View Single Post
  #197   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-01-2008, 12:04 PM
Liz Smith's Avatar
Liz Smith Liz Smith is offline
believes in robots
AKA: Pika1579
FRC #3940
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Kokomo, IN
Posts: 386
Liz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond reputeLiz Smith has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Liz Smith
Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

So, ignoring the other controversy... The topic, and original controversial idea is that teams shouldn't come to competitions and "blow other teams out of the water". Additionally, it would be generally "better" if alliances were more evenly matched, teams didn't pick the same top teams every year, and the elimination rounds weren't so predictable.

Over the past few years I've gone to competition with teams all over the spectrum. I've been around a team that has won regionals since they were formed. I've also been on a team who's season consisted of only the few qualification matches they were scheduled for (some of which they missed because they had a broken robot). If you've been with a teams that has always been lucky enough to attend multiple events, it's important to appreciate the disappointment of having your whole competition season end in 7 short matches.

When on a team that isn't picked for eliminations it's easy to blame the teams that didn't pick you. It's also easy to blame the out of state teams that seemingly have endless amounts of money to travel and "squash" the little local teams. I think it's good having teams that are powerhouses at competitions, it sets the bar high and give other teams something to strive for.

I've seen a team that grew up from not being strong enough to be consistently picked in elimination rounds, if at all. They have been consistently improving their reputation for having competitive robots. By doing what? By building better robots. They have worked their way up from having mediocre robots to having better robots that make them a consistent first round pick alliance partners, if not alliance captains themselves. They have built stronger, more effective robots and have managed to be "that team" that gets picked despite very low rankings after qualifying matches.

My point? I don't think teams that don't make the elimination rounds need to have higher ranked teams step aside to let them win. Team's grow up from year to year. Teams A, B, and C may be strong powerhouses this year but there's nothing saying that teams X, Y, and Z won't be proving that they are forces to be reckoned with in the years to come. There are plenty of teams who have stepped up their game over the span of a couple years and it's not because other teams felt sorry for them and picked them as alliance partners. Saying that teams need to improve themselves isn't a copout, it's the way things work. It is really less inspiring in giving weaker robots a handicap and "free ticket" to Atlanta than it is to give teams with weaker robots something to strive for in years to come.
__________________
Alumna of 555 Mentor of 3940
Volunteering since 2004: Say hi to me at events!
Applications Engineer
AndyMark, Inc.


Last edited by Liz Smith : 07-01-2008 at 03:24 PM.