Progress is achieved where the altruistic interest intersects with the Machiavellian. I've had this phrase rolling in my head now for a couple months. Whether I picked it up as a quote or I have formulated some new maxim, I don't know. But it came into play today.

Eric challenged me on the issue that my advocacy of circuit growth may really be a front for an NAQT profit motive. It's a fair criticism, given my connection, and I would admit that a larger circuit would benefit NAQT, and it's a nice one since it can't really be disproven, short of having me shoot NAQT in the foot, and since to a certain degree those are my toes as well... The thing is, even if I wasn't with NAQT, I would still wholeheartedly advocate it. Everyone benefits from a larger circuit. More teams means more teams at tournaments, and more hosts for tournaments, more events, more moderators, more packets, and more money flowing (the dreaded profit motive). [Before someone throws the natural follow-up "But NAQT will benefit first!" No, unless NAQT is the next event on the schedule. Before someone throws the natural follow-up "But NAQT will benefit more!" No. The people, teams, and organizations who are most able to make new teams welcome, feel accepted, and happy will benefit more. That may be NAQT, but it's no guarantee. It's also the best check against the "NAQT will get a big head and forget us all" line of reasoning.]

On a purely personal basis, I just want new teams, they're fun to watch, they're excited about playing, and they laugh at my jokes. But I'm not expecting them to dominate, I wouldn't make that the ultimate measure of whether teams should be considered successful in the circuit. I'm expecting them to enjoy themselves, learn something, contribute some enjoyment to the game, and yeah, maybe they will become dominant. Nothing wrong with them reaching the top, nothing wrong with them not reaching it either.

I hold that there is also a second set of reasons for growth, which play in into the altruistic viewpoint, but that I also to be true and fundamental. Those items spring from the idea that quiz bowl has value in and of itself, that there is value in playing and interacting with the circuit, beyond wins and losses. That it is fun, enlightening, and honorable. And it is those things that make quiz bowl good, that draw people in, and make them want to play. Those things are not highlighted enough. You play, you learn, you enjoy, you meet new people, and you grow as a person. I believe in those ideas. I've believed in them since before NAQT was even concieved, and I bring those ideals into the NAQT discussion. So if you're assuming that what I'm saying here is because of how NAQT does things, well, to quote Willy Wonka, Strike that...reverse it.

Now filling in Eric (and everyone else) on the idea of reducing overall costs.
I mentioned that we should have a reduction in costs. Well, here's how I see it. Over the past month, I've seen the following pattern with events that I've driven to. Tournament fee is around $60-70. That's equal to the cost of one room for one team per evening. (Since I was driving my own car, we didn't enter car rental into this, but the gas is usually around 2 tanks per trip. $40.) If any of those trips had been within day-trip range, we wouldn't have needed hotels, or the second tank of gas. $100 is sufficient to go to another tournament. I concede that there will be tournaments that will be worth the travel cost, but you can't say that about every tournament (besides, with a larger set of teams to draw from, those tournaments will have new teams replacing those from far out). If one distant tournament can be replaced with two closer ones, then there's a serious benefit. If we can populate the circuit with more teams, then this would be a real savings, and it would keep a higher percentage of money within the circuit.
I'd also love to see the tournament fee structure drop if this happened. But I recognize that really becomes a question of what the market will bear, and really, I've yet to see someone suffer sticker shock so bad that it's kept them from going to a tournament. Until that happens, and makes it public, we won't see a drop.

One other point that Eric raised was one of "how do you get a critical mass at a new location?"
Well, sometimes you need a team to come together. But sometimes you need to just have one or two interested people, if their passion is strong enough. That's pretty much how we restarted Cornell, there were several tournaments where we took two people, because that was all that were interested. Eventually we were able to collect a team, but if we weren't tenacious that way, we never would have gotten there. Doing that sort of thing isn't a bad thing, as long as you concede that you're going to learn, not necessarily to win. This also makes the winning that much better.

More later.