Indiana going to Districts for 2015

[Danny Blau]

As reported by the IndianaFirst Twitter account and Facebook, we'll be going to districts for the 2015 FRC season!
https://twitter.com/indianafirst/status/477635846049259521
More details as they are announced.

Danny

[cadandcookies]

Very exciting news! Good luck in 2015!

[PayneTrain]

Something something wow can't believe Indiana managed to get to districts before [insert larger area here] this is so unprecedented /s

Of any candidate for the switch, it makes a LOT of sense.

[Samwaldo]

Just out of curiosity, anybody know details of team population/density in Indiana? X # of teams per sq. mile?

[dodar]

Just out of curiosity, anybody know details of team population/density in Indiana? X # of teams per sq. mile?

According to FIRST there were 63 FRC teams in Indiana last year and Wikipedia says Indiana is 36,418 sq. mile.

So that would come out to be .00173 teams/sq. mile.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

According to FIRST there were 63 FRC teams in Indiana last year and Wikipedia says Indiana is 36,418 sq. mile.

So that would come out to be .00173 teams/sq. mile.

The PNW district covers about 150 teams and 170,000 square miles, giving about .0009 teams per square mile. This is about equal to each team claiming an area of land that is 33 miles by 33 miles.

[Ernst]

According to FIRST there were 63 FRC teams in Indiana last year and Wikipedia says Indiana is 36,418 sq. mile.

So that would come out to be .00173 teams/sq. mile.

I'm seeing 52 teams (frclinks.com/t/IN-USA) from Indiana that competed in the 2014 season, which gives .00143 teams/sq. mile.

[Dunngeon]

According to FIRST there were 63 FRC teams in Indiana last year and Wikipedia says Indiana is 36,418 sq. mile.

So that would come out to be .00173 teams/sq. mile.

But, why? 63 teams would mean that a lot of them get into the final event /District Championship. Why not just run a single regional or combine them with a different region to up team count? 63 seems dreadfully low for a district system

[GearsOfFury]

My understanding is that it won't be just Indiana, but Indiana and Illinois combined.

[Chris Fultz]

This is Indiana alone.

The State CHP will be a smaller event than the other larger districts.

We are excited that FIRST has agreed to this model for smaller Districts and will be working with FIRST to make it successful.

[Jim Zondag]

Congrats to Indiana on making the switch. You will not regret it.

[Peyton Yeung]

It's a good move for us.

[Tom Line]

That's excellent for you guys. Now someone with a little clout needs to work out inter-district play so we can start seeing all the great teams from Indiana up here in Michigan again!

[IKE]

This is Indiana alone.

The State CHP will be a smaller event than the other larger districts.

We are excited that FIRST has agreed to this model for smaller Districts and will be working with FIRST to make it successful.

Michigan may have been the first state, and MAR the first region, but I suspect that the "Indiana Model" may be the most replicated in the future.

[DonRotolo]

Good news folks. More plays for everyone!

And for anyone not really excited and happy about this, I only ask you to wait until next season is over before offering your judgement. Despite the several imagined problems, the reality is so much better than what you are used to. Trust me.

[Nick Lawrence]

This is fantastic. There's a good network of people in Indiana to make this work. Happy to have a much more cost-effective way for our students to be inspired.

-Nick

[Karthik]

The State CHP will be a smaller event than the other larger districts.

We are excited that FIRST has agreed to this model for smaller Districts and will be working with FIRST to make it successful.

This is a game changer for FIRST. Having a model in place for a region of ~50 teams to go to districts, along with the existing models for larger regions, will make the eventual transition to all district play that much easier. A lot of the initial apprehension over districts was that it couldn't work in Region X because Region X had too few teams, or that Region X would have to combine with Region Y & Z to make sure they had enough teams, but X, Y, & Z was too large of a geographic area to be feasible. This smaller model makes districts much for feasible for both smaller and isolated regions.

There's a good network of people in Indiana to make this work. Happy to have a much more cost-effective way for our students to be inspired.

Seconded on both counts here. Everything I've learned about districts points to the level of the team experience strongly correlating to the level of passion and dedication from the volunteers. Indiana has no shortage of this. (Hence why Indianapolis was such a popular choice for Champs within the community.) As for cost, the more teams that are paying $5000 for two events instead of one event, the better. Almost makes the rest of us in non district land look like suckers.

[Akash Rastogi]

Good news folks. More plays for everyone!

And for anyone not really excited and happy about this, I only ask you to wait until next season is over before offering your judgement. Despite the several imagined problems, the reality is so much better than what you are used to. Trust me.

Important to echo this statement. Give it a chance, you really won't regret it.

[BigJ]

Here's to hoping for Wisconsin/Illinois District in 2016 :)

[PayneTrain]

This is a game changer for FIRST. Having a model in place for a region of ~50 teams to go to districts, along with the existing models for larger regions, will make the eventual transition to all district play that much easier. A lot of the initial apprehension over districts was that it couldn't work in Region X because Region X had too few teams, or that Region X would have to combine with Region Y & Z to make sure they had enough teams, but X, Y, & Z was too large of a geographic area to be feasible. This smaller model makes districts much for feasible for both smaller and isolated regions.


I think anyone who understands what the model is trying to accomplish can see that it is, in theory, scalable from a region with 40-400 teams. I'm pretty sure the progenitors of the model even said as much. I think up until this point the creation of multi-state areas operating under a district model have been part necessity, part common sense, and part fear of breaking up an area or trying something far different with the same system others are using. I think there are enough WF(F)A winners and years of experience who wanted this in Indiana that FIRST was willing to let them try a smaller-sized district model in practice.

This could potentially flip a number of single-regional states. After this the only remaining things to try are giant districts in terms of team count, multiple district systems in a state, and a district system that doesn't lead to a R/S CMP.

[EricH]

That's excellent for you guys. Now someone with a little clout needs to work out inter-district play so we can start seeing all the great teams from Indiana up here in Michigan again!

I agree on this. With two districts adjacent to each other for the first time, it's more imperative than before that somebody figure out an inter-district play model.

[tickspe15]

The PNW district covers about 150 teams and 170,000 square miles, giving about .0009 teams per square mile. This is about equal to each team claiming an area of land that is 33 miles by 33 miles.

The teams/square mile metric does not tell very much about a states ability feasibility for running districts. It doesn't matter how many teams there are, what matters is how the teams are distributed throughout the area. In pnw there are definate areas with a greater density of teams, namely the Seattle area. What matters is that the district has areas of higher density.

[Richard Wallace]

That's excellent for you guys. Now someone with a little clout needs to work out inter-district play so we can start seeing all the great teams from Indiana up here in Michigan again!

Michigan may have been the first state, and MAR the first region, but I suspect that the "Indiana Model" may be the most replicated in the future.

I agree on this. With two districts adjacent to each other for the first time, it's more imperative than before that somebody figure out an inter-district play model.
Here in Michiana, we have been dreaming of interdistrict play for several years. Our neighbors to the south creating a district system of their own will bring that dream a step closer.

Indiana's success will be FIRST's success.

[BigBen]

I can't wait to see the details of the district events. The district model was covered during a roundtable discussion at the IN State Championship. I may be relatively new to this wonderful world of FRC, but I think this is definitely the way to go.

[gurellia53]

Does anyone know the details of why Illinois was not included in this? Last fall, Dan Green, the Executive Director of Illinois FIRST, was confident that we would have an Illinois-Indiana district for 2015.

[mklinker]

This is GREAT news! Thanks to all that made this happen so fast. Looking forward to the implementation of inter district play with Michigan which was a component of the proposal from IndianaFIRST.

[Carolyn_Grace]

This is GREAT news! Thanks to all that made this happen so fast. Looking forward to the implementation of inter district play with Michigan which was a component of the proposal from IndianaFIRST.

Hopefully in the future! Our first year will just be Indiana, but we are all eager to open doors as soon as it would be successful.

