The Stereotyping of Successful Teams

[Ivan Malik]

I can't figure out the cool multi-quote deal that everyone does, so one will have to do...

Originally Posted by OZ_341

Ivan:
I don't pretend to have any knowledge of world system theory although it sounds like an interesting topic. I guess, I want to understand. Are you suggesting a handicapping system in which high-performing teams receive some pre-arranged disadvantage?

One problem I see with this is that the game changes every year. We have seen some pretty powerful teams fall from prominence because they misread the game challenge in a particular year.

Many teams misread this year's game. I also remember that in 2009 when we all had to play with the same wheels on a slippery surface, some pretty powerful teams struggled that year.

There are lots of ways to destabilize the core, I'm not sure why everyone focuses on just one: limiting the top. Propping up the bottom works just as well... Here are some rather un-nefarious ways that both have been done artificially recently:

2009 and this year were two examples of how the game design can affect this. The wheels presented a unique challenge that was new to everyone and frisbees have a relatively reliable path of travel meaning they are easier to work with. These two things created ripples in the norm and allowed many teams to fall and others to rise. The wheels brought the top down and the frisbees brought the bottom up; was there something wrong with either of these things? To me, no. The issue with 2009 is the year after things went back to the norm and the dominant stayed dominant the following years. I suspect next year will be much of the same. Is it the GDC's fault that the sea-saw of "who is great" didn't continue, no. The weight is not theirs to bare, but rather all of ours.

The district system is also a destabilizing factor because it ensures that everyone has the same chances to play and hone their skills. It artificially caps the core and gives the periphery more time/resources to develop over a season. Sure the core could travel to additional regionals, but that doesn't mean anything to those competing just inside the districts that would be most likely to feel the sting of defeat over and over again. In fact, when a powerhouse travels to another region, that it rarely compete in, it often times destabilizes that regional and creates inspiration instead of disdain.

Right about now a lot of people are thinking "great the problem is being worked on I can forget about this" WRONG! Even if the game helps the periphery and brings down the core, even if the district system helps to even things out a bit, the community still has the mindset that the same teams should win every year or be close to wining every year. How many times have phrases like "71 should be at champs they were world champs x times, they deserve to be there." or "217 didn't make champs by 1 pt, that is just wrong." been said here on chief, the unofficial nexus of all things FRC and the cradle of its culture? Statements like that are what cause the division and with it the bashing of the core. What is more striking is who said both of these quotes, they were two heroes of FIRST. The people that everyone looks to for inspiration. If a community is basing itself off of heroes that create division and disdain then I'm not surprised those on top get bashed and made fun of. It isn't the individuals fault either as they are a product of the general culture, they are just under the microscope and reinforce this meme.


This type of culture would be great if the FRC was just about creating a sport and inspiring those within its existing ranks, but it's not. It's about changing the wider culture of society and for that you need a sweeping approach, not a focused one.

Power houses are high powered, focused beacons of inspirations for teams in their area, but those in FIRST long enough to feel the sting of defeat tend to already be inspired to pursue STEM. It is those outside the light of the beacon who can't see the shadow that it creates that are important. Continuing the metaphor, what would be better for a plane trying to land, one powerful beacon on the control tower or lots of smaller ones all the way along the runway?

The method of destabilization isn't what is important, rather the acknowledgment that they are needed that is. Then a solution can be found that works for everyone.