New District Events for 2013?

[Steven Sigley]

With this week being the Michigan and Mid-Atlantic Championships, I figure it's as good a time as any to ask.
What if any new District models do you think will be adopted for next year?
California?
Texas?

And one more question, would you rather you be in Districts now or continue attending Regionals?
(assuming you're not in a districted system already :p )

[Cory]

California is coming, but not next year.

[Steven Sigley]

California is coming, but not next year.

Do you think another regional would come to California first?

[R.C.]

Do you think another regional would come to California first?

There is another regional planned for next year.

-RC

[KevinGoneNuts]

I still can't decide if I'm for or against California having district events.

I can see why. Well 1) there are a lot of California teams and 2) it would be cheaper and there would be more events for teams.

But I think we need more regional competitions elseware. There are a lot of out of CA teams that rely on the CA regional competitions. There would probably have to be a Mexico Regional first (which honestly isn't that far away) and at least one more in the midwest. There are always a few idaho teams that come to CA, but another competition besides Utah is necessary.

[KevinGoneNuts]

There is another regional planned for next year.

-RC

where is that? I'm thinking another in SoCal.

If southern california get's another, I wouldn't mind seeing one in San Francisco :D even though we have SVR and Sac so close.

[R.C.]

where is that? I'm thinking another in SoCal.

If southern california get's another, I wouldn't mind seeing one in San Francisco :D even though we have SVR and Sac so close.

There is one being planned in the riverside area.

-RC

[KevinGoneNuts]

There is one being planned in the riverside area.

-RC

Are there many teams around there?

[EricH]

Are there many teams around there?
Ask rsisk. I can think of at least two off the top of my head, 2493 being one, and Riverside isn't that far from the L.A. area teams--figure a couple hours or so. Close enough that whether to commute or stay in a hotel will be a serious debate on some teams.

[Mark Sheridan]

Are there many teams around there?



Riverside! That will be awesome.


Here is the map from the SVR website of California teams:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=214050160952521917512.0004b2f5ed5265179df4 0&msa=0

[rsisk]

There are roughly 12 teams in the Inland Empire area this year. We have been growing fairly quickly during the last three years (2 teams in 2008, 12 teams now). We have also had significant growth in FLL and some growth in FTC teams as well. We should also be able to pull teams from San Diego (1hr), LA (1hr), Vegas (4hrs), AZ (5hrs), and Central CA (CVR 5hrs).

[Lil' Lavery]

Minnesota, Texas, and Ontario/Eastern Canada seem like potential areas for the district model, at least from an outside perspective.

I'd feel sorry for Wisconsin teams if Minnesota goes district, though. They'd be wedged between two district systems, and lose a lot of nearby regional options.

[Mk.32]

Personally I would want an district system in CA. Would mainly to give us more events for play for not that much more money [3rd event only $500].
However I can see the issues with such a system if there isn't enough teams close enough...

[waialua359]

If Hawaii had the "option" of participating in a California District Model, it would awesome.
Make one of the district events here in Hawaii, giving California teams an incentive to come here as well.

359 would still probably do the 1 regional outside of HI/CA as usual.

[Steven Sigley]

Personally I would want an district system in CA. Would mainly to give us more events for play for not that much more money [3rd event only $500].
However I can see the issues with such a system if there isn't enough teams close enough...

From the perspective of my team in Norcal it looks good, we could go to SAC, SVR, and CVR. (and maybe CSC if we do well ;) )

It'd be a blast to go to 3 competitions and see the local teams improve.

[R.C.]

There are roughly 12 teams in the Inland Empire area this year. We have been growing fairly quickly during the last three years (2 teams in 2008, 12 teams now). We have also had significant growth in FLL and some growth in FTC teams as well. We should also be able to pull teams from San Diego (1hr), LA (1hr), Vegas (4hrs), AZ (5hrs), and Central CA (CVR 5hrs).

We'll def be making the trip down there. Especially if I can get Sisk to throw us a party :P

If Hawaii had the "option" of participating in a California District Model, it would awesome.
Make one of the district events here in Hawaii, giving California teams an incentive to come here as well.

359 would still probably do the 1 regional outside of HI/CA as usual.

Glenn, we'd def come out there. We've been looking for a reason to. If regionals/districts got cheaper, we'd throw the saved money towards going to Hawaii!

-RC

[KevinGoneNuts]

Personally I would want an district system in CA. Would mainly to give us more events for play for not that much more money [3rd event only $500].
However I can see the issues with such a system if there isn't enough teams close enough...

I think what I remember reading was that they might include Nevada, Hawaii and I think another state so they might get more coverage... the championship event for that would be crazy!!!

[waialua359]

Glenn, we'd def come out there. We've been looking for a reason to. If regionals/districts got cheaper, we'd throw the saved money towards going to Hawaii!

-RC

RC,
well lets hope it happens and someday soon!
We'll be sure to pick Jim Beck's brain on the details for sure.

[Mk.32]

From the perspective of my team in Norcal it looks good, we could go to SAC, SVR, and CVR. (and maybe CSC if we do well ;) )

It'd be a blast to go to 3 competitions and see the local teams improve.

For us in SD we would have no problem with flying up to attend all of these events, especially without the just $4000 reg fees.

Having more events to go to in my book is a good thing. Giving more teams the change to improve in between regionals.

[KevinGoneNuts]

It seems like everyone here is in favor of the district system! I think it would be awesome if the average number of competitions most teams went to increased from 2 to 3. With registration fees low we could go pretty much everywhere in the district.

Plus, I've always been dying to go to the Hawaii regional

[Austin2046]

I'm pretty sure Washington State is going to a district model next year. I don't know if it will include Oregon as well, there's currently 96 teams in WA and 43 in Oregon... I got this impression after talking with our team's lead mentor/coach, as well as Kevin Ross at the Seattle Double Regional... Seems to make sense though, this year there were 3 regionals: Seattle Olympic, Seattle Cascade and Spokane, in Washington state, and there was the Autodesk Oregon Regional...

[Jeremy Germita]

At the SCRRF Fall Classic 2011, Jim Beck that he was working with some people in our area(NASA-Dryden people and our head mentor) to get an event in Lancaster, CA as early as 2013.

[JakeD]

I will agree with Austin2046 on this one. The growth rate in Washington alone will likely force a district system in the Northwest very soon. In the 2007 season there were 17 teams in Washington. From 2008-2012 there were 8, 17, 10, 25, and 19 new rookie teams each year, respectively. Check my math but more then 450% growth in 5 years stretches the regionals in the area a lot.

[BigJ]

Minnesota, Texas, and Ontario/Eastern Canada seem like potential areas for the district model, at least from an outside perspective.

I'd feel sorry for Wisconsin teams if Minnesota goes district, though. They'd be wedged between two district systems, and lose a lot of nearby regional options.

I can see MN going to district, although I don't know what the geographic spread of teams looks like in the state.

Yeah, it would stink. Double if WI and Midwest are same week again, or consecutive weeks like many other times!

[thefro526]

A friend of mine who was at the DC regional told me there was discussion of a 'Capital Region' District encompassing what are now the DC, Chesapeake and VCU Regionals. Not sure of a timeline however.

[E. Wood]

A friend of mine who was at the DC regional told me there was discussion of a 'Capital Region' District encompassing what are now the DC, Chesapeake and VCU Regionals. Not sure of a timeline however.

I was at that meeting and a district model here in the Capital Region is still at least several years away. The meeting was just to get a feel for what the district model is all about.

[IndySam]

There will be another Midwestern district by 2014.

[kjohnson]

A friend of mine who was at the DC regional told me there was discussion of a 'Capital Region' District encompassing what are now the DC, Chesapeake and VCU Regionals. Not sure of a timeline however.

I've also heard rumblings about MD/DC/VA going to the district model. The three regionals are less than 3 hours apart (Richmond to Baltimore).

[Anupam Goli]

I see the midwest and California getting districts soon. Texas isn't able to do so yet because they don't have the volunteers for it.

I personally would like to see the Southeast US be a district encompassing Tenessee, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Peachtree this year had 60 teams, and that's with 18 rookie teams. That growth alone would make it so we need another regional in Georgia. South Carolina is experiencing a lot of growth as well, and so are Alabama and Tenessee. But that's a far way off, because there are other regions with more teams than us. :rolleyes:

[DampRobot]

Although it seems to be against what others are saying on this thread, I for one don't really want a district system for California. It seems to me like it would just make it a lot harder to get to Championships, and make us miss a lot more days of school (two/three district events, district champs, and then real Championships).

Personally, I really like they way things are now.

[Andrew Schuetze]

This is an interesting discussion and being a FTC/FLL guy in Texas, I am intrigued but read nothing into that statement about what Texas will do.

What I am seeing so far is interest in multi-state region models. The tricky part then off course is deciding who/how to draw the lines. How does one organize and collect input from a multi-state region to decide such things.

i.e several folks posted positively about a CA region with some adding that including Hawaii would be great and then possibly Nevada. If Washington were then to become a single state district, how do teams in Oregon feel if a district is north and south of them that doesn't include them? Would there need to be a discussion between the Washington and California region organizers to include Oregon? These things get touchy very fast.

I'm just wondering how FIRST folks in the many regions can start to have these kinds of discussions across state/country lines?

[jwfoss]

Word on the street is that New England (CT, RI, VT, NH, MA, ME) has been and is looking to go to districts; but at this point I believe the earliest we'll see it would be 2014. I propose the name FiNE (FIRST in New England).

It's actually fairly surprising to me that the NE area has not gone to districts sooner, as the team density in the area and travel distances make a ton of sense.

[Jeff Pahl]

I can see MN going to district, although I don't know what the geographic spread of teams looks like in the state.

Yeah, it would stink. Double if WI and Midwest are same week again, or consecutive weeks like many other times!

Let me preface my comments by stating I do NOT have any inside information on what may be happening in MN. These are my thoughts and ramblings only!! And I'm not awake enough yet this morning for this to be worth a whole $0.02, so consider this my $0.015 worth.

I can see us going district in a couple years, too. 2014 seems like a possibility. We need another regional first just to get more of a volunteer base trained.

The geographic spread of teams in the state is pretty even, except for the northwest portion of the state.

With 150ish teams and growing, we have the teams necessary, or will soon.

My gut preference would be to include the North Dakota teams, and at least northern Iowa and western Wisconsin, if not all of those states. I know the ND teams would hate to have to go back to driving through MN to get to an event.

If we included all of those states in a big district model, then the Milwaukee teams could still go to Midwest if they wanted to as an out-of-district event. There is already good team growth in the LaCrosse area, a district event there would spur even more, and draw teams from southern MN too. An event in Madison would help spur growth in an area that should have more teams than it does, and would draw from both Milwaukee and the western WI / southeast MN area.

