[Dave Scheck]

For the sake of argument, let's say that you do limit dominant teams to one regional. Who does this hurt?

1. The students on that team. Why should they be denied the opportunity to get just as much inspiration as those on other teams?

2. The students on non-dominant teams. Those student would all of a sudden not be able to benefit from the help of the dominant teams. They would never be given the jump start that they need to better themselves and their team.

3. The students on all other teams. When a team comes up with something innovative, everyone in the program should have the right to see it up close and in person.

4. FIRST itself. Something special happens when more than one dominant team is on the field. The game is played as it is supposed to be played, and the matches become extremely exciting. Teams (dominant or not) will play to the level that they need to in order to win. When playing against someone that's better than you (in anything), you inherently make yourself better. This is just a fact of life. Ratcheting this bar up year after year benefits everyone. Imagine a person off the street walking in and seeing 6 boxes on wheels spinning in circles. Personally I'd be pretty bored and would give up on it quickly.

5. The mentors on all teams. I can't think of a single mentor that has shared the opinion that you bring up in my 7 years in FIRST. Most mentors thrive on being able to see cool designs brought forth by dominant teams. Why? Because cool designs are inspirational and key to making your own designs better.

The list can probably go on and on.

A lot has been said in this thread and I don't want to rehash anything, but take a deep breath and think about it from all perspectives. Successful teams are needed for any sporting event to work. Successful teams are needed in FIRST to better everyone. Limiting or diminishing their roles is both disrespectful to the team and detrimental to the program.