View Full Version : Current Districts Map. Who is next?
SpaceBiz
30-08-2015, 21:10
I couldn't find an image showing the current districts on a us map. So I made one. http://i.imgur.com/hBJ2jCB.png
Hopefully people can use this to not only speculate which states switch over to districts for 2017, but the new boundaries for the districts.
No image for me (using Chrome).
SpaceBiz
30-08-2015, 21:18
No image for me (using Chrome).
Does this work?
http://i.imgur.com/hBJ2jCB.png
Thanks, I can see the map in post 3, but not post 1.
Yep, that works.
But Alaska should be red, as I've heard from various CD denizens that AK will be in PNW this next year.
And the other thought I've been having: Poor SC. Surrounded by districts...But I think they'll be all right as long as Smoky and the Forida regionals are still around.
SpaceBiz
30-08-2015, 21:30
Fixed Alaska in both links above. They are going to have a long drive to PNW champs.
page2067
30-08-2015, 21:34
Only showing NA, Ontario is ripe for district, They already have many regionals that are sized almost at the district level size (40) but paying for 2 regionals.
Districts are great, everyone should get some. Jump in, the water is good.
Once New York figures things out we can have a large connected region in the east.
Brian Maher
30-08-2015, 21:48
Only showing NA
This part of your comment got me thinking and made me realize that Israel might make for a good district. With 55 teams at the Israel Regional (all of which are Israeli), Israel is just the right size for an Indiana style small district. This would give all the Israeli teams the chance to compete at two events, which few get a chance to. Some teams would get a third or fourth event without traveling internationally.
Israel is a small dense cluster of teams, far from any other team density. It seems like a perfect district candidate.
Alex Webber
30-08-2015, 22:54
I would personally like to see a Midwest District,
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Nebraska (no teams yet)
South Dakota
North Dakota
Colorado
Missouri
But that might be a huge district.
I would personally like to see a Midwest District,
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Nebraska (no teams yet)
South Dakota
North Dakota
Colorado
Missouri
But that might be a huge district.Way too big, by a factor of a lot. BTW, if Colorado is included you'll need to include Wyoming and at least part of Montana as that's the current closest event to teams in that area.
You're probably better off with "Northern Midwest", "Texas" (who, I might add, is beginning to look seriously at districts from some CD posts this year), and "everybody else". "Northern Midwest" would be the Dakotas, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska if they form any teams. (There's a natural split point in the Dakotas that might send some portions of those two states to join MN/WI/IA if those three went district, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.) "Everybody else" takes OK, KS, and MO and possibly adds in Arkansas for the district zone.
The reason I say it's way too big: Can you really imagine driving for TWO DAYS to get not quite all the way across ONE district? Neither can I. And I know from experience that it's a two-day drive from the teams in South Dakota to Fort Worth, Texas. Not that anybody would do that for districts, you understand, but just the sheer size of the proposition.
Jay O'Donnell
30-08-2015, 23:27
Ontario, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, and California make sense to me.
Ontario, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, and California make sense to me.
I think we'll need to wait for more a FRC presence in Quebec/Eastern Canada first. The Eastern Ontario event is well traveled to by Montreal teams, and they'll only have one event that can qualify them for Worlds (because NE is a district as well). If they get a second regional, then Ontario should immediately move to districts.
Florida and Minnesota both make sense, and I'm sure we'll see those two move in the next two years. California makes the most sense split into Northern and Southern. Someone more familiar with the size and distribution of Texas teams should comment on Texas, I don't know enough about the region.
Just my opinions.
I think we'll need to wait for more a FRC presence in Quebec/Eastern Canada first. The Eastern Ontario event is well traveled to by Montreal teams, and they'll only have one event that can qualify them for Worlds (because NE is a district as well). If they get a second regional, then Ontario should immediately move to districts.
Florida and Minnesota both make sense, and I'm sure we'll see those two move in the next two years. California makes the most sense split into Northern and Southern. Someone more familiar with the size and distribution of Texas teams should comment on Texas, I don't know enough about the region.
Just my opinions.
Florida, regretfully, will probably be one of the last holdouts for districts. The size and makeup of the state geographically along with the decline of teams hurts that chances pretty hard.
jajabinx124
30-08-2015, 23:49
Florida and Minnesota both make sense, and I'm sure we'll see those two move in the next two years.
