Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST
Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.
In Reply to: Re: Defense-TWO sides to the story
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 1:26 AM EST:
As with any truly divisive issue - both sides are right on this one.
Bill, I agree that this years game - compared to all previous years - was most likely to end with the best designed, built, and functional robots at the top. Which CLEARLY was the outcome, as the best designed, built robot, and most deserving robot in the country was the lead robot in the champion alliance
(congratulations again by the way - you guys should be SO PROUD of what you built this year)
I would also agree with Dan that many teams, who spent just as much time & work on their robots as all those in the playoffs, did not get to use their robots as designed because of the game this year - and that is not a good situation either.
Having truly experienced both sides of the following statement - I can say this with complete confidence...
head-to-head gives teams with less money & resources the chance to out strategize and out drive the big money & resource teams - and in this way does level the playing field.
I agree with Bill 100% that ideally the top engineered robots want the opportunity to perform their skills.
I also agree with Dan that ALL TEAMS should be given a fair chance to control their robots as THEY designed and built them.
I see this issue as somewhat of a Catch 22.
Head-to-Head is the only way to legitimately give teams with less funding, less resources, few/no volunteer engineers, and little to no machine shop access a chance to defeat teams with all of those things.
(it is tough to argue that this is not a valid desire)
HOWEVER - Without head-to-head, it is MUCH more likely that the winners each year will be: teams which had the best mechanical designs, teams with the ability (resources, funding, & machine shop access) to build those designs exactly as they intended to, and teams which consistently performed well.
(it is tough to argue that this is not a valid desire also)
My hope is that there is a middle ground - that FIRST can create a game that in some way combines both values so many people are arguing for, and that teams can accept that neither extreme will ever be good for all teams as a whole.
Only one thing is guaranteed in FIRST - no matter what game they create - many people are going to complain about it depending on the amount of, or lack of, defense.
Regardless, as we do every year - we will accept the game next year for what it is, try to figure out the best strategy we can, build the best robot we can, compete the best we can, have a great time doing it, and focus on all of the positive & rewarding aspects of the FIRST experience instead of the tough aspects (which will always exist, especially if going out of your way to find them).