Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Not specifically aimed at you, but you happened to be handy.
For all those who voted 5, would you care to share "undecided (at this time)", "withholding judgement", or "don't care" status at the time of the survey, and have you changed your response at this point?
|
While more information and opinions have been made available over the past month, the unresolved possibility of bringing the two championship alliances together means that I would probably still answer that question the same way at this point in time. But, as I stated upthread, I would hope that that exact same question isn't asked again, because of its ambiguity. Do you favor one championship if it means that there eventually won't be room for the CA, EI, and RAS teams? Do you favor two championships if nothing is done to bring the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion?
I would "strongly agree" that the current one championship model is unsustainable over the long term. But that doesn't mean that I "strongly favor" two championships. I'd jump off the fence for a single championship if the "championship experience" could be replicated one qualifying step below (i.e. at district championships or super-regional type events). But I would be just as supportive of two championships if there was a viable way of bringing the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion. (BTW I don't think the costs of such an event are insurmountable...aside from possible financial sponsorships, raising the entry fee for the 800 teams at the two championships by just 2% would raise $80k that could cover/defray additional travel and event expenses).