Just my opinions.
I understand your opinion and the districts system would be awesome here in MN, but IMO Minnesota isn't going to districts anytime soon. From what I've heard, MN has issues getting enough volunteers for the 4 regionals we have in our state, so thinking about districts and the number of events that may need to be put up for districts here is insane.
Maybe in the next 5 or so years it may switch to districts.. but that's just my guess.
CA going district--in whole or in part--is going to be an interesting experience, IF it ever happens. With 7 regionals, including one of the largest in the country, last year, and I want to say less than 7 open spots last year, it's very crowded. Splitting north/south will also be quite interesting: believe it or not, the split would likely be about 2/3 of the way down the state geographically, but would split the current regionals 3/4 north/south. (There aren't a lot of teams in the far north third of the state, to put it mildly.)
OTOH, I think an awful lot of CA teams will be pretty happy whenever it happens. More playing time and all that.
I understand your opinion and the districts system would be awesome here in MN, but IMO Minnesota isn't going to districts anytime soon. From what I've heard, MN has issues getting enough volunteers for the 4 regionals we have in our state, so thinking about districts and the number of events that may need to be put up for districts here is insane.
Maybe in the next 5 or so years it may switch to districts.. but that's just my guess.
Half the issue of volunteers in Minnesota is that there are only 2 weekends available. Many volunteers won't compete at an event their team is at, so they can't volunteer anywhere if their team does 2 Minnesota events. If the 4 regionals were on four separate weeks I'd better you'd see many more volunteers appear.
The fifth Minnesota regional will probably help disperse the teams and actually free up some volunteers.
jajabinx124
31-08-2015, 00:02
Half the issue of volunteers in Minnesota is that there are only 2 weekends available. Many volunteers won't compete at an event their team is at, so they can't volunteer anywhere if their team does 2 Minnesota events. If the 4 regionals were on four separate weeks I'd better you'd see many more volunteers appear.
The fifth Minnesota regional will probably help disperse the teams and actually free up some volunteers.
I don't know whether there will be a 5th MN regional. The new Iowa regional is technically the "5th MN regional" I think.. I think the MN volunteer base is going to be heavily involved with helping set up/run the new Iowa regional, but this will help free up some volunteers hopefully and give IO, MN, MO, etc. teams another choice for a regional to attend.
Ginger Power
31-08-2015, 08:17
Half the issue of volunteers in Minnesota is that there are only 2 weekends available. Many volunteers won't compete at an event their team is at, so they can't volunteer anywhere if their team does 2 Minnesota events. If the 4 regionals were on four separate weeks I'd better you'd see many more volunteers appear.
The fifth Minnesota regional will probably help disperse the teams and actually free up some volunteers.
The other half of the issue is that we have such a young volunteer base. While having more volunteer weekends available increase the number of raw volunteers, it won't change the fact that we only have so many key volunteers. I just don't see us getting enough key volunteers in just 2 years... and this from somebody who desperately wants to change to districts.
notmattlythgoe
31-08-2015, 08:34
I understand your opinion and the districts system would be awesome here in MN, but IMO Minnesota isn't going to districts anytime soon. From what I've heard, MN has issues getting enough volunteers for the 4 regionals we have in our state, so thinking about districts and the number of events that may need to be put up for districts here is insane.
Maybe in the next 5 or so years it may switch to districts.. but that's just my guess.
The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch. Unfortunately, until you make the switch you won't have the volunteer base you need.
Build it and they will come.
Michael Hill
31-08-2015, 09:07
I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.
I can definitely see either a SoCal+Arizona and a NorCal+Nevada district, or just a combined California (but that is A LOT of driving...we drove from SF to San Diego on our honeymoon, and I would NOT want to drive it for a competition). I'm surprised Texas isn't already a district. New York+Southern Ontario is a possibility as well, but I'm sure that district would get swallowed up by the Canadian teams there, so I'm not sure how much New York would really WANT to be in that district.
bigbeezy
31-08-2015, 09:47
I keep hearing Illinois will eventually. I think ideally Indiana, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin should join up.
stopyourself
31-08-2015, 10:22
Forgive me, for some reason neither of the images are showing up for me on either of my computers, probably the school blocking it. I'm from Kansas City, and from a few looks of great scrutiny at the US FIRST website, I could not find the GKC Regional on the list for this year. Am I simply not seeing it? Or is there no GKC Regional this year?
