Quote:
Originally Posted by BrennanB
Not that I necessarily fall into this category, I feel this is a pretty poor argument.
There is a very big difference between 3-4 teams working on the same alliance to achieve the same goal while getting to know each other, and two 3-4 alliances of teams operated by hundreds of miles which have nothing to do with each other and never actually interact during the season... Ever.
|
There is a very big difference between a single team beating all of the others in a double elimination tournament and 3-4 teams being crowned simultaneous champions after competing in a subset of a competition than is a subset of all the teams in the world. Yes, two championship events moves us further away from a "true champion," but we've already been very far away from a "true champion" for a long time. We already have multiple winners each year. Those alliances already form from a subset of teams.
You won't find any disagreement from me in terms of thinking the region locking is a negative asset. But I don't think it particularly impacts how legitimate our champions are. Especially given that FIRST is considering some amount of flexibility between the two regions.
Further still, did you skip over the information posted by Scott Meredith than FIRST is considering a post-season event where the two champions face one another?