I probably have a different perspective than those from a pure engineering background on this board. As a scientist and an FLL coach, I am impressed with the variety and ingenuity of the research/innovation put forth by FLL teams each year. The non-robot-building part of the competition is something that is only emphasized in FLL, and I don't think that most younger kids (3rd-5th grade) can reach their full potential -- or even have the proper skills -- to create a high-level project.
Because everyone on the team is forced to answer questions from the judges, I've had a group of six very shy 4th-6th graders who turned into outgoing 6th-8th graders by their 3rd year who were self-motivated and able to make presentations to and answer questions from any adults they met. I've had the good fortune to meet the kids and coaches of many top FLL teams from around the world the last two years, and they are a very well-rounded bunch.
I'd suggest reading some of the studies from Brandeis University about FLL and its impact, located on the FIRST Impacts page:
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/impact
I hope that the folks at FiM, who in many ways set the direction of FIRST programs, have done some serious research into what is best for the kids and can share those data with the coaches/parents of the middle school students who will be affected by this drastic deviation from FLL requirements in the rest of the world. If FiM is the organization implementing the change, then they are the ones who should be presenting data on why it is needed rather than making a top-down decision that is forced on everyone just to make it fit a certain age/program progression. It seems like a majority of folks on here hate when top-down decisions from FIRST HQ are pressed onto everyone with no input or consensus from the community, so I am not sure why this would be any different than that.
Travis