[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Siri

Sure. Of course this is my own answer, not his, though I've already indicated my agreement. I second the statement under the definition that "elite" means teams who 'should' place (barring at-fault failures) in a specific range--for example the obvious division favorites. Certainly the entire division is not favorites. Altering the rankings (lack of matches*) to the point that these teams drop out changes a lot more than just their chances. In fact, it affects all "championship caliber" teams that come looking to perform their best with and against the best: from winners to wildcards to RCAs. It's not a competition if you can't actually compete.

As for how it changes the interpretation, it goes back to the waitlist debate. How inspiring is the waitlist? Is it really garbage to advocate inviting wildcards in place of waitlisters? Certainly there's a great deal of inspiration to be had there. What about expanding the district qualification model? None of these groups are inherently elite (e.g. 1640------->----->Daisy), but they are much more likely to result in a balanced competition fitting of what so many teams have put so much into making.


*"There were many Championship robots that simply were not Championship caliber, and this combined with the 8 matches-per-team format..."

Ok, having read your post I think this is a matter of talking past each other more than anything, and nothing other than a clarifying post from Jared will resolve it.

If he's advocating reducing the number of waitlist teams that are accepted for the sake of the competition's quality, I have no problem.

If he's advocating discriminatory selection based on perceived "caliber" among the teams who are to be accepted from the waitlist, then I have a big problem.

So, I propose we pause this here until we receive clarification. Sound reasonable?