![]() |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
|
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
Again, I'm not arguing for fixed divisions, there's no need to since teams will still be attending districts, regionals, etc with all teams. Splitting champs into performance tiers would be simple to do on a yearly basis. Quote:
I have no problem with difficult travel to Champs, you go there to meet up with the best of the best. I'm less inspired by difficult travel to an event that might be less competitive than a District Championship, and only getting to see half of the best teams. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
|
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
|
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
|
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
However proposal C will be a tough sell. Relegation is always a somber affair. I prefer teams that have a break out year can carry to their success to the very top of that very year. proposal C would make more sense if we had 10 times the number of current FRC teams. I like B a lot better. Plus district points is a system our teams are more familiar with. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
As for teams in the East, Detroit is still 12 hours from Washington and further from NYC and Boston (I went to Michigan). At that driving distance teams are more likely to fly, in which case distance doesn't really matter any more and air fares are driven as much by traffic volume as distance, particularly after a certain point. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
Note that the event really can only be held where there is a covered stadium with an adjacent convention center. I think there's about a half dozen in North America: St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Las Vegas might have the convention center space to stage it. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
As for moving to Super Regionals, I have no idea of how FIRST's proposed model moves that way if there is no single championship. Instead I see a proliferation of regional championships that starts looking like pre 1998 NCAA football. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
Or would you be completely and thoroughly "annoyed" (to put it mildly--there are other terms that could be put in the quotes and be more accurate)? Annoyance and inspiration don't usually go hand-in-hand, mind you. Matter of fact, I would probably suspect a host of rather annoyed folks not bothering to stick around for future years, or writing nasty letters, or writing nasty internet posts. You get the picture. I disagree on the whole premise of erratic performance seeing the demise of a team. I've got a number of counter-examples that I can think of fairly quickly of erratic or semi-erratic performance that have been doing this for a long time--some of them longer than your team. And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
The bulk of inspiration comes from teams, which trickles down from their mentors. The magic is ALL in the mentors. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
If 2015 was the base for Premier/Challenger Divisions in FIRST, and Team A won 2 events while Team B was dead last at 2 events, Team A would go to Premier and Team B would go to Challenger. But, if in 2016 Team A was dead last at both events, and Team B won both events, 2015 would have no bearing on 2017. Based upon 2016, Team A would be in Challenger and Team B would be in Premier. |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
So let me get this straight: You're adding complexity to an already complex system? (BTW, I don't think 2017 even factors in here, I'm going to assume that you're pointing at 2016 with that statement. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but then I'm going to have to dose you with Occam's Razor.) Just to make sure I understand, or not: So, at the start of 2016, Team A is in Premier and Team B is in Challenger based on 2015 event results. For the 2016 Championships, Team B ends up in Premier, based on their 2016 results, and Team A ends up where based off of which year's results? |
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
But that said, I'm hearing enough reservations about system C that it may not be workable--it was just one of my 3 ideas. And I think there's probably even better systems out there. As for the Super Regionals, I'm not seeing the path back to a convergence to a single championship once they move to a dual championship. Why would one of them fade away unless that one was already subservient in some fashion to the other? I think instead, as with the fight to form the BCS, interests would form to preserve the two championship mode. And like the proliferation of football bowl games in the 70s and 80s, we might see even further diffusion, not consolidation. Isn't that one of the laws of thermodynamics. (And thanks for adding to the list of indoor stadiums.) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:12. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi