While I have many thoughts/opinions on this matter (as you may well imagine), I'm going to refrain from that part of the public discussion for now. However, a bit of a history lesson might help others understand more clearly what the intermediate program was always intended for (at least from my feeble perspective).
When I was first invited to be part of the FVC (now FTC) GDC three years ago, we went through a series of weekly conference calls leading up to a weekend face-to-face meeting in NH to do the bulk of game-specific design. For half of our first day together we were joined by three members of the FRC GDC. These icons helped us to understand what our role was, how FVC was different from and the same as FRC, and some tips on how best to build a game that would serve the teams and the mission of FIRST well. During that morning, and all throughout the weekend, two words kept coming up – “accessible” and “affordable.” In my three years working with this group those two words remain a large part of the discussion and can still be found in the opening paragraph of the program description here:
http://www.usfirst.org/what/fvc/default.aspx?id=380
Somewhere I still have photos of our math on a whiteboard from that meeting three years ago. We were insistant upon (and many of us still are) having as small a window as possible between the "bare bones / squarebot team" and the "well funded team" as well as having as low of an overall cost as possible. Clearly, as a GDC, we've always been interested in serving a population where there were many barriers to being in FRC as well as providing FRC programs an opportunity to involve students if they so chose.
That mantra has remained consistent throughout the past three seasons. A "squarebot team" could compete with as little as $450 in equipment (starter kit, programming kit, rechargeable battery pack) and if you look at the most "well funded teams" (full ten motors, extra metal and other Vex goodies), you'll find about $1,000-$1,200 of robot. Because the equipment is completely reusable from year to year, even a "squarebot team" could build inventory over time.
The other financial part of the team's investment in FVC/FTC has been fees. This is something that takes place outside of the work of the GDC. For the past three years, teams have encountered two fees that total around $450-$500 depending on the local tournament fee. So, on the high end, a "squarebot team" is entirely in the game (one event) for just under $1,000 (not including travel or lodging) and the "well funded team," for one event (without travel or lodging) spends around $1,700.
While money is a big part of ensuring "accessible and affordable," resources (human and otherwise) have always been on the minds of this GDC as well. For the past three seasons, in addition to Vex equipment, a team only needs wrenches in the kit, tin snips and/or a hacksaw, and a file to build the robot. Other than Vex, the allowable materials have been limited to rubber bands, no-slip pad, and thread locker for specific reasons - to keep the gap from widening and to avoid the need for any custom fabrication. While custom parts certainly are very cool our group has always felt that the mission of this program was better served by staying with what could be obtained within the system.
Besides, the more rules we write, the more we need to police things, the heavier the Q&A load, the harder it is to be a good ref or inspector, etc, etc. These are items that FRC already combats every year and we recognize the strain it puts on people. Our volunteer GDC already covers the Q&A seven days per week (minus holidays), from September kickoff through the April Championship and the volunteer base we pull from for events includes many (if not most) folks who are already involved in at least one other FIRST program. That's not including the time it takes to design the game, write all of the documentation, do the CAD work on the field, help guide/produce an animation, consult on referee training calls, configure the Q&A and interactive manual, and more. All of these factors play a role when we are doing our best to provide a quality and inspiring experience for every team.
In addition, game pieces and field elements have been affordable and low cost options (even the use of cardboard works with much of it) have been available. A single adult, perhaps with support from other teams or online resources, could easily help a team get to competition despite a perceived or real lack of expertise, thus opening the door to inspire as many students as possible with a FIRST experience.
So, there's my little history lesson and brain dump for you to ponder. As you evaluate the changover and what it means for you and/or your team or event, I hope you find a few of these little insights helpful.
[important edit] Just to clarify, my insights do not include any knowledge of the new platform at all. I'm not involved in the platform/future decision process in any way. I'm learning about these new developments at the same time you are. [/ important edit]