I do know that our large cache of dedicated volunteers have a lot to do with our success as a state. Thank you to all of our Indiana FIRST volunteers! Being a transplant, it's safe to say I'm not too biased when I say that you're the greatest. It's wonderful working with all of you.

[Pault]

Hopefully in the future! Our first year will just be Indiana, but we are all eager to open doors as soon as it would be successful.

Are you sure about this? I remember Frank putting out a blog post a while back that suggested we might be getting interdistrict play between all of the districts for 2015. That's part of the reason why they standardized the points system.


Also, congratulations Indiana! This is a huge step in the right direction for FIRST's push towards districts. The next step is to figure out the volunteer problem.

[Steven Donow]

Are you sure about this? I remember Frank putting out a blog post a while back that suggested we might be getting interdistrict play between all of the districts for 2015. That's part of the reason why they standardized the points system.


Suggesting it might not happen means that it might not happen.

And if the "Indiana model" is different(aside from points) FIRST might not want to have "outsiders" there. Also there might be an eventual rule of "no interdistricts in a new system"

[EricH]

And if the "Indiana model" is different(aside from points) FIRST might not want to have "outsiders" there. This makes sense--if you're trying something out with a "small" area, you probably don't want to artificially inflate your numbers. Such an experiment would be affected by using the "wrong" number of teams. I would guess that the experiment, if successful, would eventually open the door to "outsiders" playing.

Also there might be an eventual rule of "no interdistricts in a new system" Also a good idea here. Get the teams inside the system used to the system for 1 year, maybe two, and then they're more apt to want to go interdistrict. I could see a Hammond district attracting a bunch of SW MI teams and vice versa in a couple of years.

[Chris Fultz]

And if the "Indiana model" is different(aside from points) FIRST might not want to have "outsiders" there. Also there might be an eventual rule of "no interdistricts in a new system"

The Indiana model will be identical to the other districts in terms of rules, point structure, size of events, etc. The only difference will be in the size of the state CHP, which will be scaled to the number of teams in the state, as will the number of slots allocated to the state for the FIRST CHP.

[Travis Hoffman]

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity and would like to see additional protections installed to ensure that in state teams and other non-district teams get the first crack at attending Ohio events - perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events. I seem to recall some kind of restriction being in place last season but am not certain of how extensive it was.

[Link07]

...perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events.

This rule already exists as of 2014

[Basel A]

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity . . . .

As a Michigander, I don't like it either. One of a district system's largest benefits is that the most deserving teams qualify for the CMP. Going to an out-of-state regional subverts that intent. Michigan teams who qualify in Ohio/anywhere else take spots that are meant to be earned through our district system.

I've said several times that Michigan teams should not be able to directly qualify for the CMP outside Michigan. I don't think they should be allowed to compete for an RCA, and if they do win the regional, it should count as a qualification to MSC. Michigan teams should qualify from Michigan... But I guess it's a topic for a different thread.

[thatprogrammer]

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. If this model works, a lot more states that currently follow the traditional system might make the switch..

[Akash Rastogi]

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity and would like to see additional protections installed to ensure that in state teams and other non-district teams get the first crack at attending Ohio events - perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events. I seem to recall some kind of restriction being in place last season but am not certain of how extensive it was.

District teams can't register until Open Registration as per 2014 rules. I'm not sure what other kind of protection you want. The teams from MAR who can afford regionals have to work just as hard as you do to find other events to attend.

[M. Lillis]

So I ran some of the numbers based off of the usfirst.org 2014 directory.

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile

FiM has 21.9 teams per event
MAR has 24.4 teams per event
PNW has 20.1 teams per event
NE has 23.0 teams per event

If I were to guess, I would say that Indiana will have 3 district events. This would be 21.0 teams per event, keeping it in line with the other regions.

Also, MAR is weird because land area in not easily accessible for Eastern PA, so I used all of PA. This was also true for finding teams in PA, so I just used all of PA teams. I also included the 1 regional in PA, making the "event" count for MAR 7. This may be why MAR's teams per event is slightly higher than other regions. PNW's teams per Sq Mile is so low because both of those states are huge, while Indiana's is so small because there are only 63 teams.

Link to data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qEgWgQUpSb1aZk8PzbZ2gobUqNwcQJlNnF8Cb35sC7k/edit?usp=sharing

[dodar]

So I ran some of the numbers based off of the usfirst.org 2014 directory.

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile

FiM has 21.9 teams per event
MAR has 24.4 teams per event
PNW has 20.1 teams per event
NE has 23.0 teams per event

If I were to guess, I would say that Indiana will have 3 district events. This would be 21.0 teams per event, keeping it in line with the other regions.

Also, MAR is weird because land area in not easily accessible for Eastern PA, so I used all of PA. This was also true for finding teams in PA, so I just used all of PA teams. I also included the 1 regional in PA, making the "event" count for MAR 7. This may be why MAR's teams per event is slightly higher than other regions. PNW's teams per Sq Mile is so low because both of those states are huge, while Indiana's is so small because there are only 63 teams.

Link to data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qEgWgQUpSb1aZk8PzbZ2gobUqNwcQJlNnF8Cb35sC7k/edit?usp=sharing

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

[M. Lillis]

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

I just did straight division of total teams by total events. I did not calculate for teams who run their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th event. Just double the numbers and it will be closer to the actual count, but this still would not account for team who do 3 or 4 district events.

[cadandcookies]

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

Remember Districts includes two events per team-- the offered statistic isn't how many teams will be at each event, which is different from how many total teams there will be per event.

[MechEng83]

As a Michigander, I don't like it either. One of a district system's largest benefits is that the most deserving teams qualify for the CMP. Going to an out-of-state regional subverts that intent. Michigan teams who qualify in Ohio/anywhere else take spots that are meant to be earned through our district system.

I've said several times that Michigan teams should not be able to directly qualify for the CMP outside Michigan. I don't think they should be allowed to compete for an RCA, and if they do win the regional, it should count as a qualification to MSC. Michigan teams should qualify from Michigan... But I guess it's a topic for a different thread.

I'll note that this year's CCA winner did exactly what you described...

I do agree with this sentiment about qualification spot poaching. It didn't feel right when Indiana wasn't a district, and it doesn't feel right now that we are. FIRST did implement that when the district team qualifies outside district borders, it removes a spot from their district allotment.

That being said, I don't think it's a good thing to completely isolate teams in their silos until the World Championship. Having the experience of meeting teams from all over the country/world is a really great aspect. This is one of the apprehension points I have with being in a district now -- we'll see the same teams year after year without much variety unless we travel outside our district for a regional competition.

If the Indiana model works, it could signal a green light in how districts can be spread to states/areas with lower team populations. Long term, I think Regionals should co-exist overlayed with districts. Areas where districts still don't make sense can have their regionals, and then we can still have the larger events peppered throughout the world for that broader exposure.

[Allison K]

On topic - This is great and I look forward to the possibility of interdistrict play.

Regarding "poaching" of world championship spots, moving to a system of proportional representation districts at worlds would be a step towards eliminating the problem. This attachment here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16999&d=1399969883) (which I saved from another similar thread, apologies because I don't remember which one or who posted it, but this is not my original content) shows how underrepresented FiM is at worlds. Although there are many great reasons for attending an out of district regional (meeting new teams, travel experience, etc.), worlds qualification is an incentive. Distributing spots proportional to the number of teams in the district while removing qualification incentives for district teams at regionals would both calm the regional teams that feel invaded by districts, and the district teams that feel like they are getting the short end of the stick at home.

[mathking]

I am happy, because I am eager for the time when FRC is entirely district model based. I am a believer, so I am willing to go through the pain as FRC grows into districts everywhere.

As Travis said, it does put a lot more pressure on teams from Ohio who want to get in an extra regional competition. Almost every year at least one (and often two) of Buckeye, Queen City and Pittsburgh are not possible because of Ohio Graduation Tests. Sometimes (like last year) the OGT and spring break effectively knock out all three. We went to Crossroads last year, but without that we would have had to go even further afield for our competition. As a team that has only once in 12 years been able to afford two regional competitions, this puts even more expense pressure on us.