Lil' Lavery
31-08-2015, 10:32
Forgive me, for some reason neither of the images are showing up for me on either of my computers, probably the school blocking it. I'm from Kansas City, and from a few looks of great scrutiny at the US FIRST website, I could not find the GKC Regional on the list for this year. Am I simply not seeing it? Or is there no GKC Regional this year?
Not all events are confirmed/posted on the FIRST webpage. You'll find that many other regionals are still missing, as well. Once a contract is signed with the venue, it should be on the webpage. According to this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1493503&postcount=119), GKC is happening and will be week 2.
For future reference, questions like that can be posted in the regional competitions sub-forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10) or the regional dates thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137355).
MARS_James
31-08-2015, 10:32
Florida, regretfully, will probably be one of the last holdouts for districts. The size and makeup of the state geographically along with the decline of teams hurts that chances pretty hard.
The last statement is a little misleading yes Florida has less teams then our peak but lets look at the long term situation say 5 years:
2011: 55 Teams
2012: 76 (+21, The first year of the South Florida Regional, the last year of the JC Penny Grant)
2013: 72 (-4, No more JC Penny grant, NASA removes some grants for South Florida, South Florida moves to a more expensive location)
2014: 63 (-9, Rookie Teams from 2012 can no longer receive the grants from NASA based on age)
2015: 64 (+1)
So over the last 5 years we have had a net gain of 9 teams not spectacular but still not an overall loss. Also in 2015 50% of our teams attended 2 or more regionals while in 2011 that number was 18%, yes there wasn't a second event in our state at the time but it shows that half of our teams are already paying near the $10,000 required for districts and district championships.
Florida is closer to being able to sustain districts then our loss of 12 teams in 4 years say especially with a possible 3 off season events potentially leading to an increase of volunteer base. That being said your statement about geography as well as the way our highschools are designed (very open and airy lacking space big enough to host districts) lead to our issues.
I understand your opinion and the districts system would be awesome here in MN, but IMO Minnesota isn't going to districts anytime soon. From what I've heard, MN has issues getting enough volunteers for the 4 regionals we have in our state, so thinking about districts and the number of events that may need to be put up for districts here is insane.
Maybe in the next 5 or so years it may switch to districts.. but that's just my guess.
The problem with MN's constant maybe in a couple of years is that as every year passes it gets harder and harder to make the transition. Every time another 16-20 teams is added it means another event is required. The 195 teams they had last season is already past the point that I consider a good size for start up. With 195 teams you need 390 plays at a minimum. So 390/36= 10.8 events and 11 events is the most I would want to do the first season so that you can have a single event week one to work all the bugs out. Now if you can find enough venues that can hold 40 teams you can get away with a start up number of 220 teams but you are preventing any additional plays at that point. Once you exceed 240 teams you will need at least one week with 3 events.
Because they are only 2 day events and there are fewer volunteers needed at a 36-40 team event than at a 60 team event it is about as easy to come up with enough volunteers to run 2 district events as it is one large Regional. Because there will be more dates to choose from your base of potential volunteers increases significantly. No the volunteer count doesn't scale perfectly since there are a number of positions that need the same number of people no matter how big the event is, for example you need 1 LRI no matter the number of teams but you need fewer RIs the smaller the event. Assuming that as others have speculated that a lot of the MN contingent is going to cross the boarder for the new 5th event in the general vicinity and you are basically there with your volunteer base. Getting volunteers at DCMP is relatively easy because a huge number of the people who did a district event want to be at the big show.
AlexD744
31-08-2015, 13:00
The last statement is a little misleading yes Florida has less teams then our peak but lets look at the long term situation say 5 years:
2011: 55 Teams
2012: 76 (+21, The first year of the South Florida Regional, the last year of the JC Penny Grant)
2013: 72 (-4, No more JC Penny grant, NASA removes some grants for South Florida, South Florida moves to a more expensive location)
2014: 63 (-9, Rookie Teams from 2012 can no longer receive the grants from NASA based on age)
2015: 64 (+1)
So over the last 5 years we have had a net gain of 9 teams not spectacular but still not an overall loss. Also in 2015 50% of our teams attended 2 or more regionals while in 2011 that number was 18%, yes there wasn't a second event in our state at the time but it shows that half of our teams are already paying near the $10,000 required for districts and district championships.
