[Rachel Lim]

My first thought:
Whatever percentage of teams do well enough to deserve a spot at champs.

Since that's impossible to define:
Whatever percentage of teams are in the top 400 (or the number of teams at a single champs).

But that's not what first wants:
Whatever percentage of teams that allows every team to attend champs at least once every four years. 25% if no teams qualify every year, but significantly higher since they do.

What I'm hoping this will eventually become:
Whatever percentage of teams are in the top 400 (or the number of teams at a single champs) qualify for champs, and whatever percentage of teams that allows every team to attend super-DCMPs / super regionals at least once every four years qualify for that.

There is one winning alliance no matter what the size of the event is (besides divisions). Why doesn't FIRST pick the top percentage of teams and say they're winners? Because it stops being a competition--and a sport--if they do that. Setting a hard percentage of teams that deserve to win, or be at champs, or do anything else is dangerous not only because that number will change very often, but also because it doesn't mean much. Setting a hard number isn't ideal either, but it's by far the best of all objective values. And it pushes teams to be in the top XXX teams in their area (for districts) or in the winning alliance (for regionals), rather than saying being "good enough" to get into the 75th percentile deserves a spot at champs. And it allows for a single champs, so if you get in, you'll have earned a place to compete among the best in the world.