We have to do something in MN. The three 60+ team regionals we had this year were too big, too hard on the volunteers, the venues are getting too crowded, and it's just not fair to the teams to ask them to compete against 60 other teams for a chance to win a spot at CMP when there are other regionals with only 40ish teams. If we grow to 175 teams next year it gets even worse. Adding one regional next year and going to ~50 teams per event doesn't really add any spots for new teams, we had about 190 between the three events this year. We really need to add two regionals next year to have any real capacity increase without keeping the number of teams per event higher. I'm not sure we can magically conjure up the funding and the volunteers to add two next year. A lower cost per event district model would sure help in that aspect.

I'd love to see a district model that would still allow say two "non-district" teams per event to come play, maybe at a reduced cost. We love having teams like Wildstang come up here and show us different ideas and ways of doing things, that's the one thing I would hate to lose with the district model.

Again, I am aware (as are a lot of other people) there is ongoing discussion regarding additional regional(s), but I don't know anything more than that. Sorry that this got longer than I intended when I started typing.

[BigJ]

If we included all of those states in a big district model, then the Milwaukee teams could still go to Midwest if they wanted to as an out-of-district event. There is already good team growth in the LaCrosse area, a district event there would spur even more, and draw teams from southern MN too. An event in Madison would help spur growth in an area that should have more teams than it does, and would draw from both Milwaukee and the western WI / southeast MN area.


Yeah, WI would be in an awkward spot for a district system, mainly because of our distribution of teams. I don't think we can justify a Milwaukee district, etc, because it would be "on the edge" of the region. Madison would probably be the central place, but then our second district would be in MN? I don't know exactly how districts work other than that you attend 2.

Then again, there are probably a lot more awkward geographical situations to come as FRC moves to districts.

[Brandon Holley]

It's actually fairly surprising to me that the NE area has not gone to districts sooner, as the team density in the area and travel distances make a ton of sense.

Ditto.

Most of the NE events are almost interchangeable to teams in terms of which ones to attend each year.

Theres about 150 teams total in MA, CT, NH, VT, ME and RI, about the same size as the MAR district. Geographically it would be larger, but still relatively small compared to somewhere like California.

-Brando

[artdutra04]

Word on the street is that New England (CT, RI, VT, NH, MA, ME) has been and is looking to go to districts; but at this point I believe the earliest we'll see it would be 2014. I propose the name FiNE (FIRST in New England).Better name: New England Robotics District. ;)

[Jacob Paikoff]

I see the midwest and California getting districts soon. Texas isn't able to do so yet because they don't have the volunteers for it.

I personally would like to see the Southeast US be a district encompassing Tenessee, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Peachtree this year had 60 teams, and that's with 18 rookie teams. That growth alone would make it so we need another regional in Georgia. South Carolina is experiencing a lot of growth as well, and so are Alabama and Tenessee. But that's a far way off, because there are other regions with more teams than us. :rolleyes:

I think Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee(at least the eastern half) would be a good district while North and South Carolina would fit in between that and the Capital District. Right now theres about 75 teams in the Carolina meaning we're about 10-15 teams from having enough for a small district system.


I'd love to see a district model that would still allow say two "non-district" teams per event to come play, maybe at a reduced cost. We love having teams like Wildstang come up here and show us different ideas and ways of doing things, that's the one thing I would hate to lose with the district model.

Again, I am aware (as are a lot of other people) there is ongoing discussion regarding additional regional(s), but I don't know anything more than that. Sorry that this got longer than I intended when I started typing.

With a number of regions moving towards districts I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about an open districts system. My idea is that everyone would get two district events, one would have to be in there region but the other one could be at any district event in the country that has room. This would fix the problem for low density areas or remote areas like Hawaii and allow them to have a district system without having as many teams as a larger area like New England. They would only need to have one event and then the teams could travel anywhere they want for the second one.

[Tyler Olds]

There will be another Midwestern district by 2014.

Perhaps there will be many districts by 2014-2015..............

[Samwaldo]

Apparently the Boston FIRST director said that a new england district is going to be starting very soon, but the only thing is that the regionals in existence are GREAT, and many don't want to ruin that.

A problem I have with the district setup is that although we can compete more it means more travel!

[Jonathan Norris]

Minnesota, Texas, and Ontario/Eastern Canada seem like potential areas for the district model, at least from an outside perspective.

I'd feel sorry for Wisconsin teams if Minnesota goes district, though. They'd be wedged between two district systems, and lose a lot of nearby regional options.

I'm not sure if Ontario would go to a District model just yet, seeing that FIRST Canada is pretty set on expanding FIRST across Canada right now. Montreal is going to be a BIG regional next year (their growth has been phenomenal), and I think the focus should be to develop FIRST in Western Canada (one day I could see Calgary as a powerhouse region for FIRST).

[Nathan Streeter]

Apparently the Boston FIRST director said that a new england district is going to be starting very soon, but the only thing is that the regionals in existence are GREAT, and many don't want to ruin that.

A problem I have with the district setup is that although we can compete more it means more travel!

FiNE:
MA: 57
CT: 41
NH: 30
ME: 10
RI: 5
VT: 3
Total: 146 Teams
Area: 72,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00203 Teams/sq. mi.

FiM:
MI: 190
Area: 97,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00196

Although I expected the densities of teams in New England (NE) and in Michigan to be similar, I wasn't expecting New England to be (negligibly) more dense, particularly given how sparse teams in Vermont and Maine are!

Regardless, I'd been expecting that New England would adopt a district system sooner than this... I think many in the nation expected they'd be next; however, I think the primary reason is what was posted above... the existing regionals are all established, well-loved, and well-funded!

The Connecticut Regional (I still think of it as the UTC Regional) has been around for a long time and has been popular and competitive. UTC has taken care of the bulk of the funding for many years (since its beginning?).

The Granite State Regional has been around since 2003 and has also been both popular and competitive. BAE Systems handles the majority of the funding.

I still think of the Boston Regional as being young, but its now celebrated its 7th year! Hosted at Boston University, it has a very nice venue that can be used due to BU's own generosity.

To me Harrington Auditorium will always be the home of BattleCry rather than the WPI Regional, but that event just finished its 3rd year!

Really, I think that New England would support a district system very well... allowing teams from Maine a closer district (Portland area?), for example. It'd free up dollars that BAE Systems has had to put towards the regional to be used directly on the teams.

Given that there'd be about 8 districts (146 teams * 2 events/team / 40 teams/event), I would see there being one in SoMaine (Portland <-> Portsmouth), one in "NoNH" (Lebanon <-> Concord), one in SoNH (Nashua <-> Manchester), one in the Boston area, one in the Worcester area, one in the Springfield area, one in the Hartford area, and one in the Bridgeport area. I'm guessing the FiNE championship would host about 50 teams in the Boston <-> Worcester area.

[Jeff Pahl]

Yeah, WI would be in an awkward spot for a district system, mainly because of our distribution of teams. I don't think we can justify a Milwaukee district, etc, because it would be "on the edge" of the region. Madison would probably be the central place, but then our second district would be in MN? I don't know exactly how districts work other than that you attend 2.

Then again, there are probably a lot more awkward geographical situations to come as FRC moves to districts.

Each district event is open to something like 40 teams. Your initial registration fee lets you pick two events. Figure 225-250 teams across the 5 state area (WI, MN, ND, SD, IA). So you need 13-14 events over the 6 week competition season to let everyone have at least 2 slots. Or about 2 events/week.

The first year, have an event in Milwaukee, and another in Madison. Along with events in Duluth, probably 2 or 3 in the Twin Cities area, Rochester, LaCrosse, and then add some in north central WI (Stevens Point?), SW MN, NW MN (Alexandria area?) and one or two more, and you have the option just about anywhere of going to at least one close event and one that is a 2-4 hour drive. Or you can go a little farther if you want.

I have not given the details a lot of though, just kind of thinking into the keyboard right now. Just know we need to do something, and I'd hate to see WI get stuck in between a bunch of district areas and get locked out.

[JimWright949]

This is what I think should happen in the NW, any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental:

I think the NW district would be made up of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Turkey, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Washington.

Three districts would happen centered around Portland, three districts centered around Boise, and three centered around Seattle. The finals will happen in Cheney where the Spokane regional just happened.

We would need to have three fields made, during the off season, one would be stored at Aviation High, the second somewhere in Portland, and the third in Mark Wibbels’s Garage.

[EricH]

Each district event is open to something like 40 teams. Your initial registration fee lets you pick two events. Figure 225-250 teams across the 5 state area (WI, MN, ND, SD, IA). So you need 13-14 events over the 6 week competition season to let everyone have at least 2 slots. Or about 2 events/week.

I'd suggest that for the proposed district, the boundary be the Missouri River through SD. There aren't currently any active FRC teams in the state, but there is the distinct East River/West River difference--and events in the Rockies are close to West River.

[dodar]

When people along the US/Canada border are talking districts I kind of think you have to include the Canadian teams across the border in with them because if the Ontario and Toronto areas go to districts it leaves the other half of Cananda S.O.L.

[jblay]

I wonder if after all the regions are put into districts there will be any regionals at all or if teams will only be able to interact across regions at the championship. It would be cool to have a regional in each region kept so that this won't happen this way.

Better name: New England Robotics District. ;)

That's just awesome. If they don't call it that, I will be upset.

[JimWright949]

When people along the US/Canada border are talking districts I kind of think you have to include the Canadian teams across the border in with them because if the Ontario and Toronto areas go to districts it leaves the other half of Cananda S.O.L.

The NW area would pickup British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan right now there are only 2 teams in those provinces.

[lynca]

With this week being the Michigan and Mid-Atlantic Championships, I figure it's as good a time as any to ask.
What if any new District models do you think will be adopted for next year?
California?
Texas?


From a Texas perspective, teams are too spread out to really get the benefits of a district model. For example, teams from El Paso would still have to travel 8 hours to get to an event in San Antonio.

I think Texas is still a couple years away from really seeing the benefits of a District model.

[Racer26]

When people along the US/Canada border are talking districts I kind of think you have to include the Canadian teams across the border in with them because if the Ontario and Toronto areas go to districts it leaves the other half of Cananda S.O.L.

Not really, at least not if I'm understanding you correctly.

Currently two active (3 total) teams (4334, 1482, [1346]) exist west of Ontario.

They could easily be lumped into a PNW/Midwest region.

The rest of Canada (Ontario and Quebec, plus one team from NS [4147]) is fairly concentrated.

We have 4 regionals right now, and a high percentage of Canadian teams went to 2 or 3 of them this year, and some teams (772, 1241, 188, 781, 610, and more) went south of the border for a regional at least once this season.

We have enough density to make a district model work without help from south of the border.

[dodar]

Not really, at least not if I'm understanding you correctly.

Currently two active (3 total) teams (4334, 1482, [1346]) exist west of Ontario.

They could easily be lumped into a PNW/Midwest region.

The rest of Canada (Ontario and Quebec, plus one team from NS [4147]) is fairly concentrated.

