Quote:
Originally Posted by asid61
I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.
|
That's why you make more "loser's champs," (which is an awful way to look at it) and make them local, to foster regional rivalries and regional fame. Teams that consistently get to the Challenger Championships will grow plenty of relationships with more local teams. And if the "powerhouses" are at the premier champs, then the Challengers can actually win and compete against teams of their own skill level. Basically, learn during regionals, and grow at the super regionals.
Super Regionals as a "Challenger Championship" model, as opposed to a "qualify for champs" model, does the same thing for mid-low tier teams that the current Championship event does now. Mid-tier teams can "prove" that they belong in the Premier Championship by winning the event. Low-tier teams get the inspiration of advancing to a performance-based event based on their actual successes they had in the season.
Will there be bitterness when teams that usually make it to the Premier Championship don't qualify and go to the Challenger? Yes, but there are plenty of teams every year that deserve to be at Champs with great robots, but don't make it in. In my opinion, having the chance at redemption, at winning an event that says "see? We could have competed at the Premier Championship", is a lot better than not competing at all.
Again, why are we looking at this as a "Two Championship" problem? FIRST signed a bunch of contracts, why can't they sign more? Turn one of Houston / Detroit into a Super Regional, and add in MORE Super Regionals (that are smaller, say, 200 teams) in regional Hubs.