Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1468193)

I'm really surprised the FIRST apologists aren't out in force on this one.

Or are even they disillusioned by this?

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1468199)

They may be at events since you know, they made this announcement on day 1 of three of the five biggest non-CMP events on the FRC Calendar.

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1468195)

Pretty simple... I'm sure FIRST profited from Champs last year, at 400 teams. Run a second version of Champs and you're profiting a second time.

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri (Post 1468177)

So....

Inaugural Vex Pro Competition in 2017?!?

Originally Posted by ehochstein (Post 1468208)

Because a non-profit, profits? Any money that goes into FIRST only benefits FIRST teams and makes the program better. I don't see any issue with FIRST getting more money, they are very transparent in what it is used for.

Originally Posted by ehochstein (Post 1468208)

they are very transparent in what it is used for.

Originally Posted by bigbeezy (Post 1468207)

Those that were in Houston in 2003, everything I had heard was it was awful. I wasn't there. Has the area changed much in the past 12 years?

Originally Posted by mman1506 (Post 1468206)

By time we've booked a coach bus, hotel room and insurance the cost difference between going to St.Louis and Detroit isn't huge. Rather than spending resources on creating a 2nd champs FIRST should put those resources into lowering the cost of competing with programs like districts. Would teams really rather go to one event and "half champs" than 3 events and full champs?

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve (Post 1468197)

Some things to think about.

1. An event can get too big for any one city to support, hotel-wise.

2. Recruiting enough volunteers for our style of event in one city can be an issue. I know I've been hit up several times to sign up to volunteer at champs.

3. Having >1 champs is consistent with FIRST's mission around reach

4. This could be a first step toward a multi-tier playoff model leading back to a single championship in the future.

5. There's nothing about this that can't be changed back to a single event in 2021. At that point, though, you'll have teams used to 1000ish slots for Champs and complaints that it reduces access.

6. Having 2 events does increase the number of teams within driving distance, particularly the DET event. The west coast would not be a logical second location, if you are using driving distance as your metric. If the model is successful, I'd expect a championship in California to follow. Houston is a curious choice for the second location if you use transportation costs as a metric; I'm wondering whether there were facility availability reasons for that, as 2017 not very far away in the world of venue scheduling.

7. I could see 1,000 spots for champs in 2017 (600 in STL and 400 in DET)

8. I'm glad that they're willing to try something new, even if in the end it turns out to be less successful than expected.