Quote:
Originally Posted by JB987
Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?
|
I'm saying that the two-tier champs format is an improvement over the current situation (one champs). That's why I related the tiered system to the status quo. I recognize that this subsection of teams
may be better served in a championsplit format, I'm just not sure if it's worth the cost of removing a single unifying championship.
Let's look at how things will scale in the future. Under the championsplit model more and more "Championships" will be added over time. What's now an event that has all the good teams would eventually be reduced to having a quarter or less of all the good teams. Students who see a cool robot on a webcast will probably never be able to see that robot in person, no matter how hard they work to reach the highest level of competition.
Meanwhile, in the tiered system a single Championship remains. Student's hard work is rewarded with seeing
all of the best robots. Additionally, the goal of reaching this event will inspire many students. Meanwhile, many other 'challenger' events give other teams a goal to reach and a reward for a successful season. Teams that haven't been in the global spotlight will be able to show their talents in a large-scaled event. Many 'challanger' events can be easily added without worrying about diluting the championship (unlike in the championsplit model). So under the tiered system, we may be able to send
more teams to a large-scaled event than in the championsplit system.