I just think its rediculous that people actually consider teams going through and winning sometimes three seperate regionals, what on earth is going through their heads as they take that third win? I just dont see how that can be helpful or inspiring in anyway, even if you want to argue that it can be inspiring to some people, I think there are much better ways to inspire people than to dominate them after completing 6 weeks of hard work. Its just unnecessary.
Edit: this is almost a seperate argument, its unnecessary weather it has to do with student mentor ratio or not.
Teams that win 3 regionals one after the other in a single season are probably some of the most inspiring teams I’ve known. One such team is 1114, who by far built the most dominant robot in this years game, winning 3 regionals, going undefeated in the last one, not scoring less than 98 points in a match, having a consistent 36 point solo autonomous mode and winning the CA and WF awards on top of a few others. One of my favorite experiences last year at the Championship Event was going to 1114’s pit and getting to ask one of their members all about their robot, how its arm worked, how the ramp unfolded (which was a work of art by the way) and needless to say I was blown away. If that wasn’t inspiring I don’t know what is. And if you wish your team could be like that, guess what, this team that is “dominating” you has posted a detailed document on the in’s and out’s of their program is run and how they experience the “success” that they do. I’m referring to Karthik’s powerpoint presentation on how 1114 is run, which can be found here. Lots of amazing ideas and ways to improve any FIRST team are in this presentation, thanks a lot Karthik!
Attending and winning over three regionals has nothing to do with inspiring. If anything, it raises the bar and inspires others to be just as successful.
As Billfred said in a previous topic, I can only admire these teams and hope that one day, I can help a team get to that point.
If a team can raise the money to attend three regionals and the championship, while at the same time, build a successful machine that wins, I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t use it.
You also have to consider the amount of support that teams (3 regional attendees) give to the FIRST community. 1114 comes to mind. They have started and helped out numerous FRC teams as well as find the time to mentor teams in FTC.
These teams should not be bad talked, they should be celebrated. I love watching teams do well. It makes no sense to lower the bar to accomodate other teams when we can instead, raise the bar and help those teams get better as well.
FIRST is a competition. That is why it’s so much fun. I have nothing but respect for teams like 1114, 1024, 1503, 47 who continue to raise the bar. There is a reason FIRST has gotten huge in Canada and Indiana… these teams do nothing but aid in that progression.
I do hope that you aren’t indicating that it is anti-GP or uninspirational to win. If that is the case, please see my post here
If you are not inspired by excellence, are you thus inspired by mediocrity or inferiority? You’re saying that it’s bad to go to 3 regionals and win them. Is it problematic to go to 3 regionals and lose them too? Would you say that “good/superpower teams” should not be allowed to go to multiple competitions because they may win? I don’t understand how you cannot be inspired by the best.
I’m gonna take a long-shot and give you a sports reference. There are a lot of kids who play football from a young age. Most of them want to play 1 position: quarterback. And who do these people look up to? Brett Favre, Peyton Manning… the best.
You ask what is going through their heads as they take their 3rd win. I was on the HOT team in high school. We won a lot back then, from awards to regionals. What goes through your mind when you win that regional? “Ahhhh! All of that hard work, blood, sweat and tears, they’ve all paid off!!!”
As to your opinion on the student-mentor ratio, thank you for sharing it. Please note, it is your opinion. It is not right, it is not wrong, because until FIRST clarifies their position on the ratio, there will be no correct answer. I’m sorry that you feel that another team is doing things wrong. I normally try to be polite, but in this case I’m going to be frank; get over it. There is no ratio. This is not a science fair. The entire reason that FIRST is what it is, is that we have mentors to work with. Whether that means the work is split 50-50 or any other percentage, it’s all legal and legit. I’ve seen kids who had 0% in the building of the robot. They gave ideas and drove the robot. And guess what, that convinced them to go to college and get off of the streets in the inner-city. I’ve seen teams that are 100% student built. They also had excellent inspiration of their students.
Inspiration works differently for different people. Please, I beg you, open your eyes and look at other viewpoints. Your way may work best for you. Other ways work best for other teams. Please, do not degrade the accomplishments of another team because their business plan does not suit your standards. What they are doing is not violating any requirement, nor any rule. Look through learning eyes, not through jealous eyes, it makes the whole FIRST experience better.