All that said I am happy Indiana is doing this. They have a fantastic base of volunteers and mentors in Indiana and I am confident that they will pull off the district model well. Hopefully it will speed our entry to the district system.

[Jon Stratis]

On topic - This is great and I look forward to the possibility of interdistrict play.

Regarding "poaching" of world championship spots, moving to a system of proportional representation districts at worlds would be a step towards eliminating the problem. This attachment here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16999&d=1399969883) (which I saved from another similar thread, apologies because I don't remember which one or who posted it, but this is not my original content) shows how underrepresented FiM is at worlds. Although there are many great reasons for attending an out of district regional (meeting new teams, travel experience, etc.), worlds qualification is an incentive. Distributing spots proportional to the number of teams in the district while removing qualification incentives for district teams at regionals would both calm the regional teams that feel invaded by districts, and the district teams that feel like they are getting the short end of the stick at home.



As Frank said last fall,
http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Standard-District-Points-Ranking-System%E2%80%93More-Info
Our intent in the 2015 season is to move to a proportional representation system at the FIRST Championship, based on team counts.
[...]
We will be easing the full transition in 2015 to the proportional representation system by taking a modified approach in 2014. To eliminate uncertainty with the number of slots being awarded, we are using 2013 season team counts rather than current season (2014) counts. Also, to make this change less sudden for existing districts, and to make the allocation more closely match early discussions FIRST HQ had with new districts being formed, I am adding a single FIRST Championship slot for each District to the allocations that were determined mathematically from the 2013 team counts. As a practical matter, these additional slots will reduce by four the number of waitlist slots available at the FIRST Championship.

Emphasis mine.

Even a proportional system doesn't solve the problem. Teams from districts can and do go to regional events and win CMP spots... and they will continue to do so no matter how many spots their district has. Team 27 (and I have nothing against them, they're just an easy example from this year) came from Michigan to the Northern Lights regional last year and won Chairman's. That meant that they got to go to champs and some other team from Minnesota or Wisconsin or North Dakota or Hawaii did not. All those other teams didn't have the same benefit of qualifying at both a regional and within a district.

IMO the current setup disadvantages regional-only teams. The spreadsheet you linked to doesn't tell the whole tale - Minnesota, for example, didn't get all of those 24 slots. Some went to out of state teams in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Hawaii, etc. Minnesota only sent 16 teams to champs this past year. So while our state might have 8.56% of all FRC teams, our Actual CMP % was 4%.

District team's shouldn't be allowed to play at regionals unless regional teams can play (and earn their way to CMP) at districts as well. We're closing off significant areas of the country and making it harder and harder for some areas that are still doing regionals to send appropriate representation to champs. If FIRST is really moving towards a representational model for CMP, they need to figure out how to make that work for areas that still do regionals as well.

[Allison K]

...

IMO the current setup disadvantages regional-only teams. The spreadsheet you linked to doesn't tell the whole tale - Minnesota, for example, didn't get all of those 24 slots. Some went to out of state teams in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Hawaii, etc. Minnesota only sent 16 teams to champs this past year. So while our state might have 8.56% of all FRC teams, our Actual CMP % was 4%.

District team's shouldn't be allowed to play at regionals unless regional teams can play (and earn their way to CMP) at districts as well. We're closing off significant areas of the country and making it harder and harder for some areas that are still doing regionals to send appropriate representation to champs. If FIRST is really moving towards a representational model for CMP, they need to figure out how to make that work for areas that still do regionals as well.

Fair point, but that's why I also suggested removing the qualification incentive for district teams that attend regionals. District teams already have to wait to register for regionals until open registration, so we aren't taking spots away from teams who need or want them, we are just filling in empty spaces. If we were allocated proportional spots in our district, I wouldn't mind it if district teams weren't allowed to qualify for worlds at a regional (with any spaces earned by a district team at a regional creating a wildcard for the next most deserving non-district team). I suppose that would get awkward with Chairman's award spots, but it overall seems like a more balanced approach.

I do recall Frank's blog post on proportional allocation of spots, but thus far they've only mentioned intent. Hopefully that ends up being the case.

[GaryVoshol]

To be fair, I'm not sure they expected MI to have scores of new teams in 2014. They announce the spots before registration is closed, don't they? If they base the 2015 allocation off of 2014 figures, FiM's numbers should go up.

[Chris Fultz]

I wouldn't mind it if district teams weren't allowed to qualify for worlds at a regional...

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There is no perfect solution, so their will be some pain in the transitions.

[Alpha Beta]

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There is no perfect solution, so their will be some pain in the transitions.

Doesn't this happen now in districts when teams get a 3rd event. Only the first two count towards district ranking points. Has it been a problem thus far?

PS. What was the biggest factor in getting FIRST to approve districts for such a small FRC population base?

My guess would be the dedication of the volunteers that run the offseason events as well as the two regionals.

Good luck, we're rooting for you to make this a success.

[M. Lillis]

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There could be some incentive for District teams competing at Regionals. Maybe a dumbed down point system for winning only. Where, even if they've done their 2 district events, they could still gain (for example) 20-30 district points by winning a regional. There would still be problems, because some teams have a lot of money, and teams that don't have an extra $5k lying around would not benefit from a chance at winning a regional.

There are no simple solutions, as every solution has its own problems.

[Allison K]

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There is no perfect solution, so their will be some pain in the transitions.

We already do and it's not so bad. The past two years we've had a couple dozen third district teams that aren't playing for any sort of points or qualifying. I think each year the past two years we've had a district that's more than half third event teams not playing for anything, as well as multiple events with a handful of third event teams.

Additionally, I imagine that any district team that's shelling out for a regional is playing to win even if they don't stand to qualify.

You are correct though in that it'll never be perfect :)

Edited to add: Oops. A bunch of others beat me to it. Didn't mean to pile on.

[Danny Diaz]

So I ran some of the numbers based off of the usfirst.org 2014 directory.

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile


I just ran the same numbers for Texas. Assuming the rumors of Texas going to the District Model in 2016, and assuming the number of ACTIVE teams in Texas remains flat at 245, you're looking at:

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile
Texas will have 0.00091139 teams per Sq Mile

Go Texas.

-Danny

[Boe]

I just ran the same numbers for Texas. Assuming the rumors of Texas going to the District Model in 2016, and assuming the number of ACTIVE teams in Texas remains flat at 245, you're looking at:

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile
Texas will have 0.00091139 teams per Sq Mile

Go Texas.

-Danny

Alaska has 0.00000150761 teams per Sq Mile.

Go Alaska :P

[who716]

this is indeed a great move im a huge fan of the district model after my first season in districts but, I do have a concern about the number of team that will be apart of this district, 63 team I believe are in Indiana and i would assume there will be close to about 40 teams at a competition and possibly 60 at championships the numbers just don't seem like enough, depending on the amount of events being held you could easily see an event with 25 teams in attendance. I really thing they should combine some states to increase the number maybe Illinois Ohio and Kentucky that would bring the total to about 120ish which is a good strong number

[Karthik]

this is indeed a great move im a huge fan of the district model after my first season in districts but, I do have a concern about the number of team that will be apart of this district, 63 team I believe are in Indiana and i would assume there will be close to about 40 teams at a competition and possibly 60 at championships the numbers just don't seem like enough, depending on the amount of events being held you could easily see an event with 25 teams in attendance. I really thing they should combine some states to increase the number maybe Illinois Ohio and Kentucky that would bring the total to about 120ish which is a good strong number

Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA

For simplicity's sake, assume net growth of zero teams. 52 teams each need 2 plays, meaning the district needs to generate 104 plays. 3 events at 35 gives you 105 plays. Then have 36 teams advance to a state championship and you're set. Yes the events are smaller than normal, but it's definitely a workable model, which is easily scaled for growth.

