Considering that a large percentage of teams are in the center of the country, talking about an “East Coast” and “West Coast” nationals is kind of rude.
I think they should have a few Regionals (four or five) late in the season, where the Regionals are true regionals. Only those teams located in the Region would be eligible to compete. There would be something like 60-100 teams per Regional.
You would have to register for one Regional in order to qualify for Nationals. Based on the number of qualifying spots, a certain number of teams from each Regional would be able to qualify for Nationals.
For instance, if there are 150 available spots and five Regionals, then 30 teams per Regional could qualify.
Before we decide on two nationals, FIRST needs to fix other problems, like this year there was a lot of technical problems, those in the Archimedes division know that! And they need to find a final home, especially when not many people liked Houston. Maybe in the future, but for now FIRST needs to stick with one national.
If you guys wants 2 nats how about just make an east and west division at the one big nats event. The division in the county(and world) would be the Mississippi river…the east division = the Dean division…the west = the Jason Morella (sp?) division.
next year i believe there will be 26 regionals…3 regional winners…1 chairmans…2 quality awards= 5 teams (26 * 5 = 130 for all of us lazy people out there). Now, we can also take the runners up for each of those award listed above and send them too (130 * 2 = 260). With 260 teams we’d have an event about the same size as what we had this year.
next year i believe there will be 26 regionals…3 regional winners…1 chairmans…2 quality awards= 5 teams (26 * 5 = 130 for all of us lazy people out there). Now, we can also take the runners up for each of those award listed above and send them too (130 * 2 = 260). With 260 teams we’d have an event about the same size as what we had this year.
The problem with this idea is that it leaves you with 260 teams scrambling to make reservations at the last minute. Talk to any team who has registered late and they will tell you its not fun.
If you used this plan you would have to leave at least two months between the last regional and nationals. which either puts regionals in February or nationals in July.
The best thing to do for the short amount of time would be tell all team to prepare for the possibility of attending national. Also have a block of rooms etc. reserved just apply a team when they qualify.
Well, the real benefit to having two nationals would be to allow more teams to have a shot at being national champions. To have two nationals would double the amount of elegible teams. Cost issues, I think that this idea…
What about two semi-finals, one east and one west with the the two champions facing off on a one hour show on CBS (or any other major network?)
Could be done, as well as bring wanted attention to FIRST.
This kind of makes me sad… I see people talking about Nationals and all and then I read that people think that you should have to win regionals and all that to make it to Nationals… I think we still need to realize that FIRST is not about winning its about learning and having fun doing what you like to do…
Is it me, but wouldnt this just defeat the purpose of a regional? I mean you are having competitions that build up to the big competition. Why have regionals to go to nationals, then super nationals. Nationals would just be a really big regional called nationals. Call it super regional and people might think differently about the idea of 2 super regionals.
Anyways, we all know 2 nationals and then another national will never happen though. Why bring it up?
*Originally posted by Pin Man *
**This kind of makes me sad… I see people talking about Nationals and all and then I read that people think that you should have to win regionals and all that to make it to Nationals… I think we still need to realize that FIRST is not about winning its about learning and having fun doing what you like to do… **
Then maybe the question now should be “is there really a need for nationals?” Being that FIRST is about the learning and winning isn’t important since we’re all winners, why do we need a big competition to prove that?
I think that we definitely need the nationals. Without them I believe that many people would feel as if there was no determined winner. We’re not in elementary school anymore; face the facts. In real life there are winners and losers. This is just another of FIRST’s many lessons that they teach us.
Good luck to everyone at the invitationals.
*Originally posted by E. The Kidd *
**Then maybe the question now should be “is there really a need for nationals?” Being that FIRST is about the learning and winning isn’t important since we’re all winners, why do we need a big competition to prove that? **
*Originally posted by GregTheGreat *
**I think that we definitely need the nationals. Without them I believe that many people would feel as if there was no determined winner. We’re not in elementary school anymore; face the facts. In real life there are winners and losers. This is just another of FIRST’s many lessons that they teach us.
Good luck to everyone at the invitationals. **
Perhaps the point is that it may be advantageous to FIRST to de-emphasize the “winning” aspect of the competition by eliminating the singular Championship event.
It would certainly send a message.
As I’ve probably said two hundred thousand times by now, so much about FIRST is about changing our culture. Saying, “Well, that’s how things are,” lacks vision and indicates that you’re perfectly happy working within the constructs of today’s culture.
I understand that not everyone involved in FIRST has the need, want, or ability to envision a new, exciting culture in future generations, but it seems like such an enormous waste of potential to try to make FIRST operate within the confines of society. We’re supposed to be breaking down the barriers society erects, after all.
*Originally posted by M. Krass *
**Perhaps the point is that it may be advantageous to FIRST to de-emphasize the “winning” aspect of the competition by eliminating the singular Championship event.
It would certainly send a message.
As I’ve probably said two hundred thousand times by now, so much about FIRST is about changing our culture. Saying, “Well, that’s how things are,” lacks vision and indicates that you’re perfectly happy working within the constructs of today’s culture.
I understand that not everyone involved in FIRST has the need, want, or ability to envision a new, exciting culture in future generations, but it seems like such an enormous waste of potential to try to make FIRST operate within the confines of society. We’re supposed to be breaking down the barriers society erects, after all. **
I would agree that it is not all about winning. When we make our robot we are learning about FIRST, the same as we do at the events. I know that FIRST is about learning, but without a set winner you are saying, that in life there are not real winners and loser’s, which we all know is a lie. I think that by first having a nationals they are teaching us early that there are determined winner’s and losers.
Our team was coming of back to back championships, but what did they say about this year. We went out there, did our best and still learned. It doesn’t matter what place you come in, what matters is what you learn. That is what first is all about.
