play at this top level are more sustainable than teams that do not. Not winners, but teams who have a chance of winning and know it. I will again emphasize that I am saying this applies to MOST cases, but is not universal.
Steve,
Do you disagree with this?
-JV