Florida is closer to being able to sustain districts then our loss of 12 teams in 4 years say especially with a possible 3 off season events potentially leading to an increase of volunteer base. That being said your statement about geography as well as the way our highschools are designed (very open and airy lacking space big enough to host districts) lead to our issues.
Agreed, we have turned the tide of team losses, have 3 coordinated off season events, and the volunteer base at south florida is more and more a different group than in orlando. Locations are a problem, but I doubt it would be impossible to find the right ones. Florida is on its way to districts, but it'll take some time to get there. And while we still have many hurdles to cross, the signs are finally starting to be good, which they haven't been for a long while.
The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch.
What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.
logank013
31-08-2015, 13:16
What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.
Now this isn't robotics, but I'm also involved on my school's Speech Team. For that, we need to bring a judge (a volunteer) for every 5 students we bring. I'm sure state FIRSTs' could implement a rule like that if needed in that state.
notmattlythgoe
31-08-2015, 13:18
What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.
My point was, using the excuse that there aren't enough volunteers means they will never make the switch. Supply and demand, if the demand for volunteers isn't there the supply won't grow.
Doug Frisk
31-08-2015, 13:22
The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch. Unfortunately, until you make the switch you won't have the volunteer base you need.
Build it and they will come.
Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.
You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.
Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.
It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.
notmattlythgoe
31-08-2015, 13:25
Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.
You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.
Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.
It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.
By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.
According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.
Ginger Power
31-08-2015, 13:33
The problem with MN's constant maybe in a couple of years is that as every year passes it gets harder and harder to make the transition. Every time another 16-20 teams is added it means another event is required. The 195 teams they had last season is already past the point that I consider a good size for start up. With 195 teams you need 390 plays at a minimum. So 390/36= 10.8 events and 11 events is the most I would want to do the first season so that you can have a single event week one to work all the bugs out. Now if you can find enough venues that can hold 40 teams you can get away with a start up number of 220 teams but you are preventing any additional plays at that point. Once you exceed 240 teams you will need at least one week with 3 events.
Because they are only 2 day events and there are fewer volunteers needed at a 36-40 team event than at a 60 team event it is about as easy to come up with enough volunteers to run 2 district events as it is one large Regional. Because there will be more dates to choose from your base of potential volunteers increases significantly. No the volunteer count doesn't scale perfectly since there are a number of positions that need the same number of people no matter how big the event is, for example you need 1 LRI no matter the number of teams but you need fewer RIs the smaller the event. Assuming that as others have speculated that a lot of the MN contingent is going to cross the boarder for the new 5th event in the general vicinity and you are basically there with your volunteer base. Getting volunteers at DCMP is relatively easy because a huge number of the people who did a district event want to be at the big show.
Minnesota's growth in recent years has slowed. We've reached a temporary plateau, but I don't expect that it will hold. There are a lot of potential teams to the northwest of the cities. However, with that said I don't think switching to districts will become more difficult over time. The oldest, active Minnesota team is just going into their 11th season. A lot of younger teams are just starting to figure things out and provide volunteers for events.
Also from conversations with smarter people than myself, I've learned that running an event of any size requires a pretty similar amount of volunteers. Especially key volunteers as you stated. That's without even considering the workload of the volunteer coordinator...
Assuming you do need to run 2 events per week for 6 weeks rather than our current 5 events (counting Iowa) during 3 different weeks, that's 7 more events in total. Focusing solely on key volunteers, it would require more than double the current number if they maintain the same workload. It's not feasible for an LRI to take 6 weekends off to help run an event.
TL;DR: As Minnesota gets older, the number of key volunteers will go up, which is the limiting factor for going to districts. The non-key volunteers will be there when we need them.
ehochstein
31-08-2015, 13:35
By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.
According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.
I agree. See below.
MN 192
WI 41
IA 9
Dakotas 5
Total Teams 247
Max Number of Teams per Event
40
Number of Events Needed
12.35
Number of spots (13 events): 520
Volunteer quality would suffer for the first year (like it has in just about every other area that has transitioned to districts) but it would recover after that.
