View Single Post
  #137   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-10-2003, 01:04
Jeremy_Mc's Avatar
Jeremy_Mc Jeremy_Mc is offline
GitHubber
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 496
Jeremy_Mc will become famous soon enoughJeremy_Mc will become famous soon enough
Re: wow - lots of interesting discussion

Quote:
Originally posted by Jason Morrella

# 7 - there seems to be an illusion that "even" teams lost their "guaranteed" chance to register this year. Many have pointed out the numbers, that when you take out the 5-point teams and the 6 qualifiers per regional there are probably only around 80 spots left to "open" registration. This means that only 80 "even" teams out of four to five hundred could have open registered this year. So if you're an even team, remember - you had a MUCH better chance of NOT getting in than you did of getting in. They just decided to give teams who haven’t got to attend the championship in the longest time the chance to fill these spots - isn't this what most said they want, for all teams to get the chance to experience the Championship eventually, in a somewhat fair way? (That’s posed to those who understand that no Championship event can ever include everyone - or grow to 500+ teams, which would have the EXACT same problem in a couple years when there are 1500+ teams. And it's SO MANY factors - not just volunteers, space, money, resources, schedule/calendar - all reasons, not one single reason)
I agree the 1992 teams should definitely be able to go to nationals every year. as was pointed out earlier, a number of these teams have earned the Chairman's Award, so they would be at Nationals anyhow.

I agree this system is fair to the greatest number.

What I don't agree with is the even teams that were rookies last year...well, actually...I'll broaden my argument.

If a team has NEVER been to nationals. Ever. They could be a rookie from last year or a 4-year team or an 8 year team...I don't understand why these teams are placed in the last tier? That's really strange.

If the teams that are older than one year are placed in the first tier and rookie teams from last year (who didn't go to nat's thus would have never gone before) are placed in the last tier...I think that's a bit of a quirk that FIRST needs to address.

If anyone has a clarification on that or comments, please by all means share because that grey area confuses me greatly.
__________________
GitHub - Collaborate on code, documentation, etc. - http://github.com
Reply With Quote