|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: true, it never will be fair, so why change it? (EOM)
Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.
Posted on 3/29/99 10:27 AM MST In Reply to: true, it never will be fair, so why change it? (EOM) posted by colleen on 3/28/99 8:45 PM MST: : : that's it.. I assume you're asking why change from a two team alliance to a three team alliance? I assume the reason is to improve the chances that there will be two functioning robots in each match. For example, consider what happened to CHAOS and us at Hartford: During our first QF match our robot blew a gearbox in one of the drive motors, which left us essentially dead in the water. We were unable to replace the gearbox during a timeout period, so our partner was left to fend for themselves against two robots in the second match as well. If the new rule had been in place the outcome of the first match would have been the same, put the second match would have been a two-on-two competition. There are at least three advantages I see to having three team alliances: (1) The competition is more exciting in that there will be fewer one-sided matches resulting from mechanical failures (2) It corrects a blatant inequity in the competition structure using a model common to all team sports (3) It reduces the amount of time wasted due to timeouts for robot repairs during the elimination rounds So far, I've seen two substantive objections to the three team alliances: (a) That the third team might not actually get to participate (b) Additional possibilities concerning pre-arranged alliances While (a) is entirely within the realm of possibility, it is a situation which is common in team sports. If a given team does not feel they will be comfortable in this position they are free to decline an invitation to particiapte in the alliance. But that hardly seems reason to deny other teams which have no such reservations the opportunity. Issue (b) is a stickier issue. Yes, teams can pre-arrange alliances. But I'm not convinced this is as bad as many are making it out to be. To me, FIRST isn't about winning or losing -- it's about learning and doing your best. What any other team does or doesn't do doesn't change what YOU have done. SET MODE/CYNICAL And, let's face it, back-room dealing, greed, and unfairness are all a big part of life and something you'll have to learn to deal with sooner or later. Perhaps it's better to learn this lesson here, where the only thing at stake is a little pride, rather than later in life where more important things such as a job or career are at stake. Anyway, that's my $0.02... - Jerry |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Proposed New Rule M11 | Joe Johnson | Rules/Strategy | 14 | 04-02-2003 14:41 |
| Stretchers | archiver | 2001 | 14 | 24-06-2002 02:15 |
| No Change Rule Yields More Openness | archiver | 2001 | 16 | 24-06-2002 01:23 |
| Kidnapping Opponent's Robot | Raul | General Forum | 51 | 15-01-2002 13:33 |
| 1 coach rule | Mike Soukup | Rules/Strategy | 14 | 07-01-2002 22:27 |