[FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015

[MagiChau]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Inter-District-Play-for-2015

I’ve got some good news. A cross-functional task force, which included volunteers from all five FRC Districts, has developed a way to allow district teams to participate in district events other than their own.

In the 2015 season, FIRST In Michigan, IndianaFIRST, Mid-Atlantic Robotics, NEFIRST, and Pacific Northwest FIRST will collaborate with FIRST HQ to fill any “open” district event spots with teams from other districts. An “open district spot” is defined as a spot that remains open after all teams in a district have had the opportunity to sign up for their two events plus any additional plays they desire.

Points and Awards

Teams playing at a district event outside their home district will treat the out-of-district event in the same way that an in-district team treats an additional district event, meaning no points will be earned, but with a few additional changes:

The event will be considered an “additional event” regardless of when it actually occurs. Example: A team from MAR signs up for its two official MAR district events, one on Week 1 and one on Week 4. Additionally, the team signs up for one of the open spots in New England during Week 3. Even though the New England event is before the team’s second official MAR event, the event will be treated as an additional event and the team would not earn any points at the New England event. In this first attempt at an inter-district play option in 2015, we wanted to retain the concept of teams only being able to earn points within their own districts, though our standard points system will facilitate our ability to move toward more comprehensive inter-district play options in later years.
Additionally, the out-of-district team would not be eligible for the three Culture Changing Awards: Chairman’s Award, Engineering Inspiration Award, or Rookie All Star. These may be earned only at events within their home district. They will be eligible to win all other awards, but again, they will not earn points for these. The task force felt strongly that these most prestigious of all FRC awards should be reserved for in-district participants in 2015, and recognized that presenting these awards to teams from outside the districts would lead to complications at the District Championship level. This direction, though, as the one above, may change in later years.
The cost to register for an additional play at a district event outside a team’s home district is $1,000. Teams will continue to transport their robots to the event themselves. Each event may decide whether or not to provide drayage facilities for out-of-district teams. Drayage arrangements, if any, will be posted on the event’s website. If no drayage arrangements are available through the district, it will be the out-of-district team’s responsibility, logistically and financially, to make their own arrangements to get their robot to the event.

Unrestricted Inter-District Play registration will be open January 9, 2015 and close January 12, 2015. Teams will be notified shortly after the closing of this registration period as to whether or not a slot is available for them.

Non-district FRC teams will continue to not be eligible to participate in events within districts.

As you can see, this is a very small step into inter-district play in 2015. I’m sure some of you will be disappointed at its limited nature. Keeping in mind one of our guiding principles for district events, that they be less expensive for teams to attend, we wanted to make sure in-district teams had first dibs on in-district events. This is the reason, for 2015, that only “open district spots”, as defined above, will be available to district teams from the outside. As we see how this first attempt proceeds, we are committed to reviewing our approach, and hopefully expanding it, for 2016 and beyond.

Frank

[Steven Donow]

Excited for the opportunities this opens up, though I doubt we'll see many MAR or NE teams rush across the country to PNW, simply due to logistics. Once more districts start closer to each other though, this will be great.

My big question though is, despite not being eligible for culture awards, will teams be allowed to present/submit Chairman's "for exhibition", to essentially get a " practice run" at Chairman's.

[AllenGregoryIV]

This definitely an interesting concept. I'm glad we're moving in this direction.

It's feasible, to go play in two out of district events in weeks 1-3 and then play in your two home district events in Weeks 4-6. That would be a great way to get a ton of practice in before your matches start counting.

It's little weird that they still aren't letting regional teams have this opportunity. Since the event doesn't count for points. The only reasons I see are finical or to incentivize regions to move to districts. Any other reasons that I'm missing?

[Link07]

It's little weird that they still aren't letting regional teams have this opportunity. Since the event doesn't count for points. The only reasons I see are finical or to incentivize regions to move to districts. Any other reasons that I'm missing?

Keep in mind that it's becoming increasingly difficult for district teams to register for regionals. This may be the only chance for some district teams to play an event outside of their area.

That being said, it may then follow that district teams should be locked out of regionals, because they can go to other districts anyway, with the added bonus that those teams do not have the chance of stealing spots from their own district like in 2014

[Jon Stratis]

Keep in mind that it's becoming increasingly difficult for district teams to register for regionals. This may be the only chance for some district teams to play an event outside of their area.

That being said, it may then follow that district teams should be locked out of regionals, because they can go to other districts anyway, with the added bonus that those teams do not have the chance of stealing spots from their own district like in 2014

It's also becoming increasingly difficult for regional teams to register for reagionals as well! A lot of regionals fill up really fast, and the opportunity to play in multiple regionals seems to decrease every year - partially due to increasing numbers of teams fighting for the same spots, and partially due to regionals disappearing as districts pop up.

[Caleb Sykes]

It's little weird that they still aren't letting regional teams have this opportunity. Since the event doesn't count for points. The only reasons I see are finical or to incentivize regions to move to districts. Any other reasons that I'm missing?

I agree, I don't see any major reason why this should not happen.

[Link07]

It's also becoming increasingly difficult for regional teams to register for reagionals as well! A lot of regionals fill up really fast, and the opportunity to play in multiple regionals seems to decrease every year - partially due to increasing numbers of teams fighting for the same spots, and partially due to regionals disappearing as districts pop up.

Which is why district teams really should be excluded from regional registration at this point. Clears up more regional space for regional teams while allowing district teams to compete out of the district without negatively impacting teams in their own district

[Andrew Schreiber]

Which is why district teams really should be excluded from regional registration at this point. Clears up more regional space for regional teams while allowing district teams to compete out of the district without negatively impacting teams in their own district

We pretty well are. Every regional team gets a crack at 2 events before we get to apply.

[Brandon_L]

The event will be considered an “additional event” regardless of when it actually occurs.

Will the registration cost therefore be the same as if we did a 3rd event in our home district?

EDIT: MAR and MI have a cheaper ($500) 3rd event cost, while PNW and NE have a more expensive ($1k) cost. Which cost would the traveling team have to pay? Saucy Sauce (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/frc-payment-terms)

EDIT AGAIN: Okay, I honestly just skimmed through the blog the first time through. Its answered in there.
The cost to register for an additional play at a district event outside a team’s home district is $1,000.

[Jessica Boucher]

Two things:
1.) No, all inter-district play is $1000, no matter what your home district charges. All of that money goes back to the district in which the event lives.
2.) You just hit on the secret bonus in this announcement. There are no more 3rd plays. Only additional plays.

[Brandon Holley]

2.) You just hit on the secret bonus in this announcement. There are no more 3rd plays. Only additional plays.

Now who in their right mind would need more than 3 plays....oh wait :rolleyes:

-Brando

[Allison K]

Two things:
1.) No, all inter-district play is $1000, no matter what your home district charges. All of that money goes back to the district in which the event lives.
2.) You just hit on the secret bonus in this announcement. There are no more 3rd plays. Only additional plays.

That's what occurred to me as well. If an out-of-district event in week 1 is a no points event, does this also mean that an additional in-district in week 1 can also be the no points event (i.e. - counting the best two events or choice two events, rather than the first two events)?

[1493kd]

It sure is fun being a team not in a district and having your options so limited. Lets please start the NY district

[efoote868]

I think a feature that should be explored is inter-district trading - two teams in different districts that are able to sign up for an additional event each would be able to trade their additional event to play in each other's districts.

[MamaSpoldi]

Two things:
1.) No, all inter-district play is $1000, no matter what your home district charges. All of that money goes back to the district in which the event lives.
2.) You just hit on the secret bonus in this announcement. There are no more 3rd plays. Only additional plays.

At the risk of sounding ignorant, can you please explain the difference implied by a 3rd play as opposed to an additional play. Is it just a matter of it being possible for it to occur before the 2nd play (i.e. if it is out of district then it doesn't count regardless of the chronological order of the events)?

[Jessica Boucher]

can you please explain the difference implied by a 3rd play as opposed to an additional play.

It's a small, but important difference. Last year, an additional play was only defined as a third. Now, it can be your third....or your fourth....or...

[Chris is me]

It sure is fun being a team not in a district and having your options so limited. Lets please start the NY district

Totally agree. Teams in our region must either travel to Canada, drive more than 8 hours, compete back-to-back, or not attend our home regional. Meanwhile a half dozen events that were within 3 hours are behind the great wall of districts.

Not sure what I'd prefer - the burnout of back to back, or the pain of planning a long trip through Canada to GTR Central.

[waialua359]

I cant see why we are unable to participate in a district event, just because of where we live.

[Deke]

It's a small, but important difference. Last year, an additional play was only defined as a third. Now, it can be your third....or your fourth....or...

Or first or second, that is the big difference. Before, district teams needed to go to two district events before points didn't count, or they could go to a regional for their first or second event for practice. Now an outer district event can take that place. District teams with enough resources would go to regionals for their first or second event to get some practice in so they could get enough district points in their two events to advance, but cross district play changes that. It's also cheaper with cross district play.

I think this is a huge proactive step to get things ready for more district's. It answers the question about teams being able to visit other district's when more come around, which is one of the fun things about regionals.

[1493kd]

I cant see why we are unable to participate in a district event, just because of where we live.

I could not agree more makes no sense. Or at least leave a limited amount of spots open at events for non district teams. Non district teams are getting much less bang for our buck and having to travel more in the current system.

[Chris is me]

I would understand the restriction if points were awarded to competing teams, but they aren't. Only district teams can enter, but nothing about being a "district team" comes into play at all. No changes to how the event is handled would be needed to accommodate regional teams.

That said, the inability for a regional team to qualify for Championship is a big reason not to go to a district, but I know many teams would still strongly consider district events as an option.

[Deke]

I cant see why we are unable to participate in a district event, just because of where we live.

I know there are people within FiM pushing for non district teams to participate in district events, but I don't remember the reasoning against it.

I agree with you, it doesn't make sense. Maybe someone can explain it.

[Lil' Lavery]

It's not everything we wanted out of Inter-District play, but it's a step in the right direction.

Now, I hope that there's still an open spot in CT week 1 and I can convince 1712 to compete in weeks 1, 3, 5, AND 7. :rolleyes:

[jwfoss]

If I am reading this correctly, does that mean if we play out of district and win an award or the event we are basically removing points from that districts "pool of points"? I'm not sure how I feel about how this will play out.

