If you'd rather that we didn't offer counterpoints to users' points here, please, tell me and I won't do that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ricksta121
and M krass its called competition for a reason...
|
See my bullet about driving home the point, once and for all, that FIRST isn't about the robots. Some people don't get that.
Quote:
Originally posted by David Kelso
Presently, the focus of the Championship is the robot competition (does anyone disagree??)
|
Well, yes. The focus of any event, to me, has never been the robot competition. While I realize I'm probably in a small minority these days, I enjoy the Championship as a way of seeing other teams' work -- regardless of how well it performs on the field. There's a lot to be said for learning how not to accomplish something as much as there is for learning how to accomplish something. We don't just learn from the best, we learn from everyone. We're not just inspired by the best. We're inspired by everyone. So, why is there a focus on eliminating everyone but the best from the biggest event of the season? That seems self-destructive and counter-intuitive and not remotely indicative of the program I thought I signed up for.
Quote:
Originally posted by George1083
They need great teams for great competition to get great TV broadcast offers.
|
Is that really the message FIRST wants or needs to send to, potentially, millions of television viewers? I believe that it would offer a skewed perspective of what FIRST really is. There are some great teams, sure, and there are some terrible teams -- but I was under the impression that we valued them all equally. A TV broadcast that shows "the best of the best" says, to me, that we value the competition winners more than the competition losers and it sends that message bouncing off satellites and antennas and into the homes of many, many people. Those people might then enter into the competition with bad ideas about what FIRST was trying to accomplish.
The Championship Event needs to be
the showcase for FIRST, I'd agree. But, then it all becomes a matter of what you believe FIRST is and it's clear that we don't all agree on that. So, to paraphrase Joel -- yes, I'm shamelessly promoting my agenda. I like it and want to see more people following it.
Finally. . .
Quote:
Originally posted by Joel J.
Accumulating points does sound like a good idea, at first; however, we see this as FIRST setting itself up for quite the fiasco in the long run. Eventually, all non rookie teams will have accumulated enough points to warrant them a spot that the National Competition. FIRST can only allow so many teams to enter, thus reducing registration for nationals to a true, "first come, first served" deal.
|
Say the Championship Event cost 10 points to attend. Well, over 3 years, team XXX never gets 10 points in a single season, but they do manage to get 14 points after 3 seasons. Well, during their fourth season, they should be eligible to attend the Championship -- spend their 10 points -- and go on with 4.
In fact, let me take that a step further and we can let this be my new, original
contribution to eligibility criteria.
During the pre-registration of each season, teams are given a pool of points. Regional events and the Championship Event each cost, in addition to the fee, a given number of points to enter. Popular regionals could be balanced against newer or more geographically isolated regionals by costing slightly more points to attend. The Championship would cost more points than any regional event. Winning events or awards throughout the season would earn a team extra points -- to be used that season or "banked" for the next. After that, they expire.
What if teams get 50 points per season? Imagine that each regional starts at 15 points and the Championship is 25. Most awards are 5 points.
A team could choose to attend two regionals (-30 pts.) and hope to win an Award (+5) to have the 25 points they need to register for the Championship. They could attend one regional and the Championship (-40 points) and save 10 points for the next season.
The point system could be periodically adjusted to account for the number of teams competing. Make points expire. This would accomplish a few things, overall:
- It would reduce the advantage of attending multiple regionals. Teams could only attend a certain number of events before running out of points. Attending more events would lead to more chances of earning new points, but it could be balanced such that, after a certain threshold, it's nearly impossible to earn enough points to attend the Championship.
- Team members decide where they'd like to be. Their robots don't decide where they deserve to be.
- Teams will have a good idea, in advance, of their chances for attending the Championship event.
- Points will expire, eliminating "veteran's advantage." Good teams will earn more points, but no team can achieve such an advantage so as to assure their attendance each year. The cycle will renew itself every two years, assuring each team at least one opportunity to attend (unless they gamble their points and lose them by attending many regionals and performing poorly).
I'll admit -- I stole this idea from a timeshare program -- but I think it could work for FIRST with some tweaking. Sorry about the length.