Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik
Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA
For simplicity's sake, assume net growth of zero teams. 52 teams each need 2 plays, meaning the district needs to generate 104 plays. 3 events at 35 gives you 105 plays. Then have 36 teams advance to a state championship and you're set. Yes the events are smaller than normal, but it's definitely a workable model, which is easily scaled for growth. |
This is they key point lost on some people.
Rather than have teams continue to pay high registration fees, they pay low fees for more plays in the district model.
Rather than the local organization continuing to run high cost regionals, they are running more cost effective districts.
It certainly seems like it'd be FAR easier to increase the number of teams under this model, and far more cost effective to reach some end goal (X number of teams under the district model).
Also, the cost of switching to districts (fields, etc...) is distributed over the years as the area is currently small. I'm sure this is attractive.
One a certain critical mass is hit (cough, California), it's MUCH harder to sustain teams and much harder to switch to districts.