2004striker
I do not disagree, I just used the geography as a means of combating the travel argument someone would have. Adding NECSA into the mix creates in my mind a potential powerhouse.
Chico
Municipal restrictions aside (if any). Although I agree on both points about the Cola brain trust, I have to say that the former seems to be more prevalent than the latter (at least from discussions I have had in the past). Pearce and Andrew did a fine job in the upstate. I'll let Bear comment on the Bridge issue (I have my own opinion about a CofC force, which I will keep to myself) as it is still in its infancy.
The key is to set a specific rule such as Bridge by not doing classic and CESA by keeping Classic labeled teams in Classic, that will make the "classic" club comfortable in the service it provides.
So what is the key to these two clubs. Both have strong willed people who decided what was best for the area and stuck to it (in CESA's case you can argue econmically succesful as well). There is no such individual or group in the Midlands, except for one person, who I would think could stand to gain the most benefit, but has been strangely mum. I believe if this individual were to galvanize the clubs a succesful bridge model could arise with little to no loss in numbers.
I guess I am starting to sound like 04striker now.
There is one bit of data that will need to reviewed in 2 years. How many players drop out because they do not want to go through the travel and cost of playing CESA and Bridge if they cannot break the upper echelon.
