Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
I'll agree with the sentiment that not every school is well suited to FRC, and that some existing teams may do better in a less intensive program like FTC, and that it may be best served to coach those schools towards the program that fits them the best.
But should we just price the teams out by changing the program in a way that ultimately increases their costs past their sustainable level? Are these teams actually being moved into another program, or are they just dying as a result of the transition to districts? Has there been any documentation, at all, on how the different districts have handled this issue?
|
I don't see how districts are pricing teams out of FRC. Ignoring the CAD/USD exchange rate issues - district registration is the exact same cost as a single regional. You play more matches, and the events are likely closer to you. You then get a bonus 2nd event for free if you so choose. The only valid negatives are the lack of "show", and geographic isolationism.
Districts do require an additional layer of competition before the half champs level, but this only applies to teams who attend a single regional event, and manage to qualify directly at that event. As my previous post showed for Ontario - there aren't many of those.
I recompiled the numbers for regional model teams in 2016. I excluded rookie teams (259 teams) and everyone except for US and Canadian teams (154 teams).
There were 1535 veteran regional model teams that met that criteria.
899 teams attended a single regional event:
(28.7% of all FRC teams)
858 did not attend the world championship
41 did attend the world championship (4.6%)
636 teams attended 2 or more regional events:
(20.3% of all FRC teams)
414 did not attend the world championship
222 did attend the world championship (34.9%)
Single event teams quite simply aren't attending the world championship, and can play in as few as 8 official matches before their season ends - that doesn't seem very sustainable or inspirational to me.