[Siri]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Not according to the graphic everyone's been bandying about:
http://i.imgur.com/oSNK90t.png
That shows Michigan funneling into a Super Regional. Along with a number of "District Event Candidate" regions. I'm pretty sure the whole idea was very much to funnel DCMPs into SRs into WCMP. Which makes a nice flow chart, but is definitely going to be stressful on the teams involved.

Hi Kevin,

I know what the 2011 graphic says. However, that is not only model under discussion here. The post I replied to was referring to the 4-tier plan as if it was the only one in this thread (or considered at all), and presented serious objections that have been discussed several times already. She opens with saying that she hasn't followed the discussion closely, so I was pointing out the previously discussed common alternative that addressed her objections. I may have misjudged the balance of opinions between the two models. This is an unknown, but if you think so, I apologize.

Thanks for the GRB info, as well. I feel better about the whole fields in the pits issue.

Originally Posted by jman4747

You see what giving a preliminary plan for handling the expansion of the program gets them? This thread. If they had announced way earlier that this was the first step in making FIRST able to handle so many teams prior they would have had backlash, and yet the more you think about it the more you realize something like this was probably necessary eventually. The adding of more and more tiers to the FRC event structure is not infinitely sustainable and something else has to be done. It's just that they went for the harder sell first.

I'm not sure why you're conflating any arbitrary "preliminary plan" with this particular announcement. Yes, FIRST has a sustainability and scalability problem. That does not necessitate this "hard sell" as you call it, and I don't understand why HQ would think a hard sell is wise based on history.

Asserting the inevitability of this thread in response to a legitimately transparent process is a serious claim to base on a single, non-transparent data point. It's a particularly serious one considering it's against precedent in the community, and no one's complaining sustainability isn't a challenge. Consider the 2011 vision. Backlash? Oh yeah. But nothing like this. Because it wasn't signed contracts with zero input. FIRST spent years at Worlds and in its online presence explaining goals, addressing concerns, being transparent about the process. Was it perfect? No. But was it this? Hah.

This announcement demonstrates a basic lack of willingness to engage that stands contrary to past successes. Consider again the unified Districts and District Point system discussion. Ongoing, for years. Responsive to issues like interdistrict play, slot distribution, consistency, on and on. Wild cards. Even in cases without direct results, HQ at least engaged the objections beforehand and explained themselves. When they didn't, they felt it. They're feeling it now. Look even at the previous bids for the Worlds city. This? I really don't understand your conflation of this with, well...anything. Anything good, at least. (See FVC/FTC)

Originally Posted by jman4747

If you really think the excitement of a regional or championships is actually diminished by this than you really do care more about being the sole victor over literally everything else. Why? because the rest is still there! I think they knew exactly how we would feel initially and personally I think that the idea that this is bad is wrong. And besides being the best 3 of 3000 isn't all that bad compared to best 6 of 3,600 or 4,000 anyway.

While I am not personally one of the people that's particularly upset about the two winning alliances aspect, the root change is not that there are two "sole victors" or 8 robots instead of 4. The central objection isn't that two is larger than one. The objection is that the process by which those two alliances develop is entirely different, and to some people, highly objectionable. I see their point.

Originally Posted by jman4747

And if you trust VEX just as much than why have you not saved the money and gone all in there? It's because the FRC challenge and community has it's own value that has been worth it along side vex, underwater, ftc, whatever. I'm arguing that A. this does not diminish any of that value and B. I'd rather the do expanded districts first before split championships but if they think this is a better first step than I can support that.

I would very much appreciate it if you ceased putting words in my mouth. I did not indicate that I trust VEX just as much as FRC--or not, for that matter. I said that my trust is FRC is diminished by tactics like this, and can diminish to the point where I prefer my loyalty to VEX (or anything) over that of FRC. It's not just about the substance of this change; part of the value of FIRST is the trust placed in it. I understand your argument that this move does not affect the value you see in FRC. I understood that the first time you said it. I would appreciate if you did not straw-man me simply because my definition of an organization's value and the derivative thereof differs from your own.

You trust HQ that this is the best move, and you can support it. Good on you, I honestly hope you get the value you want from it, and I suspect you will. I don't understand why this puts you in a position to say that I'm wrong simply because I do not.