A competition that reserves a spot for new teams?

[Sido90]

What do y'all think of a competition that reserves a spot for new teams?


What constitutes new?
A newly formed team in which 70% of the members have not competed (together?) in the past year.


I'm totally open to a different/better definition. This one still needs development.


I can see the obvious difficulty in keeping track of and verifying who has and has not competed in the past year, but perhaps with the help of the BTF community we can figure something out. Another thing, is how to deal with college teams that have been around for years but may have had to rebuild. Ideas, thoughts?


This idea is really preliminary and I was just looking to get some discussion going. Thanks!

 

[walkertexasjr]

I've always thought the idea of a sort of "Rising Stars" competition would be a good idea. The committee would pick teams that have just started making a name for themselves, teams that are making a comeback, etc. Elite 8 was phenomenal, and I think that would be the next logical step. Of course, the challenge is in the execution of the idea. I don't know the first thing about organizing a competition, so is this feasible? I don't know... Also, this may have been discussed before, so sorry if I'm repeating others

 

[yraparla]

I've always thought the idea of a sort of "Rising Stars" competition would be a good idea. The committee would pick teams that have just started making a name for themselves, teams that are making a comeback, etc. Elite 8 was phenomenal, and I think that would be the next logical step. Of course, the challenge is in the execution of the idea. I don't know the first thing about organizing a competition, so is this feasible? I don't know... Also, this may have been discussed before, so sorry if I'm repeating others

see: Desi Dhamaka

 

[Saleem]

The number and caliber of teams that apply to a competition is a function of several factors. Examples are location, organizers' reputation, prize money, and timing of the competition. The easiest factor to change is the prize money. Offer $500 for first place and you will greatly limit the teams who decide it's worthwhile to make the trip. You'll get more rookie teams, as the established teams may focus their efforts on other competitions.

 

[AnkurK]

I've always thought the idea of a sort of "Rising Stars" competition would be a good idea. The committee would pick teams that have just started making a name for themselves, teams that are making a comeback, etc. Elite 8 was phenomenal, and I think that would be the next logical step. Of course, the challenge is in the execution of the idea. I don't know the first thing about organizing a competition, so is this feasible? I don't know... Also, this may have been discussed before, so sorry if I'm repeating others

see: Desi Dhamaka

see: fraud

 

[masterscorpiorv]

The easiest factor to change is the prize money. Offer $500 for first place and you will greatly limit the teams who decide it's worthwhile to make the trip. You'll get more rookie teams, as the established teams may focus their efforts on other competitions.

Definitely agreed, and not only is it feasible, but its a great idea. I also think itd be interesting if there were 2 categories of a "new team"

1. a new team = A team that has only been in existence for less than 5-7 years

2. like what you mentioned earlier, a team where a certain % of their dancers have not yet competed together regardless of how old/new the existence of the team's NAME is, because as we have seen, as students graduate, a teams name could have been around for a decade, but its team's quality could have changed exponentially from the past

 

[Basim]

A "new team" can also be defined by the competition organizers as one that hasn't competed in any "major" competitions over the past few years. I.E. All teams that haven't competed at Boston, Bruin, VIBC, Elite 8, DDA, Blowout, etc etc over the past 3 years.


~ Basim

 

[Saleem]

You guys are over-thinking this with regulations on new-member percentages, what constitutes a 'major competition', what is the definition of 'is'. Lower the prize money. One and done.

 

[KingGeorge]

I've always thought the idea of a sort of "Rising Stars" competition would be a good idea. The committee would pick teams that have just started making a name for themselves, teams that are making a comeback, etc. Elite 8 was phenomenal, and I think that would be the next logical step. Of course, the challenge is in the execution of the idea. I don't know the first thing about organizing a competition, so is this feasible? I don't know... Also, this may have been discussed before, so sorry if I'm repeating others

see: Desi Dhamaka

see: fraud

+1

 

[ameetkhabra]

You guys are over-thinking this with regulations on new-member percentages, what constitutes a 'major competition', what is the definition of 'is'. Lower the prize money. One and done.

I think what Saleem has suggested is the best idea. No "established" team would make the trip to an event where the prize money is $500 - 1000, which would leave the spots in the lineup open for teams that are trying to make a name for themselves.

 

[Sido90]

Hmm.. All good ideas. Initially, what I was thinking was an established comp allowing a spot for 1 newbie team. This would give that team a chance to compete with the big teams and be able to learn and network. Plus... I think $500 prize money is just cruel- doesn't pay for anything!

 

[ameetkhabra]

Hmm.. All good ideas. Initially, what I was thinking was an established comp allowing a spot for 1 newbie team. This would give that team a chance to compete with the big teams and be able to learn and network. Plus... I think $500 prize money is just cruel- doesn't pay for anything!

the larger the prize the greater chance of a more established team apply. keeping the grand prize money $500 - maybe $1500 would limit the teams that would apply and you would see more "new" teams applying. As for the idea of keeping one spot open for one new team, I wouldn't do that for two major reasons.

1. how do you select teams when they are all not being judged on the same criteria
2. having a competition with 7 established teams and 1 "new" team not only sounds weird, but could also lead to very bad experience for the at 1 team. Currently competitions are slightly vicious throwing a new team into that battlefield may not turn out the way you hope.

