Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cory
Im almost 100% sure CA had a few teans more than Michigan for the lead.
|
Not necessarily connected to this, but it's something that has bugged me for a couple years...
<rant>
I'm not sure if it was 2001 or 2002 (I think it was 2002) where California had over 100 teams... but many teams have had to drop out due to lack of funding in the stagnant and/or declining economy, and a handful of teams had to drop out due to lack of school support. I believe strongly that this huge amount of teams (100+) in California was part of, what I thought, was a well intentioned but not well thought out "mentorship grant" and "rookie grants" by companies like KPC&B. This encouraged veterans to start up many rookie teams, whose funding was eventually competed for by more successful veteran teams and after their eligibility for KPC&B Rookie Grants dried up, so did the rest of their potential sponsors. It's a noble goal to increase the number of teams in the country and in the world, but it's counterproductive to encourage the formation of 25+ teams in a state where, economically, they can't compete for ample funding to sustain themselves after their 2 year window for "rookie grants" runs out. Those teams can't be sustained until the economy picks up over here and companies like Applied Materials can start financially sponsor multiple teams (or even a single team for that matter) again.
</rant>