More importantly, what MN is lacking currently is a non-profit running FRC in the state. We have a few organizational issues we need to fix before anything else.
Nathan Streeter
31-08-2015, 13:55
Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.
You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.
Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.
It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.
As Matthew pointed out, there were 218 MN teams in 2015... you need a district event for every 20 teams, so that's a minimum of 11, not 15.
Agreed that you can't expect the key volunteers to work for six straight weekends... BUT you're only in need of enough staffing to run 12-14 events (including DCMP; 14 would include surrounding states)... maybe that's 4 key volunteers each working 3 or 4 weekends or 3 key volunteers each working 4 or more weekends. At any rate, I think Matthew's spot on with his "If you build it, they will come..." more volunteers - including key volunteers - will step up as need arises.
I'll also kindly point out that there have been a diverse group of regions to go to districts... none of them have suffered from the change and I've hardly heard anyone saying "I wish we were still going to regionals." Look at the PNW as an example of a large region geographically with tight population pockets that also lacked the "region age" that Michigan or New England have... the PNW has definitely benefited from the change!
Also, it seems to me that FIRST HQ is really pushing regions to go to districts... a few years ago they were hoping most of FIRST would be in districts in 2016; it's more, but not nearly as much as they were expecting!
Doug Frisk
31-08-2015, 14:04
By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.
According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.
You are assuming that each district events will host the maximum 40 teams. I'm assuming 30 as an average. Have you located 11 venues that have the space and power needed to host 40 team events?
notmattlythgoe
31-08-2015, 14:10
You are assuming that each district events will host the maximum 40 teams. I'm assuming 30 as an average. Have you located 11 venues that have the space and power needed to host 40 team events?
If you look you'll see that the average district size is closer to the mid to high 30's.
You can get creative with venues, space and schedule are your only limiting factors. Power can be brought in.
I'm also assuming that since there are currently 2 off-season events in MN that there are at least 2 planning committees that would be willing to assist in planning district events.
Monochron
31-08-2015, 14:36
According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.
Number of Events Needed
12.35
Number of spots (13 events): 520
Does anyone else worry about the effect felt if a region goes from having 4 regionals that you could "win" to having one main champion style event that you can "win"? I guess you get 12ish events that can be "won", but, as I have not yet played in a district, I wonder about the different in experience when winning these events.
Bryan Herbst
31-08-2015, 14:41
By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.
According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.
As a few other people have noted here, the issue isn't so much sheer number of bodies to fill volunteer roles as much as reliable volunteers to fill key roles.
It is a work in progress, but it isn't going to happen over night. As of the 2015 FRC season, we had 1 returning FTA, 1 new FTA, 1 local FTAA, a handful (4 or 5?) scorekeepers, 1 local field supervisor, and 1 field supervisor from Iowa.
That's obviously just a couple of the key positions, and some of them (LRIs) we now have a fairly healthy number of. However, people can't just show up and start volunteering for these roles. Many of these roles require a high level of familiarity with FRC, a high level of interpersonal skills, and a high level of commitment to volunteering with the program. Once we have identified those people, we need at least a year to train them in for their role.
As Mr. V's post touched on, I think the biggest issue is that we grew incredibly quickly. The majority of our participants since when MN launched its first regional are either in college or only a couple years out of college. Obviously the rapid growth isn't a "problem" we can fix in MN- it is already done. What we can do is continue to work towards fixing our immediate problem, which is getting more volunteers and making some MN FIRST organizational changes to better support the program.
I keep hearing Illinois will eventually. I think ideally Indiana, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin should join up.
At R2OC this year Dan Green said they're pushing for Illinois to switch for the 2017 season, but that they want more teams first. I think he said the goal was to grow IL's current 58 teams to 65 before they switch.
I think it would be great for southern/eastern Wisconsin to join IL, but it seems like FIRST doesn't want states split like that anymore. Realistically, though, splitting Wisconsin diagonally so the northwest joins MN and the southeast joins IL is the only real way we could enter the district system, unless we add something like 20 teams. Wisconsin only had 41 teams last season, and the team distribution doesn't really help.
https://i.imgur.com/boJt8Gn.png
evanperryg
31-08-2015, 15:07
At R2OC this year Dan Green said they're pushing for Illinois to switch for the 2017 season, but that they want more teams first. I think he said the goal was to grow IL's current 58 teams to 65 before they switch.