We have 4 regionals right now, and a high percentage of Canadian teams went to 2 or 3 of them this year, and some teams (772, 1241, 188, 781, 610, and more) went south of the border for a regional at least once this season.

We have enough density to make a district model work without help from south of the border.

Oh, I always thought I heard people saying there was like 20-30 teams in the western half of Canada

[Peter Matteson]

Word on the street is that New England (CT, RI, VT, NH, MA, ME) has been and is looking to go to districts; but at this point I believe the earliest we'll see it would be 2014. I propose the name FiNE (FIRST in New England).

It's actually fairly surprising to me that the NE area has not gone to districts sooner, as the team density in the area and travel distances make a ton of sense.

I've heard the reason it won't happen sooner has to do with contracts for the venues that were signed as multi-year as well as not having the venues for the districts nailed down, but don't hold me to that it's second or third hand.

FiNE:
Given that there'd be about 8 districts (146 teams * 2 events/team / 40 teams/event), I would see there being one in SoMaine (Portland <-> Portsmouth), one in "NoNH" (Lebanon <-> Concord), one in SoNH (Nashua <-> Manchester), one in the Boston area, one in the Worcester area, one in the Springfield area, one in the Hartford area, and one in the Bridgeport area. I'm guessing the FiNE championship would host about 50 teams in the Boston <-> Worcester area.

When I was considering this I came up with similar districts and suggested locations.
New Haven (Yale)
Springfield (WNEC)
Eastern CT (Norwich area)
Worcester (WPI)
Boston (BU)
Nashua
Concord
Portland

District Championship would rotate between Manchester, Hartford and Worcester or just be in Worcester based on it's central location.

With New England having 5 regionals planned for next year (NH, CT, Boston, WPI, Maine) it will be interesting to see how many slots are allocated to the region.

[Travis Hoffman]

Perhaps there will be many districts by 2014-2015..............

Ohio - either join with Illinois/Indiana, or go with Western PA/WV/Western NY.

Lots of space to roam out here in the Midwest - don't see how you're going to do a densely-populated district model out here yonder, especially at the current team densities. To get enough teams, you have to add a ton of land mass, and that defeats the whole purpose of the districts. Cheap event fees don't mean much if you're paying for long-distance travel!

[Alpha Beta]

I know somebody has done this out there, but would love to see it again...

Does anyone have a google map prepared with team locations and regionals already mapped.

As new districts are created it makes sense to consider what parts of the country are being left out. Is it possible to divide North America completely into districts and then permit a couple of international regionals in New York LA, and Israel for our overseas & South American members to participate in?

What areas of the country need to build up a volunteer base for this to work? It is my understanding that the transition to a district system is very grass roots driven, not top down from headquarters.

Kansas City has one of the largesr regionals in the country at 64 teams, with some being turned away due to space constraints. I would love to be part of a district system, and am anxious to hear ideas on how our less densly populated area would make this work.

[AcesJames]

I've heard the reason it won't happen sooner has to do with contracts for the venues that were signed as multi-year as well as not having the venues for the districts nailed down, but don't hold me to that it's second or third hand.


Sue Glasspeigel told myself and Foss last November at our FLL event that the regional directors in the New England area are planning to implement the district system around 2014.

One of the main reasons she gave for waiting until then, other than venue contracts, was that they wanted the teams of New England to be "ready" to move to the district system. She and others don't want to simply change the system overnight. From what I can tell, the people planning the transition are putting a lot of forethought into it.

[smistthegreat]

Ohio - either join with Illinois/Indiana, or go with Western PA/WV/Western NY.

Lots of space to roam out here in the Midwest - don't see how you're going to do a densely-populated district model out here yonder, especially at the current team densities. To get enough teams, you have to add a ton of land mass, and that defeats the whole purpose of the districts. Cheap event fees don't mean much if you're paying for long-distance travel!

Agreed, WNY, Western PA and Ohio doesn't seem like too much of a stretch for me, as many of the FLR teams already make the trek down to Pitt or Buckeye.

[P.J.]

I think the Northwest (meaning Oregon/Washington) is a very likely candidate to go to a district system soon. I've seen a couple people from high profile teams out in that area snooping around MI this year, but that isn't necessarily an indication of anything. ;)

I am also a fan of a combined Hawaii/California region, and have heard rumors of a combined Wisconsin/Minnesota region and a combined Indiana/Illinois region.

Nobody has mentioned it yet, but I figure I might as well throw out the idea of Israel going to a district system.

Now regarding Canada, I could see them going to their own region, but probably only under one condition, an option which I've been a supporter of since Day 1 (And I'm in MI so thats a long time ago :rolleyes: ), and that is Cross-Region travel.

What is to stop a team from say, Michigan going to a MAR district and earning points that qualify towards the FiM state championship? As long as you still play the same 12 matches as everyone else, the points you earn should be the same, its just they count towards your own Regional Championship. I just think there shouldn't be a problem with crossover like this once (theoretically) all of FIRST goes to the district system.

[Alexa Stott]

I've also heard rumblings about MD/DC/VA going to the district model. The three regionals are less than 3 hours apart (Richmond to Baltimore).

A DMV district event makes sense to me too. I hope they get something within the next few years (though I'll be long gone from the area by then).

[Alexa Stott]

Although it seems to be against what others are saying on this thread, I for one don't really want a district system for California. It seems to me like it would just make it a lot harder to get to Championships, and make us miss a lot more days of school (two/three district events, district champs, and then real Championships).

Personally, I really like they way things are now.

MAR district events are all Saturday-Sunday so kids miss no school here...

Edit: Sorry for the double post, guys!

[P.J.]

Although it seems to be against what others are saying on this thread, I for one don't really want a district system for California. It seems to me like it would just make it a lot harder to get to Championships, and make us miss a lot more days of school (two/three district events, district champs, and then real Championships).

Emphasis mine.

I'm not gonna go into the whole speech here, it's been done in lots of other places, but a District system actually makes it EASIER to get to Champs, because it isn't just the winners of the regionals, its the top 18 (or whatever) teams in the state by points.

And sorry for posting twice so soon after each other, but I didn't read through this whole thread before I threw in my first comment.

[cgmv123]

Aargh, If there's a district event in Madison, we'd have to host it. Hosting Lego League is bad enough...

[1986titans]

I know somebody has done this out there, but would love to see it again...

Does anyone have a google map prepared with team locations and regionals already mapped.


http://team1649.com/witwif/

[JimWright949]

Here is what in my opinion is the PNW district should be:

http://jimwright.org/Images/NWDistrict.jpg

There are 170 teams in this section of the world. I included Turkey in this regional since most of the Turkish teams attend the Seattle Regional and I did not want to exclude them.

I was thinking the district motto may be 'Yep most of us can see Russia from here'

[bduddy]

Emphasis mine.

I'm not gonna go into the whole speech here, it's been done in lots of other places, but a District system actually makes it EASIER to get to Champs, because it isn't just the winners of the regionals, its the top 18 (or whatever) teams in the state by points.

And sorry for posting twice so soon after each other, but I didn't read through this whole thread before I threw in my first comment.It makes it easier for the "best" teams to consistently go to Championships, but I suspect that it makes it a lot harder for teams like mine (which has never been to Championships before, and is going this year by virtue of winning a EI award) to ever go.

[Bob Steele]

I think the Northwest (meaning Oregon/Washington) is a very likely candidate to go to a district system soon. I've seen a couple people from high profile teams out in that area snooping around MI this year, but that isn't necessarily an indication of anything. ;)

I am also a fan of a combined Hawaii/California region, and have heard rumoTrs of a combined Wisconsin/Minnesota region and a combined Indiana/Illinois region.

Nobody has mentioned it yet, but I figure I might as well throw out the idea of Israel going to a district system.

Now regarding Canada, I could see them going to their own region, but probably only under one condition, an option which I've been a supporter of since Day 1 (And I'm in MI so thats a long time ago :rolleyes: ), and that is Cross-Region travel.

What is to stop a team from say, Michigan going to a MAR district and earning points that qualify towards the FiM state championship? As long as you still play the same 12 matches as everyone else, the points you earn should be the same, its just they count towards your own Regional Championship. I just think there shouldn't be a problem with crossover like this once (theoretically) all of FIRST goes to the district system.We weren't snooping. We were scouting. We had a great time in Michigan. You have intense teams and incredible volunteers!!

[Ravage457]

It would be nice to have a district type system here in Texas, but i believe for that to happen in a few years. Texas could probably be divided into 3 different regions like all the teams in the north, here in south central Texas, and the south texas and coast region teams, i dont know how they would do it, but it would be nice to have a district system here, but would they also keep the regionals to, or would they do away with them?

[P.J.]

We weren't snooping. We were scouting. We had a great time in Michigan. You have intense teams and incredible volunteers!!

I figured as much, I just thought it was funny considering what everyone else was saying in this thread.

And I'm glad you enjoyed your time here, we don't get many outside visitors anymore :D

[nobrakes8]

With a number of regions moving towards districts I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about an open districts system. My idea is that everyone would get two district events, one would have to be in there region but the other one could be at any district event in the country that has room. This would fix the problem for low density areas or remote areas like Hawaii and allow them to have a district system without having as many teams as a larger area like New England. They would only need to have one event and then the teams could travel anywhere they want for the second one.

This is my FIRST year back in FIRST since high school and I'm still trying to figure out this whole district stuff. But I like this idea a lot because a few of us engineering mentors on my team have been talking about doing the team 69 model where they compete in a local regional and then go somewhere far away. Our team has mentors who are from CT, Pittsburgh, Rochester, & Philly so we'd obviously like to take our team out there (our philosophy is since the championship seems impossible to get into why not just travel somewhere further away to compete against different teams). I just hope they leave enough opportunities to travel if teams choose to.

I saw a few posts about Texas too --I hope they hold off a little bit on switching to districts. I think there are a lot of resource/mentor constrained teams here in DFW and I won't be surprised if we see a lot of teams merge in the next few seasons . I think we might see a reverse new england/midwest model where a lot of veteran teams started with 2/3/4 high schools and as individual schools got more involved they split off. Just my $0.02.

[EricH]

Something I remember from way back long ago, as I was going to a preship back in 1999 (the second year I was hanging around, but my first competition). What I remember was that I was told that FIRST higherups wanted to go to more and smaller events. 10 years before the district system started. 10. YEARS. That's a long time, and it takes planning.

I think what'll probably happen in 2013 is that no new areas go district (maybe MN and WI). But in 2014, there will be an explosion of areas going district--New England and California being the most likely, with the Pacific Northwest being right behind.



For all you including all of Montana in a PNW district system: Make sure you also include Wyoming and Colorado. Otherwise the eastern Montana teams won't have a close competition to go to. Western Montana is a stretch as it is unless competitions are added to Idaho. The same goes for western South Dakota in a Minnesota district system--Denver's closer at this point in time than the Twin Cities.

