[EricH]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

On the FUN Q&A, Frank said he isn't a fan of 100-team divisions, that they are too big, which suggests (these are now my words, not his) that there will be more than four divisions for each super regional.

I don't think anybody's a fan of 100-team divisions... except those folks that think 66-team regionals are really nice. They are, because you have more teams to meet and greet and more time between matches, but then you realize that you only get 8 matches and everybody else gets 10+.


To go with a point I was making earlier: smaller divisions, with fewer matches overall, to get into the 10+ matches/team range (for a 50-team field, 84 total matches with a couple of surrogates playing in one or two of 'em will give 10 matches each; to get 12 matches, 100 matches even will work) and more downtime or a more compressed schedule is probably the way to go over bigger divisions and fewer matches.

That underlined part is the key tradeoff. More downtime means longer lunch breaks, or more time to see the rest of the competition/festival--read, conferences, other divisions, other teams in the pits, the other three events, supplier showcase, innovation fair, you get the idea. But a more compressed schedule can mean shorter time at the event, which can maybe allow teams (or volunteers?) to redeye in and save a night's hotel.


Back when I was a student, 75-80 team divisions were the norm. Seemed about right, but then you get the challenge of sorting out who's playing for the half-trophy and half-banner for winning the half-championship if you've got 400 teams and you're capping divisions at 75-80 teams each.