Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy1718
I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????  That is more what I'm talking about. I don't want teams to throw regionals, but pick teams that aren't going rather than those who are. |
Like I said earlier, you play to win. Were a team to assume they were so good that they don't need to pick the next best robot at the event to take home the gold, it would be a very dumb strategy. You always pick the team that will give you the best chance to win. Always. Doesn't matter if they've got 4 people, 75 people, veterans, rookies, high team number, low team number. None of it matters. Doesn't matter if you're so good that you could win with JVN's fridge on the field (to quote John
) The only thing that matters is that they are the best team to help you win the event. Doing anything less is a sellout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy1718
Besides last year we said yes to someone who pick us at detroit, 27; we were not going to Atlanta, they were; neither did our thid partner. I applaude them for breaking the mold of a few teams in the area.
|
I'm sure they picked you both because they thought you represented their best chance at winning-not because you weren't qualified for Atlanta.
As a side note, do most teams even
know what potential partners are qualified for Atlanta, and which aren't? It's not one of our criteria, so I've never even paid attention. I just look for the best robots, best drivers, and best strategists.
I'd hate to see the competitions turn into science fairs. I just heard that lots of little league teams don't keep score and don't have winners and losers for fear of hurting the kid's feelings. Sometimes it seems like this is the direction FIRST might be headed. I sure hope not. It's not about the competition, but the competition sure is an important part of what makes FIRST different than so many other activities.