Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery
Folks, please, please read the original post in it's entirety!!!
To repeat, we are NOT looking for detailed descriptions of specific alternate qualification criteria. We ARE looking for your "meta-criteria" - the characteristics of a qualification process that are desirable. Do you care if the process is entirely performance-based? Should the process allow every team to get an (occasional?) opportunity to attend, regardless of their performance? Should the process limit the number of rookie teams attending, and encourage them to focus on the regional events? Do you like methods that are based on just the activities of the current year, or should teams be able to "bank" criteria elements from one year to the next? In other words, what is important to you about the methods used to qualify teams for the Championship?
With up to 1000 teams expected to register for the 2004 season, and the potential for that number to go up to 1500 in a few years, there simply is not enough room at any venue for all teams to be able to attend the Championships.
-dave lavery
FIRST Executive Advisory Board
|
With up to 1000 teams expected to register for the 2004 season, and the potential for that number to go up to 1500 in a few years, there simply is not enough room at any venue for all teams to be able to attend the Championships.
I disagree. I know it would be a great deal of work but not impossible. If we maintain this mindset then it will never happen.
Dave- if we are to meet the purpose of FIRST of inspiring young people we need to see that those that need inspiration the most get to go. That means the rookies and very new teams who have never been able to go. With the points qualification process as it is now that is nearly impossible for most.
The system of points being used now is definitely rarifying the field. Is that what is desired? Funding and experience are making the competition tougher and tougher. Do the novice teams have a chance? Raising funds to travel to the Nats. should be challenge enough.
If points are going to be used the system should allow banking over a number of years, teams to donate points to each other and encourage interteam brotherhood and a lower, more reasonable points threshold to qualify. To qualify based on the existing system means a team needs to win a number of events or awards accumulate points to be eligible. One should be enough- two at most.
Some research should be done into the numbers of teams never attending the Nats and why. Perhaps a provision to reach these teams should be made? What is their retention? How many are one year wonders?
One last comment- I would expect this type of input to be solicited by an FRC teams e-mail blast, not a CD posting. While it does reach the diehard FIRST kids, CD is somewhat midwest oriented and not all teams even know this posting exists. Likewise- NO mention of changing qualification was on the agenda or discussed at the forums this summer, despite an interest at ours by a number of teams. The topic was untouchable. How serious is FIRST about this? Is this considered a real problem or is the Bd. just fishing for information and opinions?
WC