[Aren Siekmeier]

I think this has been touched on a little bit, but I'd like to make it more concrete.

Many talk about a hybrid system (such as we have now) as if it's really bad. But we should think about how it compares to what we have now. Right now, most teams pay $5000 for a regional somewhere in their vicinity, maybe an additional $4000 for another event, and then go straight to CMP. Some teams in areas that have worked very hard to establish a district system benefit from this with more, cheaper playing time, smaller events, etc.

What makes adding an individual district worse? (vs going all districts, which is really not feasible for a while, if ever.) It definitely benefits the teams in the new district, and they deserve it because of the hard work needed to get there. Does it harm other teams? They do not see their playing time get more expensive, as some have suggested. It's still $5000 plus maybe $4000 and then straight to CMP. Maybe all nearby events are no longer available, but I think in these cases FIRST needs to consider opt-ins to the district system for nearby teams. Saying that district teams are coming and stealing your regional spots is kind of a sad argument (don't you think they would have traveled even if they weren't in a district?).

I'm saying that adding a district is good for those in the district, and really not a big deal for those well outside of it (those right on the cusp should have an option to join if regional availability suddenly vanishes). The people in district areas work their butts off to get the benefits, and the rest of us keep what we had. So let's not demand all or nothing on districts because of perceived inequality in a hybrid system. This inequality is directly related to the strength of the FRC community in your area, and as I've said before, a lot of FIRST happens because of the volunteers, mentors, and people at home, not the people at HQ.