Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
I guess the TL;DR - I don't care about 2 regional teams when they complain that they have to travel to their second district since the OVERWHELMING majority already have to travel and their costs for the part of the season that everyone gets (districts) will likely go down approximately $4000. I've included 2014 data backing my claim that a large percentage of teams attending only one event and incur travel costs already.
Of the 1258 (46%) teams that attended only one regional in 2014[1] (2709 total teams), 577 (~46% of the 1258) traveled more than 40 miles and thus likely incurred some sort of travel cost (likely hotel stay) for their first event. The big thing I'm trying to get at is that for many teams a single event is ALREADY incurring travel costs and we should be trying to locate districts to minimize that number when locating events.
Edit- I'm more than willing to provide json dumps of my data should you want to recreate it/play with it.
Edit2 - In case anyone is curious, there ARE who attend 2+ regionals and were within 40 miles of both, here's your list: [333, 353, 369, 371, 623, 907, 1230, 1389, 1796, 2421, 2964, 4456, 4464]
[1] This is the last year I have data handy for.
|
Not for nothing, but Matt Wilson, Matt Lythgoe, and myself all operate out of Virginia where over 2/3rds of teams only compete at one regional, according to my weird document of area statistics I updated earlier in the year.
It's also probably worth noting that both 1086 and 2363 do help and have relationships with teams who are these one event only teams. Teams the size of 422, 1086, and 2363 will likely rise to the challenge of extra fundraising necessary to continue operating in the new system but it's worthwhile to raise concerns for the teams who may have no idea any of this is even happening.