[Rich Kressly]

Good discussion here. As best as I can see it, the district model presumes two things:

1. More FRC plays per season inspires more students toward science and technology futures while instilling in them a stronger social conscience than their non-involved peers.

2. Making FRC more accessible in "FRC-dense" areas is the best way to spread FIRST's mission, goals, and ideals.

The funny thing is, I don't think any of us have any data to support one way or another here. Unless we really had a handle on all of our team alumni, found out exactly what they are doing today - who's involved in STEM-related education/work and who isn't, then find out how many of those alums carry with them the "social-conscience/volunteer" piece FIRST places such a priority on with the culture-changing awards and culture, THEN find out how many plays per year their teams had in FRC ...

then we'd really know where to dedicate our money, people, and time. Right?

If we're talking only about making FRC more affordable and accessible to areas that are already involved in FRC heavily, then the district model certainly serves a purpose.

But, if we're really talking about the core mission of FIRST, I'm not entirely sure if the district vs "regular" model discussion even matters. The fact that FIRST has other programs, including FTC, and none of that is really a part of this whole discussion bothers me a little.

For years, both inside FIRST offices and out in our communities, I've heard a lot of discussion and reporting on # of FRC plays, # of FRC second plays, etc and I still am not quite sure if this metric matters at all to what we're supposed to be doing for our global future.

Is it cool and exciting when we're there and do we get to win more stuff? Yeah, but ...