Are 8 play regional reasonable?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

This is a solution that comes with a different set of problems, but the current solution in MN is obviously causing problems and the mainline potential solution seems to be a nonstarter for leadership. My question is, por que no los dos?

Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?


Look, I understand you guys mean well, and want to make sure every team gets as many plays as they can possibly cram in. But there are a lot of other factors that come into play, and when you appear to be deliberately ignoring them, you really make people annoyed. Heck, I'm not in districts (though I'd really like to be), but I can understand why certain people don't want 'em, or can't go for 'em. Districts are not the end-all solution for "we aren't getting the value", necessarily. It depends on what your definition of value is--one of the Chilean teams spoke up a in another thread and pointed out that if CA went district, they'd lose their home regional, and that's not the first time that happened. That's not good for them, because they'd be traveling out here for two weeks--imagine doing THAT plus DCMP and maybe CMP! (For that matter, I'd love to hear from the AK team playing in PNW this year, as they've got a similar problem.)

BTW, L.A. could host a 72-team event. They've got the space for another 6 pits. That'd give each team... 7 plays. Guess what, they cap at 66 to try to help with the plays, and by teams/minute were the fastest regional to fill this year (third fastest by time). If they capped at 40 and there wasn't another regional around, you'd hear the complaining clear from the East Coast.