Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy
I agree, however, MI has grown significantly since the launch of the district model in 2009. In 2008, MI had 3 regionals, each with a population of around 60 teams, with a large overlap between them. (There were 118 MI teams in 2008.)
MI could easily sustain 4 regionals, if not 5 now. FiM is unfairly underrepresented in the current system (also, the district model drives new rookies, because its lower cost)
and why I said it won't fix the problems, is if implemented as FiM was, (delete 3 regionals, replace with districts, + MSC, qualify 3 regionals worth of teams from MSC), you havent changed the number of qualifying based seats at CMP, you've simply moved where they're issued from.
|
I get what you are saying. I am coming from the perspective that this "10% of teams in a region qualify for the championship" would carry over to each district model. For example, there are 175 teams in California, with 4 regional competitions. That means up to 24 teams qualify. Now take it to the district model, only 18 teams qualify. Not a huge jump, but still significant.
As more regions adopt the district model (which as I've stated before, seems to be the natural evolution of the program) we will see the strain on Championship spots decrease, as long as they follow the same qualification ratio that FiM does.
-Mike