9LONG post ahead, but I have something to say)
My personal opinion, based on current information: (
sarcasm in italics)
Yup. That's what came to mind, for those who won.
Yeah, you won. Won what?
Doesn't matter, you won. Good Job This trophy feels cheap and looks familiar (sees a bunch of other teams with similar trophies)...
Doesn't matter, you won
The way I see it is that FIRST seems to be looking to lower the bar rather than raise the floor. Champs is a big fun party... but it's champs. Where the best of the best are recolonized and more importantly, the model teams for others to emulate, follow, and gain inspiration from.
Sure, good teams will still be good teams either way, but awards are about giving credit where credit is due. It's the reason why when one wins, they are the ones that get the winner's trophy. This is why I think splitting champs w/o some sort of a true final is a HUGE mistake. Sure, there will always be IRI, but IRI isn't meant to be such and making it such (even defacto) would make it something other than IRI.
Some other issues I see (which have been mentioned before):
-southeastern teams and the west coast get the wrong end of the stick, travel is a lose-lose for them. No improvement, but given the relative size of such, one can't claim "improved travel" and still have a straight face without an asterisk.
-Due to a potential competitive level difference between locked regions, one would in time become a step-sibling to the other. This would be bad news for a lot of teams, as it would turn into what NASCAR has with the sprint cup (the elites, mostly) and the Xfinity series (less than elites with a bunch of elites who "steal" wins half the time). While this comparisons seems a bit odd, hear me out; The drivers who "steal" the Xfinity wins would be the elite teams forced into the lesser championship, where they would presumably win a disproportionate amount of the time, leading to such sentiment. The difference being that NASCAR knows well that one is the elite league and one is the lackey league, and that said drivers actively choose to race in the lower league (in addition to Sprint).
---------
Since I want this post to be ultimately constructive, Here's my personal advice for what to do (idealy in some ways):
-Recognize that in order to be a sport in the sense that other HS sports are seen and understood, there has to be a true championship attitude at all events (in that there will be true winners), and structure events to reflect that. Even if there is NO world championship (highest level is region), at least recognize those who excel (and not just say "you'all win, come back next time")
-Move as many areas as possible to districts, with district championships
-(sorta unrelated) make invitation to championship merit based, not quota or waitlist based. Even the current notion of "you have 1/60 of all teams so you shall send 10 teams out of 600 attending" feels and from what I've personally seen in IN, is another place where the flawed logic of "everybody wins" in that invitation to championship is treated as given not earned. (I still think wild cards, HOF, past champions and legacies should get in, they did earn it as none are cakewalks to perform).
-If championship needs to be capped at 400 or 600, so be it. Make the lower events (DSC's) better and greater in quantity, and make championship something that is worth working for and earning.
Finally, I'll give an example that could have merit to follow: Toastmasters International (My dad is very involved with them). They have a large number of clubs (analogous to teams in FRC), and use a tiered system in the following taxonomy (used for the international speech contest each year) : area, division, district, region (former, retired), and world conference. Present FRC districts are about the size (kinda smaller actually) of districts in TI... they used to have a region level that would say be 1/2 or 1/3 of the US (going off memory) which was since rolled up into an expanded world conference. In this case, since most attending are individuals, not whole clubs, the roll up made sense... but before, the region level did work and was sustainable.
On a side not, they also have redistricted clubs where they use a different system to compete (taped speeches) due to the long distances between said clubs (they're typically in remote locations).
Another similarity: they're about improving peoples leadership and public speaking skills, not just winning contests. However, clubs generally do give out awards each meeting for best speaker and best table topics (impromptu speaking), of which about 3 members will perform each meeting. This competitive yet supportive atmosphere is in many ways similar to what FIRST is like to me.
The point here is that there are systems that do work, and allow for a competitive yet supportive organization, and do not require axing one to gain the other.