[EricH]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Eric -
There is a simple solution, make everyone go to the same number of events...

You're not going to force them to. You can only incentivize them to. If I have a team that can barely get the funding to go to one event, even if they've paid for two with registration, they're not going to go to a second one, period. (You can also insert "school clearance" for "funding".)

If teams can attend as many events as they desire, I would assume that the current rules regarding what districts count towards points would remain the same as in MAR and FiM, being the first two count.

Again, you have to deal with the fact that some teams cannot attend more than one event due to factors that may be beyond their control, like school policies or lack of funding coming through. Or even entirely unrelated factors. Long story short, you've got to figure out an equalizer. The best equalizer, of course, is for everyone to attend two events. But you've got to have two events they can actually attend first. (Second best might be to just double the points from the first event. But there are problems with that... and averaging... and last event... and highest event... and lowest event... You get the point.)

However I do not understand where the notion that there would be a rush for week one and the last week events comes from. How is this any different than under the regional structure? Do we see a rush to register for those events now?

It's human nature. Week 1 and Week 6 events are theoretically the "easiest", with Week 1 being the first time most teams have played the game and Week 6 combined with the withholding allowance giving teams time to react to perceived weaknesses. This effect would only be noticed if you had a single event counting for points. That's why you don't see any real rushes now (except in the crowded New England area--BAE GSR, traditionally Week 1, fills up very quickly).

Also, one of the benefits of going to the district model is more localized events. Travel is meant to be lessened and thus should not be a factor; The costs of going to the number of events required for points should be rolled into one lump sum rather than paying per event, this would eliminate the bigger budget advantage; also by adding a regional championship wouldn't there be an additional entrance fee to the teams, driving the cost to attend World's higher; and time is solved by the changing the schedule to a two day format as the district competitions are now.

See the UP teams before districts really started moving up north. If they'd been allowed to, they'd probably have opted out and gone to Wisconsin (and Duluth's opening would probably have been moved up a year or two). Also see "international team travel cost".

Yes, you could roll the required event numbers into one cost. Yes, you can change the schedule to a two-day format to save time. If you add a regional championship, or super regional--well, how much does it cost to attend MSC or MAR? IIRC, it's not as much as a traditional regional. It's the Championship cost that's the big factor, and the travel cost.

Ultimately the second tier leads to the same result as a regional does now, under the current rules of FiM...

That's the POINT, doggone it! While you're in transition to districts, and while you have the areas with vastly lower density than Michigan, you have to have places for teams who are isolated from district events for whatever reason to play and have a chance at qualifying in a one-shot attempt. South America--maybe half a dozen teams combined. The Pacific Ocean areas outside the U.S., two teams. Turkey, half a dozen. Europe, half a dozen. Where are those districts going to be?

When you apply the district system with two events to get points in, and fail to account for those teams having to travel to the U.S., compete, stay a minimum of one week (or go home and come back), compete again, and then have to go home and wait just to have a chance to go to the World Championship by points, then get their travel arrangements in a matter of a week or two, you fail to create a low-cost model for those teams. Don't ever forget to account for those teams showing up. You need to either get them local districts, or give them a one-shot chance to get there. The inclusion of teams who want to use the one-shot event as their area championship ticket, if those were to exist at the time, is to fill out the field to workable as an FRC event. Think of it as a wild-card event, if you will. You could even have it after the qualification cutoff and only open it to teams who aren't qualified yet.

Although, because you relate to what you know best, you might not have considered that. Michigan's been playing under districts for 4 years now--that means no international teams in all that time. Or even teams from Hawaii or Alaska. I've seen those teams occasionally comment on how long they have to wait for their kits, or how much they have to raise to come play.

Also this entire discussion is about the best way to win, it is not about any of the ideals of FIRST... the things that actually matter. I wonder how our ideas of the ideal system would change if they were the main things guiding this discussion. I shall have to re-evaluate the scenario from a different perspective now.

Let's see: Is it not gracious to give everyone the same shot at giving their best chance at making it to the next level of competition? Is it not professional to also try to lower their costs? This is not about the best way to win. It's the best way to have a reasonably fair qualification method to get to the Championships for teams unable to qualify under a point-based system due to lack of events. (If you want to discuss ideals of FIRST, I'd like to suggest looking at some threads from around the time FiM was released, commenting on this very theme and what effect FiM had on said ideals. I think we can agree that there was negligible effect in the long run, no?)


When you think about things from one perspective, you miss other things that can have a huge impact. In this case, I think you're missing the impact of the teams who would be excluded by travel time and cost combined from ever qualifying for the Championship due to lack of district events attended. Those teams need to have some way to qualify in one go. That's why I'm advocating a 2-tier system until somebody actually figures out a workable solution to single-event teams in a points-only system. Forcing teams to attend a second event to have a chance at the Championship isn't going to be any fun for anyone concerned.