while I will agree with the no worlds champs they have the 2 most blue banners of all time and 71 won all there worlds before 2004. I might seem blunt here but that was a easier time to win worlds with only 2k matches played all year. I think we need to look big picture here.
You want blunt? Half of 2056’s on-field wins were paired with one team. 20 wins as a pair. That team ain’t on your list, and probably should be. The question of “would they have won quite so many had they not paired up so often?” is one that FRC historians will be quietly debating for many years. Those two were dangerous enough apart… but not unbeatable.
You also have to look at how absolutely dominating 71 was. You literally knew they were coming, and how they were coming, and they still were not beaten. In an era where COTS was practically non-existent. They’re directly responsible for multiple FRC rules. (G210, R201/G415 are the ones that come to mind immediately.) Sure, they aren’t as dominating lately. In 20 seasons, I suspect that the 4 you listed will be lower on the list, as some new teams come up and dominate for a while.
You say to watch more FRC, and to look at the big picture. Take your own advice, young’un. I’m looking farther back than the last 15 seasons. By default, bigger picture, and more FRC, some of it live.
17 Likes
While this list would likely have to be somewhat dynamic, my list would be based on the impact teams have on the overall community in recent years:
118 Robonauts - Their work with the Everybot raised the floor throughout the competition, inspiring FIRST to create the kitbot. In addition, their unique designs and consistently high quality reveals make them a household name across the program.
254 Cheesy Poofs - The most decorated team in the World by both event wins and Championship wins, every one of their robots inspire students to see just how much is possible in this program.
2910 Jack in the Bot - Arguably the father of modern COTS swerve, they have made significant progress in leveling the playing field between moderate resource teams and ultra high resource teams.
6328 Mechanical Advantage - I believe Open Alliance has been on of the most impactful organizations in FRC post-covid, so I’m going to have to give honorable mentions to their fellow OA teams who’ve been active since the start of it (95, 3847, and 4481), but since I just have 1 spot left, I’m going to choose 6328, because their work with the Open Alliance is certainly one of the most significant, and I believe their work with creating and supporting AdvantageKit allows them to stand out above their peers and earn themselves the final spot on my “FRC Mt. Rushmore”.
7 Likes
For FIN, my Mount Rushmore would include
Bill Beatty
Steve Florence
Mark Koors
Jason Zielke
Crazy Horse would be Andy Baker.
Strong arguments could be made for Art Anderson, Renee Becker-Blau, Chris Elston, Chris Fultz, and Allison Phelps.
4 Likes
Lots of worthy nominees but my choice would be none of the above. There’s a reason why FRC has almost no individual awards. You got a big ol’ mountain to carve up? Make a sculpture of four pit crew members and a robot. You won’t be able to identify individuals or tell anything about skin color, gender, etc. Let’s honor those who really earn it.
*on our team long hair and pony tails would not be an identifier!
2 Likes
If we’re talking about teams, my list would be 254, 71, 1114, and 1678. These teams have all fundamentally shifted the landscape of frc to be what it is today.
1 Like
Chief Mount Rushmore/Goats:
@Andrew_L
@AdamHeard
@AllenGregoryIV
@Leap
6 Likes
You’re just picking people whose names start with the letter A
9 Likes
The “A Team” just more literal than usual
2 Likes
If that were the case, @archiver would be atop the list
5 Likes
Easier time to qualify for Worlds sure but not an easier time to win.
Lets look at purely a numbers game.
In 2004 there were only 4 divisions not 8 so teams were much more condensed than they are now thus the talent pool was not as divided
In 2004 you had 7 matches as opposed to 10 to decide your ranking making you much more vulnerable to the schedule.
In 2004 you had no RP so a bad match was just a bad match and you got nothing out of it.
In 2004 in a division of 73 teams 24 of you made it to Elims or 33% of teams. Compared to this year where 75 teams are in the division and 32 of you get to play or 43%.
Lets say you get to Einstein in 2004 that means you are one of the 12 best of the 292 teams or 4% compared to now where you are one of the 32 best of 600 or 5%.
Let’s not forget that to put it simply there are now 4 world champs as opposed to 3 meaning a 33% increase in the number of world champs.
From a numbers perspective it was much harder to become World Champ prior to 2014 (picking your own back up bot, then adding more divisions in years after that) than it has been any year since.
Am I arguing that the robots were as good back then as they are now? No, however I will argue that it has never been easier to build a good to great robot than it is right now. Rules are more relaxed, COTS is plentiful and knowledge is easily accessible.
Am I arguing that somehow the teams who became world champs recently are less deserving than the older ones? No, once champs became a separate event winning it should always hold the same admiration.
Am I arguing that the teams you listed I would say should not be on someones list or are not a fine list? Also no
However you argued that if 254, 1323, 1678 and 2056 wasn’t someones list than they need to do more research. I am arguing that discounting the 22 years of FRC from 1992 to 2013 to focus on the 11 years of FRC 2014 to 2024 (2 of which are incomplete seasons) implies you need to “watch more matches”.
18 Likes
There can’t be a CD GOAT list without @Ether on it.
18 Likes
As a student going through the program, simbots def changed it for me. They were amazing to watch and their 2008 robot was mindblowing. Probably one of the top 3 robots ever built in the 2000+ era.
18 Likes
Queue Curie 2019
3 Likes
I think we can take this a step further. I feel like the additional divisions (4 vs 8) not only makes reaching Einstein easier because twice the number of teams make it, but division playoffs seem easier as there are less elite teams you need to get through.
I did very quick comparisons of this year and 2014 (last year with 4 divisions) and looked at number of top 1% of teams by EPA per division and how many playoff alliances had two top 1%. 2014 had 3/4 divisions have at least 2 alliances with 2 top 1% teams. 2024 had 1/8 (3/8 divisions did not have any top 1% of teams pair up).
For all the talk about how Newton was so stacked this year, it was a pretty normal 2014 division. In 2014 both Archimedes and Curie had the same number of top 1% teams (8) and alliances where two paired up (3) as 2024 Newton. 2014 Newton wasn’t that far behind with 7 and 2.
(Things were even easier when we had 2-champs. Alliances made Einstien without even having to face one top 1% team, let alone two on the same alliance)
1 Like
Dean Kamen, Dr. Woodie Flowers, Dr. William Murphy, Jr., Art Kimura (finalist for teacher in space and Hawaii STEM leader).
If we are talking about FIRST, these individuals have changed my life, my current and former student’s lives, our team, and our Waialua community.
If FIRST didnt exist, I honestly dont know what I would have been doing instead that I’m as passionate about.
3 Likes
A for fun view of the top teams in FIRST with some caveats* using modified district points calculations
- Old events that aren’t on TBA don’t get counted, pre 2006 gets sketchy (71
) - Teams that play in districts get a big boost in points having a whole other event worth more points which regional teams don’t get
Same view but by rookie year is an interesting look thru
2 Likes
I like the view by rookie year.
You’re right about the difficulty applying common metrics to the early years. The example that strikes me is 47. Ask Karthik about them if you catch him somewhere. It is hard to overstate how dominant Chief Delphi was at their peak. Even compared to 71 a few years later.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)