The following is a transcribed extract (divided in two) from about 5:12 in the video. I think the video does a better job than the post in communicating FIRST's reasoning.
Quote:
|
..we don't have all the details yet. We've got this big picture vision of how Championship is going to evolve and sort of where we'll be at which weekend and in which year. We're very excited about it but we got a lot of details that we have to work out across all of our programs...
|
My reading is that the only thing that FIRST have done is book venues for the four years (2017-2020), which they were forced to do (current St Louis deal expires).
The difficulty was having to book venues that would work in 2020, considering the current model was not sustainable (there is probably not one venue fairly located, big enough and affordable for FIRST in 5 years time based on current growth trends).
So they solved the logistical problem first, and now they have two very large venues, on two separate weekends, which they have to package in to a utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) solution. Their emphasis is on "the greatest number" part, with side benefits of reduced average travel costs and probably increased sponsor presence.
Quote:
|
... and we know that those details are important. In fact we want to engage members in the FIRST community to help us come up with the best solution and to think about what might be the best approach to some of these things...
|
This is the most frustrating part: why now, when there is probably very little wiggle room to work with?
Finally, the biggest question for me is where does this put the district system? I thought the plan was to get all districts by 2017, thereby circumventing this problem?