On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 1:21:21 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
The really screaming issue we saw this year is that pilot after pilot declined the opportunity.

Yes, John, I had the same startled reaction. I assume it's money and time. Lots of both are required, I'm told.

I'll take it one step further. Forty years ago, we had only two classes, Open and Standard, before adding 15M, and one world championships held every 2 years. It was a BIG DEAL to get on the U.S. Team (as illustrated by the alleged gaming of the preferential voting system that, among other things, is thought to have denied George Moffat the chance to defend his World Champion title in 1976 in Finland and occasional discussions of a SuperNationals with the top X in each class invited to participate to determine the U.S. Team slots).

With a few exceptions, the same small handful of top U.S. pilots returned to the World Championships time after time.

I'm only half kidding when I say that I'm not sure how many classes we have now (7?) or how many world championships there are (at least one a year, sometimes 2). But the word "proliferation" comes to mind. And arguably the number of serious competitors has shrunk (although the dramatic decrease in nationals attendance probably owes as much to class proliferation as to declining participation). As a result, the pool of U.S. Team members seems to have expanded. I don't want to say it's easier to get on the Team. But it does seem that way.

I'll defer to John when it comes to economic theory but I wonder if the declining "price of admission" to qualifying for the U.S. Team might spur demand for it over time, resulting in increased nationals participation by pilots who might otherwise fly a couple of regionals instead. This could be exacerbated (enhanced?) by the fact that pilots would have to commit a lot of time and personal funds to accept an invitation, thus reducing demand and prompting many to decline.

Chip Bearden