Quote:
Originally posted by Jnadke
Though, they did leave a few questions behind them. Namely, what tier would teams that have never attended a championship fall in? Would a new rookie team fall in the same tier as a 3-year-old team that never went? I don't think this is right. They should add a clause that your tier is based on your number of active years if you have never attended a championship event.
|
I agree. If you were a new team last year or this year, you didn't get a "free chance" to go. I think that the even teams from last year and the rookies from year should be moved into the first or second tier. Obviously my opinion is biased, but I think it's sort of strange to give these teams who have had 5+ years to go (and apparently for whatever the reason haven't...) more priority.
I went to nat's my first year in FIRST with team 442. We didn't earn our way, but we did get there by the even/odd rule. I thought that was the most amazing experience being my first year in the competition. It made me thirst for it. I wanted to go back the next year. Badly. More than you will ever imagine. I think if we gave the rookie teams who could afford it this same opprotunity, then it would make them work harder in the following years to earn their way to nat's.
Think if you were a new rookie team who had a hard time convincing your school to start and join a team. Perhaps you do badly at a regional and that's the end of things. Even though I don't feel that the competition is the main focus of FIRST, many people do. I'm sure a lot of team members wouldn't return the following year because they were discouraged or for whatever the reason just decide not to re-join.
This may even turn out to be a non-issue. Many of these teams will qualify by winning awards and the like, but who knows?