View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-09-2012, 17:28
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
no team (Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,594
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: **FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadline

I like the idea, but I don't like the execution much either. First, I agree with IndySam that it has a very weird element of luck to it. (There's always luck, but be-at-this-event luck seems to push it to me.) It also seems to be rather arbitrarily limited: why doesn't it include other pre-qualified teams? What about double qualifiers from the same event: winner winning Chairman's? Or if one of the culture winners qualifies earlier? Someone gets a shot if I (haha) win Chairman's and then an event but not an event and then a Chairman's?

What might be the downsides to taking all/most/some of the double-qual slots and turning them into 1+ at-large wildcard/merit-ranked/lottery bids? Still less room for buy-ins,* but at least it avoids some of the win vs qualify and early vs late event issues.


*I still feel like there must be a better way to do the buy-in thing. Ok, maybe there's a case for the inspiration it can lend to less-winning teams, but shouldn't everyone have to do something? Write an persuasive essay, give a presentation, volunteer/liaison...something? Everyone's got something more than just a fast finger to offer. <<Crazy talk.
__________________
Reply With Quote