[FRC Blog] We're Listening

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.



On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?

A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.

As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.

I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.

-Mike

Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.

All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.

It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.

Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.