[RMiller]

This is how I have come to view the goal: more chances to play for a lower cost without lowering quality.
So, first some objective questions: Has this increased the number of times teams play? (I think this is relatively straightforward)
How many teams have had increased (non-robot) costs? How much have they increased? Remember, there may be teams that would only have gone to one regional and now have two sets of travel costs to pay.
Now, the subjective part: has the quality of play decreased?
Has the quality of "production" decreased?
If so for either of these: How so? Which district events? Is it acceptable? Is there ways to improve without raising the cost?

Questions for future consideration/upon expansion: can teams opt out into a different structure (prohibitive travel costs perhaps)? Some areas don't have enough teams to support a structure like this, what are the options for those places?

I want to say that I certainly like the idea. As a mentor on a team that spent under $500 beyond registration (granted we are rookies that started the year late), any chance to increase play time while reducing costs would be appreciated.
Oh, and after spending the weekend at Midwest, if part of any lower quality "production" is a lower volume on music that would be much appreciated as well! Without fail, I come away with awful headaches due to this (a lack of sleep doesn't help either), but I never remember ear protection until later.

Edit: I guess I type too slow as it appears most of this has now been said in one form or another.