[jman4747]

I think it's a decent idea. I don't think the standards have some huge negative or positive effect on the competition other than aesthetically matching the "theme" witch is good.

The theme itself doesn't strike me as invasive really. It's more like adding a paint job to a car than changing out engine components. To me it really doesn't feel much different than just naming a game. Like how Aerial Assist has "aerial" referencing launching balls and "assist" referencing the assist/passing system.

2015: "recycle" = cans/litter
2013: "assent" = climbing pyramid
2012: "rebound" = basket ball hoops/ball
2011: "logo" = FIRST logo parts
2016: "stronghold" = something about game play just as it usually has

Thus I don't see how naming something and having a new cosmetic option for teams would detract from the game design. I'll bet any game could be framed to fit many different names and "themes" but ultimately the flow of the match, the difficulty level, and the spectators understanding are what will make it fun to watch or play. These things can be good or bad regardless of theme or name.

And to the cynics saying FIRST might compromise the game for the theme, what if they made a good game and found a theme to fit it instead of the other way around?