Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad
I think that mid-level teams would have a stronger incentive--my observation is that they were the ones most hurt by weak alliance members, that they were most likely to suffer from the loss of the third 20 point assist. The better teams could simply ramp up their cycle times in most qualifying matches to pull it out, and usually were more adaptive to game tactics.
I also think by making an announcement, this makes the incentive and the expected action by these teams more explicit. Up to now those mid level teams could quietly sit in their bubbles and not be too worried about the consequences. In the new world, FIRST would be saying that your past inaction will now have consequences.
In addition, the better teams might be more likely to set up regional efforts that spill over to the mid-level teams and raises everyone's game as a result.
As it is now, there are no real incentives for preseason cooperation other than Chairman's or EI. Sorry, but relying solely on voluntary actions to achieve an organizational goal is almost always a fruitless path (and there's much in the economics literature to back this up.)
|
Is the incentive of over all better play at regionals not incentive enough for teams to help the teams around them? There are plenty of incentives already, I don't think telling teams in September that the game is going to require cooperation is really going to increase that incentive, not knowing how the game is going to be cooperative hinders the help you can provide. Nobody wants to waste the resources to help a team develop a drivetrain just to find out that the drivetrain is useless come build season because of some obstacle that the game involves.