I think it would be great for southern/eastern Wisconsin to join IL, but it seems like FIRST doesn't want states split like that anymore. Realistically, though, splitting Wisconsin diagonally so the northwest joins MN and the southeast joins IL is the only real way we could enter the district system, unless we add something like 20 teams. Wisconsin only had 41 teams last season, and the team distribution doesn't really help.
https://i.imgur.com/boJt8Gn.png
All of IL and WI could combine, although it might be a pain for NW Wisconsin/SW Illinois teams. It would make the rumored IL district more viable, and would make the MN/IA/WI district more manageable in terms of volunteers and team locations.
tindleroot
31-08-2015, 15:40
From the point of a view of a student in Indiana, prior to the 2015 season (as in Spring 2014), we were under the impression that Illinois and Indiana were going to form a district together. Not sure why that plan changed, but it probably was through FIRST mediating their smaller district trial and IndianaFIRST's and Illinois FIRST's own discussion.
As for coming years, I think that an Iowa/Illinois district makes more sense than Wisconsin/Illinois geographically. The Iowa teams may have to travel quite a bit, but then, when don't they?;) Adding Missouri in would also be pretty easy if they wanted it to be a larger Midwest district, since there would be enough teams/events that Chicago teams won't have to go to Southwest Missouri or vice versa. Also, St. Louis would be a great place for a Midwest DCMP.
Obviously, volunteer base would have to be flexible and available for such a large (area) district to work out with a lower team density than, for example, Michigan. Also, I would be sorry for Wisconsin if that district happened along with Minnesota.
Christopher149
31-08-2015, 16:17
Does anyone else worry about the effect felt if a region goes from having 4 regionals that you could "win" to having one main champion style event that you can "win"? I guess you get 12ish events that can be "won", but, as I have not yet played in a district, I wonder about the different in experience when winning these events.
So, my team is from Michigan (where I think the district replaced 3 regionals). Though we never won or made finals at a regional prior to districts, I have to say that making at least the finals at a district event is still a fantastic feeling. (I mean, we did that this year beating a 2014 world champion. Districts in no way feel "cheap".)
Ryan Dognaux
31-08-2015, 16:40
I would be surprised if at least Missouri & Kansas aren't in a common district by 2017. Kansas doesn't have enough teams to survive on their own and their closest regional is in Missouri as well.
Illinois is wanting to form their own district, but hopefully by 2017 we will have inter-district play. There are a few Illinois teams that always attend the St. Louis regional because it's less than 30 minutes away for them and I'd hate to see them have to travel 2 - 3 hours just to attend one event.
Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.
You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.
Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.
It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.
How did you calculate the need for 15 events? I show 192 teams for last season. That would mean 10 events for 40 team events or 11 events for 36 team events and 12 events for 32 team events. Even with 10% growth you would be covered with 2 events per weekend and 36 or more teams per event. Wait another year and you'll find you are stuck with starting off with those 3 event weekends and that is when you get into big trouble as a start up in my opinion.
The non key event volunteers are easy. As mentioned you can require teams to provide volunteers like MI does or just ask nicely. We've done pretty good rounding out the volunteers for most events by just asking teams if they can provide someone.
In my opinion this year MN really really needs to push for people who want to be key volunteers in the District system and have them shadow the existing key volunteers. It would also be a good idea to strongly encourage mentors from the influential teams and key volunteers to attend district events in one of the current districts that is most convenient for them. The earlier you start preparing the easier the transition will be. The longer you say we aren't ready the longer it will be until you are ready and the harder it will be.
carpedav000
31-08-2015, 17:44
Im still trying to figure out why IN went to districs. We are waaay to small IMO to be a district.
cadandcookies
31-08-2015, 18:13
More importantly, what MN is lacking currently is a non-profit running FRC in the state. We have a few organizational issues we need to fix before anything else.
I think this is the big thing that gets missed in discussions about Minnesota going to Districts. Right now, the organizational structure for FRC in Minnesota is at best opaque and at worst comes off as exclusionary to teams outside the Twin Cities area, at least at the decision making level.
