Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanis
Thanks Andrew, I think these are excellent questions to move the discussion forward. The intent of my post was to emphasize that the number of plays in qualifications is essentially determined long before anyone steps foot in the venue, so there's little we can do when the event starts to squeeze in an extra play or two.
Running two fields side by side was essentially the solution years ago when Duluth and Minneapolis both became double regionals. At this point we need more events (and more money to do more events).
Cycle times vary year to year, and is influenced by the game. A more complex game that might be more fun might require longer cycle times. Its a tradeoff.
I wouldn't say guest speakers are a problem, especially if you are close to on time. If you are already half an hour behind, they are one of the last things you want.
FMS connection times haven't been terrible for me this year. A little slower than last year, but not enough that tightening that would add a significant number of matches.
I think you hit the nail on the head that fewer teams is the key, the solution is identifying a path forward for getting there and getting more people to help in achieving that goal.
|
These have gotten a bit buried, but Bryan had two really great posts. I hope everyone reads them
I'll add that there is also not space at the current MN venues to run two fields side by side for a single regional event. Maybe expanding to Ridder for pit space or something, but it's usually in use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKlybored
Now let's take a look at some of those other "columns in a spreadsheet" about event quality/value:
- What does the event physically look like? Is there inspirational value in playing in larger, sometimes iconic venues with more production value?
- How many teams are students interacting with? Is there inspirational value in the diversity and reach of teams at an event?
- What is the team experience like due to quality of volunteers? Is there customer service value in not spreading volunteers too thinly over consecutive weeks, and recruiting volunteers (particularly key ones) of lower caliber out of necessity?*
- How comfortable is the event for a teams due to scheduling? JAMMING 10 matches into a schedule that should really only have 9 is not just stressful and tiring for volunteers, it can also be stressful and tiring for teams. Besides the five drive team members that are participating in those extra matches, the rest of those teams need to be present, in the stands and in the pits - and running schedules too long (and neglecting time for delays on the field) isn't fun for anyone. There gets to a point where it goes from fun to frustrating, and at what gain? A match?
- Many other considerations that I haven't touched on, especially regarding team geography and cost of attending more than one travel event.
|
Some opinions here, but here are my answers:
- No. I like the lights on, and smaller more numerous venues that make the competition more accessible. DCMP and CMP are opportunites for production value. Others may disagree.
- No. I find that 60 teams at an event is too many to take in. Scouting is more unwieldy, you see barely two thirds of them in matches. At 40 teams or less you get to know everyone. Others may disagree.
- This is part the cost of switching to districts, and the benefits of districts motivates building the infrastructure to cover these costs. It's about the teams, build the system to support the teams.
- Another argument for districts. More events with fewer teams at each allows more match play without this strain on the system.
- An important consideration for sparsely populated areas. MN has fairly high team density across the state though, similar to MI outside cities.
If we want more play time, the answer is easy. More events, fewer teams at each event. It's a challenge people are working to solve, with many tradeoffs involved, and lots of infrastructure to build. I really hope the volunteers aren't seen as incompetent, they do a wonderful job.