[Joe G.]

On Student build vs Mentor build: I have been involved with both extremes, as well as the middle ground. In these cases, I have found that student built, mentor advised workes best. If both voices can be heard, and "hands on" type learners can learn, then it works out. However, this is not to say that the others cannot work. As a student, I found it boring to just sit there, and as a mentor, I found it distressing to have my opinion on matters I felt I knew a lot about thrown out the window. However, I am sure that other teams on both extremes have had better experiences.

On rankings: I feel that the twice the loser's score system helps encourage innovation. A brick on wheels will score very low here, since they keep the losing score so low. I agree that this system isn't perfect. However, it can be compensated for by good scouting. For example, at our bridge battle tournament this weekend, we seeded #2. We were picked by the #1 seed, who then told us that they had no idea who else they wanted. We had been watching every match, and had observed a rookie team, placed in the mid 30s out of 43 teams. They were there mostly through bad luck, but had a very effective robot. We advised the #1 seed to pick them, which they did, and they ended up playing a critical role on our alliance. Good scouting creates good alliances, as it brings out a robot's true performance, rather than wins, losses and ranking points.

There will always be an element of luck, even if we go back to 1v1v1, dependent directly on the other teams on the field.

Finally, when it comes down to it, rankings don't matter. At said vex tournament, we were eliminated narrowly in the semifinals, through a combination of mechanical problems and strong opponents. However, the day was still a great success, as our robot performed phenomenally, scoring 10-16 balls every match. The six days between our FRC regional and the vex tournament of hard work as a team to get our robot from nothing to that is what really counts in FIRST.