Clash of Objectives.

[Citrus Dad]

Our greatest success last year was being recognized for gracious professionalism on Newton. That seems consistent with FIRST's goals. And I see many teams at Regionals that are not focused on winning as their measure of success and source of inspiration.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Our greatest success last year was being recognized for gracious professionalism on Newton. That seems consistent with FIRST's goals. And I see many teams at Regionals that are not focused on winning as their measure of success and source of inspiration.

To be clear, this ^^ is from the team that captained their alliance all the way to a Finals rubber match on Einstein that year. They won Inland Empire, Sacramento, Newton, and Chezy Champs.

I'd say "consistent with FIRST's goals" is a pretty big understatement.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

There's no catch all answer to your question. Each team will define success differently. Some teams just want to make the elimination rounds at their district. Some teams want to win the safety award. Some teams want to win Chairmans. Some teams want to win the World Champioship. Some teams are happy getting a robot driving.

However, I feel the majority of teams represented on Chief Delphi define success by winning. Teams that value winning are often the best and most inspirational teams in FRC. When FIRST takes steps to include more teams at the event that perhaps dont deserve to be there, the teams that work their butts off each year feel like their ultimate goal of winning the World Championship is being devalued by FIRST.

It's absolutely no different that the NHL saying we're not going to give out the Stanley Cup anymore. Instead we'll have two Stanley Mugs and we'll give them out to the Conference winners. Teams that have been building for YEARS to try to win the Stanley Cup would feel cheated of their goals. FIRST just did the same thing.

I really don't get this sentiment. FIRST did stop crowning a singular champion, back in 1999. The concept of having the "ultimate goal of winning the World Championship" was "devalued by FIRST" with the advent of alliances. Yet teams still strove for it, despite the fact they had to share the honor. It was still the highest on-field honor they could achieve. How is that different from the two Championship change? Teams still have the highest honor they can achieve on the field, even if they have to share it.

As for the Stanley Cup, there's a lot of fascinating history there, including some slaps to the face about who can and can't be awarded the cup over its history. Worth reading into.