Quote:
Originally Posted by DDAwg3
All I did and still stand by my initial (YES I SAID MY) view, not trying to throw sand in the eyes of the champion but for everyone to come up with all these reasons....
Once and for all to kill the poor discussion ---- My bad for saying it apprehently but that it still one man's view and I have no ill feelings toward them. I apologize if I have OFFENDED any of you........
Regards,
Scott
|
Scott, I wasn't offended, nor did I see this as an affront to the winning alliance. However, I do see your views as hurting the FIRST program in general. FIRST is about inspiring students. Great matches inspire students.
Even when our team is on the losing side of a match, we get inspired by a great winning alliance. We try to take something positive out of the experience. Whether it's new mechanical systems that made a great robot, great driving skills, a unique strategy, or just a well executed plan. Is it fun to lose?
NO, but we WANT to go back and work harder! "Wait 'til next year" isn't a bad thing, it's a door opening to unlimited possibilities.
FIRST has gone out of their way this year to try to bring parity to the competition through the rules. Some of these changes aren't for the better. Instead of inspiring teams to work harder and improve to compete with some of the "big boys", they've tried to limit the "big boys" so others feel like they have a chance with a mediocre design. Inspiration doesn't come from average performances or machines, but from the exceptional.
If teams are designing robots and playing the games within the rules, FIRST DOESN'T NEED NASCAR RESTRICTER PLATES!
May the best designs and best game play win. Game ON!
And, this is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with it either.