[AllenGregoryIV]

assuming the number of ACTIVE teams in Texas remains flat at 245, you're looking at:


Danny, where is that number coming from? That's way higher then any number I have ever seen.

Wasn't it only 132 this year. (https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=searchresults&programs=FRC&reports=teams&sort_teams=number&results_size=250&omit_searchform=1&season_FRC=2014&area=tx-usa) Which would be only 0.00049103489 teams per square mile. In other words over 2,000 square miles per team.

[AdamHeard]

Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA

For simplicity's sake, assume net growth of zero teams. 52 teams each need 2 plays, meaning the district needs to generate 104 plays. 3 events at 35 gives you 105 plays. Then have 36 teams advance to a state championship and you're set. Yes the events are smaller than normal, but it's definitely a workable model, which is easily scaled for growth.

This is they key point lost on some people.

Rather than have teams continue to pay high registration fees, they pay low fees for more plays in the district model.

Rather than the local organization continuing to run high cost regionals, they are running more cost effective districts.

It certainly seems like it'd be FAR easier to increase the number of teams under this model, and far more cost effective to reach some end goal (X number of teams under the district model).

Also, the cost of switching to districts (fields, etc...) is distributed over the years as the area is currently small. I'm sure this is attractive.

One a certain critical mass is hit (cough, California), it's MUCH harder to sustain teams and much harder to switch to districts.

[Karthik]

Danny, where is that number coming from? That's way higher then any number I have ever seen.

Wasn't it only 132 this year. (https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=searchresults&programs=FRC&reports=teams&sort_teams=number&results_size=250&omit_searchform=1&season_FRC=2014&area=tx-usa) Which would be only 0.00049103489 teams per square mile

I'm only seeing 132 as well: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/tx-usa

[AdamHeard]

I just ran the same numbers for Texas. Assuming the rumors of Texas going to the District Model in 2016, and assuming the number of ACTIVE teams in Texas remains flat at 245, you're looking at:

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile
Texas will have 0.00091139 teams per Sq Mile

Go Texas.

-Danny

Doesn't it make sense to compare teams per capita instead?

[Aren Siekmeier]

I just ran the same numbers for Texas. Assuming the rumors of Texas going to the District Model in 2016, and assuming the number of ACTIVE teams in Texas remains flat at 245, you're looking at:

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile
Texas will have 0.00091139 teams per Sq Mile

Go Texas.

-Danny

?

Texas had 132 teams in 2014, and I struggle to see that doubling in two years.

This puts Texas (268,820 square miles) at 0.0005 teams/mi2 (5 x 10-4).

PNW has twice this much, NE and MAR about 6x, FiM about 10x, and Indiana has about 35x as much density (scientific notation is your friend here). So Indiana is certainly suited to the model when speaking in terms of density.

MN, for comparison, at 186 teams is at 0.002 teams/mi2 (2 x 10-3), so 4x Texas, but still trailing behind most other districts. More importantly, we're trailing behind in volunteers and infrastructure, so we'll be a bit late to the party...

[MechEng83]

Danny, where is that number coming from? That's way higher then any number I have ever seen.

Wasn't it only 132 this year. (https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=searchresults&programs=FRC&reports=teams&sort_teams=number&results_size=250&omit_searchform=1&season_FRC=2014&area=tx-usa)

63 team I believe are in Indiana

Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA

I'm only seeing 132 as well: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/tx-usa

This confusion is coming from FIRST's website's inability to consistently and accurately report data.

If you use the frclinks.com approach, you get the correct number for Indiana (http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/in-usa) and Texas (http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/tx-usa). If you use the "What teams are in my area? (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/teams)" links, it lists inactive and unregistered teams with absolutely no distinction as to which are which for those (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/teams?ProgramCode=FRC&Season=2014&Country=USA&StateProv=IN&ZipCode=&Radius=&op=Search&form_build_id=form-T4A_gEf_JzIBzF80PxSgqn2kAhVbyH5Zxknr2VjgilE&form_id=first_search_teams_form) states (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/teams?ProgramCode=FRC&Season=2014&Country=USA&StateProv=TX&ZipCode=&Radius=&op=Search&form_build_id=form-T4A_gEf_JzIBzF80PxSgqn2kAhVbyH5Zxknr2VjgilE&form_id=first_search_teams_form).

[Aren Siekmeier]

Doesn't it make sense to compare teams per capita instead?

For travel to multiple events to be feasible for a large number of teams, we'd like to have a decent number of them in a certain area. You could have a team at every high school, but if each high school is 200 miles apart, districts might not work so well.

But the teams per square mile number can be skewed as well. Michigan's number is fairly high, but it would be even higher if you took into account the fact that the majority of the teams are from the southern part of the LP. Something similar could be said about Ontario.

[M. Lillis]

This confusion is coming from FIRST's website's inability to consistently and accurately report data.

If the FIRST website cannot report accurate numbers, then it should not be reporting numbers at all.

I will go back tonight and redo my calculations using frclinks

[AllenGregoryIV]

Doesn't it make sense to compare teams per capita instead?
Per Capita Numbers

Texas: 132 teams/ 26,448,193 people= 4.99088 * 10^-6 teams per capita
Indiana: 52 teams/ 6,570,902 people= 7.91367 * 10^-6 teams per capita
Michigan: 277 teams/ 9,895,622 people= 2.799217 * 10^-5 teams per capita

Data from 2013 US Census Bureau population estimates.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Rather than the local organization continuing to run high cost regionals, they are running more cost effective districts.


Which begs the question, why can't we ALL run more cost effective events? If we accept the premise that the decrease in pizzaz at districts is an acceptable loss given the increase in availability why do traditional regionals have to cost so much money?

[who716]

Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA

For simplicity's sake, assume net growth of zero teams. 52 teams each need 2 plays, meaning the district needs to generate 104 plays. 3 events at 35 gives you 105 plays. Then have 36 teams advance to a state championship and you're set. Yes the events are smaller than normal, but it's definitely a workable model, which is easily scaled for growth.

I understand and agree that downsizing at the event will increase play time for teams, and also leaves room to grow, I find it hard to grasp that only 52 plus new team will be in this district, knowing that you still have 60 teams competing at a single events, personally 52 teams would be nice as there will be many more qualifying matches to play if there are less teams at a curtain event, which is always nice.

[Steven Donow]

I understand and agree that downsizing at the event will increase play time for teams, and also leaves room to grow, I find it hard to grasp that only 52 plus new team will be in this district, knowing that you still have 60 teams competing at a single events, personally 52 teams would be nice as there will be many more qualifying matches to play if there are less teams at a curtain event, which is always nice.

What Karthik is saying, and what will (more than likely) be the case is that there WON'T be events with 50+ teams and around 35 teams per event. And then the state championship will be around 32 teams.


For reference, the current Indiana State Championship has 24 teams competing.

[AdamHeard]

Which begs the question, why can't we ALL run more cost effective events? If we accept the premise that the decrease in pizzaz at districts is an acceptable loss given the increase in availability why do traditional regionals have to cost so much money?

I could be wrong, but I believe the AV and a few other things essentially have a mandated cost floor due to what FIRST requires for regionals. Someone please correct this if not.

California is doing their best to run cheap events, with half of our events essentially run as close to a district as they can be under the regional model.

The bummer of all this though is even that it's great for the events to save money, since none of our fees go to the events, teams don't save any money.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I could be wrong, but I believe the AV and a few other things essentially have a mandated cost floor due to what FIRST requires for regionals. Someone please correct this if not.

California is doing their best to run cheap events, with half of our events essentially run as close to a district as they can be under the regional model.

The bummer of all this though is even that it's great for the events to save money, since none of our fees go to the events, teams don't save any money.

That jives with what I've been hearing. I question if all of those things actually have some value or if they are simply wasted money.