It's one thing when a team from within the district does a 3rd event (it only effects the teams in the district, but this allows outside forces to have an impact on district points).

[Steven Donow]

If I am reading this correctly, does that mean if we play out of district and win an award or the event we are basically removing points from that districts "pool of points"? I'm not sure how I feel about how this will play out.

It's one thing when a team from within the district does a 3rd event (it only effects the teams in the district, but this allows outside forces to have an impact on district points).

Yes. For all intents and purposes, an out-of-district play is treated like third districts previously were, except you can't win culture awards.

[Jared Russell]

I agree, I don't see any major reason why this should not happen.

Because the stampede of hundreds of teams who would want to get 12 plays plus playoffs, two days of open robot access, and 6 hours of in-shop robot access for $1000 would bring FIRST's servers to their knees?

[Cory]

Because the stampede of hundreds of teams who would want to get 12 plays plus playoffs, two days of open robot access, and 6 hours of in-shop robot access for $1000 would bring FIRST's servers to their knees?

and FIRST would lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in registration fees.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I could not agree more makes no sense. Or at least leave a limited amount of spots open at events for non district teams. Non district teams are getting much less bang for our buck and having to travel more in the current system.

I remember when I was a student, people were still arguing whether district were still worth it. Now it's "almost" universally agreed upon.

I cant see why we are unable to participate in a district event, just because of where we live.


I agree with you, it doesn't make sense. Maybe someone can explain it.

I think this may be one of FIRST's unofficial tools of encouraging (prodding) regions into transitioning to district play. If you dangle this really neat opportunity in front of a bunch of teams ineligible due to their region's outdated format, it gives them all the more incentive to organize and modernize.
The problems associated w/ the logistics of an ever-growing FRC Championship is becoming too prominent to ignore, and having a proportional tiered system alleviates that problem by distributing the over-crowdedness to the regional championship level where it is much smaller scaled and easier to handle.

[Steven Donow]

Because the stampede of hundreds of teams who would want to get 12 plays plus playoffs, two days of open robot access, and 6 hours of in-shop robot access for $1000 would bring FIRST's servers to their knees?

This is probably one of the big reasons. Also, I would view this season as a "pilot season" for interdistrict play. I expect <15 teams to do this*



*no statistic backup,just my own guess

[Michael Hill]

[QUOTE=Zebra_Fact_Man;1400559]I think this may be one of FIRST's unofficial tools of encouraging (prodding) regions into transitioning to district play. If you dangle this really neat opportunity in front of a bunch of teams ineligible due to their region's outdated format, it gives them all the more incentive to organize and modernize.
QUOTE]

Ohio and the neighboring states would love to go to a district setup...

Someone please explain why regional teams are excluded. This is pretty asinine.

[Andrew Schreiber]

[QUOTE=Zebra_Fact_Man;1400559]I think this may be one of FIRST's unofficial tools of encouraging (prodding) regions into transitioning to district play. If you dangle this really neat opportunity in front of a bunch of teams ineligible due to their region's outdated format, it gives them all the more incentive to organize and modernize.
QUOTE]

Ohio and the neighboring states would love to go to a district setup...

Someone please explain why regional teams are excluded. This is pretty asinine.

My guess, the same reason they have always been excluded. Mothership FIRST says so.

[MARS_James]

My guess, the same reason they have always been excluded. Mothership FIRST says so.

I do love how FIRST didn't like the district idea originally forcing Michigan to be an island in a sea of Regionals, and now they are pushing to get everyone to districts and are still scared to let everyone try it out. I really feel that FIRST should let teams decide if they want to opt into a existing district system or not from season to season.

Eventually either everyone will want to opt in and we will have a giant district for all of FIRST or everyone will opt out and the experiment will be over, the two systems have enough issues coexisting that we need to resolve it sooner rather than later.

EDIT: Also I think that Indiana (and by extension all districts that may develop in the future) should not be a part of inter-district play for their first year.

[Deke]

This is probably one of the big reasons. Also, I would view this season as a "pilot season" for interdistrict play. I expect <15 teams to do this*



*no statistic backup,just my own guess

More than 15 I think, just check how many district teams went to regionals last year and increase the number due to the lower cost.

I can think of 7 FiM teams, off memory, that went to regionals last year.

This will definitely be a trial year to see what shakes out.

[Steven Donow]

Does anyone have hard data compiled on districts capacity and how many were filled/how manyopen spots there were?

[Michael Hill]

Does anyone have hard data compiled on districts capacity and how many were filled/how manyopen spots there were?

If anyone does, it would be Jim Zondag

[Cory]

Someone please explain why regional teams are excluded. This is pretty asinine.

It's very simple. Money. Why would FIRST allow you, as a regional team, to compete in districts, when they will lose $4000 every time that happens?

[Deetman]

MAR has 7 events with 36 slot capacity. Assuming growth of 6 teams, that makes 117 teams needing 234 of the 252 slots available for 18 open slots.

[Joe G.]

It's very simple. Money. Why would FIRST allow you, as a regional team, to compete in districts, when they will lose $4000 every time that happens?

More specifically, the option to spend $1000 on a district reduces the incentive to spend $4000 on a second regional, since regional teams will likely do this instead of, rather than in addition to, their second/third regionals.

[PayneTrain]

Someone please explain why regional teams are excluded. This is pretty asinine.

I'm not smarter than the average bear and I'd tell you that we could shuffle our team up to Pennsylvania/New Jersey for Week 1 and 2 to play around with the robot for half the price if we could. Sure we wouldn't get a bid to champs, but we'd get 12 hours of unbag time and 24 matches, which are the gold and crude oil of FRC.

So FIRST wouldn't want people stampeding for districts they don't get financial benefit from when they can lock the sorry saps in the regional system into a second regional.

[GKrotkov]

It's not everything we wanted out of Inter-District play, but it's a step in the right direction.

Now, I hope that there's still an open spot in CT week 1 and I can convince 1712 to compete in weeks 1, 3, 5, AND 7. :rolleyes:

Convince? I'm already hooked.

Also I think that Indiana (and by extension all districts that may develop in the future) should not be a part of inter-district play for their first year.

Can you explain this a bit more? Because they shouldn't have to deal with teams coming into their districts? I could certainly see this making it harder for some Indiana teams to make it to their district championship, but if the encroaching teams spread out over the district events (taking what events they could get), wouldn't they have about an equal force on each Indiana team?

[Jscout11]

I really like these changes. I'm sure MAR teams will be happy to play with some new faces and friends from other districts.

That being said, I do wish regional teams could have the opportunity as well, especially in the case of places like NY, where it would actually make more sense to come down (or up) than it would be for a team from, say, Michigan.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'll take baby steps in the right direciton over no steps at all.

[Steven Donow]

I'll take baby steps in the right direciton over no steps at all.

This.

Convince? I'm already hooked.



Can you explain this a bit more? Because they shouldn't have to deal with teams coming into their districts? I could certainly see this making it harder for some Indiana teams to make it to their district championship, but if the encroaching teams spread out over the district events (taking what events they could get), wouldn't they have about an equal force on each Indiana team?

I've proposed the idea in threads before, but essentially the idea is to have teams get acclimated to the transition themselves and build their own culture (ie. from experience, districts in NE feel different than districts in MAR).

Of course, Indiana (might?) is different than all other district transitions so far due to the number of teams and number of events; how many open spots they'll have I can't say, but I assume it'll be small.

Also, when I've mentioned that idea before, in my mind, that was in a situation where OOD play would count for points (something I would expect a few years down the road).

[cadandcookies]

It's very simple. Money. Why would FIRST allow you, as a regional team, to compete in districts, when they will lose $4000 every time that happens?

Or it might just be because they're testing the waters on this...

[IndySam]

This.
Of course, Indiana (might?) is different than all other district transitions so far due to the number of teams and number of events; how many open spots they'll have I can't say, but I assume it'll be small.

With 54-56 teams and only 40 spots per event the number will be very small.

[pwnageNick]

Or it might just be because they're testing the waters on this...

There is still no reason why district teams can go play in other districts. These district teams only see the same advantages from inter-district play that "Regional Event" teams would have attending district events. And the argument that it would flood the system to allow "Regional Event" teams to attend districts is crazy, because in most of the areas affected by districts (Northeast and Midwest) district teams could flood other district events much more than "Regional Event" teams could. Outside of NY, Ohio, and teams west of Lake Michigan, everyone is districts at this point.

Cory is completely right. If I was FIRST, why would I not want an extra $3000 from a team registering for a second event?

It's one thing if FIRST really wants everyone to go to districts, but its not fair to penalize teams when we are not in control of whether our are goes to districts or not. Trust me, there are plenty of us in IL who wanted to go to districts, and thought/expected that we would with Indiana.

[MARS_James]

Can you explain this a bit more? Because they shouldn't have to deal with teams coming into their districts? I could certainly see this making it harder for some Indiana teams to make it to their district championship, but if the encroaching teams spread out over the district events (taking what events they could get), wouldn't they have about an equal force on each Indiana team?

The making it to district championship is not my issue, my issues are more about the following:

1. Every other district got at least 1 year where it was just that district systems teams with no outsiders coming in, this allowed you to get a realistic look at what would happen if we operated like other highschool sports.
2. It allows the newly formed district committees a year to have some transitional pains and easier contact with all teams competing.
3. Establishing of an identity, you can look at MSC and PNW and see two very distinct "brands" in terms of production value
4. No artificial inflation of volunteer base, if you are a team traveling to a high school gym and have no chance of qualifying to get to Championship I could see several of your members joining up to volunteer at the event. The issue this causes is when Indiana looks back and sees X number of volunteers attended the event they may think that it shows the potential for the next district event to be placed close by as the volunteer base appeared strong.

Those were 4 off the top of my head but If you want more I will probably think of more on my drive home from work

[waialua359]

I'll take baby steps in the right direciton over no steps at all.
I disagree on the part that we are excluded.

[waialua359]

It's very simple. Money. Why would FIRST allow you, as a regional team, to compete in districts, when they will lose $4000 every time that happens?

I didnt want to say this at first, but since you did, I totally agree here.
There is no other logical explanation to exclude everyone else.

[Libby K]

I'll take baby steps in the right direction over no steps at all.

I think this is the forest that ChiefDelphi often misses as we're picking the branches off every tree.