[Mark Sheridan]

Eventually as districts grow, we will have teams that are stuck between two districts. A lot of the international teams will have a similar problem. We should give these teams the option to chose a district they want to be part of. To draw an example from high school athletics; there are two nevada high schools that compete in California leagues because they are closer.

This may not be convenient at all for international teams. In cross country, track field and most distant running races have all-comer meets. these events have people of all ages compete. Often there will be professionals looking for training or make a qualifing time for a professional event.

If most of FIRST goes district, we could have a week 6 lull where all-comer events could take place. These open events enabling the regional spirit to continue. Teams could continue the tradition of traveling far to a new event. It would enable some teams to bypass district qualifing adding some redundancy in qualifying for champs. Hopefully by being week 6, these all-comer events would be a lot of fun since most teams have should have fixed all their bugs.

[JimWright949]

I think what'll probably happen in 2013 is that no new areas go district (maybe MN and WI). But in 2014, there will be an explosion of areas going district--New England and California being the most likely, with the Pacific Northwest being right behind.

I think the PNW is closer to the District System than 2014. My bet in talking to our leadership it's probably next year, some people have been thinking about it for a year or so now.


For all you including all of Montana in a PNW district system: Make sure you also include Wyoming and Colorado. Otherwise the eastern Montana teams won't have a close competition to go to. Western Montana is a stretch as it is unless competitions are added to Idaho. The same goes for western South Dakota in a Minnesota district system--Denver's closer at this point in time than the Twin Cities.

You may have missed my post earlier that put three districts around Boise, one of them could be in Butte, Helena, or Great Falls.

[artdutra04]

Eventually as districts grow, we will have teams that are stuck between two districts. A lot of the international teams will have a similar problem. We should give these teams the option to chose a district they want to be part of. To draw an example from high school athletics; there are two nevada high schools that compete in California leagues because they are closer.

This may not be convenient at all for international teams. In cross country, track field and most distant running races have all-comer meets. these events have people of all ages compete. Often there will be professionals looking for training or make a qualifing time for a professional event.

If most of FIRST goes district, we could have a week 6 lull where all-comer events could take place. These open events enabling the regional spirit to continue. Teams could continue the tradition of traveling far to a new event. It would enable some teams to bypass district qualifing adding some redundancy in qualifying for champs. Hopefully by being week 6, these all-comer events would be a lot of fun since most teams have should have fixed all their bugs.I could easily see a point a few years out where the hard lines between districts fizzle out.

As much as I dislike the idea of walling off enclaves, the borders are necessary to get the district style events up and running, to get the volunteers and support infrastructure in place. But...

Once enough areas move into district formats (especially when there are neighboring districts), there doesn't have to be hard boundaries between districts to prevent cross-pollination of teams. Both areas have the events and support infrastructure in place, and both allocated enough open spots at their districts for all teams.

Assuming the teams who want to "travel" is roughly equal between the districts, there's no reason to prevent non home-district teams from attending those events. If ten teams want to compete elsewhere in Week 2, there are now ten slots available to all teams. Registration could also work with the first two districts being guaranteed to local (home district) teams, while third district registration is first come, first served for everyone.

At that point, the only real need for borders is to determine which district championship your award/performance points accrue toward.

[EricH]

You may have missed my post earlier that put three districts around Boise, one of them could be in Butte, Helena, or Great Falls.
You're right, I did. But that still doesn't solve the problem of the mountains and the long drive over them to an event.


My point is this: When you're drawing the region boundaries for districts, look at where the teams are going currently. 9 times out of 10, teams will go to their closest event or closest 2 events. If you have a team that is going to Utah and Colorado but not Spokane, then you should probably ask them if they're interested in being in a district that includes events in Great Falls, Helena, or Butte.

To take the South Dakota example, which I'm a bit more familiar with: Most of the (now non-existent) teams would have gone to Kansas City--this was before Colorado existed, let alone Minnesota or Utah (the regionals, not the states!), and I have that from one of the mentors at that time. But, with the current regional setup, teams in eastern SD would tend to go to Minneapolis for either 10K Lakes or North Star--it's only a few hours away. For the teams in the western half of the state, that's a full day's drive and possibly then some (5 hours to Sioux Falls, not counting the time change, then the few-hour drive). For those teams, Denver makes more sense, as it's only most of a day driving (or a short flight for a team who had a few frequent-flyer miles lying around)--if Utah was considered, it would be a second option along with Minnesota. So if MN decides unilaterally that the Dakotas are part of their district, the western half of the state will be in the same boat that Michigan's UP is in currently--their closest event is not in the district system. (Note that this whole example is currently a moot point--SD has no FRC teams.)

See where I'm going? I know you can't please everybody, but at least making the attempt is better than just saying "You are in our area". That's what MAR did by only including certain parts of Pennsylvania this year.

And, as a corollary: When forming a district, asking teams that go to only events in that area, regardless of where they are physically located, if they would like to stay in the district or not would be a really good idea. (Ask the Chilean team--one year at Great Lakes and then MSC formed, so they've been at Los Angeles ever since.)

[Lil' Lavery]

I find some of the objections to district events a little strange given what MAR has done this season. Particularly states/regions claiming they need more regionals before they move to a district system. MAR only has 99 teams and the area only encompassed two existing regionals (Philadelphia and New Jersey). Granted, both events are very old and the volunteers and teams in the region have had a long time to get acclimated from FIRST. But the region certainly doesn't have the team or volunteer population of many of the other areas, and relied heavily on volunteer crossover between events and drawing volunteers from other nearby regionals (New York, Chesapeake, DC, etc.).

Although it seems to be against what others are saying on this thread, I for one don't really want a district system for California. It seems to me like it would just make it a lot harder to get to Championships, and make us miss a lot more days of school (two/three district events, district champs, and then real Championships).

Personally, I really like they way things are now.
Dawgma missed a grand total of two days of school to attend three MAR events this season. Each district is only two days long, and some of them are Saturday/Sunday. We lucked out by having day 1 of Hatboro fall over an in-service (no school) day, so we didn't miss any school until Thursday and Friday of this week for MAR Championship.

I'm not sure if Ontario would go to a District model just yet, seeing that FIRST Canada is pretty set on expanding FIRST across Canada right now. Montreal is going to be a BIG regional next year (their growth has been phenomenal), and I think the focus should be to develop FIRST in Western Canada (one day I could see Calgary as a powerhouse region for FIRST).
I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.


District Championship would rotate between Manchester, Hartford and Worcester or just be in Worcester based on it's central location.
It would be semi-ironic to have Dean Guceri's "new" university (WPI) host the New England region championship when his departure from Drexel was one of the big impetus for the creation of MAR (due to the additional cost of the Philadelphia regional once Drexel was no longer an option).

MAR district events are all Saturday-Sunday so kids miss no school here...

Edit: Sorry for the double post, guys!
Only the New Jersey events were Saturday-Sunday. Hatboro-Horsham and Chestnut Hill were Friday-Saturday.

[SamMullen]

Here is what in my opinion is the PNW district should be:

http://jimwright.org/Images/NWDistrict.jpg

There are 170 teams in this section of the world. I included Turkey in this regional since most of the Turkish teams attend the Seattle Regional and I did not want to exclude them.

I was thinking the district motto may be 'Yep most of us can see Russia from here'

I think that as soon as the PNW goes to a district model, most (if not all) of the Turkish teams will go to the Midwest regional, where if I remember correctly one of the four Turkish teams goes already.

[Nemo]

Related to teams caught between districts:

We're in Iowa (only 4 teams in our state), and I'd love to see a district system near us, as long as we get an opportunity to join it. I don't see how being forced to travel would be a strike against districts, because we already travel a decent distance to any event we attend. I'd be thrilled with a district system for the simple reason that we'd get an extra event for the same registration cost.

[Racer26]

Also, I spoke with Mark Breadner (CMP WFA Winner and Regional Director for FIRST Robotics Canada) at the Montreal Regional briefly about Canada moving to a district system, and was told that its at the region's discretion, and likely coming soon but likely not for 2013.

I would expect a Canadian district system for the 2014 or 2015 season.

FIRST has been trying to figure out how to restructure things to solve the overcrowding CMP issue. Bottom line is one of two things. We either have to qualify less teams to CMP, or we have to increase capacity at CMP. This year, based on my count of the events, if every team that earned a slot went, there would be only about 25 slots (based on a capacity of 360) left for open registration. At the rate we're adding regionals now, that number is shrinking fast. I think there is probably no more room with whatever new regionals start for 2013. HQ has to do something. If you look at a graph of the growth rate, we're growing faster than ever.

Moving the entire program (or at least most of it, only leaving 'traditional' regionals where there's not enough density to pull off a district model) to a district model could be done in such a way to control how many go to CMP, or it could be used to introduce a split CMP system or something, where regions in the east qualify to a FRC East Championship and regions in the west qualify to a FRC West Championship, and then those qualify to CMP.

[kjohnson]

FiNE:
MA: 57
CT: 41
NH: 30
ME: 10
RI: 5
VT: 3
Total: 146 Teams
Area: 72,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00203 Teams/sq. mi.

FiM:
MI: 190
Area: 97,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00196


Just for comparison (and because I was interested to know):

Capital Region
VA: 67 Teams
MD: 36 Teams
DC: 15 Teams
Total Teams: 118
Area: 55,250 sq. mi.
Density: 0.0021 teams/sq. mi.

[Kimmeh]

FiNE:
MA: 57
CT: 41
NH: 30
ME: 10
RI: 5
VT: 3
Total: 146 Teams
Area: 72,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00203 Teams/sq. mi.

FiM:
MI: 190
Area: 97,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00196


Just for comparison (and because I was interested to know):

Capital Region
VA: 67 Teams
MD: 36 Teams
DC: 15 Teams
Total Teams: 118
Area: 55,250 sq. mi.
Density: 0.0021 teams/sq. mi.


Just for numbers sake...

In the UP there's only 11 teams leaving 179 in the LP and I calculated the area of just the LP to be 54,000 sq. mi. making the density of the lower half 0.0033 teams/sq. mi.

[Deetman]

There has been a volunteer here at the MAR championships from Minnesota (!!!!) observing and asking teams their opinion on the district system. I have a feeling we're going to start seeing announcements/discussion in various regions about moving to the district model once the off season starts. Whether any will happen in 2013 is beyond my knowledge but I'm sure we will see a few in 2014.

[Christopher149]

Minnesota, Texas, and Ontario/Eastern Canada seem like potential areas for the district model, at least from an outside perspective.

I'd feel sorry for Wisconsin teams if Minnesota goes district, though. They'd be wedged between two district systems, and lose a lot of nearby regional options.

Personally, I'd like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP all together. Downstate is so far away by comparison.

[GaryVoshol]

Personally, I'd like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP all together. Downstate is so far away by comparison.

What if there was an event in the UP?

[Christopher149]

What if there was an event in the UP?

