[Rich Kressly]

Lots of folks in this conversation I respect deeply and I know I'm the old head that doesn't spend much time here any more. However, with the escalation of this conversation and the growth of the district model, I can't resist making a few obvious (at least to me) points:
1. The overall goal here is about the type of person that is produced from the program, nothing else.
2. Until these type of conversations are centered around real historical and current data on graduates (not on-field play, points, or trophies), it's all just noise - sorry.
3. My personal history and experience would indicate blue banners have very little (if anything) to do with producing graduates with certain qualities.
4. While I understand certain other arguments I've heard, anything that leads to more work, more days with a team, "more" of anything is going to reduce the number of willing adult and student participants globally. Locally, there may be some exceptions where you see exceptional people and support, but globally it's a loss.
5. I get the idea for wanting better robots on the field, but does that ACTUALLY produce more of the graduates we desire? If so, where's the data?
6. If the overall vision were to be, "Let's make FRC the elite program only for the top end" then I'd be willing to scrap most of my thinking for 1-5 above. Of course, to do that, then FULLY embracing, pushing, and supporting intermediate programs (regardless of logo) like VRC and FTC as the way to engage and create MOST of those future graduates we are trying to create has to be part of the plan.

I really don't mean to pop anyone's balloon. I really do "see" the arguments being presented, but my 16 years of experience around this stuff says that, in large part, we may be entirely missing the point.