Is this perfect? No. Is it the beginning of the right move? Absolutely.

FIRST HQ can't do everything perfectly, and certainly can't do anything instantly. But they're listening and improving things in baby steps. That's a good thing.

[Basel A]

It's a small, but important difference. Last year, an additional play was only defined as a third. Now, it can be your third....or your fourth....or...

My understanding is that this means a team will not be able to win a DCA or DEI at their third district, even if it's within their district region. Is that interpretation correct?

[GKrotkov]

The making it to district championship is not my issue, my issues are more about the following:

1. Every other district got at least 1 year where it was just that district systems teams with no outsiders coming in, this allowed you to get a realistic look at what would happen if we operated like other highschool sports.
2. It allows the newly formed district committees a year to have some transitional pains and easier contact with all teams competing.
3. Establishing of an identity, you can look at MSC and PNW and see two very distinct "brands" in terms of production value
4. No artificial inflation of volunteer base, if you are a team traveling to a high school gym and have no chance of qualifying to get to Championship I could see several of your members joining up to volunteer at the event. The issue this causes is when Indiana looks back and sees X number of volunteers attended the event they may think that it shows the potential for the next district event to be placed close by as the volunteer base appeared strong.

Those were 4 off the top of my head but If you want more I will probably think of more on my drive home from work


Thank you. I understand now.

[Cory]

I didnt want to say this at first, but since you did, I totally agree here.
There is no other logical explanation to exclude everyone else.

The demand would also be massive and teams would be outraged that certain teams got spots and others didn't. That's a practical limitation that is probably a bigger concern than the money, given that there will not be that many open spots available for teams to cross-play in this year.

[Jessica Boucher]

My understanding is that this means a team will not be able to win a DCA or DEI at their third district, even if it's within their district region. Is that interpretation correct?

According to last year's rules, teams in-district can still win CC Awards and receive the appropriate invites to the District Championship in all additional events. The points only count for the first two chronological in-district events.

Teams out of district coming in can not win CC Awards at that event. Not only would it be a logistical nightmare ("hey! get your robot back here in 3 weeks!" as well as "ok, so if they get to go to CMP, who are they representing?"), but the DCMPs are meant to be the best of that particular region.

(As an aside, I honestly know we talked about whether the out of district teams would be able to interview anyway, but I'm completely blanking on what was agreed upon - I'll see what I can dig up.)

[Alan Anderson]

4. No artificial inflation of volunteer base, if you are a team traveling to a high school gym and have no chance of qualifying to get to Championship I could see several of your members joining up to volunteer at the event. The issue this causes is when Indiana looks back and sees X number of volunteers attended the event they may think that it shows the potential for the next district event to be placed close by as the volunteer base appeared strong.

Indiana's volunteer base is already strong. We know what resources we can count on.

[Akash Rastogi]

I'll take baby steps in the right direciton over no steps at all.

Same. Everyone is eager to react negatively rather than say what is positive.

[cadandcookies]

The demand would also be massive and teams would be outraged that certain teams got spots and others didn't. That's a practical limitation that is probably a bigger concern than the money, given that there will not be that many open spots available for teams to cross-play in this year.

This was more my line of thought. Of course FIRST sees the benefit not losing out on regional registration fees, but however easy we want to make it seem for them to let regional teams play, or x, or y, they're trying something new and they're acting with a bit of restraint-- remember that it is a large enough organization that it has a bit of inertia. Opening the floodgates entirely would be rather irresponsible on their part-- not to reiterate Cory's statement too much, but having a ton of teams vying for a few spots is a recipe for conflict. That first would like to avoid introducing new venom into the FIRST community after the 2014 game shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, a gradual transition of one or two seasons really isn't that long of a wait.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I trust that FIRST HQ genuinely has the best interests of teams at heart.

[Gregor]

As of this post, from my own interpretation, from posts of which I could distinguish a side to favour:

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a positive comment:
10

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a negative comment:
2

Posts from those located outside a district system who gave a positive comment:
1

Posts from those located outide a district system who gave a negative comment:
12

[Jared Russell]

As of this post, from my own interpretation, from posts of which I could distinguish a side to favour:

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a positive comment:
10

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a negative comment:
2

Posts from those located outside a district system who gave a positive comment:
1

Posts from those located outide a district system who gave a negative comment:
12

Theory: Those who pay less for more plays are predisposed to be happier and more positive, as reflected by their posts.

:D

[Caleb Sykes]

I do think that this is a very good change and I am happy to see it implemented. I understand that FIRST is intentionally taking things slowly to see what the results are.

However, the clear assymetry between districts and regionals is only made more obvious by this change. It bothers me to some extent to see this gap grow wider (and there aren't even any districts nearby to my team, I can't imagine how teams from Ohio or New York are feeling now).

[Jacob Bendicksen]

As of this post, from my own interpretation, from posts of which I could distinguish a side to favour:

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a positive comment:
10

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a negative comment:
2

Posts from those located outside a district system who gave a positive comment:
1

Posts from those located outide a district system who gave a negative comment:
12

I like the analysis. I'd be curious to see a more comprehensive survey (aka one with more responses) to see if the numbers stay consistent - I think they would, but I'm wondering.

[MARS_James]

Indiana's volunteer base is already strong. We know what resources we can count on.

I only used Indiana as the example as they are the new kid on the block this year, I am not meaning to insult your state in anyway.

I do know that if Florida made the transition the same as Indiana did this year (3 districts and a championship) we would be strained to fill volunteer roles and something like I described could well happen

[GKrotkov]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I trust that FIRST HQ genuinely has the best interests of teams at heart.

I'm with you on this one. FIRST wouldn't be as good an organization as it is if it weren't. Sometimes the best answer to a problem is painful, but FIRST HQ tends to get it right. Of course, I am in a district, so I suppose I'm biased here.

[tindleroot]

I disagree on the part that we are excluded.

I understand where you are coming from. 359 loves to go to a variety of events in the continental US. I can't speak for the other districts, but I've heard from IndianaFIRST that there is a possibility due to space constraints that not every team in the Indiana District will be able to compete in 2 events - this complicates the district system even more than it should be, especially since this is Indiana's first year. I'm nervous and excited to be part of the district system.

Honestly, though, the only teams I would consider to be necessarily troubled by the "no regional state teams at districts" rule for Indiana would be teams from Ohio and maybe Illinois. There are in fact plenty of regionals for other teams to attend. I feel like some teams are taking the "exclusion" too seriously. Let's just see how this works out with only district teams before adding in the unknowns like regional state teams.

[Michael Hill]

I understand where you are coming from. 359 loves to go to a variety of events in the continental US. I can't speak for the other districts, but I've heard from IndianaFIRST that there is a possibility due to space constraints that not every team in the Indiana District will be able to compete in 2 events - this complicates the district system even more than it should be, especially since this is Indiana's first year. I'm nervous and excited to be part of the district system.

Honestly, though, the only teams I would consider to be necessarily troubled by the "no regional state teams at districts" rule for Indiana would be teams from Ohio and maybe Illinois. There are in fact plenty of regionals for other teams to attend. I feel like some teams are taking the "exclusion" too seriously. Let's just see how this works out with only district teams before adding in the unknowns like regional state teams.

What is "unknown" about regional teams?

[PayneTrain]

I've heard from IndianaFIRST that there is a possibility due to space constraints that not every team in the Indiana District will be able to compete in 2 events

I think you're burying the lede

[IndySam]

I understand where you are coming from. 359 loves to go to a variety of events in the continental US. I can't speak for the other districts, but I've heard from IndianaFIRST that there is a possibility due to space constraints that not every team in the Indiana District will be able to compete in 2 events - this complicates the district system even more than it should be, especially since this is Indiana's first year. I'm nervous and excited to be part of the district system.

I don't know who you have been talking too but there will be a spot for every team to do two events in Indiana even if spots have to be added. No need to be nervous.

[Jim Zondag]

If anyone does, it would be Jim Zondag

Attendance Summary from 2014 Season.

http://i.imgur.com/gcloydB.jpg

In Michigan, we had a total of 47 available 3rd play slots last year out of a total of 600 season district play slots. 41 were claimed, 6 went unclaimed. 4 of the leftover spot were at Escanaba, which is our remotest event, so this is understandable.
This 47 available was higher than normal. As we grow we have to forecast district capacity early in the fall to secure venues. We add capacity in units of 40. Last year, the State grant created a flood of new teams in the fall. We added capacity on speculation and ended up with a whole extra event worth of capacity. This was a good problem to have, because lots of teams got an extra chance to play. If we somehow had the ability to manage the additional event planning, I think every team would benefit from playing 3 times. :)

Our growth of FiM last year was more than the entire rest of the US combined. The MI State grant program made enrollment nearly free for many teams.
FIRST can take a strong hint here:
Reduced enrollment costs = increased growth.

Dean asks us all to increase growth every year, but when with FIRST reduce enrollment costs?

http://i.imgur.com/lF6f9S1.jpg

[AllenGregoryIV]

Thanks for that post Jim, that's really illuminating.

[1493kd]

More specifically, the option to spend $1000 on a district reduces the incentive to spend $4000 on a second regional, since regional teams will likely do this instead of, rather than in addition to, their second/third regionals.

I would not even mind paying more to attend the district events then teams in the district. My issue is the total lack of opportunities that the districts have left our team and many others with to utilize a robot that we spend hundreds of hours on and only able to have a limited selection of where we can go play.

[Jessica Boucher]

I would not even mind paying more to attend the district events then teams in the district. My issue is the total lack of opportunities that the districts have left our team and many others with to utilize a robot that we spend hundreds of hours on and only able to have a limited selection of where we can go play.

We know. The question has been asked, and we will keep asking it until it is solved.

[tindleroot]

I don't know who you have been talking too but there will be a spot for every team to do two events in Indiana even if spots have to be added. No need to be nervous.

Thanks for the confirmation, our coach told us what I said above, so he must have misheard IndianaFIRST.

[Lil' Lavery]

I disagree on the part that we are excluded.

You don't think this was a step in the right direction, simply because you were excluded? Is that to say you think that if you can't play in an outside district, nobody should be able to?

[ehochstein]

Minnesota is outside of the district model currently.

I'm extremely happy with the change as it gives more incentive for areas to go to districts.

