|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
Random thought on cheesecaking.
Would teams cheesecake less if they were allowed to enter multiple robots for less-than-ridiculous costs? We would probably enter 3-4 robots if it didn't cost an arm and a leg. The amount of time we could commit to cheesecaking would definitely taper off at that point. I think a lot of FRC's issues boil down to program cost actually. Hmmm... -Mike |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
Quote:
Edit: Makig clear what I was highlighting. Last edited by marshall : 07-09-2016 at 15:45. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
I don't see the need for half-measures here. Don't give everyone an unbagging time slot, just get rid of the bag entirely. The current policy is regressive and unfair, and lessened version of it is still going to be regressive and unfair, only somewhat less-so.
This might just be me, but I can't envision this doing anything but further exacerbating the gap between high- and low-resource teams and breeding a lot of ill-will. For instance, I don't think many people would take kindly to seeing an elims bracket at district championships consisting of multiple robots from only a handful of "elite" teams. That might be a more accurate reflection of the distribution of resources in FRC (both monetary and human), but I doubt it's what's best for the program. Last edited by Oblarg : 07-09-2016 at 15:38. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
Quote:
I know this has basically been done with 494 and 70, but that is a sort of unique situation that had a large opportunity cost. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
-snip-
I mistook that "Page 2 of 5" for "Page 5 of 5." Please disregard. Last edited by Cothron Theiss : 09-09-2016 at 03:48. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|