Why is this a signature event?

This event has just 15 teams signed up yet is being considered a signature event. It seems quite unreasonable to me. Thoughts?


I think it’s perfectly fine. Mexico isn’t as active of a region in VEX as say the US.

Looks like because it is a 2 day events (3 including registration), and in a popular vacation destination. Also pretty centrally located for Central America. Probably a decent Worlds alternative for some teams.

And even though the registration cap is pretty low, that may only be public registration spots. They may have some no displayed to give to specially selected teams.

The event starts today though, so that’s all the teams there are. 15 team tournaments usually don’t even qualify for the state championships in the US.

I’m not saying that there can’t be signature events in Mexico or something (why would I ever think that?). What I’m saying is that world-qualifying events should be held to the same standard across countries.

The current team list shows all the teams are from Mexico. So it doesn’t fulfill the at least 25% from other regions as well.

I also don’t think that there should be 3 worlds spots available for a 15 team “signature” event. I believe that the WPI event (cap 150 teams) has 3 spots as well so this does not seem to correlate equally. The only way this would make sense is if this event was intended to be a Mexico “state” championship and was merely mislabeled

You do realize Mexico has many states in the country, like the US, so it may work in terms of geographic distribution of teams, one being from the US:
List of states in Mexico

Thought recf is going by region and not states?
And even for signature event in China, they are taking China as one region (which has always been the case). I am not sure if Mexico is classified as one region or more than one regions.

Indeed Mexico is counted as a single region, with a total allocation of 19 Worlds spots (18 HS + 1 MS).

So… @lacsap … unless recf changed their criteria for signature events, else it doesn’t make sense for this particular event to be labelled as signature event.

Clearly you are wrong if has been approved by RECF.


Nope… the proposal for signature events were submitted and approvals given before the signing up of teams. Most likely the organiser must be expecting some US teams to sign up.
But that doesn’t make me wrong and the signature event right.

Right from the beginning, some of us are already skeptical on how signature events will panned out.
Oh well… benefit of doubt is that it is the inaugural year of signature events.
But I don’t think I will be around to see how it evolves in subsequent years.

The spots for the event were approved by RECF - so my statement still stands. Now if they do not meet all the criteria - then they may lose some.

Still if it is listed by RECF as an official Signature Event, they made the decision.

Let’s see what happens in a few days once the event is “finalized”.

But that’s my point - the spots and approval was given before the team sign-up… it is based on the proposal.

And now the event couldn’t meet the signature events’ criteria - so clearly the event is not right (how am I wrong in this aspect?).
Just because recf has given approval for this event doesn’t mean this event is doing it right.

sorry… i am not in the “recf-can-do-no-wrong” camp.
and i know, i am not making myself a favourite among many EPs.

The reason we might see a “pass” may be the perceived growth potential that the RECF is trying to foster.

I am not saying I understand the role of signature events - but RECF clearly believes in them as a means to shine the light back to the hosting regions/nations.

Change management is difficult in any situation - in this particular case, what the RECF believes may rub against the efforts of early adopters/EPs.

Change is something I have dealt with a number of times over my career. Even today, I was asked could I change the subject I teach…

i have been in the workforce for… more than 20yrs (sigh… there goes the secret of my age). so i do have gone through certain amount of changes too. And really… singapore is a pretty fast pace society.

not so much of rub against the early adopters… we have always try to adapt (and I will add - manage to survive pretty well) with all the changes so far… regardless of how much we don’t really fancy them (if you notice, i don’t whine that much about bo1 or v5 production issues, etc).

but there will be times that it is no longer worth the effort or make any economical/management sense to continue with certain struggles.
like what we always say - pick your battles.

Agreed :slight_smile:

I agree with Meng here; hopefully the RECF takes another look at this event. Otherwise, it’s not fair to other people who are putting tons of effort into hosting their own signature events, recruiting many teams from out of state, etc.

Well, I’ll cut the RECF some slack. This is the first year of this after a pilot year. They could only guess at whether the events would fill up or not. And in looking at them, none of the events outside the US are filling to capacity. I don’t think that means that only US-based Signature events should be allowed. Yes, there are improvements that can be made next year (such as making teams qualify all signature events, making it less pay-for-play, allowing a team to only compete in one signature event per year, perhaps holding them later in the season, advertising them more) but the concept is great.

The event in Mexico was four tournaments - 2 VEX IQ, VRC, and VEXU. That EP worked very hard to pull the event together. I disagree that it is unfair to anyone else holding a Signature Event.

However, i wonder if there are other reasons for the outrage.


I don’t see any outrage… yet.
The only unhappiness I can think of will be the perceived unfairness.
The rule for any worlds qualifying event is minimum of 16 teams. And as the OP pointed out, there is only 15 teams.
3 worlds spots are allocated to this event. So effectively, Mexico has 3 more spots.

As much as I don’t think signature events will work out for regions outside US, I do agree with your point - giving benefit of doubts in the inaugural year, and giving recf and the EPs time to sort things out.

But the OP did right by surfacing this issue out, else it might be swept under the carpet.

Edit: just looked at the event page… the number of teams dropped to 11