From where I'm standing (at the bottom, looking straight up, and without any inside knowledge) Minnesota needs some sort of exterior push to go to districts-- the system we have now is hindering us from progressing to districts. When we only have two weekends in the state with events, it makes it much easier to keep the same volunteers (and teams), which is a double edged sword-- it means the volunteers we do have tend to be very well seasoned and well trained, but it makes it much more difficult to train new volunteers, both in the practical sense that the slots for our existing regionals seem to be mostly filled, but also that from a team's perspective there isn't a need for them to be volunteering when everything seems to be under control.
On a little bit less of a concrete of a note, I also get the feeling that at the decision making level, there simply isn't much support within Minnesota for districts. I might be wrong (like I said, I'm pretty far outside the know for this), but that's the impression I've gotten.
We have a lot of talented and invested people here in Minnesota that currently aren't being utilized for FRC-- a sponge can only hold so much water. Maybe if we had a bigger sponge, we'd have more room for volunteers and a bit more diversity with who's filling volunteer positions.
Jon Stratis
31-08-2015, 18:25
Speaking as one of the individuals actively working to increase key volunteers (specifically LRI's) across MN... it's not as easy as people seem to think. We get plenty of inspectors, but not all inspectors would make for good LRI's. Since I became an LRI here, I've worked every year (literally) to identify and train new LRI's. You can identify someone who might be good for it one year, work the next year to train them, and then, finally, get them in charge of an event... but even then we do everything we can to have another experienced LRI there to back them up in case something horrible goes wrong. So, realistically, it takes another 2 seasons after you've identified someone before they're really running on their own. It's part of our focus on providing high quality events - throw someone into a situation they aren't completely prepared for, and the outcome won't be as good for the teams.
Now, all that said, I'm (personally) finally getting to the point where I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. For the first time EVER, we'll have 4 different LRI's FROM MINNESOTA in charge of the 4 Minnesota events. All previous years, we've imported LRI's from Wisconsin or doubled up. I also have a couple of people identified for training this year so we can have them ready to go when districts hits (whenever that is, I have no information on that!).
But that's just one key volunteer position. As Tanis said, we only have 2 FTA's returning for this year, and last I heard only 1 Head Ref.
Lets put it this way... would you want to attend a district with a head ref who got the job because someone was desperately needed for the position, or one who got the job because they had been reffing for years and were identified as a good fit for the position?
Jon Stratis
31-08-2015, 18:32
I think this is the big thing that gets missed in discussions about Minnesota going to Districts. Right now, the organizational structure for FRC in Minnesota is at best opaque and at worst comes off as exclusionary to teams outside the Twin Cities area, at least at the decision making level.
From where I'm standing (at the bottom, looking straight up, and without any inside knowledge) Minnesota needs some sort of exterior push to go to districts-- the system we have now is hindering us from progressing to districts. When we only have two weekends in the state with events, it makes it much easier to keep the same volunteers (and teams), which is a double edged sword-- it means the volunteers we do have tend to be very well seasoned and well trained, but it makes it much more difficult to train new volunteers, both in the practical sense that the slots for our existing regionals seem to be mostly filled, but also that from a team's perspective there isn't a need for them to be volunteering when everything seems to be under control.
On a little bit less of a concrete of a note, I also get the feeling that at the decision making level, there simply isn't much support within Minnesota for districts. I might be wrong (like I said, I'm pretty far outside the know for this), but that's the impression I've gotten.
We have a lot of talented and invested people here in Minnesota that currently aren't being utilized for FRC-- a sponge can only hold so much water. Maybe if we had a bigger sponge, we'd have more room for volunteers and a bit more diversity with who's filling volunteer positions.
Trust me, there's still plenty of room for more people to volunteer, especially in key roles. The only reason it seems that "all the slots are taken" is because people are pulling double duty all over the place filling those roles both in Duluth and Minneapolis... and they're only doing that because we need them to in order to get the events to run. We're desperately looking for people with the "right stuff" to hold those key volunteer roles and doing our best to train them in when we do identify them. Unfortunately, they don't grow on trees.
Speaking of the discussions I've had with others helping to run things here, the common theme is "Districts are coming... and we're not ready yet". We're working on it.
cadandcookies
31-08-2015, 18:37
Speaking as one of the individuals actively working to increase key volunteers (specifically LRI's) across MN... it's not as easy as people seem to think.
