I understand that is not an easy set of problems to solve. And on top of that they all are interconnected, and tweaking one part of the system starts influencing another part in sometimes unexpected and undesirable way.
As several people have pointed out, statistically only a small fraction of the teams that would qualify under BO3 will not make it under BO1. However, a lot of teams afraid that it will happen to them and the fear and anxiety is contagious.
I believe, BO1 vs BO3 issue is mostly in way how it is being perceived by the competitors, parents, and EPs, and the best way to address it, is to explain that RECF cares about students, understands their fears and wants to make sure everyone feels good participating in the program (including competitors, EPs, teachers, parents, volunteers, sponsors, and officials). I hope everyone recognizes the benefits of Dan directly addressing people’s concerns on the forums.
If I am given a choice between BO3 and additional Signature Events as a way to provide redundant paths to Worlds qualification, I would choose Signature Events in a heartbeat.
Perhaps, somebody who is fluent in probability and statistics could calculate exact numbers, but my guess is that if every team, who really wants to qualify to Worlds, will have an option to attend 3 or 4 Signature Events (within a half-day travel from them) their qualification chances should come out roughly the same.
However, teams will benefit tremendously by having few weeks (and not just few minutes) between their first and second chance: Why Signature Events are a Suitable Replacement for the World Skills Ranking - #6 by technik3k
If everybody understands that RECF is making conscious efforts to give the most anxious students the second (and third, etc…) chance to qualify, it should reduce a lot of stress and partially address the issues that RECF is concerned about, like “parent” built bots and disrespectful attitudes from some competitors and adults.
I really liked how @OscarMNOVA12, @536Mentor, and few others said that their alumni did not recall specific awards but “they remember the fun that they had, the relationships that they formed”, …
I believe, that a lot of pressure comes from the parents, who do not understand or appreciate how much educational benefits and fun comes from just participating in the program. The awards are always nice as the confirmation that team is doing something right, but are not necessarily the end goal.
For example, I think that in some respect, the success of the VRC marketing by VEX and RECF is feeding into the problems that we are seeing today. It is great that colleges are measuring student’s success in VRC as the part of their admission process, but the act of that measurement is not independent and is heavily influences the process.
I find it very hard to believe that students are the origin of the argument that I’ve read recently more than once: “we spend all these money on the overpriced vex parts,” therefore “there better be some results” assuming it refers to qualifications and awards.