[Rich Kressly]

Frank,

I don't visit here a lot these days, but I did send an email along to my former team - 1712 - with some of my thoughts on the matter. In brief, here are my thoughts:

1. Michigan has worked very hard to put a system in place that works well by a good number of metrics in their home region.
2. It's a shame some folks don't hear, very clearly, what both Jim and Sean are saying in this thread about doing what works for your region, and treating/addressing variables individually.
3. MI is pretty clear that increased FRC events per team and higher levels of on field play are primary goals of their organization. I like these goals, but they can have other unintended, and negative, consequences.
4. Local "control" is certainly a positive in many ways, but I really wonder about the effect on local volunteers, their schedules, their lives, what it means for everything else they already do (off seasons, FTC, VEX, FLL, JrFLL, Seaperch, BEST, etc) in the MAR region (and other regions without similar makeup to Michigan).
5. I've seen a lot of statistics in relationship to FiM model in the past few years. Is there any usable data on graduates of district vs "traditional" FRC model? Maybe from before districts and after districts in MI? Does a district type model inspire more students toward socially conscious futures in STEM than traditional model? Does it help increase the participation of students in STEM activities? Shouldn't we be more concerned about these metrics than who's more able to win a state/regional/world championship? Again, as Jim and others say, it comes down to purposes and goals.