Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets
I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district? If the distance traveled is no different (or less) and would theoretically be getting a better deal monetarily than they would under the regional system (even if you factor traveling expenses). So I don't see how districts would be fundamentally less advantageous for remote teams than regionals are. I understand that they proabably wouldn't have it as good as the more centrally located teams, but they almost certainly wouldn't have it severely worse.
-$0.02
|
My concern is predicated upon the assumption that the district-model will operate as it did in Michigan and teams in participating regions will attend two district-events in place of the single, larger regional event they might have attended in the past.
By allowing districts to exist in some places but not in others, FIRST is creating inequality of opportunity for its most rural teams. The distance to an event, whether it be a district or regional, is inconsequential except for where it might increase substantially enough to require teams to travel by air in the future where they'd traveled by road before. Otherwise, increased travel costs are incurred by the additional lodging required when attending additional events.
If a team has to travel to a more populated region three times (for two district events and a regional championship event) to have the same opportunity to qualify and attend the World Championship as a more centrally located team
and must pay for lodging each of those three times, how is that not disadvantageous?
It's true that they hop, skip and jump right past their old playground and attend a good old regional event somewhere else and, in that case, their costs probably won't rise over last year; though, please recall that the $1500 reduction in entry fees holds no relation to the implementation of the district model and I do not think those savings are not germane to this discussion. This offers them the cheapest opportunity for ongoing success and a shot at the World Championship, but it is by no means equal to what their former neighbors (however distant) are getting for their money.
For a team from Spokane, WA (on the state's eastern border), it's not unreasonable to drive to Seattle or Portland -- somewhere between 300-350 mi. each way. Do it three times, though, and those hotel bills are starting to get expensive. Their next nearest alternative site would be Davis, CA -- more than 800 mi. away. Driving is less practical and flying is quite a bit more expensive.
Perhaps a simple solution is that district organizers artificially locate district events in less populated areas and spread the financial burden of the west's wide open spaces around to more teams. Instead of making that team from Spokane haul it over the pass three times in March, maybe offer a district event in Spokane (or in nearby Idaho) and force teams from the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor to go east. At such a point, costs for most teams might remain unchanged from what they are now, but they're getting to play more. Some might groan about it -- how would teams in MI feel if they were forced to attend one district on the UP? -- but it's the best solution for the most number of teams.