[jman4747]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.



You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.