Since there are only 11 teams in the UP, we need teams from somewhere else to make an event worthwhile. I've been thinking that a Midwest district could attract more teams than downstate because of the shape of Michigan. A local event plus a WI or MN event would do wonders for travel costs. (0-2 h and 4-6 h instead of 7-8h and 9-10h for TC and West Michigan [from Houghton])

[calicogang]

With Ca. approaching 200 FRC teams next year, we are running out of regionals. As it stands now, we have 5 regionals. Ca. would make the most sense of going to a Mi. style of events. Rumor has it that it is still a few years away. There is talk of adding one more regional, somewhere in the state. Maybe adding one more in L.A. and making it dual events like Seattle had this year.

[PayneTrain]

Man, I was thinking people would be knee deep in CMP talk instead of already jumping onto this ship. I need to put a rush on the paper I have been working on theorizing a post-2013 FIRST world.

I can foresee that after the FRC CMP contract in St. Louis runs out in 2013, there will be a big shake up in the way a lot of teams play FRC. I was talking to many members of the regional planning board in VA to see if they were considering it. Judging by FiM and MAR timelines the talks came 2 years before the implementation, so I'm calling 2014. In fact, some were calling out towns where the events would be held in addition to the Capital Championship ending at VCU (how can it NOT?).

It's not team dense in square miles, but the majority of teams are right on or around I-95 metro areas, which puts them minutes to a couple hours away from any regional in existence. I drove across Michigan this weekend... that place is HUGE, but the team concentration is obviously Greater Oakland.

I can see Texas and California and north midwest states being apprehensive because of the distances one must travel... I would hope FIRST would put in any sort of plan in the style of what I am working on. A comprehensive, controlled shifting to the district system across the contiguous US, with provisions for international/HI/AK teams.

[KevinGoneNuts]

With Ca. approaching 200 FRC teams next year, we are running out of regionals. As it stands now, we have 5 regionals. Ca. would make the most sense of going to a Mi. style of events. Rumor has it that it is still a few years away. There is talk of adding one more regional, somewhere in the state. Maybe adding one more in L.A. and making it dual events like Seattle had this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did that, but they are doing this:

There is one being planned in the riverside area.

-RC

I personally would love to see one more Norther California Regional. I smaller one, just to alleviate some of the stress off of SVR and SAC, I feel like CVR did a good job at that, but another 30-40 team regional would be nice. It would be even better if it were near an airport, because then it would be a draw to some international and out of state teams. Then california could play host to the First ever FRC Triple Crown. If you win all three regional competitions you win the triple crown. Just a thought.

Another idea, although far-fetched, would be to have two CA districts, One North and One South. The State Championship could be a two fielder event North on one field and South on another and then the winners of each field have to face one another so it would be an ultimate North vs. South Battle. That would be crazy!!

[P.J.]

Another idea, although far-fetched, would be to have two CA districts, One North and One South. The State Championship could be a two fielder event North on one field and South on another and then the winners of each field have to face one another so it would be an ultimate North vs. South Battle. That would be crazy!!

My Michigan bias may be showing, but if this happens all of Michigan will have a riot. Michigan and California have virtually the same number of teams (within 10 of each other I believe), so if California is turned into two regions there have to be some serious changes in Michigan as well. I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams.

I guess this is an issue that overlaps a lot of this talk of switching to district systems. How do we keep the number of teams going from each region "fair?" I know right now its the former number of regionals that area had, but that won't work much longer for MI. We have over 180 teams and we get the equivalent of 3 regionals (18 teams sent, I believe). California has 5 so theoretically if it goes to districts they will send 30 teams if my math is correct.

I don't know, just some thoughts. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything.

[KevinGoneNuts]

My Michigan bias may be showing, but if this happens all of Michigan will have a riot. Michigan and California have virtually the same number of teams (within 10 of each other I believe), so if California is turned into two regions there have to be some serious changes in Michigan as well. I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams.

I guess this is an issue that overlaps a lot of this talk of switching to district systems. How do we keep the number of teams going from each region "fair?" I know right now its the former number of regionals that area had, but that won't work much longer for MI. We have over 180 teams and we get the equivalent of 3 regionals (18 teams sent, I believe). California has 5 so theoretically if it goes to districts they will send 30 teams if my math is correct.

I don't know, just some thoughts. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything.

Haha I can see how that would upset a lot of michigan teams. I was just thinking geographically. My idea was that it would still be one championship, just divided up better. The same number of teams would qualify for champs at a CSC. The extra battle of North vs. South would really just be for the title of California State Champions. Both alliances would qualify, and then a predetermined number of teams on both sides would qualify for the FIRST CHMP. Like I said, It's completely far-fetched, but just a fun idea :cool:

[Cory]

Haha I can see how that would upset a lot of michigan teams. I was just thinking geographically. My idea was that it would still be one championship, just divided up better. The same number of teams would qualify for champs at a CSC. The extra battle of North vs. South would really just be for the title of California State Champions. Both alliances would qualify, and then a predetermined number of teams on both sides would qualify for the FIRST CHMP. Like I said, It's completely far-fetched, but just a fun idea :cool:

This is very disadvantageous for SoCal teams from a competitive standpoint.

[KevinGoneNuts]

This is very disadvantageous for SoCal teams from a competitive standpoint.

I know. It's just a fun idea. It would be a very cool off season event if anything.

[PayneTrain]

Also, as much as people outside of the professional world live in an alternate reality where everyone goes to 7 competitions in one season, it's not really plausible for the vast majority of people. The district system allows teams to miss less work days than a 3-day regional. You can cap it at four, MAYBE five events provided people aren't missing a week dependent on a CMP appearance and district dates.

1676 has gone to 4 events and will go to a fifth this competition season assuming they go to CMP). Both districts were Saturday/Sunday, NYC was Friday-Sunday, MAR was Thursday-Saturday, and CMP is Wednesday-Sunday (travel).

They missed 6 days over 5 events. Meanwhile, a two or three regional team is going to be missing more days if they go to CMP.

It's one of many factors we/FIRSTHQ must consider in all of this. There can't be any Superultraregionals that put teams into CMP or state divisions that qualify you for a state CMP.

This stuff is hard.

[EricH]

Where I see the national model going in the next 5 years is a gradual but steady transition over to the district system. Israel would not necessarily go to the district model; countries without enough teams to adopt a district could choose a district area to play in. 2-3 areas per year go over to district system. New England, New York (possibly split--NYC and Long Island to MAR or NE, western NY to the western PA/OH area), California, the Pacific Northwest, and the entire upper Midwest are prime early adoption candidates, with Canada hot on their tail and Texas farther out.

As more areas become district hotspots, like Michigan and MAR, the restriction on where teams within the districts play relaxes. Teams can play in any district and get points towards their home area championship. However, there will be areas where there just aren't enough teams to hold an area championship for a while. For those areas, the super regional comes into play.

Each super regional would be run just like a mid-sized regional of about 40-50 teams. It would be filled by teams from areas without their own area championship first, but other teams could opt to attend in lieu of their own area championship. Effectively, it would be the area championship, but more open to surrounding teams. Slots in area championships not filled by teams opting to attend super regionals would be filled as normal.

[P.J.]

Each super regional would be run just like a mid-sized regional of about 40-50 teams. It would be filled by teams from areas without their own area championship first, but other teams could opt to attend in lieu of their own area championship. Effectively, it would be the area championship, but more open to surrounding teams. Slots in area championships not filled by teams opting to attend super regionals would be filled as normal.

So I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand. So I'll craft a hypothetical situation:

Montana becomes its own region, and it has less than 64 teams. (I have no idea where to look that info up, I'm just assuming) So instead of a state championship, there is a "super regional" held. My team, in Michigan, decided to go to that instead of MSC. Is this allowed? How do the points work? Would we just apply and if we are in the top 64 (just using the same number of teams as MSC for arguments sake) of teams applying to the super regional we get to go to that one? Or is it based on if we qualify for our own state championship and just decide to go to the "super regional"?

I'm just not quite clear on the whole "super regional" concept.

[EricH]

So I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand. So I'll craft a hypothetical situation:

Montana becomes its own region, and it has less than 64 teams. (I have no idea where to look that info up, I'm just assuming) So instead of a state championship, there is a "super regional" held. My team, in Michigan, decided to go to that instead of MSC. Is this allowed? How do the points work? Would we just apply and if we are in the top 64 (just using the same number of teams as MSC for arguments sake) of teams applying to the super regional we get to go to that one? Or is it based on if we qualify for our own state championship and just decide to go to the "super regional"?

I'm just not quite clear on the whole "super regional" concept.
First, I'll just say that Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas combined couldn't put together a 24-team elimination field. You'd need to bring in Idaho or Colorado to do that--and Idaho would go PNW. So I'm going to figure an area that includes the 4 states first mentioned as one site for a super regional.

We'll figure that 910 has qualified for MSC by normal processes.

Under what I'm seeing: 910 can attend MSC, or one of 2-3 super regionals scattered around the country, one of which is Center of Nation Super Regional(CNSR) in Rapid City, SD (as a central city to the above-named states). To qualify for CNSR, teams can, in order of precedence:

Be in the area that CNSR would be an area championship for, if there were anywhere near enough teams. These teams would have the option to attend district events, but the CNSR would be their only chance at Championship due to lack of an area championship.
Qualify for their area championship, but opt to go to CNSR instead. (910's route here.)
Teams that qualified for an area championship award (RCA and RAS) but did not have enough points to take their robot to the area championship, can request to play here on the basis of those awards, which would be judged at CNSR. (Or other arrangements could be made--something to be worked on. Also note that this one could be moot depending on whether a district system qualifies the robots as well as the team.)
Point comparison of all teams that want to go. Take from the high side until you have a full field.A field of 40-50 or so many play at the super regional. The CNSR sends up to 12 teams to the Championship, namely 3 winners, 1+ RCA, 1 EI, 1 RAS, fill out the field with the top point-getters under the standard points system--but all teams playing at CNSR start with a clean slate pointwise. You gotta play your best to move on...

Another example would be from one in the Northeast, say New York. In that area, there would be multiple areas covered that have championships. Same qualification system, with the exception of the first point not being used. Same clean slate pointwise. Same number of teams going to the Championship--but a bigger area to cover, most likely.

[P.J.]

Thanks, that explains a lot. Very well thought out, I like it.

[fuzzy1718]

Why is everyone dead set on the two tier system?
Once points come into play across the entire country they can just be used to determine who qualifies for St. Louis or where ever it may be... This would remove the whole build season depending on only a few hours at a regional championship. The only real reason that the country needs to be broken into regions is for the planning of events and to coordinate volunteers, funding for events, etc. Even then it is only needed because locals understand what works and what doesn't in their area.

As for the whole teams signing up for St. Louis early, the points system would still enable that. It actually makes it easier, because if a team is ranked high, but is already signed up for champs then their spot that was earned by points would simply go to the next on the list. Keeping the level of play high, while still enabling teams to attend every few years if they have not qualified.

