Since I was the one of the soundboards for Lucien when he got this crazy idea, now I'll tell him how I really feel instead of nodding and smiling
when he presented the idea to me. Just kidding.... I do feel it is a novel concept, one worth debating.
There was a thread earlier that talked about what was more important: winning chairman’s or winning the championship’s. Pretty divided. I remember when I was reading it, I went in thinking that the overwhelming response would be chairman’s, and it really wasn't. Now obviously, the sample set (your chief delphi poster) and responses given can't be considered generous enough to get an accurate representation of the true pulse of every Tom, $@#$@#$@#$@# and Harry FIRSTer. But I think it could indicate something stunning. Some teams (more than we'd probably like to admit) aren't really interested in starting teams. I hate to say it, I really do, but they aren't. I believe it is evident in the data. Lucien wouldn't be suggesting these hare brained ideas if we were getting an abundance of new teams every year. I feel 'forcing' the issue would unfortunately make most teams positions more than clear. They wouldn't like it. And I think it as a lot to do with money.
Personally, I feel growing FIRST has to start with us. I do. But I truly believe that FIRST has to create an susceptible environment. It is becoming increasing harder for veteran teams to keep going, let alone now divert these already strained resources to other teams.
I’m not making excuses, but I’m trying to point out realities. FIRST increases prices and then we get called out for not doing homework. I doubt FIRST is scamming us, but if Dean wanted new teams he waive or highly reduce entry fees or kit fees for rookie teams. In the end, this is about money. Very few teams are rolling in it. I’ve personally seen each extreme, and wow what a difference it can make.