Caution, long post.
If I can summarize the B&T debate succinctly so we can get back to increasing sustainability, and be advised that the numbers are just to identify, and assigned in no particular order:
Side 1 says that eliminating B&T makes more sense, would help them more, and teams can still choose to follow B&T if they want to. Side 1 says Side 2 just doesn't get it (and rather openly, I might add).
Side 2 says that keeping B&T makes more sense, and would help them more, for usually opposite reasons than Side 1. And Side 2 also says Side 1 doesn't get it (also rather openly).
Side 3 (a very small minority, generally landing with side 2) says that Side 1 and 2 are both wrong and we should still be operating under robot shipping rules as far as withholding goes.
And no side is willing to back down. I guess Side 4 would be "It doesn't matter what we say, we'll see what FIRST says, now can we get back to discussing sustainability?"
So how about we agree to disagree on that topic (at least for another six months or so, when FIRST announces whether or not B&T is back), assume that at least as far as sustainability is concerned it's a wash either way, and continue on?
Sustainability. What I see there isn't necessarily something HQ can actually do much about. I mean, short of lowering the barrier to entry (anybody not want to pay $4K instead of $5K?), the financial side is always going to be problematic. (I figure a rookie team budget for their first year to be an absolute minimum of $10K--registration, robot, and maybe some cheap T-shirts and tools.) If a team can get that part taken care of, they might or might not be sustainable--let's go with they'd be 33% more sustainable if they can guarantee a revenue stream (and remember, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, including the last two.) Maybe Dean's Homework this year will help. Maybe it won't.
Mentoring can be a problem too. I've got a challenge for all ya mentors out there. I see that a lot of experienced folks move to a new area and end up with an established team. A team that's got mentors and has been around a while, and is sustainable. How many teams could you help turn from "maybe they show up with a robot" to "sustainable" by simply working to mentor them instead of the more established team? Think about it. (There's other considerations, I'm aware--for example, the team actually needs mentors because they're set on the rest but NOT mentors--but that's kind of been niggling at me the last 3-4 years.)
Nomadic teams tend to have problems too, I'd think. Imagine having to move every. single. year. Can it be done, sure. I've heard of those teams succeeding despite all the moves. But I think it can be argued that an established "home base" can do a lot more for a team's sustainability than overzealous parents can.
At least they know where to find the team...
And then there's the dedicated student factor. As in, the students so dedicated that when they graduate the collective team knowledge is gone... Or not dedicated enough to bother showing up.
How many of those
What can FIRST HQ do? More seminars on team management (fundraising, recruiting and retention, finding places to build--that's a start, maybe include "replacing your primary sponsor"). Lower costs of entry. And more Senior Mentors to help teams find those missing pieces. That'd be my top 3 for things that FIRST can do.