3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's

[Alexa Stott]

This is a response to a post in the PRO's thread:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

One of the main points brought up in the booklet article is the notion of leaving the game alone to promote spectator familiarity.

They don't completely reinvent the rules of popular televised American sports every year, and that is one of the main reasons such sports maintain the public's interest.

A 3 year game cycle would help the public grow attached to and fully understand and appreciate a particular game for a year or two before reinventing it for the next cycle.

But are we willing to sacrifice the benefits of one game per year in order to appeal to the public? People always talk about having FIRST on ESPN and whatnot, but I honestly don't see that being in the future and I don't understand why people want to emphasize it so much. Isn't FIRST about inspiring students to pursue careers in STEM? I understand that there is a lot of pandering to sponsors and sponsors want publicity, but at what cost? Additionally, most of the qualification matches (at least at regionals) are incredibly boring. There are some matches where 3-4 robots don't even move and the other two just sit there driving in circles, maybe scoring one game piece with their poorly implemented arm/claw. Sure, we might be able to get the public interested in the 2nd or 3rd year of the game, but, again, at what cost to the teams? It would also mean that the public would have to deal with a disappointing year every 3 years.