Clash of Objectives.

[Steven Smith]

Ask yourself, what makes a FRC team successful?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=128680

If you want to see for yourself what I mean, ask your studenys what makes a team successful. The answers you'll get more than likely won't align with first's mission in the slightest.

I did, as the wrap-up of our 2014-2015 season last week. They pointed to the two chairman's winners videos we saw at our two events (987/2468). They talked about wanting to increase our meeting times through the year to become more competitive, as well as do a better job recruiting and training new students (including student volunteerism with FLL at feeder schools).

Just look at nearly every person's signature, including yours. People take more pride in winning than anything else. It's more than just the kids of FRC that have the wrong mindset.

I appreciate that FIRST provides official awards to recognize more than the the "Winning Robot". Most signature lists highlight these awards side-by-side. An ad hominem attack on a person's value system because they list the awards their team won in their signature makes it easy to dismiss the rest of your posts. However, I'm sure there is a grain of truth, where people do sometimes get a bit carried away with the importance of specific awards and forget the big picture... but I don't see it as an endemic problem in the FIRST/CD community. I can't even think of a single team I've met that has a shown a history of a "win at all costs attitude", and is blatantly at odds with FIRST ideals as you suggested.

I do sometimes feel like there is a disconnect between the "already heavily inspired" crowd on CD, that cares about FIRST enough to draft and respond to these sorts of posts... and the FIRST community at large. There are a huge number of teams that could benefit from the increased exposure to championships, with a "watered down" version they can attend being better than an amazing experience they will never see. Likewise, there are a huge number of teams that could benefit from greater integration into their local communities and online resources. I wish I knew the secret answer to get them more involved, more competitive, and hopefully more inspired.

I'm fortunate to be able to personally attend champs as a representative for my company, and I enjoy watching robots from around the world compete. I will know what our team is missing by not getting to see half (or more) of the best robots of the world. I'll know what we are missing, when watching the final Einstein match in Houston is no longer the final official match of the season. There will also be people we miss seeing, former teams of some of our mentors, teams that have visited Texas for events, that we might not have a reason to see again. For these reasons, I'm a bit disappointed personally... but I can understand the argument for the expansion to 800+ teams. I can understand that for the extra 300-400 teams that are constantly on the bubble of attending champs and might now be able to... seeing half of the best robots in the world... seeing an almost as amazing finish to the season... might be inspirational enough to push them higher.

Please don't over-simplify the complex reasons why people are questioning the dual championship model as "they care more about winning than FIRST ideals". We all get something a little different out of this program, and we all give a lot back to it.