The main issue with the country going to a district system is going to be volunteers and the way championships is structured. Both will either have to expand or the way of life in FIRST that we all want will not survive the explosive growth.

[EricH]

fuzzy, I think the #1 biggest problem with the elimination of the area championships and just going by points is not an easy one to deal with.

How on earth do you figure out how many events the points count from, and which events?

You could do first event. Covers every team out there, but quite often those teams aren't at top form. (Or you get the rushes to Week 1 and Week N (the last week) events.)

You could do first two events. Now you need to deal with the fact that at least half the teams don't do two right now. Part of that will be offset by using a 2-district-event model similar to MI and MAR. Some of it won't. Even in MI and MAR, some teams will only go to one event due to travel distance, time, or cost, or something else comes up, or, or... Some teams that would undoubtedly be well-qualified for Championship won't have the point total to qualify--and there isn't a good way to make up the difference.

You could do average. There's a discussion on the teams that didn't qualify but should really be there--"The Rest of the Best" or something like that, where I lay out my objection to the average method. Short version, it heavily favors the single-event teams (and someone else came up with it favoring multi-event teams).

It's not an easy problem to solve by any means. That's why we're stuck with a 2-tier system until someone comes up with a system that deals with the varying numbers of events, the "good enough to go but didn't qualify" (though that'll be helped by a point-based system), and the current auto-qualifying regional awards. (Championship auto-qualifiers should stay as-is--HoF, defending champs, original and sustaining teams.) Again, not an easy problem. A 2-tier system buys time, and hopefully generates discussion on how to solve the problem in the optimal way.

[PayneTrain]

^^I'm confused. How does moving to a system with less blue banner bids necessitate a larger CMP?

Here are some facts. At CMP 10 years ago, it was a free for all. A decade ago, there were 17 competitions in an entire season. Now there are more than 17 before we even leave Week 2.

Putting on a regional is like setting up a high-tech state fair, except there must be money and infrastructure in place to run every single one of them. In a tumultuous economy, the district system was born as a low-cost, high-volume alternative/more bang for your buck/higher efficiency.

Michigan engineered a competition structure that will be able to weather the future. We are running out of available venues, blowing incredible corporate sponsorships on these venues that could be funneled into teams, and the program is populating itself without restraint, leaving the unprepared to wander off and die 1 or 2 years after they are brought into the world.

Another fact: In a state where we had 5 new rookies, we lost 6 teams. No offense to any rookie teams or VAFIRST, but that is by no stretch or morphing of reality, an improvement.

The regional system has rookies dumping six thousand dollars to get trounced by these well-established powerhouses without any preparation. I'm not saying that preparation is building a robot as strong as these powerhouses, but mentors and students that do not quickly understand the values of FIRST. They won't take the concept of getting steamrolled after throwing all the money and work they could into their robot.

Enter the district system. It's more than just another way to play into CMP. It's a natural support system. People forget that while FiM has these "district competitions" these are not the "districts." Districts are the geographic divisions that are based on team concentration and location and encourage targeted growth and development of new teams while supporting fledgling teams. That'sthe district system.

I'm in favor of forming into geographic conferences (The Monongahela/Ohio River Valley Conference (upper WV, western PA, Ohio) The Capital Regional Conference (MD-DC-VA) FiNE, Southern Atlantic Coast Conference (NC/SC/GA) Gulf Coast, yadda yadda) and opt-in destination regionals (Hawaii, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Israel, DC) that have double field play (HI/IS excluded) outside of districts that teams who don't go to CMP can play in.

TLDR: Districts are fun.

[Steven Sigley]

In a tumultuous economy, the district system was born as a low-cost, high-volume alternative/more bang for your buck/higher efficiency.

This is why i think districts are great. You get more matches and more chances to show off that robot which you worked so hard on. And by going to 2 districts, you get more opportunities to interact and learn from other teams, vs. a rookie going to 1 regional competition and not being able to apply what you learned until next year.

[RoboMom]

In fact, some were calling out towns where the events would be held in addition to the Capital Championship ending at VCU (how can it NOT?)
??

[PayneTrain]

I've heard of Roanoke and VA Beach in Virginia...

Or maybe I daydreamed in the stands...

But I'm pretty sure I've heard it.

I know it's in its infantile stages and it was just "talks."

[RoboMom]

I've heard of Roanoke and VA Beach in Virginia...

Or maybe I daydreamed in the stands...

But I'm pretty sure I've heard it.

I know it's in its infantile stages and it was just "talks."

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

[kjohnson]

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

:confused: If that wasn't the answer you were looking for then perhaps you clarify your "??"... We may build robots but we're not psychic.

I'm guessing you were questioning Thomas's hopes for a championship at VCU. Do you expect anything less than team members from VA who think a possible Capital Region championship event should be held in VA? It makes sense considering VA would be providing over 50% of the teams in the region.

Since I too have interest in this, I'll throw my ideas out there. Assuming DC/MD/VA do in fact form a Capital Region, I would think there would be six district competitions. MAR has 5 districts with 99 teams total, I think DC/MD/VA could pull off 6 districts with the current ~118 teams. So where would those six events be held? Since VA is by far the largest in area and number of teams, I would have 4 events in VA, 1 in DC, and 1 in MD. The 4 events in VA would probably be best spread out like the current FTC events are: North (Manassas/Chantilly/Alexandria), East (Norfolk/VA Beach), Central (Richmond), and West (Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Roanoke).

[fuzzy1718]

PayneTrain -
While you are correct that MI is broken into physical land divisions, these are more about models of potential growth than a support system... From the perspective of the teams I have been around. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of FiM, so I cannot say how the district boundaries affect their decision making.

The average student in MI doesn't know that physical boundaries even exists, let alone what they are. Many mentors don't know what they are other than lines in one picture. They really have no affect on anything in the mindset of many in MI. They do determine one of the district events that teams must attend. (teams are required to go to one of the closest events, and then can sign up for any event of their choosing in the state. This is to prevent local teams from being forced to travel a long distance to both their events.)

As far as support systems go I will use the example of my former team from HS. While they are from northern Macomb county, they share a closer bond with teams in their immediate area, including those who are over the county line in another district, than those to their south who reside in the Macomb district. They also share a closer bond with those in a completely different district to the west.

Eric -
There is a simple solution, make everyone go to the same number of events...
If teams can attend as many events as they desire, I would assume that the current rules regarding what districts count towards points would remain the same as in MAR and FiM, being the first two count. Quite frankly I am not in support of any team going to more events than others, especially when points are on the line for some, but not for others. However, seeing as people will fight tooth and nail against this, the current rules do a nice job of sorting out the mess.

However I do not understand where the notion that there would be a rush for week one and the last week events comes from. How is this any different than under the regional structure? Do we see a rush to register for those events now?

Also, one of the benefits of going to the district model is more localized events. Travel is meant to be lessened and thus should not be a factor; The costs of going to the number of events required for points should be rolled into one lump sum rather than paying per event, this would eliminate the bigger budget advantage; also by adding a regional championship wouldn't there be an additional entrance fee to the teams, driving the cost to attend World's higher; and time is solved by the changing the schedule to a two day format as the district competitions are now.

(ignore the grammar of the last statement. I have reorganized 5 times and can't seem to get it as it should be.)

It is clear that there is no ideal solution for the "rest of the best" as you put it. There never will be as long as FIRST continues to support the policies that it currently does, in my opinion. However this is a discussion that has the tendency to start flame wars; so why ruin a nice thread such as this.

Ultimately the second tier leads to the same result as a regional does now, under the current rules of FiM... I relate to what I know best. Save for those who qualify for World's by being ranked.

Also this entire discussion is about the best way to win, it is not about any of the ideals of FIRST... the things that actually matter. I wonder how our ideas of the ideal system would change if they were the main things guiding this discussion. I shall have to re-evaluate the scenario from a different perspective now.

[EricH]

Eric -
There is a simple solution, make everyone go to the same number of events... You're not going to force them to. You can only incentivize them to. If I have a team that can barely get the funding to go to one event, even if they've paid for two with registration, they're not going to go to a second one, period. (You can also insert "school clearance" for "funding".)

If teams can attend as many events as they desire, I would assume that the current rules regarding what districts count towards points would remain the same as in MAR and FiM, being the first two count. Again, you have to deal with the fact that some teams cannot attend more than one event due to factors that may be beyond their control, like school policies or lack of funding coming through. Or even entirely unrelated factors. Long story short, you've got to figure out an equalizer. The best equalizer, of course, is for everyone to attend two events. But you've got to have two events they can actually attend first. (Second best might be to just double the points from the first event. But there are problems with that... and averaging... and last event... and highest event... and lowest event... You get the point.)

However I do not understand where the notion that there would be a rush for week one and the last week events comes from. How is this any different than under the regional structure? Do we see a rush to register for those events now?It's human nature. Week 1 and Week 6 events are theoretically the "easiest", with Week 1 being the first time most teams have played the game and Week 6 combined with the withholding allowance giving teams time to react to perceived weaknesses. This effect would only be noticed if you had a single event counting for points. That's why you don't see any real rushes now (except in the crowded New England area--BAE GSR, traditionally Week 1, fills up very quickly).

Also, one of the benefits of going to the district model is more localized events. Travel is meant to be lessened and thus should not be a factor; The costs of going to the number of events required for points should be rolled into one lump sum rather than paying per event, this would eliminate the bigger budget advantage; also by adding a regional championship wouldn't there be an additional entrance fee to the teams, driving the cost to attend World's higher; and time is solved by the changing the schedule to a two day format as the district competitions are now.See the UP teams before districts really started moving up north. If they'd been allowed to, they'd probably have opted out and gone to Wisconsin (and Duluth's opening would probably have been moved up a year or two). Also see "international team travel cost".

Yes, you could roll the required event numbers into one cost. Yes, you can change the schedule to a two-day format to save time. If you add a regional championship, or super regional--well, how much does it cost to attend MSC or MAR? IIRC, it's not as much as a traditional regional. It's the Championship cost that's the big factor, and the travel cost.

Ultimately the second tier leads to the same result as a regional does now, under the current rules of FiM... That's the POINT, doggone it!:mad: While you're in transition to districts, and while you have the areas with vastly lower density than Michigan, you have to have places for teams who are isolated from district events for whatever reason to play and have a chance at qualifying in a one-shot attempt. South America--maybe half a dozen teams combined. The Pacific Ocean areas outside the U.S., two teams. Turkey, half a dozen. Europe, half a dozen. Where are those districts going to be?

