scdad,
You answered your own question by writing the information, but I'll expand.
This is Bridge FA's first year of operations, and as such sponsorship is very difficult to secure. Like you, others on the message board think it's good to see, but there is still much speculation in the low country, due to which clubs aren't fully in the alliance. So the cost of the tryouts, and other operating costs, have to be fully self sustaining, this year.
Many decisions go into determining the rate structure of the tryout costs. One of the biggest is the amount of hours for evaluation. This is obviously affected by the structure and number of days that we decided on. This decision wasn't reached lightly.
Bridge FA is intended to be an inclusive cooperative arrangement, not an exclusive competitive arrangement. As pointed out by another poster, in a different thread, it's very unfortunate for the players/parents of the low country to have been placed in the position they have been placed. After the tryouts for Bridge FA were announced other tryout schedules were posted, which directly conflict on some of the sessions. All area club's leadership was aware of this potential, forcing players/parents to make the very difficult choice, of "leaving us to go to them", and they chose not to join and ultimately the players/parents have a very difficult decision. For those that haven't reached a decision, come take a look and compare. This development was/is unfortunate, but not all together surprising, even though we worked very very hard to avoid it. We still are hopeful that the other area club's will continue the dialogue and join the alliance.
In staying with our inclusive approach, we intentionally spread the tryouts out to afford players the opportunity to tryout both with Bridge FA, and the applicable current local clubs that aren't part of the alliance. Additionally, we split the age groups in the manner we did to avoid HS playoff conflicts. Several of the low country high schools are in the various championship games this weekend, and many others went deep into the playoffs, which would have conflicted with tryouts this week.
These two factors alone lead us to more evaluator hours, and more trips to the fields by the evaluators. Although some evaluators have donated their time, others desire to be paid when they perform their professional service. I do like the CESA rate structure, and hope to be able to institute something very similar next year.
We have been pleased with the support of the younger age groups this week, and are hopeful that we will see the same response in the older age groups next week.