[Tristan Lall]

I'm alright with it.

The dynamics change a little bit—particularly with regard to choice of events, because there's now a bigger schedule-based component to the likelihood that a particular team will win the award at a particular regional.

Also, it's not clear whether a team can officially declare itself out of contention for a particular event, despite having a valid submission. (Telling the judges "take us out of contention" would probably suffice unofficially.) For example, a team might want to maintain a streak of several awards in a row at an event where they're expected to dominate, but the only workable schedule forces them to attend a preceding regional. (I don't think this is a particularly good idea, but I could see a team wanting to do it anyway.)

There's also the issue of judges estimating a team's probability to win at an upcoming event, and factoring that into their deliberations—the team that has the least chance of winning elsewhere might get a slight boost. (If this is objectionable, FIRST could simply state that this isn't a permissible judging criterion. Alternatively, maybe this is an equitable thing to do, despite the fact that it dilutes the idea that the award is won and lost based on the presentations at each event.)