Quote:
Originally Posted by jgannon
And yet you still come back... sounds like FIRST is succeeding whether you like it or not.
|
I don't think I'm an appropriate example for basing that assumption, seeing as I've been exposed to FIRST since I was a child and a participant on a team that typically didn't finish that low. It was beyond just a poor performance, our robot broke in a fashion we couldn't repair at competition, and we sat there immobile for almost the whole weekend while the machine shop fixed the part. It wasn't fun at all.
116 isn't a perpetual bottom feeder though, and 116 made the semi-final at the same regional the very next year. Success is neither the norm nor totally unknown to the team. But for some teams, however, that is not the case. The annually uncompetitive teams tend to be the ones that fade away much more frequently than the power houses. While there are exceptions to this, as with any generalization, I challenge anyone to provide significant evidence to disprove this point. You don't see teams like 67, 71, 111, 233, 254, 469, or 1114 going anywhere anytime soon. And part of their continuous success is derived from their sponsors, who allow them much greater amounts of stability than a majority of teams, both in terms of mentors and funding.
I'm not worried about the teams with consistent support, like 116, who may occasionally fall to the bottom. I'm worried about the teams who struggle for survival each year, and when they don't do well, they might not be able to find the support, from themselves or others, to return the next year.
I know I'm not, and I don't think anyone else is either, saying that FIRST is totally broken. I'm saying that there are some issues, particularly in concern to team retention, that need to be examined. Every time a new complaint comes up you can't brush it aside by looking at a success, especially when the complaints are far from isolated. When veteran teams like 157 have issues, or when teams who have been around for ages like 225 and 388 fold, there is a serious problem. Especially when FIRST's low-cost alternative, FTC, has a very uncertain future. When a team is in short supply of money, I cannot suggest to them with a clean conscious purchasing the quantity of Vex parts and field accessories needed to create a competitive FTC team knowing that FTC might not use the Vex platform next year. There are issues that need to be addressed, and I'm glad to hear that they aren't be ignored by FIRST (ie the President's circle). But for those who claim that FIRST is succeeding so let's continue blindly along, a reality check may soon be in store.