Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sw293
Double check your numbers. Adding up, this means that there were 1507 regional "participations" last year. There were 26 regionals, so that means that at your average regional you could expect 57.9 teams. Most regionals couldn't host this many teams if they wanted to. My bet is that you included Nationals in your count.
I don't think any team schedules four regionals.
|
Since the original numbers are in doubt, I assumed that each of the previous numbers included the championship and came up with these numbers.
-285 teams went to ONE regionals.
-122 teams went to TWO regionals.
-16 teams went to THREE regionals.
edit
That is 577 regional "participations". This means that the teams that participated in more than one regional created a demand for approximately 10 regionals with an average size of 58 teams per regional. If these numbers are correct, then limiting the demand for regional participations by restricting the number of regionals that a team can attend, could reduce the number of regionals by 10. Personally this still sounds like a lot of "regional participations" so I still doubt these numbers. The the point is that limiting the demand, will limit the supply and/or increase the price, two things that I do not want to happen.
edit/ Based on the post below there were 147 "regional participations" which is equal to about 3 regionals.