I really like system B (and not just because then I'd have a good excuse to write another paper explaining the district point system to my team). I'm still going to keep hoping that in 2021 there will be enough districts that DCMPs / super DCMPs can filter into a single championship, partly because I think champs would seem more "real" (no one can argue that XXXX team should have been in the other one), and partly so that everyone will get to see at least their local-ish powerhouse teams.
That said, I don't think it will be accepted without any arguments. Here are some of the issues I think will come up:
Goals:
- FIRST: they don't seem to think a single championship/winner is a priority. If they don't, and continue not to, how much will they be willing to work with a system that will be causing them more work?
- "Average" teams: the teams typically un-/under-represented on CD, that FIRST seems to be aiming this structure at, but that we can't really tell what they think. Without knowing what percentage of teams are for/against this structure, it's impossible to tell--and since once again the more vocal group (minority?) is the group more likely to respond to surveys, getting accurate data probably won't happen.
Philosophy on winning:
- I've heard two different philosophies, both in FIRST and in general. Either:
- If everyone is a "winner," no one is truly a winner. It just cheapens winning.
- It removes the incentive to be best, the push to be best, and the inspiration in seeing (or being) the best.
Or:
- If everyone is "winner," everyone is happy. (Or maybe not "everyone" but a larger portion of teams)
- It creates a sense of accomplishment, a desire to keep going, and the inspiration in knowing that you can--and did--do something right.
- I think the majority of people on CD, which is generally mentors on at least fairly famous teams, fall into the first category. I understand that--I'd put myself in there too. But I do see why FIRST could think the second inspires more students. I do know students (and adults) who think that way.
- Would FIRST see splitting champs based on performance as falling too far into the first category? What balance are they trying to strike?
Location:
- From what I could tell from the recording/transcript of the meeting, FIRST does think they'll be saving travel costs for a significant number of teams.
- Telling a Michigan team to go to Houston, or a Texas team to go to Detroit, because they qualified for the "other" champs definitely doesn't fit in.
- Obviously this won't matter a ton for California / west coast teams--it's a full day of nonstop driving just to get into Arizona from the bay area (and it's not a very interesting drive)--but some other teams will not be as happy.
But XXXX shouldn't be there...
- There will undoubtedly be complains about who got into which one. There are already complains about the teams who have/haven't qualified for champs.
- Even with the best intentions, this could define a "second-tier" of teams, and someone at some point will be pointed out as "not deserving" their spot.
Then there's the whole issue issue that they may not truly understand what it's like to be on a FIRST team, despite their best intentions, as I said somewhere else with my analogy about my parents not letting me go to the lab. I think we all want what's best for as many teams as possible. FIRST HQ and CD just disagree about the best way to accomplish this, and based on the recording of the town hall meeting, it doesn't sound like either side is truly willing to listen--at least not yet. I'll continue to be optimistic and hope for the best.