Quote:
Originally Posted by northstardon
4) Inspiration - The "A" Championship would probably contain most all of the "elite" or "inspirational" teams that other teams want to see/compete against/be inspired by. If that's the most important aspect of a "championship experience" for a team, then how enthusiastic are they going to be about settling for second best (but paying just as much)? I'm going to guess that the "elites" and a lot of the "almost-elite" teams that just miss qualifying for an "A" championship will decline the invitation to "B," and save their money in the hope of qualifying for the top tier next year. Which would mean that there would be an even bigger competitive gap between the two events, and even less "inspiration" at the B event.
|
Here's the pinch: the Championsplit will make sure that there isn't an event with every elite team. The two-tiered system makes sure that there is an event that does have every elite team. Furthermore, it makes reaching said event a meaningful accomplishment that's worth celebrating.
Also, under my two-tier proposal, the tier-one Championship is still 400 teams. There will be plenty of "in flux" spots present every year.
Even today's Championship model doesn't guarantee that Champs will have all of the very best teams. I've addressed this point when I blocked out the three types of teams that would be at these tier-two events, and how such an event would be inspiring to them. In every case, all the teams at the tier-two events would be engaging in meaningful, higher-quality competition that is better suited to their level (ie no "Blowouts" from the powerhouses). Every team would have a legitimate chance at winning the event.
These tier-two events give the "almost elite" teams the opportunity to be a bonafide elite team, for the duration of an event. And those "elite" teams that have all the bad luck in the world and end up at the Super Regionals? From my first-hand experience, they're going to be disappointed, sure, but also fired up to prove that they deserved to be at the tier-one event by winning their tier-two event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstardon
Isn't there some conflict between a tiered model that relegates CA winners to the lower tier event and the fact that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award that a FRC team can win? If regional/district CA winners with "semi-decent" robots qualify for Tier 1, and the other CA winners are in Tier 2, then how would you go about determining a CCA? Would there still be HOF teams?
|
Yes, it's a bit of a conflict. I acknowledged this in the part you quoted. One possible solution is what they do in Michigan (and in other districts? I'm not sure) where the winners of each Super-Regional's Chairman's Award is invited to present at the Championship event. That is, their robot does not compete, but the team still competes for the Championship Chairman's Award. This way you would get the best Chairman's team recognized at the tier-one Championship, and you would also maintain the high competitive playing field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knufire
I think he's saying that a Chairman's award AND a semi-decent robot should be necessary, but a Chairman's Award alone shouldn't be enough. However, I'd guess the Chairman-winning teams with a bottom tier robot are few and far in between; the type of program that earns a Chairman's Award correlates strongly to the type of program that will put out a quality machine.
|
This exactly. Again, I want to point out that, going back 10 years to 2005, the only Hall of Fame team that would not regularly qualify for the Tier One event under the model I put forward would have been 597, this year's winner. And they would have automatically qualified this year because of EI + Chairman's, and probably made it last year with an EI and a Semi-Final appearance in New York.