[MARS_James]

http://i.imgur.com/lF6f9S1.jpg


A few things I take away from this:

1. 3 of those states with negative growth are in a district (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington), with two of those states switching to the cheaper district model just this year, what were the reasons for the net loss there?

2. I would love to see international (mostly Canada) added to this list for comparison

3. I would also like to see this represented in %growth, not just number.

4. Florida had the highest net loss despite only losing 1 rookie from the previous season, our state leadership should figure out why our veterans apparently dropped like flies, and why we have had a net loss for 2 years straight

(Not trying to derail the thread)

[Jim Zondag]

A few things I take away from this:

1. 3 of those states with negative growth are in a district (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington), with two of those states switching to the cheaper district model just this year, what were the reasons for the net loss there?

2. I would love to see international (mostly Canada) added to this list for comparison

3. I would also like to see this represented in %growth, not just number.

4. Florida had the highest net loss despite only losing 1 rookie from the previous season, our state leadership should figure out why our veterans apparently dropped like flies, and why we have had a net loss for 2 years straight

(Not trying to derail the thread)


I will work up some of these numbers for you when I get a chance. I made the statewise view as a way to reinforce the effectiveness of the 2014 grant program to our state leadership. Percentage views and international would be valuable additions.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

...but its not fair to penalize teams when we are not in control of whether our are goes to districts or not. Trust me, there are plenty of us in IL who wanted to go to districts, and thought/expected that we would with Indiana.

If the members of the individual teams are not in control of your region, then who is? Rise up and organize. If people/teams are unsatisfied with the pay/play ratio, fix it.

Thanks for that post Jim, that's really illuminating.

Illuminati confirmed.

I'm extremely happy with the change as it gives more incentive for areas to go to districts.

100% agree.

...I made the statewise view as a way to reinforce the effectiveness of the 2014 grant program to our state leadership...

I agree; the state grant REALLY helped out the teams that were struggling with funds. A couple of team I know were able to complete in large part BECAUSE of the grant money.

[scottandme]

A few things I take away from this:

1. 3 of those states with negative growth are in a district (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington), with two of those states switching to the cheaper district model just this year, what were the reasons for the net loss there?

(Not trying to derail the thread)

PA went from 71 teams in 2013 to 70 teams in 2014.

MAR only includes the eastern portion of the state.

MAR PA team registration went from 38 to 37 in 2014 (35 teams in 2012). Two teams left (1 went to FTC), and we added 1 new rookie team for a net loss of 1.

MAR as a whole is relatively well saturated, with relatively low growth compared to the rest of the country. Here's NJ registration over the last few years.

2014 69
2013 69
2012 62
2011 63
2010 64
2009 61
2008 63
2007 57
2006 56
2005 46
2004 39
2003 31

[GKrotkov]

3 of those states with negative growth are in a district (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington), with two of those states switching to the cheaper district model just this year, what were the reasons for the net loss there?


If we're fishing for information on the district vs. regional systems in terms of team growth, we should really consider the districts as a whole, not as states. If we were considering them as states, we would be looking for information on The MAR district had (relying on memory here, not sure if it's failed me) growth of two teams. We can conclude that, as of now, MAR as a whole seems pretty stable. It certainly isn't changing that much. The data that the MAR portion of Pennsylvania lost a team is more related, then, to state laws and funds, then it is to the district vs. regional systems. Even then, it is one net team; I don't think we can find any meaningful data from this. I'm only saying that were we to see this as a significant change, then we'd have to draw the conclusion that it's due to state law.

[AdamHeard]

I will work up some of these numbers for you when I get a chance. I made the statewise view as a way to reinforce the effectiveness of the 2014 grant program to our state leadership. Percentage views and international would be valuable additions.

It might also be useful to look at the numers per capita and per high school. Growth rates will change depending on saturation levels I imagine.

[Deke]

For FiM, there are 749 high schools. With 277 teams last year that equals 37% saturation.

It is a little higher than that because a number of teams combine schools.

[waialua359]

You don't think this was a step in the right direction, simply because you were excluded? Is that to say you think that if you can't play in an outside district, nobody should be able to?
"We" meaning regular non-district teams consists of a whole lot of teams.
Gregor said it best.

From a cost perspective, the disparity is great. The new rules further deepens the gap.

Its my perspective on the issue because I am the main person who is responsible for trying to keep up with the amount of matches played by district teams with the greater amount of resources it takes to make that happen.

Perhaps they could have provided that opportunity for all teams?
I understand Cory's point as well that for just a few spots, its impossible to offer it to everyone.

Something I highly doubt FIRST will do.......why not make any 3rd event or more that a team sign up for pay $1000 like the new rules offers to district teams to cross play?

[PayneTrain]

Something I highly doubt FIRST will do.......why not make any 3rd event or more that a team sign up for pay $1000 like the new rules offers to district teams to cross play?

Because FIRST already planned out their finances taking into account 99% of all regional slots are filled and they earn at least $4000 off of each...

I think you already knew that but it was fun to type out.

[dodar]

Something I highly doubt FIRST will do.......why not make any 3rd event or more that a team sign up for pay $1000 like the new rules offers to district teams to cross play?

Going off last year's numbers that Jim posted, that change would still only effect 2.8% of non-district teams.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Going off last year's numbers that Jim posted, that change would still only effect 2.8% of non-district teams.

Except a lot of teams would play 3 if we could do it for $1000. The only reason we only do two events is because of event registration cost. If we were in the district model or could pay $1000 for our additional plays we would do a Foley Freeze or Nutrons and do 4 events if we could.

I would just like to say that I'm glad they made this move, however I do think they should explain their reasoning for not allowing regional teams to be a part of this. I'm sure they have their reasons, if it's money than just say that. It was my first question, and the first question of many others after reading this post. I wouldn't be mad if that was the reason, I know we (Texas in my case) need to move to districts to get costs lower and the areas that have done that are getting rewarded for their hard work.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

To this day, I still don't understand why the district teams get 2 plays for the same registration cost that a regional team has for 1 play. They've always been able to get additional plays for far less than a regional team, but they must go through the DCMP which is the same as an additional event for a regional team. Why is that initial registration worth more for a district team? Here's the breakdown:

Initial Regional Registration: $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional Regional Registration: $4000

Initial District Registration (2 plays): $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional In-District Registration: $1000 ($500 in MI/MAR - why cheaper?)
Additional Inter-District Registration: $1000
District Championship Registration: $4000

I know that 100% of the Regional registration fees go to FIRST. Each Regional is responsible for fundraising to cover their budget (venue, A/V, food, etc). None of the registration fees go directly to a Regional, however, FIRST provides services (event management, field, etc.) for the regional, which are paid for by registration fees.

I am fuzzy on where District registration fees go - does the full initial registration fee go to FIRST as well? What about the DCMP fee? Most of it goes directly to the District to distribute to its events, correct? But I'm also of the understanding that districts do not receive the same services that Regionals do - they transport their own fields (which FIRST modifies each year?) and provide their own event management, and also have the venue, A/V, food, etc. expenses. Is this correct?

These questions have something to do with why I agree with Glen that third events (or more) for Regional teams should only be $1000, but I think I've lost my point while trying to sound coherent....

As for the inter-district play, its a great step forward and will hopefully lead to allowing regional teams to play too in the next couple of years. WI is going to become an island while MN, IL, IN, and IL cross play. Then I guess we'll just save our money and go to Australia. But I think it should have also come with the restriction that district teams are ineligible for culture awards at regional events too. FIRST has got to retain SOMETHING of value for its regional-model customers...

[Thad House]

To this day, I still don't understand why the district teams get 2 plays for the same registration cost that a regional team has for 1 play. They've always been able to get additional plays for far less than a regional team, but they must go through the DCMP which is the same as an additional event for a regional team. Why is that initial registration worth more for a district team? Here's the breakdown:

Initial Regional Registration: $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional Regional Registration: $4000

Initial District Registration (2 plays): $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional In-District Registration: $1000 ($500 in MI/MAR - why cheaper?)
Additional Inter-District Registration: $1000
District Championship Registration: $4000

I know that 100% of the Regional registration fees go to FIRST. Each Regional is responsible for fundraising to cover their budget (venue, A/V, food, etc). None of the registration fees go directly to a Regional, however, FIRST provides services (event management, field, etc.) for the regional, which are paid for by registration fees.

I am fuzzy on where District registration fees go - does the full initial registration fee go to FIRST as well? What about the DCMP fee? Most of it goes directly to the District to distribute to its events, correct? But I'm also of the understanding that districts do not receive the same services that Regionals do - they transport their own fields (which FIRST modifies each year?) and provide their own event management, and also have the venue, A/V, food, etc. expenses. Is this correct?

These questions have something to do with why I agree with Glen that third events (or more) for Regional teams should only be $1000, but I think I've lost my point while trying to sound coherent....

As for the inter-district play, its a great step forward and will hopefully lead to allowing regional teams to play too in the next couple of years. WI is going to become an island while MN, IL, IN, and IL cross play. Then I guess we'll just save our money and go to Australia. But I think it should have also come with the restriction that district teams are ineligible for culture awards at regional events too. FIRST has got to retain SOMETHING of value for its regional-model customers...

My understanding is that any money you pay directly to FIRST goes to them, and the Regionals/Districts do not get any of it. The reason that $1000 is separate, is that it actually gets paid directly to the district and not to FIRST.

Also, since district events are cheaper, the money they fundraise allows teams to go to 2 events. For the same cost it takes the regional to have space for 1 team, the district can create 2 spots for that team. Basically it comes down to cost per spot, rather then cost per event.

[Lil' Lavery]

"We" meaning regular non-district teams consists of a whole lot of teams.
Gregor said it best.

From a cost perspective, the disparity is great. The new rules further deepens the gap.

Its my perspective on the issue because I am the main person who is responsible for trying to keep up with the amount of matches played by district teams with the greater amount of resources it takes to make that happen.

Perhaps they could have provided that opportunity for all teams?
I understand Cory's point as well that for just a few spots, its impossible to offer it to everyone.

Something I highly doubt FIRST will do.......why not make any 3rd event or more that a team sign up for pay $1000 like the new rules offers to district teams to cross play?

