Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakxii
Why do you think that a regional model is better for sustaining teams then a district model would be?
|
I never said a regional model is better. My comments are directed toward what has transpired and what I know about what it takes to transition to the District model.
As I've often mentioned to people during discussions in Texas and other threads here, the problem with Texas isn't that we are short on registration slots, it's that this place is downright huge. Most teams, particularly those outside of the major cities, have travel costs that far exceed registration fees. While I haven't polled teams, I think the reason many of them fold is that they know they need 2 events to have a fighting practical chance at improvement, but they can't afford the extra travel.
Ultimately, District gets them that second play, but if they qualify for District Champs, they see a $8000 increase in their budget ($4000 in registration, $4000 in travel) to get to that event. So, District model means only more costs for many teams because the travel is far larger a portion of their budget than in other areas of the country. That's a hard sell to make for most teams, in my estimation and observation. While I feel the District model would lead to more events and more teams and be a net benefit, the prospect of teams facing such additional extra costs to qualify for Houston champs makes this a very hard sell. In my opinion. that introduces major concerns about how many teams will drop when District model happens. Yes, I said drop. But, that's just an initial drop due to the transition, and ultimately I think there will be more teams, and more competitive teams, in Texas as a result of the move.
So, yeah, it's chicken and egg, but the trigger to make the transition will be the sustainability of teams and funding, both of which have been reasonably volatile in recent years and need to settle into sustainability before we make the move.