This last weekend my team competed at the Minnesota 10K lakes regional. As per usual there were lots of speakers but it seemed to me like this year they talked a lot about how everyone was a winner by just showing up to the event. Now I am not bashing the speakers, I just wanted to address an issue that has come up in other sports, which is that if competitors at an event are told that everyone is a winner it can take away some of the joy of winning and interfere with the competition aspect of coopertition. Calling everyone a winner can also make it tough for people to deal with losing, although that is mostly with younger kids. I was in the pits for some of the regional so I did not get to watch every speaker and therefore cannot attest to the extent to which this was occurring but I do believe that it is important for the FRC to not give into the concept of everyone being a winner. There are three winning teams in a regional and although that does not necessarily mean that the other teams are “losers” it does mean that the other teams can be motivated to learn and improve in their pursuit of excellence.
I agree, not everyone is a winner. Our Coach has told us that before, he says that 2nd place is the first loser. After we got 2nd place at our first event, I asked if we were going ton dinner to celebrate since we made it to finals with a nearly rookie team, yet he said no since we didn’t win. I agree with not everybody are winners. If everybody was a “winner”, it would take the motivation out of competing so toughly
Depends on how you define being a winner. If you mean you’re a winner of the competition, that’s one way to think about it. You could also mean that those students at the events were winners because they are getting a fantastic experience, and learning a heck of a lot about Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. I’m certain the speakers were referring to the latter.
It’s fine for the speakers to say that at an FRC competition, because, while FIRST/FRC uses competition(s), FRC’s primary goal is causing cultural change and then seeing individuals in those cultures reap the benefits from the change. Also, participants who are involved and then show up at an event absorb skills, etc. that are valuable for a lifetime.
Winning a cheesy trophy or banner isn’t what it means to “win” in FIRST.
That’s why it can be sensible to say that you “win” just by showing up.
Don’t be too distracted by the shiny robots, and the games they play. Enjoy them, but keep your eyes on the real prize(s).
Blake
PS: Of course, it is possible to both attend an FRC event, and actively avoid receiving any benefits from the experience. I don’t mind if a speaker ignores those exceptions to the general rule.
Our team also believes that not everyone is a winner in competition standards. The only thing is the pre match speeches are to encourage the people who are not winners to not give up on their dreams and even if they lose the competition that they can still be a successful engineer. Our drive team often is deprived of sprinkles after competitions in which they do not come first place. Good Luck all teams.
“I’m not going to tell you all that you all are winners. At this point you are smart enough to know whether you are or you aren’t.” - Woodie Flowers
I don’t think I agree with this. The celebration should be working hard and fielding a robot and physically being there competing fiercely. If every team’s success is defined by winning, then what you are saying is all other teams that were not on the winning alliance had failed. The Robot is only a vehicle, personally, as a mentor, success and winning is defined by how many kids are inspired. I don’t really care whether you call everyone a winner, but I honestly think that each team that are there competing was successful.
I am going to respectfully disagree with saying that there are three winners at a competition. FIRST is about far more than the outcome of the finals. For example, I would consider the winners of the Chairman’s award huge winners, same with awards like engineering inspiration and rookie all star. Being a winner in FIRST is not black and white. It’s about what you as an individual and a team get out of the experience. As a mentor, I look at it as what we can do to serve our community, and how to give students tools to succeed in their lives.
Good: “everybody’s a winner - even if you didn’t rank 1 and take home a trophy, the successes you saw and the experiences you had will mould and shape you for years to come”
Bad: “everybody’s a winner, so we won’t be ranking teams or giving out any trophies”
I hope your coach said this light-heartedly, and that students on the team knew “what he really meant” because taken at its word, this is not an attitude I would agree with at all. Second place is an incredible achievement for any team (well, except 2056 :ahh: )
We’ll got for a team dinner after our competitions regardless of whether we won or not. When we win a regional, it’ll be my treat.
I think “every team is a winner” is a suboptimal choice of words, because one can read the wrong message from it. For example, it seems to imply that mediocrity is okay, even though that’s not what anybody intends when they say those words. “Everyone can turn pro” is a better catch phrase that captures the idea that even if we don’t win the tournament, we can still be achieving success as a result of participation in FRC.
Last year the team I was with were Finalists, and the winning captain graciously explained “you know… in the playoffs, if your average isn’t high enough, you just don’t advance. So really, there are only three losers here today.”
Now before anyone gets all huffy, it was one of the most GP teams around, and it was all in fun 
There are elements of chance in these games.
Referees can miss crossings.
Things can happen on the field that cause field faults and replays.
People can suffer from miscommunication.
The idea that the 3 teams that win got there purely because of superior effort is unrealistic.
So therefore the top few teams deserve recognition especially since they come, pay and play.
I don’t know if everyone is a winner: but if your team makes it towards the end you probably did most things at least as well as the rest and had some luck on your side. I have seen teams with serious problems in their robot make it to the end game and even win.
If the Einstein report from years ago says anything: it says that robots that win at the Championship can still have unsolved issues.
In the end if you manage to actually field a robot and learned anything you really are a winner.
I’ve seen FRC parts being used in Master/Doctors college classes: our ‘average’ is well above the average.
(I’m sorry Batman, you can’t lift Manhattan, you are just second rate hero to Superman. Saving lives is obviously less important than an island bench press competition. ;))
Your right that more than three teams could be considered winners but I was mostly referring to the winners of the finals. I also agree that first is about giving people the tools they need for the future and to me one of the tools people need for this world we live in, with a global economy and global competition in the job market, is understanding winning and losing and being able to learn from mistakes. I definitely think that the winners of awards are winners and having fun and getting valuable skills are important however my worry is that we might see those awards become less valued because of the mentality that everyone is a winner. I see from the other posts that most people think that if you learn you are a winner and because the FRC is a program for learning it would make sense that gained knowledge could be (and probably should be) considered a victory, I just don’t want first to turn into my elementary school baseball team where if you showed up you got a medal.
Of course he wasn’t strict about it. He worded it more like if you won, I would have to take you out to dinner. Although 2nd is good, it’s not as good as 1st. If you learn to settle for shy of the best, that’s what you will always end up getting. You need to strive for first. Falling short of your goal is bad, but you can’t really celebrate until you meet your goal. I hope what I’m saying makes sense.
FIRST used to give out bronze medals to every team who competed. These were replaced with pins provided in the KoP several years ago, presumably as a cost cutting measure.
The way FIRST works, not all the best robots win their regional. In fact, most of the time, the captain and 1st pick of the finalist alliance have better robots than the 2nd pick of the winning alliance. The winners are not necessarily the best, and the best don’t always win. This is how life works too, get used to it.
I disagree with this philosophy. Being second place at a regional of any kind is a phenomenal accomplishment, especially for a newer team. While it can be disappointing if that was your only hope of qualifying for CMP, it’s still something you should be proud of. While it’s important to always want to do better, calling 2nd place (!!) a loser is just unhealthy.
I miss those metals. When you got them you knew what it was,“a reminder of the hard work it took to get you there.” That’s what is meant by being a “winner” at a FIRST event.
Don’t get me started on that “2nd place is the first loser” crap.
Well not everyone is going to be walking home with some sort of prize at the end of an event. However its hard for me to look back and say I lost because of the people I met, the skills I learned, and the memories I made, all those things made it worth it for me at least.
We are located in Michigan so it was districts. I may be wrong but districts are easier than regional event. I agree though with him, we didn’t win. I think if we were a worse team he wouldn’t say that but we had potential to win but we just weren’t there at the time it mattered.