[Alan Anderson]

For reference, the current Indiana State Championship has 24 teams competing.

The post-season "Indiana State Championship" this year was designed as a single-day event with only elimination rounds and no qualifying matches. It wasn't intended to be anything like a competition for World Championship slots.

[Chris Hibner]

BTW, the teams/mi^2 calculation has a 0 missing from it for Indiana. The previous calculations show 0.01758, which it should be 0.001758. Actually, I calculate 0.001428 for Indiana. (52 / 36418)

[Alan Anderson]

All these numbers would be a lot easier to deal with if they were teams per 1000 square miles. Alternatively, square miles per team might be a better measure, depending on what you're trying to show.

[M. Lillis]

I updated my spreadsheet with the frclinks data and added a teams/capita section, which is based off of 2010 census data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qEgWgQUpSb1aZk8PzbZ2gobUqNwcQJlNnF8Cb35sC7k/edit?usp=sharing

[Libby K]

The teams from MAR who can afford regionals have to work just as hard as you do to find other events to attend.

Not to mention the attitude/reception from their district friends about 'stealing' a St. Louis points spot away from those who attend the DCMP, and/or from the teams at the regional for 'stealing' one of their CMP spots.

(Saying this as a team occasionally guilty of that attitude - but it's out of jealousy, I promise. If we could afford to travel out of district in addition to our absolutely ridiculous in-district travel expenses, we would.)

[Chris Fultz]

we expect to run 3 events at 40 teams per event. This likely means some teams will have the opportunity to play 3 district events. We will probably adopt the lottery model used by other districts to allocate those slots. given the low cost for this 3rd event, and the ease of travel around the state, i think they will fill to 40.

our current "state championship" is run more like an off-season event. 24 teams, a few practice rounds, then a draft based on in-season points. we invite 24 teams so all can play - it is just a one day event.

[Mr V]

Doesn't this happen now in districts when teams get a 3rd event. Only the first two count towards district ranking points. Has it been a problem thus far?

PS. What was the biggest factor in getting FIRST to approve districts for such a small FRC population base?

My guess would be the dedication of the volunteers that run the offseason events as well as the two regionals.

Good luck, we're rooting for you to make this a success.

There were some discussions of the choices behind the new compact district model being piloted by IN for next season at the FIRST World Conference this week. There was not a single reason given as the main driving force. Some of the reasons quoted was that they have proven they have the volunteer base to pull it off partially based on their ability to run off-season events. Their Regionals were also ones that have struggled to come up with sufficient funding in the past. So a big part of the case they made was that they really needed to make the transition to districts to ensure the long term sustainability of FRC in the area. Since they will end up with only 3 district events they will have lower infrastructure capital spending that could lower the costs in the initial season and certainly over the long term. In the PNW the need for 2 fields worth of equipment meant that there was not any cost savings for the initial season though there certainly will be this upcoming and future seasons.

Part of it was desire on FIRST's part to try a different District model that if successful could open up the viability of more areas joining the District System sooner as well as making the transition easier. It can also potentially be the pilot of district events weeks 1-4 and DCMP week 6, if they can align the dates which is one of the things FIRST has thrown out as something for other districts to potentially try in future seasons.

[M. Lillis]

All of the current district models are so large (Especially FiM) that they run their CMP event in week 7. Would Indiana, being such a small district, be able to run all of their events before week 5 and then run the INCMP in week 6? This would give any CMP bound teams an extra week of notice/prep.

[Calvin Hartley]

All of the current district models are so large (Especially FiM) that they run their CMP event in week 7. Would Indiana, being such a small district, be able to run all of their events before week 5 and then run the INCMP in week 6? This would give any CMP bound teams an extra week of notice/prep.


See Chris' post:
we expect to run 3 events at 40 teams per event....

Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here... :p

[Link07]

See Chris' post:


Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here... :p

Just a numbers comparison

MAR has 110 teams (about twice the size of Indiana) and 7 district events that are already fit into just 4 weeks (1, 3, 4, 5 in 2014). We've historically not held Week 2 events, but I could see MAR pushing its districts into Weeks 1-4 and holding DCMP Week 6 if we absolutely had to.

[Mr V]

See Chris' post:


Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here... :p

Well for IN they could handle about a 25% growth from where they are at now until they would need to add another field to stay within 4 weeks of district events.

The fact that they can stay within that 4 week window with 1 field is a strong reason to try this smaller district model. The start up costs will be much lower as will the initial logistics and volunteer requirements. That allows some time for the district to save up for the 2nd field and all of the related equipment and increase their volunteer base to handle that higher number of events. All in all I think this model could represent the way to a district system heavy FRC much sooner rather than dragging it out for a decade or more.

[Alex2614]

Personally, I think that saying that we should only put districts in densely populated areas only gives the "urban" teams (and teams closer to urban areas) a bigger advantage over teams from more rural areas.

That is why I love that Indiana is doing this. It is proving to everybody that you don't need 150 teams in an area to do districts. I can't wait for the day that our team in West Virginia can be included in a nearby district region, such as Ohio or PA or whatever.

Looking down the road, even 5-10-15 years, I would hate to see everyone around us going into districts, and we are stuck traveling around these regions to traditional regionals, still paying $5,000 for one single event with 8-9 qualification matches, and traveling 10 hours to do so, with 4 nights in a hotel, which is exactly what we did in 2014. This is why I think, regardless of what FIRST says, out of necessity every team will eventually be included in districts. Otherwise we will have these "pockets" of teams paying much more for much less, and having to travel much further to get that. In order to expand FIRST in rural areas, we need to "level the playing field," so-to-speak, rather than giving areas with higher team density a bigger advantage.

I can't wait to see how it plays out in Indiana. One step closer to all-district!

[Mr V]

Personally, I think that saying that we should only put districts in densely populated areas only gives the "urban" teams (and teams closer to urban areas) a bigger advantage over teams from more rural areas.

That is why I love that Indiana is doing this. It is proving to everybody that you don't need 150 teams in an area to do districts. I can't wait for the day that our team in West Virginia can be included in a nearby district region, such as Ohio or PA or whatever.

Looking down the road, even 5-10-15 years, I would hate to see everyone around us going into districts, and we are stuck traveling around these regions to traditional regionals, still paying $5,000 for one single event with 8-9 qualification matches, and traveling 10 hours to do so, with 4 nights in a hotel, which is exactly what we did in 2014. This is why I think, regardless of what FIRST says, out of necessity every team will eventually be included in districts. Otherwise we will have these "pockets" of teams paying much more for much less, and having to travel much further to get that. In order to expand FIRST in rural areas, we need to "level the playing field," so-to-speak, rather than giving areas with higher team density a bigger advantage.

I can't wait to see how it plays out in Indiana. One step closer to all-district!

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

[cadandcookies]

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

Similar to how Michigan was a test for large-size districts.

I think it's funny that responses have been really positive to this change-- I was looking at some old posts seeing people going to war over how terrible everything would be if we all went to districts. Now I'm not sure that there's a region that doesn't, for the most part, wish they could have a district system.

[MrTechCenter]

Similar to how Michigan was a test for large-size districts.

I think it's funny that responses have been really positive to this change-- I was looking at some old posts seeing people going to war over how terrible everything would be if we all went to districts. Now I'm not sure that there's a region that doesn't, for the most part, wish they could have a district system.

Hawaii?

[Alex2614]

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

Exactly! That's why I'm excited for it!

[EricH]

Hawaii?

The big problem for Hawaii is getting everybody between islands for reasonable cost and in a reasonable time. If they could solve that somehow, I'm pretty sure they'd be doing districts as soon as possible.



cadandcookies, I think some explanation for the negativity might be in order. I'm not sure this would have come across very well in those older threads. So...

There were two big reasons for "We hate this"/"We love this". One was the sudden "These guys get to do this, they can leave their area but you can't come in, oh and they get double the plays". Other areas complained that MI got double the value, they'd been working on trying this for years and HQ said no, and a few other complaints. But the #1 reason was the suddenness (some would say sneakyness). Internal complaints from MI came from the UP teams about having to increase their travel just to get to district events, instead of just going to MN and WI like normal.

