Quote:
Originally Posted by dodar
Im curious as to why you think that? The thought process behind that, was that this formula for making it to Worlds would put all the burden on your team's ability to play the game and understand the alliance selection to allow you to play the game to the best of your ability.This would almost entirely erase the feeling teams will have about competing in the elimination with teams that arelady own a slot at Worlds. In this setup, every match you play alters not only your chance of making it but pretty much every other team in FIRST. This allows for each team to quantify each match to an even greater magnitude.
|
Because it's fun to have direct interaction with a team with whom you're competing. It's fun to have long-standing relationships with those teams as well; if we randomly select groups every year those will constantly shift.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, and neither of my "fun" reasons are terribly significant. I do wonder about the size of the groups; you're probably always going to end up with teams in your group at the same regional. So you could still be competing with teams that have already qualified, and now the competition is on two levels -- within the group, and for the blue banner at that event. Have you thought about those kind of interactions?
Remember, I said "...I'm not
sure I like...."
I'm putting an emphasis on uncertainty, and I'm interested in the idea.
How many groups do you think this needs?