I'm personally a huge fan of Proposal B. I think that expanding the "Challenger Tier" would actually go a long way to addressing a lot of problems in the "Super Regional" model (especially the lengthened competition season).
Let's think in the future...
All of FRC plays with the District points system. As mentioned elsewhere, it'll need to be tweaked a bit to account for the difference between District and Regional play. But the spirit is there: teams earn points for performance at events, by winning matches, seeding high, and winning awards.
At the end of the season, we get two tiers of competition:
- Tier One (Champion) is the top 20% of FRC teams that year, plus Legacy and Hall of Fame. These teams compete at the traditional, 4-field Championship Event.
- Tier Two (Challenger) are all teams that are in the 21% to ~50% range. They advance to the "Super Regionals."
Super Regionals in this context would be localized events that are made up of ~200 teams. Two fields, two divisions, etc. They basically have the effect of District Championships, but Bigger.
Instead of adding Super Regionals as a step to qualify for the World Championships, they are the end goal. There are a couple good things about this, I think:
- Competition Season stays the same length. Students don't have to miss more school, mentors don't have to use up more vacation pay.
- Challenger teams gain local fame. Super Regionals will be played in local hubs that are accessible for teams in that "zone" to visit. Ideally, many FRC teams would visit their local Super Regional because they have easy access to a higher-quality event.
- Challenger teams will build local rivalries. More, local competition will increase the drive for mid-tier teams to do well at the regional level. Basically, look at what the NHL is doing with their playoffs: teams play through their division before making it to the conference finals before playing for the Stanley Cup. The model is making intense rivalries that are incredibly rewarding to watch, even during the regular season (see: Tampa smacking Montreal around during the season after being swept by them last year in the playoffs).
- It's hella sustainable. Under this model, 50% of FRC teams get to experience a "Championship" feel event. And because the events are Localized, you can always add more Super Regionals as needed. They would also actually cut down on travel costs (because, again, localized). And because the events are smaller, they should also be cheaper.
- It offers more teams the chance to compete, and not be blown out of the water by powerhouse teams. I know of at least one team this year that qualified for Champs but didn't go because they felt their robot was not good enough to make the experience worth it for the price they'd have to pay. Having an event that is actually at their competition level means that more teams can actually vie for a win without being "carried".
So how does his work with Detroit / Houston? FIRST can introduce the tiered-competition system at the same time as the Championsplit, and then roll out additional events almost immediately. Name one city (Say, Houston) as the World Championship, and then make Detroit a (larger) Super Regional (with teams from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, MAR, NE, etc). Roll out smaller but still decently sized events in the Midwest, the Southeast, and West Coast (Minneapolis, Orlando / Atlanta, someplace in Cali). As far as I know, the contracts just say that there will be events in Detroit / Houston, not that they the events would be the "World Championships." After these contracts expire, FIRST can shrink Detroit to regular Super Regional size.