Glenn, how does this change "deepen the gap?" Regional teams had no expectation of being able to compete in these districts before the change. Save perhaps Indiana (where there may not be any open slots), this does not reduce the cost of a 3rd play for district teams (and actually increases it compared to some of in-district additional plays). The only thing this does is allow a district teams' non-scored districts to be travel events.

I get that you're upset you can't compete in district events, but this change doesn't really impact that. Without this change, you wouldn't be able to compete in those districts anyway. Even if it doesn't benefit ALL teams, it opens options for some without creating any more of a supposed competitive advantage than what already exists. I fail to see how this is anything but a step in the right direction.

[waialua359]

Glenn, how does this change "deepen the gap?" Regional teams had no expectation of being able to compete in these districts before the change. Save perhaps Indiana (where there may not be any open slots), this does not reduce the cost of a 3rd play for district teams (and actually increases it compared to some of in-district additional plays). The only thing this does is allow a district teams' non-scored districts to be travel events.

I get that you're upset you can't compete in district events, but this change doesn't really impact that. Without this change, you wouldn't be able to compete in those districts anyway. Even if it doesn't benefit ALL teams, it opens options for some without creating any more of a supposed competitive advantage than what already exists. I fail to see how this is anything but a step in the right direction.
You can play in an open Michigan spot and you're not from Michigan, and get no points towards qualifying at CMP.
The question isnt whether or not its a step in the right direction. I never debated that.
Its a step in the right direction for a select group of teams.

Throughout my entire experience in FIRST, I have never been the crab in the bucket that pulls down on the one trying to escape. I hope no one here misunderstands my opinion on this. I just want to see everyone be given that opportunity. The $1000 reg fee is a big deal to a team paying 4x more.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

If we're fishing for information on the district vs. regional systems in terms of team growth, we should really consider the districts as a whole, not as states. If we were considering them as states, we would be looking for information on The MAR district ...

Here's a summary for the northwest: Washington lost 2 teams, Oregon lost 1. Washington has about twice as twice as many teams so the two states had the same growth rate.

[Link07]

Glenn, how does this change "deepen the gap?" Regional teams had no expectation of being able to compete in these districts before the change. Save perhaps Indiana (where there may not be any open slots), this does not reduce the cost of a 3rd play for district teams (and actually increases it compared to some of in-district additional plays). The only thing this does is allow a district teams' non-scored districts to be travel events.


There is a difference between traditional "3rd Plays" and the new "travel districts". 3rd play spots were reserved for teams inside their own district, which makes sense. For example, the event in Michigan is reserved for a team in Michigan.

But because a team is in Oregon seems like a poor reason to be more deserving of a spot in an event in New Hampshire then a team from New York (of course, I used an extreme case.) Hope that made sense.

[DonRotolo]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, can you please explain the difference implied by a 3rd play as opposed to an additional play. Is it just a matter of it being possible for it to occur before the 2nd play (i.e. if it is out of district then it doesn't count regardless of the chronological order of the events)?[/URL]
They are essentially the same, but an ADDITIONAL PLAY is not in your home district while a THIRD PLAY is. Neither counts towards RCMP points, and the price to attend may vary...

[dag0620]

My understanding is that any money you pay directly to FIRST goes to them, and the Regionals/Districts do not get any of it. The reason that $1000 is separate, is that it actually gets paid directly to the district and not to FIRST.

I am fuzzy on where District registration fees go - does the full initial registration fee go to FIRST as well?

In the district system, a portion of the registration fee does return to the district. As for the amount I'm not certain on that.

What about the DCMP fee?

That is all returned to HQ. None of that is seen by the district.

But I'm also of the understanding that districts do not receive the same services that Regionals do - they transport their own fields (which FIRST modifies each year?) and provide their own event management, and also have the venue, A/V, food, etc. expenses. Is this correct?

Yup. Some of the expenses you mentioned are on the regional committees as well, such as food, venue, or A/V. For most regional events, A/V is coordinated through HQ, but is an expense that still falls on the RPC. In districts the coordination now falls on local leadership, as well as the expense.

Other items you listed, such as event management and field logistics, as well as other items including the majority of consumable for the event (tape, zip ties, office supplies, etc.) are things that in the regional system are covered by HQ, but up to the district leadership in the district system. (Disclaimer: HQ does help out with a lot of that stuff in the first year of a district, but that is 1st year only).

Additional In-District Registration: $1000 ($500 in MI/MAR - why cheaper?)

Local district leadership set the price as those 3rd event registration dollars return to the district.

[Jim Zondag]

For the same cost it takes the regional to have space for 1 team, the district can create 2 spots for that team. Basically it comes down to cost per spot, rather then cost per event.

In reality, District events cost 8X - 10X less than Regionals (and sometimes even 20X less).
FIRST pricing per team to attend has nothing to do with production costs for the events.
Enrollment costs are set by FIRST. Enrollment in the FRC league costs $5000. This has never changed in over 20 years despite 100X league growth.

When we launched Districts, the pitch was essentially:
"Most of our Michigan teams only attend one event, and a small percentage attend more. If ALL teams get 2 events for the same $5K, and then 64 teams pay an additional $4K to attend the DCMP, then FIRST will get MORE money than they did with the old Regional system".
That's it. If Michigan did not provide FIRST with an economic reason to support this change, the change to Districts never would have happened.

As much as everyone on CD talks about opportunity, growth, and advantage, these are side effects: it is pretty much about the money.
FIRST doesn't make these system migrations at a loss.
Selling open District capacity is another sales opportunity. Inter-district play is indeed a great opportunity for many District teams and I am a fan of this change, but FIRST will not offer it to Regional teams at a $3,000 loss.

[EricH]

Selling open District capacity is another sales opportunity. Inter-district play is indeed a great opportunity for many District teams and I am a fan of this change, but FIRST will not offer it to Regional teams at a $3,000 loss.

Just as an informal question...

Given that district events tend to run more matches per team than a regular regional (obviously dependent on the number of teams in said regional, but most are >40 by enough to make a difference), and give less time away from school... How many "Regional" teams would be willing to take a chance on attending a district event if the cost for it were the same as the cost of a regional?

That is, would $4000 for a district event (with more plays for the team/less time off of school/one less night in a hotel) be worth it for the regional teams?


Just a thought to ponder.

[Jim Zondag]

http://www.filedropper.com/2014data

For everyone requesting more data:
The CSV file at the above link has international growth metrics 2013-2014, and percent growth values.

My favorite detail:
Ontario Canada had more FRC net growth in 2014 than all of the non-Michigan US states combined.
Ontario and Michigan lead the world in the growth of our sport.
Ontario and Michigan are also neighbors.

I am a native of Ontario who now lives in Michigan,
How awesome is this?

[MARS_James]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZwqNxHi4vtHvDIr2OHUXZE-nuqwm6YUkoGe1LPD4mCs/edit


Link is private

[Jim Zondag]

Fixed,
http://www.filedropper.com/2014data
Sorry,
I'm my 'real life' I seldom share my work online, since most is not shareable under my confidentiality agreements.
JZ

[OZ_341]

One concern I have is more political than anything else.
Each district event has a finite number of points to distribute to the participants. These points are absolutely critical for the success of the local teams that are involved in their first or second play.

So imagine that a team from out of state comes into a district for a travel play and wins the event, or an award, or both. Those points are permanently removed from the event and effectively wasted. Every win, every award, every draft selection, every playoff win, represents a point that could have gone to a team that needs it locally to survive.

All of these points are "empty calories" for the travel team. Now you could argue that the same is true of a local team making a 3rd play. But somehow it seems less intrusive when its within the "family".

I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses the state championship because of this situation.

Maybe no one cares about this specific situation and I am just over thinking things. I am just thinking out loud about this concern. Thoughts?

[rick.oliver]

... I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses ... Thoughts?

I find this concern not unlike the concern of district teams competing at traditional regional events.

[Rosiebotboss]

I find this concern not unlike the concern of district teams competing at traditional regional events.

Except a district team traveling to a "Regular Regional" can get their ticket punched to STL by winning the event or EI or RCA.

[Aren Siekmeier]

One concern I have is more political than anything else.
Each district event has a finite number of points to distribute to the participants. These points are absolutely critical for the success of the local teams that are involved in their first or second play.

So imagine that a team from out of state comes into a district for a travel play and wins the event, or an award, or both. Those points are permanently removed from the event and effectively wasted. Every win, every award, every draft selection, every playoff win, represents a point that could have gone to a team that needs it locally to survive.

All of these points are "empty calories" for the travel team. Now you could argue that the same is true of a local team making a 3rd play. But somehow it seems less intrusive when its within the "family".

I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses the state championship because of this situation.

Maybe no one cares about this specific situation and I am just over thinking things. I just thinking out loud about this concern. Thoughts?

As far as I can tell, the number of "third play" teams at event is pretty low. Only a handful are typically offered within a district (even in Michigan, there were only ~3 per district). So what are the odds that this small percentage of teams in attendance takes away a significant number of the points available? I'm willing to bet it doesn't happen a lot. Sure, one team sometimes takes points away, but it would take several teams sucking up points at the same event to really throw things off balance.

Some numbers to back this up would be good, but this is the feeling I have about it.

[Aren Siekmeier]

As much as everyone on CD talks about opportunity, growth, and advantage, these are side effects: it is pretty much about the money.
FIRST doesn't make these system migrations at a loss.

While I doubt everyone involved is entirely this cynical, there is definitely truth to this. I'm sure it's very difficult to get anything by a non-profit's board if it's going to hurt their financial situation, since their job is to make sure everything stays afloat.

[PayneTrain]

Except a district team traveling to a "Regular Regional" can get their ticket punched to STL by winning the event or EI or RCA.

So you are saying it's worse because district teams have the chance actively removing a regional's CMP spots from an area in this situation, or it's better because district teams have a chance to actively remove them?

[Lil' Lavery]

You can play in an open Michigan spot and you're not from Michigan, and get no points towards qualifying at CMP.
The question isnt whether or not its a step in the right direction. I never debated that.
Its a step in the right direction for a select group of teams.

Isn't that exactly what you disputed in post 48 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1400588&postcount=48)?


There is a difference between traditional "3rd Plays" and the new "travel districts". 3rd play spots were reserved for teams inside their own district, which makes sense. For example, the event in Michigan is reserved for a team in Michigan.