The other reason for the complaining was when the points structure was initially announced--it really didn't appear to value anything that wasn't robot (AKA, the CA...) With the years of iteration, that's been dealt with.

Now that MI (and now MAR, NE, and PNW) have had some years as the guinea pigs, most of the wrinkles have been ironed out, and other areas have seen how more teams have formed, and better teams, and are chomping at the bit to at least explore what's next in forming their own district area. International teams who play in the U.S., meanwhile, are getting mighty nervous about potentially losing access to their preferred regional when that area goes to districts. (And trust me, I find that having the Chilean teams in L.A. provides quite a bit of spirit, and is a good thing--I'd hate to see 'em have to go elsewhere.)

[cadandcookies]

The big problem for Hawaii is getting everybody between islands for reasonable cost and in a reasonable time. If they could solve that somehow, I'm pretty sure they'd be doing districts as soon as possible.



cadandcookies, I think some explanation for the negativity might be in order. I'm not sure this would have come across very well in those older threads. So...

There were two big reasons for "We hate this"/"We love this". One was the sudden "These guys get to do this, they can leave their area but you can't come in, oh and they get double the plays". Other areas complained that MI got double the value, they'd been working on trying this for years and HQ said no, and a few other complaints. But the #1 reason was the suddenness (some would say sneakyness). Internal complaints from MI came from the UP teams about having to increase their travel just to get to district events, instead of just going to MN and WI like normal.

The other reason for the complaining was when the points structure was initially announced--it really didn't appear to value anything that wasn't robot (AKA, the CA...) With the years of iteration, that's been dealt with.

Now that MI (and now MAR, NE, and PNW) have had some years as the guinea pigs, most of the wrinkles have been ironed out, and other areas have seen how more teams have formed, and better teams, and are chomping at the bit to at least explore what's next in forming their own district area. International teams who play in the U.S., meanwhile, are getting mighty nervous about potentially losing access to their preferred regional when that area goes to districts. (And trust me, I find that having the Chilean teams in L.A. provides quite a bit of spirit, and is a good thing--I'd hate to see 'em have to go elsewhere.)


Thanks for the history lesson. I've been reading through some of those old threads and it's cool to hear some retrospective from someone who was there. Things can change a lot in half a decade. I'll be interested to see how much the model changes in the next five years.

[donkehote]

Just out of curiosity sake, i added Ontario/Quebec as a district.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C3H-TUziBC32AZ24DTtGpoPq-3A-NX-cn2ELBa9QCw0/edit?usp=sharing


154 teams
6 events
1,010,989 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq Mile 1.52E-04
Teams/event 25.6

Doesn't seem to bad.

[donkehote]

Just out of curiosity sake, i added Ontario/Quebec as a district.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C3H-TUziBC32AZ24DTtGpoPq-3A-NX-cn2ELBa9QCw0/edit?usp=sharing


154 teams
6 events
1,010,989 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq Mile 1.52E-04
Teams/event 25.6

Doesn't seem to bad.

Changed it so its just ontario, as including the 39 teams in quebec for the massive land area (595,391 sq mi) skews the numbers a bit.

115 teams
5 events
415,598 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq mile 2.76E-04
Teams/Event 23

Seems like Ontario deserves districts.

[Mr V]

Changed it so its just ontario, as including the 39 teams in quebec for the massive land area (595,391 sq mi) skews the numbers a bit.

115 teams
5 events
415,598 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq mile 2.76E-04
Teams/Event 23

Seems like Ontario deserves districts.

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

[AGPapa]

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year. The district system would not change the number of events, and the swich to two-day events would decrease the number of volunteer hours needed.

[Aren Siekmeier]

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

While this may not apply to Ontario, it does apply to Minnesota. It seems unfair to complain about the Michigan, MAR, PNW, and NE areas benefiting from a district system and "excluding" everyone else, when they have put in a lot of work to get where they are. If Minnesota (or any other area) wants a district system, they need to work to get the volunteer base, the venues, the funding, and the infrastructure to do it. Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

[mwmac]

While this may not apply to Ontario, it does apply to Minnesota. It seems unfair to complain about the Michigan, MAR, PNW, and NE areas benefiting from a district system and "excluding" everyone else, when they have put in a lot of work to get where they are. If Minnesota (or any other area) wants a district system, they need to work to get the volunteer base, the venues, the funding, and the infrastructure to do it. Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

Fairness is raised in these discussions all too often in my opinion. FIRST has created a two-tiered system within a competition that does benefit teams from districts by providing additional plays per $ as well as more opportunities to qualify for Champs. Pointing out a dichotomy should not be characterized as "unfair" discourse. I posted the following in the Frank Answers... about Championship qualifications and believe it is still valid.

"Some geographic regions lack the population density to transition to district play for the foreseeable future. Teams from these areas currently can choose to participate in regional events as their travel budgets allow but are not allowed to compete in district events. As the transition to district models proceeds as envisioned by FIRST (think California for example), the playing opportunities for these non-travel averse teams will diminish as will their chances for taking part in Champs in St. Louis.

Currently district participants can benefit from additional plays per $ but find they may no longer compete with historic rivals should those rivals become part of another district. This realization has generated calls for inter-district play to be included as a planning priority as well as the development of a uniform qualification methodology for districts.

FIRST appears to believe that the district model represents its goal for the future. If this is the case, I propose the creation of a world-wide district with a single unified qualification methodology. Geographically isolated teams could continue to travel for competitions or be incentivized to stage a local event (Hawaii x2 anyone?). Historic rivalries could continue. There also would be no complaints about district teams taking qualification slots by winning Regional events. I doubt that this is the best proposal and I welcome constructive criticism but I believe that the continuation of the current development path with districts vs regionals with its arbitrary setting of boundaries (waiting to see how FIRST handles California/Nevada given the recent PNW/Idaho precedent), reduction of qualification opportunities for non-district teams, and interference with historic team rivalries is worse."

Concerns have also been raised about a perceived need to lengthen the season to provide time for individual district championships while leaving time for travel/accommodation arrangements. I suggest that if FIRST implements a unified qualification methodology within a global district model, that week of competition could be eliminated as the top 600 teams ranked globally advance to Champs....

[dag0620]

Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

I just want to re-stress this part to everyone talking about the flip to districts in their area. A large part of the district system that people tend to forget about, is that it is taking functions and responsibilities on the back end that were handled by HQ in the regional system, and transferring those to the local NPO and leadership. Even from an event planning perspective, things HQ would carry out on a regional, become the DPC's responsibility. Districts shift a large responsibility on volunteers backs.

I'm okay with FIRST doing this, as it is a nescearry step in our growth. My point is this though, above all the other factors, having the right group of people to organize and run a district is the most important part to an areas success in transition. As these discussions continue, just keep that in mind.


Side note: As for Indiana, congrats on going to districts, your going to love it! IndianaFIRST has a great local support structure in place, so I know you'll have a stellar inaugural year!:D

[Gregor]

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year.

Source?

[AGPapa]

Source?

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/regional-events

The new regional is Greater Toronto Central.

Last year they ran GTR East, GTR West, Waterloo, Windsor Essex and North Bay. There is a possibility that they could be removing one of those regionals, but I see no reason to assume that.

[Mr V]

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year. The district system would not change the number of events, and the swich to two-day events would decrease the number of volunteer hours needed.


Apparently you missed the part about having people (in charge) willing to make the jump. It is not just about the event volunteers but also about the hours needed for all the logistics and preparations needed for District events vs the traditional Regional. It is also about the equipment needed for District events.

I guarantee that if the people who run the events in the Ontario area had approached FIRST and said that they wanted to join the District System, and had a viable plan to make it happen FIRST would have approved it. The fact that they approved the IN mini-district model shows FIRST's commitment to the transition to the District System.

