I agree with Mike that the qualifications NEED to stay the same this year, as a courtesy to those team's cut out of last year's event. I'd like to see things back the way they were in 2001, with everyone automatically qualifying. I feel that nationals is truly an important part of the experience. The experience is what is important, not how well a team does. Who is to say that a rookie team with a non-qualifying robot should be kept out of "the big show?" Since this "everybody goes" attitude is likely not feasible, and everyone can't go every year, FIRST should keep things so that you can at least go every OTHER year. The current Odd/Even qualifier seems to be working fine.
One thing I think would be interesting is some form of redemption for teams that have a good "3rd place" robot. Ya know, the team's that have it pretty much all together, but couldn't catch a break. Teams that by all means SHOULD have qualified, but didn't. Maybe some form of peer evaluation so that FIRST teams can nominate/vote for other teams (who don't qualify) that they feel should be allowed to attend nats.
Team's that are able to goto 2 or 3 regionals, plus nationals will obviously have a better chance of qualifying for nationals the following year that teams that only attend one or two competitions. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing, just something to think about. It seems like FIRST rewards team's to attend multiple regionals, but at 4Gs a pop, it adds up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Volcano
the nats have 4 divisions and prob always have them the problem is that how can the winners say they won the against 2 hundred some odd team when you only beat a few of the teams in the division and then the tops winners of the other divisions
what are the chances of a team doing as well against every robot there, like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop the world may never know
|
Winning is only part of it. It's the experience that matters. Making some sort of global ranking of teams for a year would only (in my opinion) detract from the experience. Imaging if FIRST made a list of every team that competed in the competition, and numerically ranked them from BEST to worst... Is it really that important to know your team was better than X teams in the country, and that you are ranked Y ahead of Team ZZZZ?
I don't think so. It's always nice to be able to goto a sponsor and say "yeah, we rock, give us more $$$ so we can rock more next year" but is it really that important to know EXACTLY how you finished? What about the teams near the bottom of the heap? What about teams who just have an "off" year. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it will at some point. We can't all be Beatty

.
I dunno, I like the qualification process the way it is. It seems fair, and the odd/even system allows for everyone to get a chance.