Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)
I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)
So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".
|
Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.
Quote:
Longer-Term Changes
To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.
|
On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?
A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.
As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.
I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.
-Mike