FIRST actually approached the PNW with the desire for us to move to the District System for the 2013 season but we didn't think we could make it happen, in a high quality manner, in the time that we had after they suggested it. So we stuck with the traditional Regional events for 2013 and started gearing up to move to the District System for the 2014 season. The number of people working behind the scenes, and the number of hours involved was quite significant.

To expand on what others have said when an area switches to the District System they are responsible for many things that FIRST handles for Regional events. Negotiating contracts with the event, procuring the field, transporting the field, negotiating a contract with the AV provider or obtaining the equipment and providing the staff for the AV production. There also needs to be a plan for storing the equipment between events and during the off season. As I told a number of people from FIRST who came to our events, at CMP and the Global Community Conference the switch to districts gave me a whole new appreciation for the things that FIRST headquarters does for the Regional events that WFR was now responsible for. That was just during the transition season where FIRST actually supplied a number of items and support that they will not be doing for our second season.

[Gregor]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/regional-events

The new regional is Greater Toronto Central.

Last year they ran GTR East, GTR West, Waterloo, Windsor Essex and North Bay. There is a possibility that they could be removing one of those regionals, but I see no reason to assume that.

GTR Central is located in the heart of downtown. I don't think it's safe to assume it's a brand new regional, since we know that GTRW at the Crescent School was only a one year arrangement. I suspect this is just a rebranding and relocating of GTRW, but a new regional would be pretty awesome!

My point is don't state something for fact when it's anything but.

[Mr V]

FIRST appears to believe that the district model represents its goal for the future. If this is the case, I propose the creation of a world-wide district with a single unified qualification methodology. Geographically isolated teams could continue to travel for competitions or be incentivized to stage a local event (Hawaii x2 anyone?). Historic rivalries could continue. There also would be no complaints about district teams taking qualification slots by winning Regional events. I doubt that this is the best proposal and I welcome constructive criticism but I believe that the continuation of the current development path with districts vs regionals with its arbitrary setting of boundaries (waiting to see how FIRST handles California/Nevada given the recent PNW/Idaho precedent), reduction of qualification opportunities for non-district teams, and interference with historic team rivalries is worse."

Concerns have also been raised about a perceived need to lengthen the season to provide time for individual district championships while leaving time for travel/accommodation arrangements. I suggest that if FIRST implements a unified qualification methodology within a global district model, that week of competition could be eliminated as the top 600 teams ranked globally advance to Champs....

It is FIRST's plan to transition to the District System it is not something that they "think" they want to do, they are doing it and are actively trying to recruit areas to make the transition to the District System.

There was no precedent set in the PNW/Idaho boundaries. The PNW district wanted the ID teams to join the district but the ID teams did not want to join. It was revisited again after the 2014 season and they do not want to join for the 2015 season.

As far as the timing the current plan is for the PNW District to have our DCMP week 6 to increase the time for teams to plan for CMP. Long term the plan is to have the District events weeks 1-4 and give a break before DCMP.

[Aren Siekmeier]

There was no precedent set in the PNW/Idaho boundaries. The PNW district wanted the ID teams to join the district but the ID teams did not want to join. It was revisited again after the 2014 season and they do not want to join for the 2015 season.

Hmm, this is news to me. I suppose it is the only conceivable reason that they ended up being excluded (I can't imagine FIRST or PNW having any reason to draw the line there). But I would have expected ID to want in ... Too much travel to attend a second event?

[Mr V]

Hmm, this is news to me. I suppose it is the only conceivable reason that they ended up being excluded (I can't imagine FIRST or PNW having any reason to draw the line there). But I would have expected ID to want in ... Too much travel to attend a second event?

FIRST's original intention was to have MT and ID as part of the PNW District. MT teams would have had way too much additional travel so they were quickly dropped. It was put out to the RD for the ID area to poll their teams and see if the teams wanted to join or not. For the S. ID teams it would have meant a lot more travel as many of them did not traditionally play in PNW Regionals. There was some talk of the N. ID teams joining but from what I've heard the majority did not want to join. FIRST does have to draw a line somewhere and while they would prefer to follow state lines they were willing to let N. ID teams join.

I can't speak as to why any particular team or teams did not want to join the PNW district.

[mwmac]

FIRST's original intention was to have MT and ID as part of the PNW District. MT teams would have had way too much additional travel so they were quickly dropped. It was put out to the RD for the ID area to poll their teams and see if the teams wanted to join or not. For the S. ID teams it would have meant a lot more travel as many of them did not traditionally play in PNW Regionals. There was some talk of the N. ID teams joining but from what I've heard the majority did not want to join. FIRST does have to draw a line somewhere and while they would prefer to follow state lines they were willing to let N. ID teams join.

I can't speak as to why any particular team or teams did not want to join the PNW district.

Seems like some revisionist history happening here. PNW wanted/invited N. ID teams, not southern ID teams. Joining PNW would have meant less travel for southern ID teams especially after California goes districts and potentially draws in LV/NV. Until SLC regional started, Idaho teams traveled to Seattle, Portland, Sacramento regularly for their competitions. Having all of Idaho join PNW was viewed as existential threat by some to SLC viability. The issue is more complex than you are describing.

[mwmac]

Hmm, this is news to me. I suppose it is the only conceivable reason that they ended up being excluded (I can't imagine FIRST or PNW having any reason to draw the line there). But I would have expected ID to want in ... Too much travel to attend a second event?

Don't know what "revisited" means in this context but did not hear of any renewed effort to include ID.

[hrench]

Okay, I haven't read this whole post, but I am sort-of bummed that 1108 from Kansas, who won Crossroads this year--won't be able to compete in Indiana now.

We normally only have the budget to compete in one regional, where so many of the district teams have played many times when the CHP comes, so again that's a disad for us.

But the big question I haven't heard addressed here is how do all of you get off work for all of these tournaments? I get two weeks vacation a year and this year I've used it all on regional, CHP and IRI and off-season. My wife is totally not pleased that I use all my vacation on robotics. Do these little events fit into one day? Driving too? One-day events would make my life better.

[Steven Donow]

Okay, I haven't read this whole post, but I am sort-of bummed that 1108 from Kansas, who won Crossroads this year--won't be able to compete in Indiana now.

We normally only have the budget to compete in one regional, where so many of the district teams have played many times when the CHP comes, so again that's a disad for us.

But the big question I haven't heard addressed here is how do all of you get off work for all of these tournaments? I get two weeks vacation a year and this year I've used it all on regional, CHP and IRI and off-season. My wife is totally not pleased that I use all my vacation on robotics. Do these little events fit into one day? Driving too? One-day events would make my life better.
Many (for teams; not necessarily volunteers) end up starting Friday afternoon (ie. starting at 4PM) for loadin/pit time/sometimes practice matches, then full competition Saturday and Sunday. Of course, not all are, but ones that take place in high schools tend to follow that schedule.

[donkehote]

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

IIRC (please correct me if im wrong) Ontario wanted to go to districts for 2015, but it was delayed. This was (at least partly) why 254 came to Waterloo, to compete in Ontario before districts showed up. Again, a big IIRC, and please correct me if im wrong.

In my Ontario First experiences, I've never noticed an event short of volunteers.

[Deke]

I won't be able to quote it but I remember reading one of Jim Zondag's informational posts about FiM and playing outside and inside of the district. When FiM was first installed, they pushed to allow teams outside the district to visit and play. This was shut down for some reason, I don't remember how. I do not think is going to stay that way, it isolates too many things. When more districts start to form, I would image they would look at teams visiting outside districts if they are able.

I could be missing something here, but I think its a good discussion to have.

[Jon Stratis]

With FIRST having adopted a common point system for all districts, it opens up the possibility (once allowed) for teams to play at district events outside of their own district - you can earn your points wherever, then if you earn enough compete in your own district championship. That possible future is very easy to see right now!

