Tim and Shawn, you both make excellent points.
Personally I don't think gyros are the solution to increased pattern participation.
I think that the 'trickle down' effect has really negatively impinged on pattern growth. The complexity of the pattern sequences at the top level has increased astronomically in the past 15 years or so and every sequence below it has gotten more difficult as well. When I started practicing pattern in 1971 (with a Fox .25 powered S-Ray) it included: take off; straight flight out; procedure turn; straight flight back; 1 stall turn; 1 inside loop; 1 horizontal (hopefully) roll; possibly an immelmann turn (relying on memory here...); landing pattern; landing perfection and spot. While the S-Ray was not really competitive (and I never flew it in competition) I learned how to fly parallel to the runway; how to center maneuvers; and the basic elements of all pattern maneuvers. Back then, the Kaos, Super Kaos, or equivalent was very competitive, inexpensive, easy to build and fun to fly. Now, there are only 2 meter designs available as the smaller sizes (70, 110) were not cost effective to produce, though they seemed pretty popular, especially the 70 sized models. Not only is the cost of the airplane high, even if bought used, but the space requirements for transportation are significant.
In the past 6 or 7 years I have seen several new R/C flyers appear at the middle school behind my house. All were flying small e-power planes or drones with gyro assist. Their success rate was high, but none were AMA members. When informed of the nearest AMA sanctioned club field (25 miles away) they were not enthused about joining a club. This is an aside to the primary issue, but indicates some of the problems our hobby has with growth under the auspices of the AMA.
Do I have a 'solution'? Maybe... First, I don't think the current AMA/FAI pattern should be changed. While an increase in pattern participation would be nice, the days of local contests having 40-60 competitors are gone and not really practical under the current rules. Nobody wants to fly more than 1 flight line at a small contest venue as the risk of mid-airs is pretty high. This was a BIG issue years ago when all the sequences were being converted to turnaround and the box definition limited the available airspace. Pre-turnaround you could fly a lot closer and with multiple flight lines you could choose airspace to avoid other fliers, an option eliminated with Aresti style aerobatics.
I think that classic pattern may provide the best option to attract new 'blood', especially on a larger scale. The designs are all much smaller 60 sized airplanes; so cheaper, easier to transport and, with enough demand, e-powered ARFs would become readily available. This provides an easier (from a sequence perspective, too), lower cost introduction. Once hooked, some may move on to current pattern competition. Ideally, a more youthful demographic will find pattern appealing. I hate to say pattern is dying, that is depressing and somewhat untrue, but I do think the average age of the participants is a lot older than it was in the '70s and '80s.
One final thought: any discipline that requires significant practice to achieve success is going to be somewhat self limiting. Watching the winter Olympics I see lots of very young competitors who have dedicated many hours of their youth practicing for that potentially 'golden' moment. I think pattern (or any model aircraft competition) can still achieve that, but we really need better marketing!
-Will