Championship Qualification - Constructive Criticism

[Andy Baker]

There is another thread where some good discussion is going on with regard to Championship Qualification.

This new qualification system has been developed over a good period of time and many people have put in many hours in making this change.

However, like any system, it is not perfect. Due to these imperfections, some teams feel like they are being "shafted". People get mad when they are "shafted", and they complain. As a FIRST mentor, I try to get people to give constructive criticisms when they have a complain.

So, here is a bit of constructive criticism:

The 2003 Rookies who did not attend the 2003 Championships are being overlooked by being placed in tier 1. They should be in tier 2.

Here is the current tier definitions:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1998 or earlier

Here is my suggested change:
Tier 1: Last attended Championship in 2003, or Rookie Year is 2004
Tier 2: Last attended Championship in 2002, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2003
Tier 3: Last attended Championship in 2001, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2002
Tier 4: Last attended Championship in 2000, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2001
Tier 5: Last attended Championship in 1999, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 2000
Tier 6: Last attended Championship in 1998 or earlier, or never attended Championship and Rookie Year is 1999 or earlier

This change makes things more "fair" for rookies from 2003 who did not attend the Championships.

I am thinking that this may just be a clerical mistake... I dunno. Hopefully, it is, and FIRST realizes this inequity and fixes it.

Please post your constructive critiques as you see them. I really don't want this thread to turn into an argumentative discussion... I would just like positive ideas.

Andy B.