This comment by me has little to do with rwsmay’s specific quote above; but is a more general one to folks discussing FVC.
Saying FVC is/isn’t, should/shouldn’t, can/can’t follow an “FLL model” appears to be a convenient shorthand for many folks; but as someone not familiar with FLL, I don’t see much value in the comparision.
Saying things should work like FLL, but not exactly like it, carries a ton of baggage that sows confusion when the differences aren’t all explicitly described as part of the statement’s context.
Also, things like needing a multi-tiered tournament structure once the number of teams rises much beyond the current FRC numbers is hardly something the phrase “like FLL” expresses uniquely or clearly. Instead the need is just common sense; and, at least in my mind, it as much like US professional and amatuer football, baseball, swimming, soccer, beauty pagents and all other big competitions; as it is like FLL.
So, am I saying the work that has gone into making FLL a success should be thrown out and ignored? No! Please don’t take that away from this suggestion.
Am I saying that a growing organization needs to avoid falling into a habit of speaking in shorthand that everyone thinks means the same thing to all people in the organization - but probably doesn’t…? Yes.
Am I saying that a growing organization needs to use ordinary terminology to discuss ordinary concepts (so that all readers who are considering joining or contributing don’t have to climb the learning curve of learning to decode cryptic references to other programs). Yes.
The bottom-line hint here is that folks involved with FVC who are also familiar with FLL will find a broader and more receptive audience for their suggestions, and be more clear about what they mean, if they are able to expresss those suggestions without using the “like FLL” phrase.