Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[Mike Schreiber]

Note: this is thread has gone way off topic from multiple regionals and I will continue that trend.

Originally Posted by lilstogi11

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

Although I do like the quote I don't completely agree with how applicable it is. Hypothetically, I can work at a mill for 2 hours making a part from a drawing that I worked equally hard on. Yes I am successful and the part works, but I spent 2 hours more than a team with a CNC mill that doesn't need to work as hard or as long to achieve the same thing. Or they could order the part and get in machined professionally...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.

I am not saying by any means that the 'power house' teams don't deserve to repeat their victories and that they shoulded be rewarded for their achievements, but I think rookie teams need more of a fighting chance. The rookie regional was a great example of teams with a near (not perfectly) even playing field competing.

On the comment of GLR and the no ultimate alliance I didn't like what happened at all. No, not because we denied 66 and as the third seed could not take 67, 217 or join with 47 in the second seed but because it stopped the competing alliances from doing the best they could do, possibly setting a new national highscore or a teams personal record. Yes, they can do their personal best with anyone in their alliance provided their alliance partners don't impede their abilities or rack up penalties, but it's a different scenario.

I know I'm arguing both to even the playing field and allow the veterans to gang up, but I'm just trying to point out that it's a flawed system. No matter what we change and how we do things we can not perfect the system. Short of specifying exactly what can be used as a resource and how much can be spent and providing those resources to every team therefore partially stunting creativity and innovation in teams that want to go beyond that there is no way to even the playing field perfectly. Even then there is a matter of prior knowledge and man power some teams have more people who are more educated or experienced.

Flawed as it may be, FIRST is still a great program with great people and certainly a great community. Nothing is perfect and competitions can't leave everyone happy. There can only be one winning alliance, but instead of complaining about how good they are we should learn from them, and even if we can't beat them in FIRST strive to use what they teach us to better to world.

+0.02 and a corny ending