I agree with Paul on this one. The 3rd event was an "opportunity" presented to everyone and all teams who accepted it went into it knowing that any 3rd event points would not count. My initial ?/concern was that better prepared and funded teams could attend 3 events, and in effect prevent other teams from getting those points. The vanishing points concept, served to negate some of this but has created some of the issues/discussion above. Does anyone have a better idea?
We were also a team that struggled in our first event, and while much improved we fell short by a couple matches worth of points. However, going into the event we knew and accepted that unless we came out big >46 points we would not be going to States. We did not accomplish this, accept it and hold no ill-will towards any teams who accomplised this. Whether some other teams were carried through selections, nepotism in awards etc. will probably always be debated, though folks should really just let it go.
If FiM continues, teams will now realize that 2 events, means 2 events and you mut be ready at event #1. I do also agree with the idea that 3rd event teams should not be considered for
any other judged awards. Here again keep things even at 2 events/chances for every one, not the best 2 of 3 etc. Doing 2 of 3 puts teams who do not have the resources at an automatic disadvantage in qualifications and should not be allowed - IMO.
Mean time, Paul is also correct there will probably be a fair number of teams who simply cannot produce the $ to go, especially if they just earned the spot this weekend. So if 216 has the $$, be ready, keep an eye on the list and if nothing else take consolation that you had 3 events and did well in the end taking home some big hardware!! You have a lot to be proud of and grateful for by getting a 3rd shot that many others ddin't!
