Quote:
I am proposing a thought experiment along the lines of "can it be better?"
I think perhaps it can. The idea came to me listening to Verbrugge talk about this or that team at the MSC having success in Curie or Newton in year X. It struck me that while Einstein means something, Curie, Newton, Archimedes or Galeleo are meaningless other than that they are CMP divisions and they are not Einstein.
|
I like keeping in mind "can it be better?" Along with that comes "let's define better".
I agree that if each field had an identity, i.e. Big 12, Big 10, it would mean something and that part would be better. If the end result was that a lot of better teams (significantly more than now) consistently didn't go to Einstein because of the depth of quality of a particular field then it may not be better, or even fair for that matter. That happens in the various college conferences. Also the college conferences rise and fall in quality and depth of quality.
I don't have a ready idea for creating a lasting identity for each field but I will think about it. It would be a nice affect assuming the repercussions were not bad.
I wonder how it would be possible to assign teams to an Atlanta (St. Louis) field at the beginning of the season? It would give somewhat of a one year identity in which you could know who you may be playing against, plan, have discussions and rivalry throughout the season and build a little identity.
Obviously the qualifying, attending, etc. implications are huge but just another thought. I am not a fan of a regional situation (for the four fields) being in Michigan for all the reasons stated. Michigan needs to be spread out in my opinion.