When you apply the district system with two events to get points in, and fail to account for those teams having to travel to the U.S., compete, stay a minimum of one week (or go home and come back), compete again, and then have to go home and wait just to have a chance to go to the World Championship by points, then get their travel arrangements in a matter of a week or two, you fail to create a low-cost model for those teams. Don't ever forget to account for those teams showing up. You need to either get them local districts, or give them a one-shot chance to get there. The inclusion of teams who want to use the one-shot event as their area championship ticket, if those were to exist at the time, is to fill out the field to workable as an FRC event. Think of it as a wild-card event, if you will. You could even have it after the qualification cutoff and only open it to teams who aren't qualified yet.

Although, because you relate to what you know best, you might not have considered that. Michigan's been playing under districts for 4 years now--that means no international teams in all that time. Or even teams from Hawaii or Alaska. I've seen those teams occasionally comment on how long they have to wait for their kits, or how much they have to raise to come play.

Also this entire discussion is about the best way to win, it is not about any of the ideals of FIRST... the things that actually matter. I wonder how our ideas of the ideal system would change if they were the main things guiding this discussion. I shall have to re-evaluate the scenario from a different perspective now.Let's see: Is it not gracious to give everyone the same shot at giving their best chance at making it to the next level of competition? Is it not professional to also try to lower their costs? This is not about the best way to win. It's the best way to have a reasonably fair qualification method to get to the Championships for teams unable to qualify under a point-based system due to lack of events. (If you want to discuss ideals of FIRST, I'd like to suggest looking at some threads from around the time FiM was released, commenting on this very theme and what effect FiM had on said ideals. I think we can agree that there was negligible effect in the long run, no?)


When you think about things from one perspective, you miss other things that can have a huge impact. In this case, I think you're missing the impact of the teams who would be excluded by travel time and cost combined from ever qualifying for the Championship due to lack of district events attended. Those teams need to have some way to qualify in one go. That's why I'm advocating a 2-tier system until somebody actually figures out a workable solution to single-event teams in a points-only system. Forcing teams to attend a second event to have a chance at the Championship isn't going to be any fun for anyone concerned.

[PayneTrain]

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

Eastern Michigan isn't central to the state, but to the concentration of teams, and VCU is a few water bottle rules away from being my favorite venue.

Isn't the DC venue crazy expensive to rent out?

[Siri]

Yes, you could roll the required event numbers into one cost. Yes, you can change the schedule to a two-day format to save time. If you add a regional championship, or super regional--well, how much does it cost to attend MSC or MAR? IIRC, it's not as much as a traditional regional. It's the Championship cost that's the big factor, and the travel cost.Attending MSC or MAR requires the same registration fee as attending an additional regional outside a district structure: $4,000. (Note this is not the same cost as attending a 3rd district event in either area: $500 in FIM, $1,000 in MAR.)

This is a major and sometimes incapacitating cost to teams, despite grant opportunities provided by MAR (and I believe FiM). For teams that attended only one regional before the district model, it drastically raises the cost of the season and being able to compete at Worlds. Of course, I'm not saying we don't get something out of it (something I quite like), but financially it's true. Teams that attended two regionals before the model switch have not seen a rise in cost.

[RoboMom]

Eastern Michigan isn't central to the state, but to the concentration of teams, and VCU is a few water bottle rules away from being my favorite venue.

Isn't the DC venue crazy expensive to rent out?

apologies. I forgot I was in the rumor mill thread.

I think there is a lot of hard work and communication ahead for all the invested parties as the landscape shifts. But it will get figured out to benefit all the mentors, students, volunteers, educators, sponsors and champions in the area.

[DonRotolo]

With a number of regions moving towards districts I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about an open districts system. Sure there has, just not in this thread. Once there are several districts, teams can earn points in any district they like. MAR took the FiM points structure absolutely whole just for that (potential) reason. So long as all districts have the same system, they're compatible and comparable.
Figure 225-250 teams across the 5 state area (WI, MN, ND, SD, IA). I think that's twice the size of a good district. Can you cut it into two? That allows for growth and manageability.
I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams. The number of teams a District sends to CMP is determined by the number of regionals that are replaced. So FiM had 3 regionals, MAR had two, and the relative number of teams sent are in that ratio (18 to 12). If California replaced 5 regionals, I would expect them to have 30 slots, right?
1676 has gone to 4 events and will go to a fifth this competition season assuming they go to CMP). Both districts were Saturday/Sunday, NYC was Friday-Sunday, MAR was Thursday-Saturday, and CMP is Wednesday-Sunday (travel).
They missed 6 days over 5 events. Meanwhile, a two or three regional team is going to be missing more days if they go to CMP..This is HUGE. I work for a living, and I am loath to burn all my vacation time to attend regionals. So far, I've missed 2 days of work (didn't go to NYC on practice day), which is a much better deal for me.
You could do first two events. First 2 events is fair, since the learning curve allows for great improvements in later events. First event is too small a sample, average is NG because of the improvement over time favors wealthy teams, first and last the same. Most every team should be able to make 2 events, especially if they are Sat-Sun (no school lost) and closer to home...and the cost is the same (or less) than the previous single Regional.

MAR is superior to the regional model in almost every way. The only negative so far is that "outside" teams can't play (love those Brazilians!)...but once there are more Districts, and we can intermingle again, we're back to where we started, but with another tier between district and CMP.

As for CMP: Just find a larger venue. Ever seen Cobo Hall? McCormick Place? There are several that size.

Imagine that: CMP too big for a single dome.

[P.J.]

The number of teams a District sends to CMP is determined by the number of regionals that are replaced. So FiM had 3 regionals, MAR had two, and the relative number of teams sent are in that ratio (18 to 12). If California replaced 5 regionals, I would expect them to have 30 slots, right?

I'm not arguing with that logic, I was saying that since MI has been in the district system for a few years now, we have experienced a growth in teams since we switched. But the number of teams we send to Champs hasn't increased proportionally. So if CA and MI are both in a district system, and have virtually the same number of teams, we should be sending the same number of teams to Champs. That's what I meant by fair.

[nikeairmancurry]

I'm not arguing with that logic, I was saying that since MI has been in the district system for a few years now, we have experienced a growth in teams since we switched. But the number of teams we send to Champs hasn't increased proportionally. So if CA and MI are both in a district system, and have virtually the same number of teams, we should be sending the same number of teams to Champs. That's what I meant by fair.

Michigan could have close to 5 events if it so wished.

[rsisk]

Considering all the discussion of disticts in this thread, you may want to go back to the EWCPCast on the district model:

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3

[DevinW]

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

[xSAWxBLADEx]

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

I miss seeing non-michigan team in Detriot. I remember Team 2283 Panteras competiting with 469, 217, 47 (now 51), etc. It was great and a real powerhouse regional. I just wished they allowed maybe 5 slots in michigan districts for non-michigan team and the non-michigan teams just competited like they were at a regional and everyone else played for points. I just miss the non-michigan teams.

For example, This is Great Lakes in 2007. Super Powerhouse Regional!
http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2007gl

[jyh947]

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

[DevinW]

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring. :p

[Carolyn_Grace]

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring. :p

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. :p We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe :D

[bduddy]

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.

[EricH]

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.
In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.

Actually, you could use the exact same argument to support turning L.A. into a district zone. Most years, it's only CA teams (and often only SoCal teams) other than one Chilean team. That's a 60+ team event! And when there are teams from other places, usually it's Arizona or Nevada.

[P.J.]

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. :p We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe :D

Why has this not been proposed before? Make it happen, people in charge.

[bduddy]

In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.What about the state championships? Either you have most of the teams and wonder why you had the "district" events in the first place, or have a championship with 20 teams. And all of those teams have to pay more, of course...

[Lil' Lavery]

Michigan could have close to 5 events if it so wished.

California already has five, and will be adding a sixth next year.

[jyh947]

What about the state championships? Either you have most of the teams and wonder why you had the "district" events in the first place, or have a championship with 20 teams. And all of those teams have to pay more, of course...

A championship with 20 teams? Nice elimination bracket, bro.

[DevinW]

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. :p We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe :D

That sounds awesome. The winners should compete for some higher award. XD It'd be fun.

[bduddy]

A championship with 20 teams? Nice elimination bracket, bro.That's my point. I've been saying for a while that Hawaii is one of a couple examples why a complete district system may not be a great idea.

[dodar]

That's my point. I've been saying for a while that Hawaii is one of a couple examples why a complete district system may not be a great idea.

It could work with Cali if they scheduled it correctly and limited the number of slots with the corresponding inland regional that would make teams have to go out to Hawaii to compete.

[Siri]

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.I know people like the big-time regional atmosphere, but is there value to Hawaii teams of just getting more matches for the money? That's very a big part of the district system; you don't even really need the region/state championship if you have a good points qualifying system.

Just looking into cheaper events--say, a quasi-district model--might be a nice way of enhancing the program in some places, if not in Hawaii.

I don't like the idea of forcing CA teams to HI or vice versa. The idea of the district model is to encourage growth, partially by increasing teams' bang for their buck. Forcing teams, sometimes underfunded teams, to travel like that seems counter-intuitive.

[DonRotolo]

Why has this not been proposed before? Make it happen, people in charge.
Um, that would be you. If you want it to happen, make it happen. The rest of us are busy doing OUR own stuff, thanks.

.

[Steven Donow]

I don't like the idea of forcing CA teams to HI or vice versa. The idea of the district model is to encourage growth, partially by increasing teams' bang for their buck. Forcing teams, sometimes underfunded teams, to travel like that seems counter-intuitive.

IIRC, the proposal of a HI/CA district would involve two district events in HI to ensure that they wouldn't all have to travel mainland; this makes the only issue in the region championship.

I think the big thing is that FIRST NEEDS to keep some places out of the district system in order to sustain international growth in places where there just aren't enough teams to have a system in place. Regionals like NYC, LA, and others that are filled with international teams need to stay in place. Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.

[P.J.]

Um, that would be you. If you want it to happen, make it happen. The rest of us are busy doing OUR own stuff, thanks.


I know that, I was just kidding. My sense of humor doesn't translate well to pure text, so I apologize.

[EricH]

I think the big thing is that FIRST NEEDS to keep some places out of the district system in order to sustain international growth in places where there just aren't enough teams to have a system in place. Regionals like NYC, LA, and others that are filled with international teams need to stay in place. Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.
Western Canada is being talked about for a Pacific Northwest area--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly part or all of Montana (and I already made my comments on which would probably be preferred), plus western Canada, instead of putting western Canada with Toronto.

I think the request to opt out, or more likely a request for another district assignment (e.g. New England instead of New York or Wisconsin instead of Michigan) is a really good way to go.

I've also already addressed the international/sparse area question. For these areas, there are a couple of options. Either you include them in the district that they usually end up in anyway (meaning they stay in the States for a week and a half, or go home and come back) or you give them a single event qualifying method. Or you let them go to any two district events, regardless of qualification area.

