[dodar]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

You dont want one "lesser" championship but there will always be one if there are 2. One will have worse robots, one will have worse RCA teams(thats not a slight to teams, just using "worse" to keep context), one will have worse fields, one will have worse amenities. Any system that has more than 1 championship, will have event disparity.