|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
Quote:
As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event. Additionally, I'd like to point out that a system like isn't unprecedented. Off of the top of my head both College Football and European soccer have similar systems with the post-season broken up into tiers. In soccer the 'Europa League' is a tournament for teams who didn't reach the 'Champions League'. In college football only the top 4 teams can win the National Championship, but other successful teams still get bowl games to cap off their season. I really like this two-tier system. It seems to check most boxes. It has one championship for all of FRC. It sends more teams to big post-season events. It reduces travel costs.** It avoids having a silly event over the summer to determine the world champ. It collects more registration fees. And it's completely scaleable. *A simple solution like top X from each district go to champs, next Y go to nearest 'challenger' event would work. For regional teams something like all chairman teams and RAS/EI/Winners who seeded in the top ~40% of their event go to champs. **More 'challenger' events can be added over time. Teams could qualify for their nearest one. For example, one could be added to the west coast. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|