[James3245]

Wow - considering this through the lens of a franchise model is very illuminating. The logic starts to fit. Corporate HQ will help out the burger franchise through a bad patch but if it doesn't make enough sales then cut it off after a year or two. The LVR situation fits perfectly looked at from this perspective.

However, while the mission of the burger franchise is to make a certain level of profit through sales, the FIRST mission is about changing culture through education and inspiration. Right?

My understanding of the background costs is improving, but so far I still think there is something fundamentally out of balance in the system if LVR is actually being debated by HQ.

I think Frank did acknowledge that too much was put on the refs/field staff this year. However, your point is well taken; FIRST puts itself in a bad position if it absorbs a net financial gain while relying on an untenable role for the very volunteers that help it maintain that financial cushion. The GDC is doing its best, and I'm amazed at how well they do every year, this is not on them. FIRST, to some degree, sets up these situations by trying to have it both ways - volunteers administering the product, while maintaining a hard-nosed franchise model. Or so it seems...

The heartless-franchise image may be overblowing things, but many of us do share serious misgivings about the existing financial model. We remain big supporters of FIRST because we see students being transformed through the experience. We should question steps that appear to undercut the very opportunities that help more students have such transformative experiences.