Quote:
Originally Posted by JB987
Can't wait to move our pit a mile away to arena where Einstein/closing ceremony would take place with this proposal  On another note regarding a two tiered system...FIRST has already indicated one of the motivations for the changes is to insure a large +/- 25% can benefit from the inspiration and experience of attending a Championship. Many posting in this thread have indicated much of that inspiration comes from "top tier/elite/whatever you want to call successful teams". Wouldn't a two tier system ensure that half of teams every year going to a "Championship" won't get the desired exposure to any of the top teams? As it now stands, teams at each event would at least interact with half of the top teams in a given year's competition.
Don and company (at the town hall) have indicated they are looking into ways for teams to cross geographic assignments and even mentioned they would consider ways to have champs from each event compete for a true world champion. Why open another can of worms with complex tiered systems when a simple compromise that results in a true champion could be facilitated? |
The issue isn't not having a 'true champion', it's not having an event with all of FRC in one place. A two-tier system (which does not have to be complex*) allows for a championship event to continue as it is in the present, but also expands post-season play for more teams (which is HQ's goal).
As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that a system like isn't unprecedented. Off of the top of my head both College Football and European soccer have similar systems with the post-season broken up into tiers. In soccer the 'Europa League' is a tournament for teams who didn't reach the 'Champions League'. In college football only the top 4 teams can win the National Championship, but other successful teams still get bowl games to cap off their season.
I really like this two-tier system. It seems to check most boxes.
It has one championship for all of FRC.
It sends more teams to big post-season events.
It reduces travel costs.**
It avoids having a silly event over the summer to determine the world champ.
It collects more registration fees.
And it's completely scaleable.
*A simple solution like top X from each district go to champs, next Y go to nearest 'challenger' event would work. For regional teams something like all chairman teams and RAS/EI/Winners who seeded in the top ~40% of their event go to champs.
**More 'challenger' events can be added over time. Teams could qualify for their nearest one. For example, one could be added to the west coast.