[EricH]

Originally Posted by mwmac

In my opinion, a geographic assignment model is not the simplest or fairest model for CMP venue assignment nor is it easily scalable. One complication that First has already identified is that it necessitates the creation of some formulation to permit teams to attend their non-home CMP. Of course, such a formulation would also require the creation of a rule set that governs the total number of non-home requests per season and per team and per time frame etc.

Actually, it is. To a point. The formulation can be rather simple: you start with the HoF teams and defending champions, figure out where they're going. (It's easier after the first year, because you have each event's defending champions.) Defending champions automatically go to their defending event--regardless of whether it's their home event--and HoF teams split about 50-50 by number (ask them which one they want to go to, and "time in HoF" is the tiebreaker if one event is full before the other).

The geographic assignment is actually quite scalable. It already covers the entire known FRC world. And it's quite simple: you'll go to the closest one to you (not necessarily measured in DISTANCE, mind you--could be measured in time or dollars) unless Plan B is invoked. Fair... Sorry, but life isn't fair.

Plan B is the "I want to go to the other championship" plan. I like the one outlined earlier by Basel: online, switch with either anyone or with a specific team. Simple, and it works.

Another issue with geographic team assignment is that it may, in the interest of maintaining equal numbers between venues, necessitate a regular revisiting of area boundaries as team growth rates are quite varied across the First landscape.

And that's a bad thing how? I wouldn't just anticipate a revisiting of area boundaries, but how about a regular revisiting of "Is this at the level it needs to be", "Do we need another CMP-level event", and other similar questions. And if those are addressed every couple of years or so, then that is a good thing.

I recognize that teams situated near each of the championsplit venues would be open to incurring higher travel costs should they be randomly assigned to the distant venue. That is the main drawback to this method that I see. However, as Orlando, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis et al can attest, no venue lasts forever. I do believe this approach should at least be given some consideration by the First committee as an alternative to their geographic method.

As noted, we're not talking "higher" travel costs. We're talking HIGHER and HIGHER travel costs. Basically, if you're in TX or MI, you need to WANT to go to the other venue (reason for wanting to is up to your team--but there isn't anything saying FIRST can't offer an incentive). That simple.



I did notice the part about reducing travel burdens, or rather sharing them around. I think the best method there is to manage to get the Detroit CMP moved to the West Coast after the Detroit contract expires. (Houston can go to Atlanta or the East Coast.) I think that's somewhat reasonable, no?