Oh, and BTW: Los Angeles is not "filled with international teams". This year, 66 teams attended. Brazil: 1. Chile: 1. That's 3%. Another team came from Nevada. Grand total 4.5% of teams were from out of state; most if not all of the rest were from Southern CA (AKA, half a state). That's pretty typical--you might get up to half a dozen out of state teams. Oh, and another regional is going to be added in the area. If that's not an argument to turn the L.A. Regional into a district system, I don't know what is! That said, I would not object to allowing international teams to play--the Chilean team's "home" regional is Los Angeles. But then you get back to the international travel dilemma.

[Steven Donow]

Western Canada is being talked about for a Pacific Northwest area--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly part or all of Montana (and I already made my comments on which would probably be preferred), plus western Canada, instead of putting western Canada with Toronto.

I think the request to opt out, or more likely a request for another district assignment (e.g. New England instead of New York or Wisconsin instead of Michigan) is a really good way to go.

I've also already addressed the international/sparse area question. For these areas, there are a couple of options. Either you include them in the district that they usually end up in anyway (meaning they stay in the States for a week and a half, or go home and come back) or you give them a single event qualifying method. Or you let them go to any two district events, regardless of qualification area.

Oh, and BTW: Los Angeles is not "filled with international teams". This year, 66 teams attended. Brazil: 1. Chile: 1. That's 3%. Another team came from Nevada. Grand total 4.5% of teams were from out of state; most if not all of the rest were from Southern CA (AKA, half a state). That's pretty typical--you might get up to half a dozen out of state teams. Oh, and another regional is going to be added in the area. If that's not an argument to turn the L.A. Regional into a district system, I don't know what is! That said, I would not object to allowing international teams to play--the Chilean team's "home" regional is Los Angeles. But then you get back to the international travel dilemma.

Ah, I see about LA. I was moreso saying that because I've read prior something about how since NYC and LA are such major cities, teams go there due to flight arrangements and all that stuff.

[Gregor]

it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto.

Correct :D

[Siri]

IIRC, the proposal of a HI/CA district would involve two district events in HI to ensure that they wouldn't all have to travel mainland; this makes the only issue in the region championship.My apologies, I was referring to dodar's statement in which I thought "It could work with Cali if they scheduled it correctly and limited the number of slots with the corresponding inland regional that would make teams have to go out to Hawaii to compete." meant that HI/CA teams would be forced into traveling for districts. (I personally am skeptical of compelling more travel than geographically necessary.) My proposal for HI did indeed include 2 district-type events.

Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.Definitely. Though if FIRST is willing to split Pennsylvania for the district model, one would hope they'd readily split Canada at least once. I suspect few people would support Canada as a single district any more than making any other ~3,511,023mi² plot of land a single district.

[shortiechik2006]

There will be another Midwestern district by 2014.

Where?

[calicogang]

Please, please force us to attend The Hawaii Regional! Aloha!
Next year?? Hawaii, Spokane or Davis, and St. Louis. Sounds good to me.
Good luck to all 400 FRC teams this week @ Worlds. Sincerely, First Team 701.

[Robert Cawthon]

That said, I would not object to allowing international teams to play--the Chilean team's "home" regional is Los Angeles. But then you get back to the international travel dilemma.

The Greater Kansas City Regional would be glad to have the Chilean team attend if southern California goes to a district format.

[Undertones]

As a member of the Alberta Tech Alliance, I think it's safe for me to explain our plans and achievements regarding a new regional event.

If you are not aware, there are about 60 teams in eastern Canada (Ontario region). There is a fairly strong FIRST community there, with several regional events. However, in western Canada, it is a different story. Our team, 4334, is one of two teams west of the east/west divide. Because there are so few teams, there is hardly any FIRST community. Nobody knows what we do, why we do it, etc.

Being one of two teams in an extremely large area is hard for a couple reasons. One, sponsorship is hard to find. Especially being a rookie team. Nobody wants to be the first to sponsor us. Also, it makes attending a regional event very, very difficult. In the 2012 season, all the regional events closer to us filled up very quickly. The closest event to us was Toronto. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with Canadian geography, but it is reaaaally far. And strangely enough, flying there is super expensive. We're lucky to have super supportive parents, and they all wound up paying airfare for us to attend GTR East. Frustrated, we started looking into hosting our own regional event. We talked it over with FIRST Canada, and they gave us the green light. Then at the championship, a meeting with the board was held regarding a new regional event. It was approved.

So, circumstances permitting, there will be a Calgary regional next year. You may be wondering how, being as there is only 2 teams... The Alberta Tech Alliance is working on building curriculum that we can take into Calgary and area schools, and making it as easy as possible for schools to have FRC teams. The Calgary Catholic School District has already approved $10,000 in sponsorship to every FRC team in one of it's schools. We also are working to use an unused school property as a communal build site, where teams can share expertise, parts, tools, a facility, and perhaps most importantly, rent.

The real question is, can we get 30 teams?

Time will tell.

[EricH]

So, circumstances permitting, there will be a Calgary regional next year. You may be wondering how, being as there is only 2 teams... The Alberta Tech Alliance is working on building curriculum that we can take into Calgary and area schools, and making it as easy as possible for schools to have FRC teams. The Calgary Catholic School District has already approved $10,000 in sponsorship to every FRC team in one of it's schools. We also are working to use an unused school property as a communal build site, where teams can share expertise, parts, tools, a facility, and perhaps most importantly, rent.

The real question is, can we get 30 teams?

Time will tell.
If you don't have 30, call south of the border and see if some of the Washington, Oregon, and Idaho teams will agree to come up. (And maybe a couple of Canadian powerhouses will show up.)

You've got a year, you've got motivation, you've got local assistance, you've got a Championship blue banner for the Archimedes division to get sponsors with. I think you can get pretty close to the required number.

[372 lives on]

$10,000 dollars O.o starting a team will be easy! why cant I live in Canada D:


if my local teams have the money I'll make sure they go to your regional.
(30 team regional sounds fun all the ones here have been to big for to long)

[waialua359]

As a member of the Alberta Tech Alliance, I think it's safe for me to explain our plans and achievements regarding a new regional event.

If you are not aware, there are about 60 teams in eastern Canada (Ontario region). There is a fairly strong FIRST community there, with several regional events. However, in western Canada, it is a different story. Our team, 4334, is one of two teams west of the east/west divide. Because there are so few teams, there is hardly any FIRST community. Nobody knows what we do, why we do it, etc.

Being one of two teams in an extremely large area is hard for a couple reasons. One, sponsorship is hard to find. Especially being a rookie team. Nobody wants to be the first to sponsor us. Also, it makes attending a regional event very, very difficult. In the 2012 season, all the regional events closer to us filled up very quickly. The closest event to us was Toronto. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with Canadian geography, but it is reaaaally far. And strangely enough, flying there is super expensive. We're lucky to have super supportive parents, and they all wound up paying airfare for us to attend GTR East. Frustrated, we started looking into hosting our own regional event. We talked it over with FIRST Canada, and they gave us the green light. Then at the championship, a meeting with the board was held regarding a new regional event. It was approved.

So, circumstances permitting, there will be a Calgary regional next year. You may be wondering how, being as there is only 2 teams... The Alberta Tech Alliance is working on building curriculum that we can take into Calgary and area schools, and making it as easy as possible for schools to have FRC teams. The Calgary Catholic School District has already approved $10,000 in sponsorship to every FRC team in one of it's schools. We also are working to use an unused school property as a communal build site, where teams can share expertise, parts, tools, a facility, and perhaps most importantly, rent.

The real question is, can we get 30 teams?

Time will tell.
Just curious,
was this announcement supposed to made yet being that the regional doesnt seem to be finalized as of yet?

Since you brought it up, "The real question is, can you get 29 teams?" ;)

[jblay]

As a member of the Alberta Tech Alliance, I think it's safe for me to explain our plans and achievements regarding a new regional event.

If you are not aware, there are about 60 teams in eastern Canada (Ontario region). There is a fairly strong FIRST community there, with several regional events. However, in western Canada, it is a different story. Our team, 4334, is one of two teams west of the east/west divide. Because there are so few teams, there is hardly any FIRST community. Nobody knows what we do, why we do it, etc.

Being one of two teams in an extremely large area is hard for a couple reasons. One, sponsorship is hard to find. Especially being a rookie team. Nobody wants to be the first to sponsor us. Also, it makes attending a regional event very, very difficult. In the 2012 season, all the regional events closer to us filled up very quickly. The closest event to us was Toronto. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with Canadian geography, but it is reaaaally far. And strangely enough, flying there is super expensive. We're lucky to have super supportive parents, and they all wound up paying airfare for us to attend GTR East. Frustrated, we started looking into hosting our own regional event. We talked it over with FIRST Canada, and they gave us the green light. Then at the championship, a meeting with the board was held regarding a new regional event. It was approved.

So, circumstances permitting, there will be a Calgary regional next year. You may be wondering how, being as there is only 2 teams... The Alberta Tech Alliance is working on building curriculum that we can take into Calgary and area schools, and making it as easy as possible for schools to have FRC teams. The Calgary Catholic School District has already approved $10,000 in sponsorship to every FRC team in one of it's schools. We also are working to use an unused school property as a communal build site, where teams can share expertise, parts, tools, a facility, and perhaps most importantly, rent.

The real question is, can we get 30 teams?

Time will tell.

It is amazing what your team is doing. Only a rookie and you have already put things in motion for a regional, that is astounding.

[Undertones]

Just curious,
was this announcement supposed to made yet being that the regional doesnt seem to be finalized as of yet?

Since you brought it up, "The real question is, can you get 29 teams?" ;)

Well... There was a meeting recently regarding the regional. There is a very small chance it won't happen at this point.

I like only having to find/start 29 teams. ;)

[NayPow]

This sounds like it could be awesome! I will talk to my team about it. Calgary is pretty far away from seattle, but depending on how many regionals we attend, it might be viable.

[Wetzel]

I'm wondering if anything will be announced to the RDs at their meeting this week in Manchester.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

It's safe to say Minnesota will not go districts this year as at the state championships it was confirmed that the Lake Superior regional in Duluth, MN will become a double regional. I think it's a bad move considering the size of the DECC (convention center), but I'm going to trust in the regional staff to make it all work out.

[ehochstein]

It's safe to say Minnesota will not go districts this year as at the state championships it was confirmed that the Lake Superior regional in Duluth, MN will become a double regional. I think it's a bad move considering the size of the DECC (convention center), but I'm going to trust in the regional staff to make it all work out.

Have you seen the AMSOIL Areana? I am assuming that is where the second regional will be taking place, I think it will be awesome! So we still have the first regional in the DECC and the second one in AMSOIL arena. After the annoucement was made I was looking up some specs on each area and I am surprised we haven't been in AMSOIL in the past as it appears to have much better ammenities.

Also it may have been announced as a Duluth double regional but the RD still had their after-season meeting at FIRST HQ. I wouldn't consider MN Districts out of the question but there is less of a chance that they will happen now.

I'm sure the year we get a Rochester regional we'll turn into a district.

Side note: From what I hear the DECC was not damaged from the flashfloods a few weeks ago.