[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by mwmac

A couple of comments:

1. One of the most striking issues I find is that no one has mentioned the problem of awarding Championship slots to districts based on their proportion of the FRC population in a post-Championsplit world. Using 2015 figures, and assuming them to remain constant for this discussion, Michigan (not picking on MI, just the easiest to make the point) teams comprised 10% of the FRC teams and sent roughly 60 teams to St. Louis. The same should hold true for 2016. However, beginning in 2017, Michigan's 250 teams will represent either 10% of the overall FRC teams or 20% of the corresponding Championsplit pool. Given that both Championsplit venues will host 400 FRC teams, will Michigan teams comprise 40 slots or 80? Clearly, something has to change with respect to the awarding of Championship slots on a proportional basis to district participants.

2. I have posted previously about the need for there to be a single set of consistent and fair qualification criteria for Championships. This post by BMSOTM looks like a potential solution, (assuming a return to W-L-T). The district point system has always served as a comprehensive way of separating wheat from chaff and advancing quality teams to Championships.



In the closing paragraph of his blog post, Frank states that he is "not closing the door on this forever. I'm willing to take a look at any specific proposal anyone has on this, or any other concern."

Glad to see Frank is keeping an open mind on this issue as I believe the application of a district scoring model to the FRC population as a whole is a potential solution rather than a complicating factor. In 2015, we implemented average scores. Could apply the same methodology to account for teams attending 1 or more events with the top 400 teams advancing to their corresponding Championsplit venue. On the minus side, teams near the cut-off point face uncertainty in the closing weeks of the season but how does that differ from the current system used by districts?

Such a change would not necessarily address under-representation of geographic areas at Championships but would level the playing field to the greatest extent possible.

Michigan has 350, not 250.