Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy1718
 Think of it this way, if a team competes at more than one regional, then that team has the ability to get more than one spot in Atlanta. If a team goes to and wins more than one regional, then they are taking spots away from other teams in Atlanta. Also most of the teams, from the midwest at least, that travel to more than one regional already have bought their way into Atlanta.
Don't get me wrong teams should be allowed to go to more than one regional, but if a team is eligible for Atlanta already, or has won an award, then they shold be deemed ineligeable and not be allowed to enter elimination rounds if they have won or have paid their way to Atlanta.
Also in regards to FIRST's response to winning at more than one regional, don't they have a cap on only entering essays for awards at only one regional? So why not carry that same idea into the competiton. Think about it that was put in place so the same teams don't win at all their regionals and so that more teams will be in the running for atlanta, in the case of chairman's.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if they have such resrictions in one area of the competition, and that is the part that is in the officials' hands, then why not apply it to all parts of the competition.
P.S. My team does compete at 2 events per year, usualy 2 local regionals. Yet, my team is one of the teams that has been subjected to playing quite a few of the teams that win more than one regional, and pay for Atlanta.
You know who you are, and I ask you to please stop stepping on the lower budget teams. |
Surely you must recognize that this post is hypocritical? You ask these teams that buy their way in to Atlanta and win more than one regional to "stop stepping on the lower budget teams", but you seem to be putting your team (which attends 2 regionals) in this "low budget" category.
What separates these teams from yours? The fact that they are successful? No team goes into a season knowing that they will win the first regional they attend when they register for multiples. Are you asking them to not participate in the second if they win the first. How inspiring is it to go at all for the students on that team. In my opinion, you can't have the inspiration of bringing in the "powerhouse" teams and still have the "fairness" of keeping them out of the eliminations. The students on these teams will just not be as interested in being there if you're dragging them around like a show pony and taking away the fun, competitive aspect of it.
To take this to an extreme, should teams that buy their way into Atlanta not be allowed to participate in Elims at regionals at all? Or be eligible for EI or Chairman's for that matter? After all they do already have a spot in Atlanta so why should they have a chance to get another one and deny a "worthy" team of a spot.
Having said all that, I do think that there should be a better way of assigning the spots that are vacated by teams qualifying multiple times. Why don't we take the spots vacated by any teams that have qualified multiple times and pass them to other "deserving teams". Perhaps take the vacated spots and give them to members of the finalist alliance in the order captain, 1st pick, 2nd pick. If 4 or more of the teams from the winning and finalist alliance are already qualified then you can give them to the waiting list. Chairman's and EI spots can still go to the waiting list as normal as these are less affected by attendance at multiple regionals.