If 48 teams qualify to states and around 20 different teams have won qualifying awards this season, how do the other 28 spots fill?
It will go to skills, so the top 28 teams in skill who haven’t already qualified will be invited.
Is this the same for worlds? I think I heard of a change this year
I’m not sure but I would like to know, if you find anything please let me know.
For Worlds, it will be the same thing. The next-best teams in Skills (1 spot already, and more spots if some teams win multiple spots from States).
Up until last year, the top 35 teams in the world also qualified, but those spots were removed this year.
Note: If you qualify at a Signature Event or through an online challenge, that will not affect which teams qualify for Worlds. (So if 1533M and 7121E win the signature event today and also win States, there will still only be 15 Florida teams going to Worlds.)
If there are extra open spots at Worlds, those will go to teams on the waitlist.
I know it’s fungable, but the lack of skills spots could be filled by Signature events.
Can you cite this?
I can’t find the specific reference at this point, but it has always been, in my recollection, that if a team qualifies for Worlds through an avenue other than their state/regional championship and also qualifies for Worlds through their state/regional championship, that does NOT open up another spot for a team from that state/region. For example, in the past, if 536C had been in the top 35 of the Worlds Skills rankings and qualified also as State Championship Excellence Award winner, that would not move another team from the State Championship into Worlds. The top 35 skills and the online challenges were independent of the state/region qualifications and as I understand it, so are qualifications through Signature events. Your RSM is the best source for the ruling on this. It is possible that a state/region ends up with more than their allocated spots if a team that wasn’t already qualified through their state/region championship qualifies through a Signature event or an online challenge.
That’s true. They were very clear about that for the skills. OK, we shall see!
I hope that State judges pay attention to who has already qualified for Worlds so that everyone gets their intended representation, plus their region’s Signature Event reps. But that’s kind of unrealistic to expect fo judges, and furthermore people have argued against “sharing the wealth.”
If any teams double qualfied for worlds then those extra world bids will go to the highest unqualified team off the skills list at the event.
I hope the judge’s pay attention to the judge’s guide and they don’t go rogue. RECF fills WORLDS in what they think is the most equitable way possible, and when additional teams qualify because judges aren’t following the documents other teams that should go to WORLDS get cut out.
Have you read the judge’s guide?
I’m not even an EP or judge and I’ve read it several times, even this season. And I’m not even hoping for a qualifying award. (Though that would be epic for my whole organization to send any team to Worlds.)
Actually, I don’t want my judges at state (where I am an event partner and have been for 5 years) to know or even care who might have already qualified for Worlds through a different avenue such as a Signature Event or an online challenge. Their job is to judge the awards at the State Championship, period. I am a proponent of “sharing the wealth” at an event, however I also do not believe that giving, for example, the Design Award at state to team B because they haven’t already qualified for Worlds, instead of team A, who should have won the award, but had already qualified for Worlds. I feel this way about qualifying for state/regional championships as well. The judging at a particular event should be for that event and should NOT take into consideration whether teams have already qualified for their state/regional championship.
One of the biggest problems we have is inconsistencies between events. These thousands of events should be run the same all over the globe.
For me, this is a much bigger problem on the local level. EP’s will sometimes make sure that they give all of their spots away to teams that haven’t already qualified. That leads to teams qualifying who shouldn’t over other teams that would qualify through the skills list but now that spot is gone.
And going to WORLDS without the banner to hang that you should have had is incredibly unfair to that team.
I personally would report issues like this to the appropriate RSM. To me, if an EP isn’t running the event in the manner that is expected by RECF, including the Code of Conduct, then their ability to continue as an EP should be in question. It is NOT, in my opinion, the role of the EP to fudge the awards in favor of those who haven’t already qualified. The team that deserves the qualification spot at an event should get that spot!!
When one of the judges asks if your team has already qualified for states then you have an idea that it’s going on, but that’s not evidence. I did report to my RSM but without hard evidence it’s tough to follow through and the EP might not even know it’s going on.
Not to mention, that the only way to compete for excellence at worlds is to win excellence at a regional championship or signature event and the only way to compete for design award at worlds is to win one at a regional event. So there may be teams that qualify for worlds by winning a signature event but still want to compete for excellence or design at worlds - so they would have to turn in their EN at their state or regional tournament. Bypassing a team for a judged award at a state or regioanl competition because they already qualified for worlds through a signature event is a disservice to the team.