 

[Sido90]

Hmm.. All good ideas. Initially, what I was thinking was an established comp allowing a spot for 1 newbie team. This would give that team a chance to compete with the big teams and be able to learn and network. Plus... I think $500 prize money is just cruel- doesn't pay for anything!

the larger the prize the greater chance of a more established team apply. keeping the grand prize money $500 - maybe $1500 would limit the teams that would apply and you would see more "new" teams applying. As for the idea of keeping one spot open for one new team, I wouldn't do that for two major reasons.

1. how do you select teams when they are all not being judged on the same criteria
2. having a competition with 7 established teams and 1 "new" team not only sounds weird, but could also lead to very bad experience for the at 1 team. Currently competitions are slightly vicious throwing a new team into that battlefield may not turn out the way you hope.

1. just an idea- but say a comp allows 10 teams. all teams could apply for 9 spots (including new teams) the committee would select 9 teams and the 10th spot would be open for new teams only at which point they would re apply. the best of the new teams would get an opportunity to compete.

2. i can understand how it sounds weird and i wouldn't recommend this type of format for a major comp like bruin, for instance. maybe a medium competition where you get decent teams and sometimes really big teams as well.

lemme explain my thought process here. the past 2 years i've been on the r2b2 committee and for our raas category in 2009 purdue applied - a first year team- that year we had 6 spots open and only 3 teams apply so needless to say they made it. they ended up winning and the next season they went to several major comps. in 2010, we accepted georgia tech- a first year team. the caliber of the raas competition went up exponentially that year so GT got in off of the wait list. they did put up a good performance but didn't place.

the one thing i remember about both teams was how thankful they were to be there and how much they got to learn and network. i kinda feel like.. once you make it into that first comp- it's like a launching pad. but it's so hard to break through and just finally make it to that first competition. Also, i think you learn a lot about how to run your team, etc. only after you've competed.

i feel like if it was a separate competition for new teams then they may not get recognized. like, on btf, no one talks about lower tier comps....


another reason I'm against $500 prize money is that, less established teams are usually low on funds as it is so when they win a comp- it only makes sense to help them pay off whatever expenses they had.




*DISCLAIMER: none of this discussion is on behalf of r2b2. it's just an idea i had, but if we can develop it enough, i would discuss it with the rest of the committee.*

 

[ameetkhabra]

Hmm.. All good ideas. Initially, what I was thinking was an established comp allowing a spot for 1 newbie team. This would give that team a chance to compete with the big teams and be able to learn and network. Plus... I think $500 prize money is just cruel- doesn't pay for anything!

the larger the prize the greater chance of a more established team apply. keeping the grand prize money $500 - maybe $1500 would limit the teams that would apply and you would see more "new" teams applying. As for the idea of keeping one spot open for one new team, I wouldn't do that for two major reasons.

1. how do you select teams when they are all not being judged on the same criteria
2. having a competition with 7 established teams and 1 "new" team not only sounds weird, but could also lead to very bad experience for the at 1 team. Currently competitions are slightly vicious throwing a new team into that battlefield may not turn out the way you hope.

1. just an idea- but say a comp allows 10 teams. all teams could apply for 9 spots (including new teams) the committee would select 9 teams and the 10th spot would be open for new teams only at which point they would re apply. the best of the new teams would get an opportunity to compete.

2. i can understand how it sounds weird and i wouldn't recommend this type of format for a major comp like bruin, for instance. maybe a medium competition where you get decent teams and sometimes really big teams as well.

lemme explain my thought process here. the past 2 years i've been on the r2b2 committee and for our raas category in 2009 purdue applied - a first year team- that year we had 6 spots open and only 3 teams apply so needless to say they made it. they ended up winning and the next season they went to several major comps. in 2010, we accepted georgia tech- a first year team. the caliber of the raas competition went up exponentially that year so GT got in off of the wait list. they did put up a good performance but didn't place.

the one thing i remember about both teams was how thankful they were to be there and how much they got to learn and network. i kinda feel like.. once you make it into that first comp- it's like a launching pad. but it's so hard to break through and just finally make it to that first competition. Also, i think you learn a lot about how to run your team, etc. only after you've competed.

i feel like if it was a separate competition for new teams then they may not get recognized. like, on btf, no one talks about lower tier comps....


another reason I'm against $500 prize money is that, less established teams are usually low on funds as it is so when they win a comp- it only makes sense to help them pay off whatever expenses they had.




*DISCLAIMER: none of this discussion is on behalf of r2b2. it's just an idea i had, but if we can develop it enough, i would discuss it with the rest of the committee.*

1. After getting to slightly understand what your thought process is, I think the idea could work. You just need to be very careful and clear when your classifying what a "new" team is.

2. I agree and disagree with you when you said that the level of recognition would be very limited if the competition was strictly for "new" teams. Personally, I think it's the way you market/advertise it; you can take anything and make it a success if you just market/advertise it the right way.

All in all I think like the idea of the "launching pad for new teams." It definitely will be a bit different, but there are a couple kinks that need to ironed out.

goodluck with the event, if it happens!