Quote:
Originally Posted by PayneTrain
The dirty little secret of the district system really shouldn't be a secret at all. For the first 3 years, smaller programs and programs further away from population centers will have to roll with the punches of the new system including increased travel time and increases in travel and registration costs. Even in Michigan UPers were stuck closer to the Wisconsin regional but needing to make the long haul to the other part of the state for their 2-3 events. In MAR, keeping the organization financially efficient has resulted in some odd occurences (like the DCMP venue being the Pennsylvania equivalent of Field of Dreams). Hearing rural teams in PNW having struggles isn't surprising to me. That is one of the half dozen concerns that has delayed a rollout in the National Capital Region. NE has been mostly problem free (at least on the surface) because they've been running what most now see as district sized events for years (The WPI District had 40 teams, The WPI Regional in 2012 had 34) and there was not a lot to improve on at the events, especially the Boston Regional/New England Champs.
Also, it took a few years but Michigan does have a district in the UP. They stuck through the growth phase and now that part of the state is startign to grow as well!
|
Just a correction on the New England part of your post. Here are the 2012(before districts were announced) NE Regional sizes: Granite State-50 teams, WPI-34, Boston-53, and Connecticut-64. I would only call WPI "district size". We sort of had a buffer year in 2013 where we added a 5th regional in Maine and most other events downsized a bit, but Boston and Connecticut were still over 50 teams.