[Jared Russell]

I have a couple of questions/concerns about the district model and its possible implementation across non-Michigan regions of the U.S...

1. When a Michigan team pays its $5000 registration fee, does all $5000 go to New Hampshire, or does a portion go to help pay for district events/local infrastructure/the state championship? On the surface, the district model seems to be a way for teams to keep paying FIRST the same amount of money while receiving less (in that the same volunteers who run teams now are responsible for coordinating and running on-season competitions).

2. Presently, a small, dedicated cadre of volunteers support many of the on- and off-season events in the Northeast (with similar patterns elsewhere). With the added time and effort of potentially twice as many field set ups/teardowns, inspections, etc., how big of an issue has volunteer burn-out been in Michigan? Do we think it would be even worse elsewhere, where there is a smaller pool of volunteer "regulars"?

3. With smaller district events, it seems like the average turnaround between matches for a team can be very short. On one hand this is great, as it allows for more plays. But on the other hand, a single malfunction or repair could conceivably affect the outcomes of more than one qualification match. How big of an issue is this in Michigan? Do we think it would be even bigger elsewhere, where there are fewer "elite" robot-building teams?

4. Certainly, some of the Michigan district events are loaded with former World Champions and annual powerhouses. These events yield great entertainment. But what of some of the lower profile district events? Is the quality of the on-field event compromised by the smaller field of teams in these cases?

5. Lastly, my understanding of some of the top-level goals of the district pilot in Michigan is as follows:

* The regional events were running out of room for rookie expansion
* Many teams in the region only attended one event each season for financial reasons, and more play time was a goal
* Local sponsorship for the three Michigan regional events was becoming harder and harder to get

How many rookies in your region are there annually? Is the pace of rookie growth non-sustainable for your current events? What percentage of your regional's attendees already attend more than one official event per season? Are there ways to make Regional Competitions more affordable without requiring a qualification structure? (I already know the answers to these questions for my region)

My point is, the success of the District Pilot in Michigan against these goals and the ones that Jim laid out earlier in the thread is well documented. In my mind, there is no doubt that Michigan *had* to switch to a different competition structure in 2009 for sustainability reasons. The model would have benefits elsewhere, but would also be riskier because, let's face it, Michigan represents a pretty unique concentration of dedicated and experienced FIRST volunteers and teams. Moreover, in my region at least, I haven't been convinced that the transition is a strict necessity from a sustainability standpoint.