But because a team is in Oregon seems like a poor reason to be more deserving of a spot in an event in New Hampshire then a team from New York (of course, I used an extreme case.) Hope that made sense.
When the team from New York had to expectation of being able to compete in New Hampshire this season in the first place, I fail to see how allowing teams from Oregon to compete there would make anything worse. If closed borders are an issue, this is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't help all teams. From a financial competitive standpoint, it doesn't aid district teams when compared to regional teams, so there's no "widening of the gap," either. Nobody is arguing this is a perfect solution, I simply don't see what there's to be mad about. It's a change in the positive direction.

[Mr. Lim]

I really think this is a big step in the right direction.

I've never publicly stated this, but my current "dream" situation is:

- for all districts to agree upon a common points system for qualification to their DCMPs, and the CMP
- district teams can then compete at any district event outside their "home" district and still earn points towards qualification
- points from your 2 best competitions count towards your DCMP/CMP points
- teams are free to declare which district they want to be a part of (i.e. a Calgary team could declare to be a part of PNW, instead of a Canadian District.) This means they would be earning points to qualify for the PNW DCMP they declared for, not matter where they actually compete.

The big downside is the possibility of teams trying to compete in weaker districts events to make qualifying for DCMP/CMP easier. This was a weakness of the Regional model too, but I'm not sure it was ever that big of an issue. Several Canadian teams (including 610) have competed in plenty of US regionals in an attempt to qualify for CMP "more easily", and we never felt unwelcome. Would teams declare for a Canadian district, and compete in two non-Canadian district events? Maybe. Would the rest of the teams in Canada be angry if that happened? Maybe. Have you always been able to "buy an easier route to CMP?" Maybe.

There's a lot of upside too.

We like being able to travel under the Regional model. Normally we do one local event, and travel to another. We would be able to do this again. I would love to have MI, NY, OH, PA, etc, etc teams come to Canada like they used to. With the lower district registration fees, this becomes a reality again - maybe even more so than under the Regional model!

You might say we can already travel under the current district model, but it would require teams to compete at least 5 times: 1st local district, 2nd local district, 3rd outside district, DCMP, CMP. We are a team that is attempting to manage teacher/mentor/student burnout very carefully, and 5 competitions in a single season is not possible for us - I know this is the case for a lot of other Canadian teams.

From a growth standpoint for FRC, there are also a lot of benefits:

If you want to start a district event, you no longer really care what district you are a part of, or whether team is "local" or "outside". You run your event, award points to all the teams, and that's it. You probably want to ensure your local teams get spots before outside ones first, however.

If you want to create a NEW district, all you need to do is create a DCMP, declare how many teams will compete at it, and how many qualification spots for CMP it will produce. The onus then is on teams to declare whether that will be their "home" DCMP and earn points to qualify for it. They will put a lot of thought into it, and figure it out accordingly.

Already, the physical boundaries of the current district model has a few of us asking some tough questions. In Canada, where should our West Coast teams go? Should Ontario and Quebec be in the same district? Or not? A less geographically-bound system, seems very appealing to me, and would allow for even greater growth down the road.

[Mr. Lim]

http://www.filedropper.com/2014data

For everyone requesting more data:
The CSV file at the above link has international growth metrics 2013-2014, and percent growth values.

My favorite detail:
Ontario Canada had more FRC net growth in 2014 than all of the non-Michigan US states combined.
Ontario and Michigan lead the world in the growth of our sport.
Ontario and Michigan are also neighbors.

I am a native of Ontario who now lives in Michigan,
How awesome is this?

This is awesome! But I do have to say that 2013 was the year of Ontario's teacher action, which caused a 1-year hiatus for a significant number of FRC teams. The return of almost all of these teams in 2014 inflated our growth numbers for this period.

I am curious to see what our growth numbers will look like under a District model!

[Ian Curtis]

One concern I have is more political than anything else.
Each district event has a finite number of points to distribute to the participants. These points are absolutely critical for the success of the local teams that are involved in their first or second play.

So imagine that a team from out of state comes into a district for a travel play and wins the event, or an award, or both. Those points are permanently removed from the event and effectively wasted. Every win, every award, every draft selection, every playoff win, represents a point that could have gone to a team that needs it locally to survive.

All of these points are "empty calories" for the travel team. Now you could argue that the same is true of a local team making a 3rd play. But somehow it seems less intrusive when its within the "family".

I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses the state championship because of this situation.

Maybe no one cares about this specific situation and I am just over thinking things. I am just thinking out loud about this concern. Thoughts?

On the flip side of the coin, it is actually important that these spots are filled and the points "eaten" to keep things fair. Each event has a certain number of points to give, regardless of how many teams attend. So, if an event has lower attendance, the average number of points awarded to each team will be higher (at a 28 team event a moving robot will likely get you into eliminations, at a 40 team event you probably won't). Thus, a less competitive team could attend DCMP over a more qualified team by attending events with fewer attendees.

[dodar]

On the flip side of the coin, it is actually important that these spots are filled and the points "eaten" to keep things fair. Each event has a certain number of points to give, regardless of how many teams attend. So, if an event has lower attendance, the average number of points awarded to each team will be higher (at a 28 team event a moving robot will likely get you into eliminations, at a 40 team event you probably won't). Thus, a less competitive team could attend DCMP over a more qualified team by attending events with fewer attendees.

Thats like saying the winner of GTR-W is of lesser standing than the winner of Orlando. I get what you are saying with team capabilities vs event size, but teams choose the events they compete at; so that is their choice.

[Steven Donow]

Thats like saying the winner of GTR-W is of lesser standing than the winner of Orlando. I get what you are saying with team capabilities vs event size, but teams choose the events they compete at; so that is their choice.

No, that's not what he's saying. For the winners, it doesn't matter. It matters for the 'fringe' teams; ie. at a 28 team event, of the worst 10 teams, 6 of them will end up on alliances, therefore getting points. At a forty team event, the ten worst teams won't be on alliances*.



*for debates sake let's just assume that alliance selections lead to the top 24 teams being picked.

[Allison K]

Thats like saying the winner of GTR-W is of lesser standing than the winner of Orlando. I get what you are saying with team capabilities vs event size, but teams choose the events they compete at; so that is their choice.

Filler teams at events (teams that don't earn points) are the same concept as surrogate matches at an event with an odd number of teams. It would break the system if a match was played with less teams than every other match, so instead a few teams fill in as surrogates and don't earn any ranking points from that match. The same is true of filler teams at events, except that they are surrogate teams for the event rather than just for a single match. The "lost points" never existed in the first place.

Edit: Oops, replied to the wrong post. Was replying to the idea that 3rd event teams are undesirable.

[Jim Zondag]

While I doubt everyone involved is entirely this cynical, there is definitely truth to this. I'm sure it's very difficult to get anything by a non-profit's board if it's going to hurt their financial situation, since their job is to make sure everything stays afloat.

Not cynical, just practical. FIRST is running not-for-profit business. Like any other business, they have to cover costs and obviously strive to avoid losing revenue. Registration is a major component of their annual income. They have to balance their financial goals against their other program goals like growth and expansion. It is one thing to say "everyone should switch to Districts", but it is an entirely different matter to come up with a plan to do so which has a solid business plan associated. Assessing the before and after revenue is obviously part of this business planning, and not doing things which are a big financial loss is just good business on FIRST's part. As regions figure out how to plan these migrations properly, then they can work with FIRST to do so.

[IKE]

As far as I can tell, the number of "third play" teams at event is pretty low. Only a handful are typically offered within a district (even in Michigan, there were only ~3 per district). So what are the odds that this small percentage of teams in attendance takes away a significant number of the points available? I'm willing to bet it doesn't happen a lot. Sure, one team sometimes takes points away, but it would take several teams sucking up points at the same event to really throw things off balance.

Some numbers to back this up would be good, but this is the feeling I have about it.

In 2013, Bedford comprised mostly of 3rd event teams. Those teams took away a lot of points. We did the analysis going in. 3 teams were on the bubble for making it to states. I think 1/3 made it. Am important thing to remember about the two that didn't make it, had they, then two that did qualify would not.
This new set up will spread "3rd" event point grabs throughout the season instead of concentrating them in week 5&6. It will also help fill week 1 which is sometimes hard to fill.

[Aren Siekmeier]

In 2013, Bedford comprised mostly of 3rd event teams. Those teams took away a lot of points. We did the analysis going in. 3 teams were on the bubble for making it to states. I think 1/3 made it. Am important thing to remember about the two that didn't make it, had they, then two that did qualify would not.
This new set up will spread "3rd" event point grabs throughout the season instead of concentrating them in week 5&6. It will also help fill week 1 which is sometimes hard to fill.

Thanks for the note. I forgot that it's always the 3rd event the team attends that doesn't count, so the 3rd plays will be concentrated in later weeks. This along with a statistical bias towards certain events in a particular week can result in the situation at Bedford 2013.

But as far as I can tell, teams still use the first two in-district events that they compete at for points, not the first two in-district events they register for. So while registering for an out-of-district event in Week 1 won't earn them any points, registering for an additional in-district event in Week 1 will (regardless of when they registered for it). In this sense, teams at extra in-district events are getting "3rd plays," while teams at extra out-of-district events are getting "additional events." Is this correct?

If so, then "the Bedford problem" (wow that sounds really bad...) is only partially alleviated by this.

[Steven Donow]

But as far as I can tell, teams still use the first two in-district events that they compete at for points, not the first two in-district events they register for. So while registering for an out-of-district event in Week 1 won't earn them any points, registering for an additional in-district event in Week 1 will (regardless of when they registered for it). In this sense, teams at extra in-district events are getting "3rd plays," while teams at extra out-of-district events are getting "additional events." Is this correct?

If so, then "the Bedford problem" (wow that sounds really bad...) is only partially alleviated by this.

It's correct, but simply the same thing as what was previously the case, only with varying terminology. It was always that, regardless of registration, the first two in-district events that you competed in were for points.

The best way to view OOD play is as a 'third-district', only chronology of your events doesn't matter.

[Aren Siekmeier]

It's correct, but simply the same thing as what was previously the case, only with varying terminology. It was always that, regardless of registration, the first two in-district events that you competed in were for points.

The best way to view OOD play is as a 'third-district', only chronology of your events doesn't matter.

Yep, that's what I thought. Some people were talking as if ALL additional district event registrations are now "additional plays," so that only the first two you register for will be counted for points, regardless of chronology.

