FRC is this really awkward monolith. It can certainly dictate the terms of engagement, but there are many moving parts outside of the walls of Manchester that keep the ship afloat.
No one could stop FIRST from moving to the split champs, but it affected how suppliers plan for events, how teams handle traveling to events, how many teams drop the cash on the new slots and how that money spent affects them and their community, volunteer and (mainly) staff fatigue, etc.
Likewise, no one can stop FIRST from changing the paradigm of the current 15 week season, but it can have affects on FRC and other robotics programs in and out of the FIRST umbrella. How would the move affect suppliers? Schools? Other programs that depend on the suppliers and schools to have certain availabilities that complement FRC’s resource needs instead of competing with it?
FRC is an incredibly inefficient endeavor with regards to the broad mission of inspiring students to pursue careers in STEM fields, but is the best in its class when it comes to a mentor-based program that serves that goal. How would this move affect the mentoring corps?
To be somewhat cynical, FIRST does not need to adjust the status quo to keep the high activity teams in FIRST. They will complain about the bag for a number of highly justifiable reasons, but FIRST likely already burned them with split championships and they’re all still here; why would maintaining the bag rules affect them?
Conversely, low-activity teams that fear the change might see mentors drop out of the program and take their teams, however effective at being teams they may be, with them. Suppliers, volunteers, staff, and low-activity teams are the target constituents for massaging the rules surrounding the bag. They make up the bulk quantity of activity on this, and it’s important to consider them.
Moving to the split championship model did not allow for any other means to the end other than ripping off the proverbial band aid, for better or for worse. Potentially evolving from stop build day does not require such a drastic and compressed series of actions–in fact it’s probably better served by seeing exactly what we can and can’t work with over a long period of time. The slow rollout of the district system is somewhat evidence of this approach being beneficial. It would be very difficult to flip the switch on that model overnight. As much as it would benefit teams in the long run, potentially imploding it in the short-term would obviously negate any positive long-term benefits.
Start this year, or next year, pulling on the threads that bind the restriction together. Give everyone some OOB hours. Be in contact with teams of all shapes and sizes over the small changes, and decide whether or not to hold the line, push it forward, or pull it back in. Let’s figure out if it is helping the program, hurting the program, or not changing it at all.
The clarity now is a good thing though. I realize there is no one-size-fits-all right answer. May the debate continue on!