[archiver]

Posted by Jimmy W. Hodrinsky.

Other on team #175, Buzz, from Enrico Fermi High School and Hamilton Sundstrand/Techni-Products.

Posted on 6/18/2000 8:08 PM MST


In Reply to: New Poll posted by Lewis Sussman on 4/24/2000 1:30 PM MST:



: From the point of view of educating young people about the real world, I believe that alliances are a good vehicle. In fact, to further that goal, I am in favor of teams being given a lot more time to negotiate with their allys, rather than having two minutes to try to come up with a plan. This would encourage the teams to think much more about their skills as collaborators. Teams that were better at communicating their ideas and brainstorming solutions would have a distinct edge over those that simply flew by the seat of their pants. I think that this would highlight a dimension of FIRST that distinguishes it from athletic competition, i.e., it's not just about winning, it's about the quality of the experience and expanding our skills and knowledge.


As an educator, and having participated in FIRST for over five years, I agree with most of what you say. However, additional time for strategy would reduce the amount of time availble for actual contests. Good scouting prior to matches to know the capabilities and strategy of your competitors prior to actual competition can shorten the amount of time needed to develop an effective plan. After all the effort that has gone in to creating the solution to the problem, we need to find more ways to increase the available matches. Going to a small regional gets your robot more opportunities to play the game, and improve performance.

Another improvement that might enhance the Alliance concept is to require that all three alliances play if a third match is required in the Finals. This would increase the importance of the third pick, allow them to play, and require some serious decisions regarding who is chosen, and in which match they would participate.