Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
Cool, so we've reached a consensus - More matches = more better for teams.
We've even agreed that we want what's best for teams. Yay! Progress.
So, you're telling me the primary issue is in the combination match turn time combined with teams. [1] What steps can we take to alleviate this?
- FiM runs two fields side by side, and I know some Canadian events have. Would that be a viable solution?
- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- I noticed you said that guest speakers were a problem, I understand the need for VIPs and what have you to talk. But would stuffing them into field breaks be a viable option?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here? [2]
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE
- I'm gonna harp on this one a bit, cut down the number of teams? Option? [3]
[1] Yes I knew this already
[2] My role primarily involves not being around the field much.
[3] This is really why I push districts - it lets teams play more, for less money and lets more teams take home hardware. Hardware is REALLY inspiring which achieves FIRST's Mission. Just this weekend we played with a team that had, in 20 years, NEVER made it to the finals of an event. Their kids were inspired. A chance they wouldn't have had in a regional system where a second play was 4k.
|
In all seriousness and despite my bias from being someone who put forth the idea that I had never heard of before, Minnesota could lead the charge to run a regional/dcmp hybrid schedule. It's sort of a brute force way to give teams more matches but it opens the door to give some light training to volunteers, get teams used to unbag time, you could keep the venues and team counts you have, and you aren't increasing travel burden.
This is a solution that comes with a different set of problems, but the current solution in MN is obviously causing problems and the mainline potential solution seems to be a nonstarter for leadership. My question is, por que no los dos?