Predictions Week 3: One Small Step for [a] Lunacy

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by B - Morris

Thankfully this post was somewhat less negative than some of the other predictions I've read from LF this year, and it is interesting to read about some of the matchups that are going to be happening this year.. I just have one request to LF for the future:
Please remember that everything you say is open to be read by anyone, and have some GP in your posts.

Quoting Rich Kressly, 2008 Washington DC Regional Woodie Flowers Finalist Award winner (and all-around decent human being):

- Only think of Gracious Professionalism as a standard to work toward personally.
- Never use it as a gauge to point out someone else’s shortcomings.

Basically, I'm just saying that it would be better if you didn't predict a team to lose in the quarters/semis, or call a regional weak or full of "middle class" teams, or any of the other negative things I've read in your 3 predictions this year.

I'm sorry, but there's being gracious and there's being delusional. Not every team can win the regional. That's not even a numbers game, that's just the reality of an event where there will always be teams who build uncompetitive robots, teams who build better-than-average robots, and teams that build robots that define dominance.

Bear in mind, though, that there's a reason they play the game--the predictions of Looking Forward and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.

Try to remember that this program is about high school students.

Is it? Funny, I thought it was about changing the culture. (That said, if you can back that argument up with some literature from FIRST itself, I'll gladly eat my words.)

Many teams are purely student designed...

...which is their own self-imposed handicap. Recall Dave Lavery's comments at Kickoff this year and from 2008. In this age of AIM, email, Twitter, and box.net, there's no reason a team can't get in touch with an engineering mentor, even if that mentor is three states away.

so for you to call them weak, middle class, etc. can crush a budding designer without you even knowing it.

It's not always the designer that determines the effectiveness of a team. Look at 254 and 968, who have built identical robots from 2006 onward. Which one made Einstein twice in that time span? What makes them different? Luck will factor in, granted, but so will driving, the effectiveness of the pit crew, and the human player factor. It takes a whole team to win.

I'm not Looking Forward, but I'll defend Looking Forward's right to post its analysis.