[Siri]

I have a problem with the argument that ties inspiring more teams to the current and very specific Champion competitiveness situation. Claiming this as a necessary sacrifice for broader inspiration actively implies that more-competitive teams who do not qualify are actually less deserving of Champs inspiration than the less-competitive teams that do.

This isn't necessarily an argument for a powerhouse Champs (or a particular division/bracket style). It's directly about the many teams we all know in that operable-but-improvable realm who could benefit massively for years from just one Champs experience. It doesn't take much to lift them, and it doesn't take much to raise current Champs' lost-bumper competitiveness. I'm not claiming that these above-par (or any) teams are more deserving of inspiration than others, but they are certainly not less. At worst, switching should have no net effect; at best we argue that fewer lost wheels at Champs is better for everyone's inspiration quotient.

The qualification system is not perfect, and we all know that. It's iterated pretty regularly. And even in a perfect system, it's likely FiM DChamps would outperform many Divisions. But dismissing all desires to raise attendee competitiveness as inherently detrimental to inspiration is a disservice to the many above-par teams who would benefit hugely from a Champs attendance.