However, non-district teams are at a slight disadvantage - there's currently no line of sight for a non-district team to play at a district event. Say you play at a district event and win, or win chairman's, etc... it would get you nothing. You would earn points, but as your team isn't part of a district those points mean nothing - a non district team doing well at a district event does not provide any path towards advancement to the next level of play. The only benefit I could see, given what we currently know, is if a district event cost less and you could play there before playing in a regional event - the added practice and experience could help you at your regional.

As things currently stand, opening up cross-district play seems like it could create an artificial boundary between district and regional teams, where district teams all interplay to their hearts content, and regional teams all interplay, and the two only ever meet at champs. Now, I will grant that this could be interesting... kind of like baseball with the NL and AL (prior to 1997, when interleague play was first introduced). Looking at it that way does start to imply a whole different structure for champs, though!

[mwmac]

With FIRST having adopted a common point system for all districts, it opens up the possibility (once allowed) for teams to play at district events outside of their own district - you can earn your points wherever, then if you earn enough compete in your own district championship. That possible future is very easy to see right now!

However, non-district teams are at a slight disadvantage - there's currently no line of sight for a non-district team to play at a district event. Say you play at a district event and win, or win chairman's, etc... it would get you nothing. You would earn points, but as your team isn't part of a district those points mean nothing - a non district team doing well at a district event does not provide any path towards advancement to the next level of play. The only benefit I could see, given what we currently know, is if a district event cost less and you could play there before playing in a regional event - the added practice and experience could help you at your regional.

As things currently stand, opening up cross-district play seems like it could create an artificial boundary between district and regional teams, where district teams all interplay to their hearts content, and regional teams all interplay, and the two only ever meet at champs. Now, I will grant that this could be interesting... kind of like baseball with the NL and AL (prior to 1997, when interleague play was first introduced). Looking at it that way does start to imply a whole different structure for champs, though!

The only adjustments necessary to welcome non-district teams is to apply a uniform points system globally, allow all teams to compete where they want/can afford to and send the top 600 teams to Champs. Possibly incorporate a competition surcharge for non-district teams to help defray additional field costs incurred by districts....

[Mr V]

Seems like some revisionist history happening here. PNW wanted/invited N. ID teams, not southern ID teams. Joining PNW would have meant less travel for southern ID teams especially after California goes districts and potentially draws in LV/NV. Until SLC regional started, Idaho teams traveled to Seattle, Portland, Sacramento regularly for their competitions. Having all of Idaho join PNW was viewed as existential threat by some to SLC viability. The issue is more complex than you are describing.


When I refer to ID teams traditionally attending PNW area events I am referring specifically to the time period after the existence of SLC. You are correct that it is a little more complex.

FIRST originally intended for all of ID to be a part of the PNW District. The projected number of teams for the PNW District was based on all of the ID teams being part of the district. When venues were being scouted and selected it was with the thought that ID teams would be a part of the district. The decision to have 10 events was based on thinking that ID teams would be a part of the district.

We were then told that FIRST was told that the ID teams did not wish to be a part of the PNW District. We then went back and asked if the N. ID teams could join the district. We were then told that FIRST was told that the N. ID teams were not interested.


Before the 2014 season had ended I for one and others asked again if the ID or N. ID teams could join us for the 2015 season. We were again told that the ID teams still did not wish to join.


So it is not because FIRST nor the PNW district does not wish for ID to be a part of the district.

If you want to be a part of the PNW district then you need to gain support from a majority of the teams in ID and directly let FIRST know that you wish to join the PNW district.

Unfortunately at this point it is probably too late for that to happen for the 2015 season as the process of selecting and scheduling the events for 2015 is well on the way to being solidified.


IIRC (please correct me if im wrong) Ontario wanted to go to districts for 2015, but it was delayed. This was (at least partly) why 254 came to Waterloo, to compete in Ontario before districts showed up. Again, a big IIRC, and please correct me if im wrong.

In my Ontario First experiences, I've never noticed an event short of volunteers.

I can not speak to what specifically is going on regarding Ontario joining the district system.

However event volunteers are only a small part of the equation. You also need to keep in mind the key volunteers as there is frequently more than one event per week so you need at least two trained key volunteers for every one of those positions. The reality is also that the number of volunteers needed for a 36 team event is substantially the same as for a 64 team event. You can get by with a few less judges but for the other positions you need the same number. In fact you actually need more if you do not hire Show Ready Events to do the AV production and provide the catering and additional support.

With FIRST having adopted a common point system for all districts, it opens up the possibility (once allowed) for teams to play at district events outside of their own district - you can earn your points wherever, then if you earn enough compete in your own district championship. That possible future is very easy to see right now!

However, non-district teams are at a slight disadvantage - there's currently no line of sight for a non-district team to play at a district event. Say you play at a district event and win, or win chairman's, etc... it would get you nothing. You would earn points, but as your team isn't part of a district those points mean nothing - a non district team doing well at a district event does not provide any path towards advancement to the next level of play. The only benefit I could see, given what we currently know, is if a district event cost less and you could play there before playing in a regional event - the added practice and experience could help you at your regional.

As things currently stand, opening up cross-district play seems like it could create an artificial boundary between district and regional teams, where district teams all interplay to their hearts content, and regional teams all interplay, and the two only ever meet at champs. Now, I will grant that this could be interesting... kind of like baseball with the NL and AL (prior to 1997, when interleague play was first introduced). Looking at it that way does start to imply a whole different structure for champs, though!

Inter-district play is being discussed as potentially starting for the 2015 season. The details have not been worked out yet and it is not certain that it will happen this season. If it does happen what would likely happen is to allow out of district teams to register at the same time teams from in district are able to register for a 3rd event. Again this is far from finalized and it may not happen this season.

The only adjustments necessary to welcome non-district teams is to apply a uniform points system globally, allow all teams to compete where they want/can afford to and send the top 600 teams to Champs. Possibly incorporate a competition surcharge for non-district teams to help defray additional field costs incurred by districts....

Presumably if FIRST were to allow a team that is not in the district system to play at a district event then the non-district team would likely have to pay the 3rd event fee to the district that they are visiting.

The problem with your idea of a global points system is that you bring up the question of what to do about the teams that can only attend one event. Simply doubling their points does not account for the "valleys of doom" and "coattail" effects. Minimizing those effects was one of the guiding factors behind the unified points system. Having it totally based on points also throws a wrench into how the culture awards advance and would require a re-write of the Unified Points System. It would also be very unfair as the points that a team can earn are directly related to the number of teams at an event which is why efforts are made to make the number of teams at a district event as close as is possible. So the teams that compete at a traditional Regional would be at an automatic disadvantage compared to teams in the District System.

[IKE]

Wi...snip...

However, non-district teams are at a slight disadvantage - there's currently no line of sight for a non-district team to play at a district event. Say you play at a district event and win, or win chairman's, etc... it would get you nothing. You would earn points, but as your team isn't part of a district those points mean nothing - a non district team doing well at a district event does not provide any path towards advancement to the next level of play. The only benefit I could see, given what we currently know, is if a district event cost less and you could play there before playing in a regional event - the added practice and experience could help you at your regional.

...snip...

This is no different than the "third district event" play for teams in districts. You accumulate points that you cannot cash in for any sort of benefit other than bragging rights, and possibly a trophy. We all know that trophy accumulation is the real reason teams go to the third event.. :yikes:

[Andrew Schreiber]

This is no different than the "third district event" play for teams in districts. You accumulate points that you cannot cash in for any sort of benefit other than bragging rights, and possibly a trophy. We all know that trophy accumulation is the real reason teams go to the third event.. :yikes:


And dat unbag window.

[BrendanB]

This is no different than the "third district event" play for teams in districts. You accumulate points that you cannot cash in for any sort of benefit other than bragging rights, and possibly a trophy. We all know that trophy accumulation is the real reason teams go to the third event.. :yikes:

And keep presenting for Chairmans under the new rules.