http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=23
This is why I don't like this idea (no new controller) even if there is a two tier paying system:
basically it's a pretty silly reason, which might even be stupid...
let the difference between the entry fees be marked as X...
A team needs much more than X each season and from my experience the difference between $10,000 and $(10,000+X) isn't that much when you are fund raising.
so basically it boils down to this:
- "rich" teams will always get a new controller
- "poor" teams will have a rough time raising money and will choose to not buy a new control system, putting them at a disadvantage
- the gap grows with time since not having a controller affects your performance which in most cases affects your fund raising ability (sad, but true).
- from two tier paying system the gap widens into a two tier league where some teams do not even consider winning the regional an option.
don't judge this on the conclusion about the "two tier league", it's just the apocalyptic scenario...
in summary, choice is normally good, but in this case will leave "poor" teams much much more behind.
I think it is so important that teams must even be forced to buy a new controller (kind of like eating your vegetables.... you don't like it now, but someone who knows better is forcing you and in the long run you agree)
does that make any sense?
What do you think about this?
-Leav