View Full Version : Looking back at the Nats qualifying rules...

04-09-2002, 01:13 PM
What do people think?

I believe that FIRST should continue to scale back the importance of nationals. At first I was very disappointed my team was unable to register for nats. However, we then earned our way to nationals. Since we did well, it was much easier to get money out of our sponsor and the school district to attend nationals. This "qualification" to go to nationals is actually creating some stir and excitement in the local media.

I like the current nats qualification process, but I do not like the odd/even alternation thing. Letting half of the teams register because they are odd/even (and not at all on their performance) seems wrong. I think all teams should have to qualify, or none at all. It does not seem right that we earned our way, but have to compete mostly against teams that have not. I think it would be great to have a small, much cheaper nationals where only about 5 teams from each regional get to attend... A true championship event. Most teams would not qualify but it would give teams something to strive for each and every year.

04-09-2002, 01:15 PM
i thinck that the rules are ok but it dosent along the rookie teams to go and get more playing time.

04-09-2002, 01:28 PM
I orginally posted this in the "a little bitter" thread.

How about:

(8)The top 8 seeds from each regional qualify
(4) All finalists & winners of each regional (6 teams - 2 top seeds)
(1) Chairmans award winners
(1) Higest Rookie Seed (possible top 8)
(2) Rookie of the year 2 (possible top 8)
17 regionals
total 272

This is close to the number & it eliminates human error. This puts a little less focus on winning & a little more on doing well. If you feel like it throw in the other judged awards because there will be some overlap from regional to regional, & some overlap in award winners.

04-09-2002, 01:29 PM
I disagree with the all go or only qualifications.
I would like to see all teams go. But making it only the teams that do well would, in my opinion, make the pressure to win that much more. I enjoy FIRST, it really dosn't matter if we win. Don't get me wrong, I would like to win and think it would be really cool to do so, but if we don't, I still had a really good time.
Also something to consider: a smaller national might not be cheaper. Higher densitys of people allow cost to be spread out over more people and teams, lowering the cost per team. Someone could go and figure out the optimum number of teams economically. Supply and demand curves...something I learned in school is useful!
I don't like the even/odd, but I also see that managing and running and space for nats were becoming problems with the size we were reaching. I think the even/odd is as good a limiter as any.
By allowing teams to qualify to go you get the good teams as well, so the finals at nats really are a national championship.

Kris Verdeyen
04-09-2002, 03:12 PM
Wetzel's usually right.

This time is no exception.

Every team should be afforded the opportunity to go. If that can't happen every year, then every student should be afforded the opportunity to go, at least once during his time with FIRST. If a specific student can't attend because his team didn't qualify during his only year in the program, them's the breaks, but, IMHO, the more, the merrier.