I’ve been on both sides here. I’m an alumni of a team that can and does go through a local event undefeated or with one loss and win or take finalist. I mentor a team that has yet to make regional eliminations.
From the “dominating” team’s perspective, it is inspiring–but not as inspiring as the build season. It’s just icing on the cake (and a chance to continue the streak of not missing a Championship in 11 years).
For the team I mentor, it’s inspiring to some extent. The team I graduated from is an inspiration to us. We just don’t have the resources they do. We had fun at the regional both teams attended. We were a little disappointed with how we did on the field, but that gives us something to improve on for next year.
I think the inspiration works on both teams; it works in different ways on different teams.
Not that they dont deserve to have that feeling of accomplishment, but three times in one year? each time taking that oportunity from an equally deserving team. If they think that them having that three times as oposed to as many deserving teams as possible having that accomplishment, then not to say I think its un GP, but I think its un GP.
My rookie year in FIRST was 1998, with Team 188. Our robot was not very good. A lot of hard work went into it, but it just wasn’t up to par with many of the other robots that year. That season there was one robot that was dominating everyone, Team 47. They had the first ever swerve drive in FIRST, and when the moved around that field, it was like poetry in motion. They won three regionals that year, being the first team to ever do so. How did this make me feel? Utterly and completely inspired. I wanted to be able to create something like that amazing Chief Delphi robot.
There are those who see dominance as discouraging. There are others who see it as inspiring. I fall into the latter camp. In every aspect of my life, I am inspired by those who excel. They give me a goal to strive for, and a model to embellish. Why be discouraged by the best, when you can learn from them, and try and become the best yourself. With some effort and enthusiasm, it really can happen.
i agree with Karthik. we can all aspire to be as good as the teams ahead of us, which in turn give us something to be inspired about. the teams that make your jaw drop are the teams that everyone wants to immulate, and everyone wants to be like. i do not believe that GP was intended to be “roll over whenever you get a regional win” because FIRST is indeed a competition. if you are going to pay the entry fee, you can fight as hard as you want to for the win.
To play devils advocate, if the other team were equally deserving, they would beat the 3 time winner. Being good does not mean that you should have to have less fun. What you’re saying is that if you bring a robot that doesn’t win to 3 regionals, that it’s fine, but if you bring a robot capable of winning, you should only go to 1 competition. Does that make sense in your mind? Because to me, it doesn’t compute to punish success by limiting their allowed participation… Or would you suggest that they intentionally not win? Please clarify whether you’re suggesting punishing talent or encouraging match throwing for teams who excel
What do you propose teams who have signed up to go to more than one regional and win their first one do? Throw matches so that they will lose? Not preform up to their ability, dragging all the teams that they are allied with down? Regionals are not won by one robot - they are won by an alliance of three. Are you proposing that if a team ends up in an elimination alliance in their second regional, having won their first, they should let the other two teams on their alliance down by intentionally losing matches, to let three other “deserving teams” as opposed to themselves and the two other robots on their alliance?
Maybe what’s going through their head when they win their second or third regional is “we’re so glad we helped these other two deserving teams on our alliance qualify for championships - we’re going to have so much fun there.”
Or, are you proposing that the team who won their first regional decline to participate in the other regionals they are signed up for, limiting their students to only one event, rather than the two or three they have paid for, have been excited for so that they can meet and work with new teams, and have been working towards all build season?
Maybe what’s going through their head when they win their second or third regional is “wow, we’re so glad that these students and sponsors and supporters who couldn’t come to our first regional got a chance to see us perform to the best of our ability.”
Somehow I don’t see how either of these are a better option than a team winning multiple regionals.
Even if I’m an individual who chooses to dislike a “dominating team at a third regional,” can I control the fact they are registered for the same event as my team attends? No, I can’t. Even if I wish it was against the rules for them to be there, is it? No, it’s not.
Can I control how I measure success with my team? Yes, I can. Should it all be about winning matches and events? No, not even close. Are you listening to your founders on this one? I hope so.
47, 1114, 1503, 1024 are model organizations. Multiple Chairman’s Awards and a slew of other accomplishments are represented there. The cool thing is they’re all rather generous and share quite a bit. So, in the end I don’t get the point at all. What is there to be upset about?