[Alan Anderson]

It's one thing if FIRST really wants everyone to go to districts, but its not fair to penalize teams when we are not in control of whether our are goes to districts or not. Trust me, there are plenty of us in IL who wanted to go to districts, and thought/expected that we would with Indiana.

If the members of the individual teams are not in control of your region, then who is? Rise up and organize. If people/teams are unsatisfied with the pay/play ratio, fix it.

The level of my involvement with the push to organize districts for Illinois (and Ohio) along with Indiana wasn't high enough for me to speak with complete confidence, so don't take what I'm about to say as truly authoritative. My understanding is that Chicago has a lot of say in how Illinois is run, and there are a lot of Chicago teams that won't (or even can't) leave the city in order to compete. That is problematic for districts in a couple of ways.

I'm still rooting for IL-IN-OH (and perhaps KY) to join forces to make a large pool of district events. They all have the same state bird, making the "Cardinal" name obvious for the region.

[BrendanB]

One concern I have is more political than anything else.
Each district event has a finite number of points to distribute to the participants. These points are absolutely critical for the success of the local teams that are involved in their first or second play.

So imagine that a team from out of state comes into a district for a travel play and wins the event, or an award, or both. Those points are permanently removed from the event and effectively wasted. Every win, every award, every draft selection, every playoff win, represents a point that could have gone to a team that needs it locally to survive.

All of these points are "empty calories" for the travel team. Now you could argue that the same is true of a local team making a 3rd play. But somehow it seems less intrusive when its within the "family".

I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses the state championship because of this situation.

Maybe no one cares about this specific situation and I am just over thinking things. I am just thinking out loud about this concern. Thoughts?

Is this any different than a team inside the district attending their 3rd competition? Several teams here in New England went to their third event, won, and received no points for it. 155 sadly made a huge comeback at Pine Tree but since it was their third event they received no points and no invite to the district championship.

[Steven Donow]

The unfortunate thing about that issue is that it works both ways: additional plays lead to points that could have helped other teams being removed, but at the same time (and this is just speculation, I've never done the actual math to see if its true) it likely will also raise the cutoff for DCMP by some amount.

[Alpha Beta]

My understanding is that Chicago has a lot of say in how Illinois is run, and there are a lot of Chicago teams that won't (or even can't) leave the city in order to compete. That is problematic for districts in a couple of ways.

Put two district events in Chicago, different venues, at least one off weekend in between.

If one of these teams qualifies for world champs, do they decline since it's not in Chicago? If they do, I assume that would similarly decline an invitation to the district championship. If not, then maybe they would have the option of accepting an invitation to the District Champs even if it were outside the city.

[Tartan47]

*Note, everything below is hypothetical/personal observations. I don't have any actual knowledge of Illinois FIRST or Chicago teams decisions or input.*

TL/DR Summary: I am personally in favor of the switch to districts. However, I think Illinois has some hurdles to overcome first. Mainly the increased cost for many teams and the geographic distribution of teams in Illinois.

Put two district events in Chicago, different venues, at least one off weekend in between.

If Illinois made the switch for 2015, independent of Indiana, I would expect 3 district events and a DCMP. I am basing this on the same layout Indiana has since Illinois had 59 teams last year and Indiana had 52. I'm also assuming the 3rd district event would be the former CIR regional. The scenario you laid out above would alleviate any additional district event costs for teams based in the city of Chicago. However, there are 2 further issues with this scenario


1)Illinois had 30 teams in 2014, or over 50%, who attended only 1 regional. Under districts those teams must come up with anadditional $4,000 (or $5,000?) for DCMP registration if they want to make it to CMP. Within those 30 teams, 13 are located within the city of Chicago. If one of those teams qualified for DCMP, they now need to come up with an additional 4 or 5,000 as well as travel costs for DCMP. (Since I'm doubtful the rest of the state would be happy with 2 districts and DCMP in Chicago).

2) All teams from the rest of the state must now travel to Chicago for at least 1 district. This includes about 9 teams from closer to Saint Louis who now have travel costs for 2 districts.

No matter where the districts and DCMP were located, if Illinois switched for the 2015 season a decent amount of teams in Illinois would feel they are getting screwed and I predict our FRC team numbers would decrease from the 59 teams in 2014.

As I said earlier, I personally want districts to happen but I also personally don't believe Illinois is ready yet.

[Andrew Schreiber]

*Note, everything below is hypothetical/personal observations. I don't have any actual knowledge of Illinois FIRST or Chicago teams decisions or input.*

TL/DR Summary: I am personally in favor of the switch to districts. However, I think Illinois has some hurdles to overcome first. Mainly the increased cost for many teams and the geographic distribution of teams in Illinois.



If Illinois made the switch for 2015, independent of Indiana, I would expect 3 district events and a DCMP. I am basing this on the same layout Indiana has since Illinois had 59 teams last year and Indiana had 52. I'm also assuming the 3rd district event would be the former CIR regional. The scenario you laid out above would alleviate any additional district event costs for teams based in the city of Chicago. However, there are 2 further issues with this scenario


1)Illinois had 30 teams in 2014, or over 50%, who attended only 1 regional. Under districts those teams must come up with anadditional $4,000 (or $5,000?) for DCMP registration if they want to make it to CMP. Within those 30 teams, 13 are located within the city of Chicago. If one of those teams qualified for DCMP, they now need to come up with an additional 4 or 5,000 as well as travel costs for DCMP. (Since I'm doubtful the rest of the state would be happy with 2 districts and DCMP in Chicago).

2) All teams from the rest of the state must now travel to Chicago for at least 1 district. This includes about 9 teams from closer to Saint Louis who now have travel costs for 2 districts.

No matter where the districts and DCMP were located, if Illinois switched for the 2015 season a decent amount of teams in Illinois would feel they are getting screwed and I predict our FRC team numbers would decrease from the 59 teams in 2014.

As I said earlier, I personally want districts to happen but I also personally don't believe Illinois is ready yet.

Point of data for your consideration: Average travel distance to the 2 closest 2015 events for 2014 IN teams is the furthest among all districts.

(all distances in miles)
MAR: 17, 23
NE: 20, 35
FIM 20, 41
PNW 31, 55
IN: 35, 65

Blah blah blah, straight line distances, blah blah treated earth as a sphere with constant radius which is TECHNICALLY incorrect but close enough for government work.

[Mark McLeod]

blah blah treated earth as a sphere with constant radius which is TECHNICALLY incorrect but close enough for government work.
Actually, the government uses WGS-84.

[Ernst]

*Note, everything below is hypothetical/personal observations. I don't have any actual knowledge of Illinois FIRST or Chicago teams decisions or input.*

TL/DR Summary: I am personally in favor of the switch to districts. However, I think Illinois has some hurdles to overcome first. Mainly the increased cost for many teams and the geographic distribution of teams in Illinois.



If Illinois made the switch for 2015, independent of Indiana, I would expect 3 district events and a DCMP. I am basing this on the same layout Indiana has since Illinois had 59 teams last year and Indiana had 52. I'm also assuming the 3rd district event would be the former CIR regional. The scenario you laid out above would alleviate any additional district event costs for teams based in the city of Chicago. However, there are 2 further issues with this scenario


1)Illinois had 30 teams in 2014, or over 50%, who attended only 1 regional. Under districts those teams must come up with anadditional $4,000 (or $5,000?) for DCMP registration if they want to make it to CMP. Within those 30 teams, 13 are located within the city of Chicago. If one of those teams qualified for DCMP, they now need to come up with an additional 4 or 5,000 as well as travel costs for DCMP. (Since I'm doubtful the rest of the state would be happy with 2 districts and DCMP in Chicago).

2) All teams from the rest of the state must now travel to Chicago for at least 1 district. This includes about 9 teams from closer to Saint Louis who now have travel costs for 2 districts.

No matter where the districts and DCMP were located, if Illinois switched for the 2015 season a decent amount of teams in Illinois would feel they are getting screwed and I predict our FRC team numbers would decrease from the 59 teams in 2014.

As I said earlier, I personally want districts to happen but I also personally don't believe Illinois is ready yet.

Illinois is, by my estimation, on the upper edge of a range for 3 district events. If they have 40 team Districts, there will only be two open spots after everyone gets their two plays. Add a few more teams and they'll have to jump to 4 Districts, possibly two in Chicago, one in Peoria, and one in Springfield? And then host the DCMP in the farthest SW suburb of Chicago that still has facilities for the event.

My biggest personal concern in this discussion is what happens to Wisconsin teams. We're already in a rough spot this year. Our team is based out of Catholic schools, so week 6 events, like Midwest, conflict with Holy Week. We could attend a Week 1 in Duluth, a Week 2 in Pittsburgh, a Week 3 in Kansas City, or a Week 5 in Cleveland. The shortest drive that we're looking at is 6 hours, even though there will be several close events that we can't attend because of scheduling. Boilermaker is now off the table, and with Midwest, Central IL, Twin Cities, and Duluth potentially off the table over the next few years, we might either have to get used to driving a lot or try to start at least 20 new teams.

A Wisconsin-Illinois combined District doesn't make sense, because both states have a lot of teams centered around their biggest cities and then scattered teams that would have to drive a lot to attend their second event and the DCMP.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Actually, the government uses WGS-84.

... it's a saying.

[Warning, the following will sound like gibberish to most folks]

Data was generated by putting your team locations file into a postgis database. I then geocoded all the events and placed them in another table. From there, in a fit of deciding I genuinely hated databases, I joined team each team to every event and computed a travel distance using postgis ST_Distance_Sphere. After storing the resulting table I was able to query to find the nearest 2 events for all district teams.

In retrospect I should have used ST_Distance instead. I think, however, that when I created my events table I used the wrong SRID on the event's location Point and as such had to do some translation that I was not feeling up to at the time.

So, I could get more accurate results but I'm fairly certain that the minor inaccuracy in miles is less important than the inaccuracy caused by the fact that it computes distance as the crow flies.

[Mark McLeod]

I think the error due to the oblate spheroid approximation would be maybe .3% at most, so don't obsess about it.
At the greatest distance, that you happen to be dealing with, you'd see a different of 1000 feet or so.
Much less than the accuracy of the numbers you published.

[connor.worley]

I think we'll see a lot of district teams on Einstein this year. The average regional team just can't get the same amount of drive time without investing a lot into a season.

