Quote:
Originally Posted by jman4747
I'll give you all the all but the "one champion" and "diluted event" arguments. Those usually come off as selfish more so than emotional.
I think everyone who subscribes to those arguments should have to in person ask every wait list and rookie all star team at 2016 champs to leave and see what happens. Whenever you say those things you are personally insulting someone and you can't use a blanket statement to brush that away from you. Cutting the attendance of wait list and RAS teams is a very easy and practical way to open up space but then it isn't very emotionally satisfying to us is it? If you want to raise the "bottom" telling them they aren't good enough to go to the "real" championship is just going to make the "bottom" resent you. It is for this reason I find a lot of the "nay" arguments to be hypocritical at best.
Also if you believe FIRST is removing your ability to be the only winner and that makes you quit than you literally just quit because you can't be the only winner.
|
I've seen some arguments I would agree are selfish, and others that could appear selfish because they aren't worded well.
Most of the "one championship" variants, though, don't seem very selfish to me. Most of the people who are really wrapped up in "one championship" are people who understand that they are highly unlikely to ever be part of a championship alliance. They don't want "one championship" for themselves.
There is a powerful emotional tug to the phrase "world champion". The very existence of a world championship feels very significant. When explaining First to other people, I drop that phrase a lot because I know that when I tell them that there is a world championship, their opinion of First goes up a notch. We are a significant enough activity to bring teams together from all over the world. When my team competes in a district match, the fact that we could go on to the world championships is a motivator. The fact that we can watch the people we compete against at the world championship, and that some of them might appear on Einstein Field, and maybe bring home the blue banners, is significant.
Some of you right now are thinking some variation of "that doesn't make any sense", and are tempted to explain why, really, there is no practical difference between what we do now, and what we will do when there are two championships. You are thinking rationally. It doesn't work. As long as you do that, you won't understand the force behind the opposition to the split.
On a closely related note, although the relationship might not be obvious, the First leadership really needs to understand that the "championship experience" doesn't end at the stadium door. They really proved that they didn't get that this year.
Actually coming up with a plan is still not obvious. The "emotional" side also must understand the practical realities. First leadership is absolutely right that the system that exists now does not scale, and would break as more teams are added. They really did have to do something, and no matter what they did, something would change and someone would be unhappy about it. I'm not going to say that they made the wrong decision. I will say that they don't appear to understand why people are unhappy with the decision. That makes it difficult for them to communicate, and if they never get it, they won't be able to take steps that might give back at least some of what has been taken away.