Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lame
There's an awful lot of analysis going on. That makes sense because so many of us are engineers. We love to crunch numbers. A lot of that effort is wasted, though. ... Why is the leadership pretending that somehow the survey results are neutral or only slightly negative?
|
I think you've answered your own point here. A lot of the analysis that's happening now isn't because we think the data is so useful, it's to highlight the misleading nature of the results. This statement from the blog: "The average answer to this questions [sic] among all respondents was 4.45, somewhat below the 5 "Neither Oppose nor Favor" rating" is an insult to my intelligence as an engineer, and to your point seems to be the crux of that 'only sightly negative' spin that the leadership is putting on these results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lame
The other thing that leaps out to me, mostly from the discussions, is....districts. Everyone ought to be doing them. Everywhere. I'm new here, but I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't.
I have to do a bit of interpretation of the numbers in order to reach this conclusion, but I think that those people who like the split may very well like it simply because it gives them another accessible, and significant, competition. A district championship would serve that purpose, much like it does in Michigan.
|
Absolutely. This is the District Events --> Super Regionals --> Worlds argument that's been made for years (plus or minus the debate over another level of competition). Championsplit is basically that as a top-down attempt, wherein it limits the number of teams (to only 800) that can get an Large-but-less-than-Worlds Tier experience and also the number of teams (to zero) that can experience a Worlds event. They haven't fixed the core progression or scalability problem. However, standing up a District is unfortunately no small task and takes a certain density of teams and grassroots initiative among other things. There are huge discussions on CD and elsewhere about how to make it work in places that haven't yet--the devil's in the details.