[Lil' Lavery]

I think we'll see a lot of district teams on Einstein this year. The average regional team just can't get the same amount of drive time without investing a lot into a season.

I don't think this change will contribute to that much at all. Michigan and PNW last year was the first time there really are that many additional play spots available in a district, since the district quantity is set by the amount of teams in the distrct. PNW is still relatively isolated compared to other districts, so I'm skeptical we'll see many teams travelling to there from other districts. Additionally, one of the big incentives for district teams to attend events outside of their district was qualifying directly for Championship. While a handful of teams do it primarily for travel purposes (such as 341), there are others who view it as an opportunity to qualify for St. Louis (especially in MAR). When all is said and done, I anticipate very few inter-district plays occuring in 2015. And I also expect Michigan will continue to inflate district success on Einstein.

[mwmac]

I don't think this change will contribute to that much at all. Michigan and PNW last year was the first time there really are that many additional play spots available in a district, since the district quantity is set by the amount of teams in the distrct. PNW is still relatively isolated compared to other districts, so I'm skeptical we'll see many teams travelling to there from other districts. Additionally, one of the big incentives for district teams to attend events outside of their district was qualifying directly for Championship. While a handful of teams do it primarily for travel purposes (such as 341), there are others who view it as an opportunity to qualify for St. Louis (especially in MAR). When all is said and done, I anticipate very few inter-district plays occuring in 2015. And I also expect Michigan will continue to inflate district success on Einstein.

I believe Mr. Worley might be referring to the disparity in plays/drive time between a team that qualifies for Champs by competing at and winning a single regional event vs a district team that will have played in three events (two district events and district championships) before going to St. Louis.

I am willing to bet a corndog that some regional teams might even be willing to pay $1000.00 for the privilege of playing at a regional even if they were excluded from qualifying for Champs at said event just to test their robots, drivers and strategy.

[MARS_James]

I think we'll see a lot of district teams on Einstein this year. The average regional team just can't get the same amount of drive time without investing a lot into a season.

Hmmm lets look at some fun stats for Einstein teams:

2014:
254-Regional
*469-District
**2848-Regional
***74-District
1678-Regional
*1114-Regional
**1640-District
***5136-Regional
2590-District
*1625-Regional
**1477-Regional
***3467-District
67-District
*973-Regional
**2481-Regional
***2363-Regional

So looking at last year we have 6/16 slots held by district teams or 37.5%, Alliance captains were 50%, First picks 25%, Second picks 25%, Third Picks 50% so in terms of the teams who actually played on Einstein it drops to 4/12 or 33%. I am not sure that this change will cause that big of an issue, and I plan on checking to see if this hold true in other games.

Breakdown of Einstein Locations for 2014:
California-4
FiM-3
MAR-2
Illinois-2
Texas-1
Ontario-1
Texas-1
NE FIRST-1
Virginia-1

[Link07]

At least for MAR, which has been consistently putting teams on Einstein every year since its foundation, none of the Einstein teams participated in third plays that year.

I think that the majority of teams who do four events will be within the district or trying to qualify for champs at outside regionals (of which we we had more teams than we did allocated point slots last year)

[Lil' Lavery]

When discussing districts and Einstein appearances, it's important to note that Michigan was incredibly successful at reaching Einstein prior to districts as well.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77045

[Aren Siekmeier]

In 2013, Bedford comprised mostly of 3rd event teams.

With Bedford week 6 this year, and 20 out of 30 spots remaining after second event registration, it looks like most of the teams there won't be earning points again.

Barring any surge in new team registration before 3rd event and inter-district registration opens.

[Alex2614]

... it's a saying.

[Warning, the following will sound like gibberish to most folks]

Data was generated by putting your team locations file into a postgis database. I then geocoded all the events and placed them in another table. From there, in a fit of deciding I genuinely hated databases, I joined team each team to every event and computed a travel distance using postgis ST_Distance_Sphere. After storing the resulting table I was able to query to find the nearest 2 events for all district teams.

In retrospect I should have used ST_Distance instead. I think, however, that when I created my events table I used the wrong SRID on the event's location Point and as such had to do some translation that I was not feeling up to at the time.

So, I could get more accurate results but I'm fairly certain that the minor inaccuracy in miles is less important than the inaccuracy caused by the fact that it computes distance as the crow flies.

Ugh and I don't even like doing my GIS homework. I do FIRST to get away from that :P

[tStano]

To me (a student on a regional team from Wisconsin), one of the huge advantages I saw to districts was that it was unbelievably fair.

For the registration fee of 1 regional, you got all the qualification possibilities of someone who went to 3 districts. The unbag time was the same, etc, etc. This is untrue in regionals. You can attend as many as you can sign up for, and you get a shot at each one. You can buy robot work time and chances at championships, (i suppose with waitlist, you can buy trips to championships too, so this argument is weak...). Now, with this new thing, you can go to a week 1 or 2 district somewhere else and get your robot tuned up before you compete for real. You've bought robot work time; an advantage over teams with less money. This isn't a huge disadvantage to the system, and its probably worth it, and my opinion means nothing, but its the first thing I thought when I read this thread.

Another thing. Switching to the district model, having everyone in it, and having all district interdistrict play count would essentially end up with what we have now, with one more tier of competition, except the districts are held mostly in gyms, and we lose much of the spectator aspect we've been working so hard to build.

[Alex2614]

To me (a student on a regional team from Wisconsin), one of the huge advantages I saw to districts was that it was unbelievably fair.

For the registration fee of 1 regional, you got all the qualification possibilities of someone who went to 3 districts. The unbag time was the same, etc, etc. This is untrue in regionals. You can attend as many as you can sign up for, and you get a shot at each one. You can buy robot work time and chances at championships, (i suppose with waitlist, you can buy trips to championships too, so this argument is weak...). Now, with this new thing, you can go to a week 1 or 2 district somewhere else and get your robot tuned up before you compete for real. You've bought robot work time; an advantage over teams with less money. This isn't a huge disadvantage to the system, and its probably worth it, and my opinion means nothing, but its the first thing I thought when I read this thread.

Another thing. Switching to the district model, having everyone in it, and having all district interdistrict play count would essentially end up with what we have now, with one more tier of competition, except the districts are held mostly in gyms, and we lose much of the spectator aspect we've been working so hard to build.

Except for the cost effectiveness and the greater number of events, which increases awareness significantly. More cities and towns have the opportunity to hold events that they didn't before. We would never be able to hold a regional here in Morgantown, but holding a district event is dry feasible (we held an off-season last summer). Lower cost with easily 3x the number of events. I don see how that decreases spectator visibility in any way. People in these towns are less likely to travel an hour or more away to an event but if it was in their hometown they would. We could never get our school board or sponsors to travel to Pittsburgh with us. But with a district locally we could.

Eventually everyone will be all districts and I'll tell you why by using West Virginia as an example. What happens to us when PA, OH, National Capital Area, NC, and SC, and TN go to districts and we are not included? That puts our CLOSEST regional 10-15 hours away. With "pockets" of regional teams who have to pay 5 times as much to travel 5 times as far only to get much less playing time, these teams will either join a district or leave FIRST. We're already starting to see team's regional options diminish, as someone pointed out above in MN.

You essentially stifle growth by marginalizing teams from areas with lower "density" of teams. It puts WV at an even greater disadvantage than it already is. It is essentially punishing us for not having enough teams, but makes it more difficult for teams to start.

However, if we were lumped into a nearby district region, say PA or OH (or both) we would be better off. All districts in the US will eventually happen out of necessity as FRC continues to grow.

[PayneTrain]

Now, with this new thing, you can go to a week 1 or 2 district somewhere else and get your robot tuned up before you compete for real. You've bought robot work time; an advantage over teams with less money. This isn't a huge disadvantage to the system, and its probably worth it, and my opinion means nothing, but its the first thing I thought when I read this thread.

Teams in districts were already using resources to pay for a $4000 trip to a regional competition, and they are still doing this today. Inter-district play, like additional regionals are both, at its core, a supply/demand thing. Someone is already paying for the field, the venue, and the logistics for a maximum capacity potential and teams are very obviously more than willing to part with however much money necessary to go to more events.

I'm not going to try discounting what you're saying, but I'm going to be very blunt when I say that FRC is, by its very nature, not supposed to be "fair". There are some mechanisms in place to bring in balance, but the only equal opportunity you get in FRC is that every team has to pay at least $5000 for the privilege of getting a couple boxes of stuff in January and a taped square on a gym floor in March. Everything after that is whatever your program can achieve on its own merits, for better or for worse.

[Dunngeon]

Does anyone have a list, or know where to find one of teams registered for inter district play? I know team 190 is coming to the PNW Philomath regional (from NW England) and I'm curious to see what other teams are participating in interdistict play.

[Libby K]

Does anyone have a list, or know where to find one of teams registered for inter district play? I know team 190 is coming to the PNW Philomath regional (from MAR) and I'm curious to see what other teams are participating in interdistict play.

190 is from New England, but I'm also curious about this list :)

[Andrew Schreiber]

190 is from New England, but I'm also curious about this list :)

Offhand, there's a few MAR teams coming to NE. I know 2 coming to Dartmouth and 1 coming to Pine Tree.

[Hallry]

Does anyone have a list, or know where to find one of teams registered for inter district play? I know team 190 is coming to the PNW Philomath regional (from MAR) and I'm curious to see what other teams are participating in interdistict play.

I don't know the individual events, but here are the district teams current registered for out-of-district district play:


Michigan:

3 teams are competing in the Indiana districts (68, 107, 2474)
9 teams are going to traditional Regionals (27, 141, 216, 244, 288, 910, 1701, 2959, 3175)


MAR:

3 teams are competing in New England districts (102, 316, 1811)
11 are going to traditional Regionals (87, 103, 303, 341, 714, 1676, 1923, 2016, 2234, 2590, 4575)
2 teams are going to both New England and a Regional (3314 & 11).


New England:

1 team is competing in the PNW district (190)
3 are going to traditional Regionals (125, 195, 348)


Credit goes to MikeE (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1429243#post1429243).
*Note: 503 dropped out of the Indianapolis district after MikeE's original post, so I removed them from the list above, while 1923 is now officially registered for the Tech Valley Regional and has been added to the list.