[Dan Richardson]

To be honest, what is fair? Everything will be slightly unfair, there are inherent disadvantages to every competition. Fair is quite relative and at the same time quite subjective. The only way to be completely fair may be make everyone use the same robot and just make it a driving competition. Thats not the point of FIRST, its not FIRST's intent to be fair, its to inspire into Science and Technology we all know that, this isn't debated.

Granted FIRST, of the aforementioned competitions is probably one that creates some of the largest disparities between highly resourced and highly recognized teams, and the lowest of teams. But this to me is exciting.

FIRST has made great strides of late, I recall when a team was worried whether or not their ally would show up on the field. Now we worry whether or not that they have an effective autonomous mode, or if they'll be able to perform the more complex tasks of the game.

Many make it seem that there is no chance to succeed as a rookie team with no resources, or an underfunded teams. But with hard work and dedication to succeeding anything can be accomplished. At the risk of sounding proud I'm going to share a bit of how 1902 got founded this past year.

Team 1902, was a team started 2 weeks before competition, by 1 mom 3 students and a former high school teacher. They had not raised any money they had no tools, no professional mentors, little to no experience, just a team number and a desire to compete. Their first team meeting was held on the day of kickoff. They recruited college FIRSTERS to help with the team, to do what they could ( including myself ). This team worked out of a mentors garage, with but a discounted drill press, and a chop saw borrowed from a neighbor. With maxed out credit cards all season long the team actively pursued sponsorship, being able to secure a few corporate level sponsor, and a few thousand through innovative fund raisers. The team was then able to go on to competition and do fairly well.

In fact, they were finalists in both Florida and Archimedes division at the championship event, and seeded first with an undefeated record at Houston. The argument was made that often times teams will ride on the coat tails of other powerful teams. It is true with great alliances we were able to go far in competition. However through three events team 1902 attended the team went something like 32-11 ( can not find regional match list results so this is what I best remember ). If thats not a measure of level of competitiveness I don't know what is.

FIRST is not a fair competition. Most competitions aren't, there is always someone that will be better or faster, or more prepared, or have more money, or more mentors, or more tools. But this has nothing to do with competitive edge. 1902 worked hard, and continues to work hard till this day in order to put its most competitive foot forward. But when someone says that because this competition is not fair, that teams just can't compete because of the odds stacked against them I am frustrated, and only that much more determined to succeed. I am frustrated because not only is it possible to succeed its possible to win and win big.

FIRST is a competition, and a big part about this competition is winning. It is after all just that, a competition. FIRST has made strides to level the playing field, they've even started FVC which is almost completely level playing field as far as components are involved. But FRC is a competition, teams will strive to get a competitive edge, as well they should. Because if it weren't competitive, than I hardly believe it'd be as exciting. If FIRST weren't exciting, well It just wouldn't be FIRST, and I know I for one would be doing something else.