|
Re: Future Championship Poll
I disagree with splitting into two "world championships" based on geographic location because it seems to defeat the whole goal of FIRST. They want to be a sport, but then they don't want anyone to loose. Just because we are robotics kids, some of us nerds, geeks who might not enjoy much outside of our computer screens and tools, does not mean we can't handle losing a bit. Losing is good for you in some cases, it makes you want to be better, it gives that drive, that chip on your shoulder to learn from those world-class teams and give them a run for their money next season. Now, most kids won't even get to see the best teams. teams from the west coast like 254 and teams from GA (which sorely could benefit from studying up on the poofs) won't even meet at worlds! they will be in different locations. Now FIRST will be lying to us. Winners of the new championships won't really be world champions or the best in the world at all. They will be the best in half-the-world. Splitting the event in two makes it less of a competition in my eyes, more of an expo, and less of a sport. Bring districts to the entire world. More matches, same amount of money, a worldwide ranking system based out of district points (maybe), a championship experience at the super-regional or DCMP for the lower teams, and the actual WCMP for the top tier. This all-inclusive nature that FIRST is trying to create is a problem they have created for themselves. Worlds now requires two venues because they have invited so many teams to be a part that might not deserve it (not knocking their achievements at all). Instead make a more dynamic and better district system, decked out with tiers for increasing levels of play, and end with a selective best-of-the-best WCMP. Even if my team never makes it there, we will still have had a CMP experience in our district, and if TV were a part of the WCMP deal, the insight we would gain from interviews with the actual best in the game would make up for not being there in person.
|