Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN
I've been very intrigued by the discussions happening about changing the nature of the competition.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1506362
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=139390
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1506691
Threaded throughout these discussions are some interesting topics regarding team goals. Specifically it seems like some teams are almost playing a different game than others. This was most apparent to me during the discussion of "what it means to be competitive".
What if FIRST separated these teams into two distinct groups?
What if FIRST announced that they would allow teams to opt-in to a new "Champions League"?
In this new league, there would be no effort to make sure that lower performing teams had a positive experience. It would be 100% designed towards the highest levels of play. Every effort would be made to eliminate randomness, minimize luck. No emphasis would be placed on leveling the playing field.
" In FIRST, we're all winners... but not everyone can be a champion."
Assuming "all other things equal" (logistics, event availability, etc)... would you opt in?
Note: I'm not advocating for this scenario.
I'm presenting the question as a thought-exercise and to better understand where the community's collective head is at. |
What would a Champion's League team
not get? No kitbot in the kit? DNS blocking of the team resources page on
usfirst.org firstinspires.org? When so much of the drive at the top end of the program is from the mentors (with the sponsors backing them), the help you get from FIRST resources feels like it runs out about mid-pack.