Lets put it this way... would you want to attend a district with a head ref who got the job because someone was desperately needed for the position, or one who got the job because they had been reffing for years and were identified as a good fit for the position?
To be clear, I'm not claiming that it's easy (it's pretty obvious that it's harder than I can fathom or try to solve through writing words on the internet). I just think that it might be the case that Minnesota isn't organized in a way that makes it easy to train volunteers quickly (both inside and outside regionals). Add that to the exterior perception that there's a lot of robot politics going on that make it difficult to volunteer in a meaningful way, and at least from the outside looking in, the path seems unclear at best for how we'll actually get to districts, regardless of all the fantastic people currently involved with volunteering at FRC events here.
whatever happened to getting at least northern idaho into the PNW district? The last few times just this year it seems the idea is brought up,gets a little headway, then just disappears without a trace.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that it's easy (it's pretty obvious that it's harder than I can fathom or try to solve through writing words on the internet). I just think that it might be the case that Minnesota isn't organized in a way that makes it easy to train volunteers quickly (both inside and outside regionals). Add that to the exterior perception that there's a lot of robot politics going on that make it difficult to volunteer in a meaningful way, and at least from the outside looking in, the path seems unclear at best for how we'll actually get to districts, regardless of all the fantastic people currently involved with volunteering at FRC events here.
You know, if I was in your shoes, I might consider volunteering at a position that might allow you to move up towards one of those key positions in a few years.
Getting someone fully trained and ready isn't really easy anywhere. According to FIRST's own guidelines, I could apply for a head ref position at a regional; I've got the two years (at two events/year in my case) and most if not all of the rest of the requirements. According to me, I ain't anywhere near ready for that yet! (And I'd bet the other refs I've worked with--including the head refs--would say the same thing.) I figure maybe a couple more years before I even try to put in for that, if I ever do.
But, the primary reason I started reffing was because I figure that once districts arrive out here, a lot of refs are going to be needed. I haven't been wrong, though that's been because the first year was AA, and last year was a new event. (I added a second event late in both years.)
cadandcookies
31-08-2015, 20:19
You know, if I was in your shoes, I might consider volunteering at a position that might allow you to move up towards one of those key positions in a few years.
Funny enough, that's exactly what I've been doing. I started volunteering this past year with FTC and, time permitting, plan to do the same this year. The key thing being that "time permitting"-- as a student I don't know my schedule for FRC's season until at the earliest November, and at the latest January, after trying to switch things around to make volunteering a possibility. I have a great deal of love for FRC, and last year I did a great deal of work to make it possible for me to volunteer at two regionals and Championships, plus an FTC Super Regional, but as I'm pretty sure anyone who volunteers at events knows, sometimes it simply isn't possible for it to work, and that's even more of an issue for college students who are passionate about the program and want to stay involved.
GaryVoshol
31-08-2015, 20:35
Michigan had 2 head refs to cover 3 regionals in 2008.
We went to 7 district events in 2009 (plus MSC) - added one new head ref, and imported at least one head ref from outside MI to cover one of the events.
In 2010 we still had 7 district events, but now had 4 head refs - 2 new, one retired.
Last year we had 18 district events, 8 head refs (2 new).
So most of us do 2 or 3 events, plus MSC.
Now FTA's - we have a couple insane ones who work every weekend!
My point is, you can develop key volunteers as you expand. It would be a big jump the first year for MN, simply because of the size - they should have gone to districts 2 or 3 years ago. But I understand why they didn't, because they had so many new rookie teams in the years prior, they couldn't handle districts then. If they don't go to districts soon, though, the initial implementation will only get worse.
SpaceBiz
31-08-2015, 20:42
If Illinois is switching to districts they should consider adding Wisconsin into that district too. They share a population center (fairly) near Chicago, and could use it as a central location for the District Championship.
Trust me, there's still plenty of room for more people to volunteer, especially in key roles. The only reason it seems that "all the slots are taken" is because people are pulling double duty all over the place filling those roles both in Duluth and Minneapolis... and they're only doing that because we need them to in order to get the events to run. We're desperately looking for people with the "right stuff" to hold those key volunteer roles and doing our best to train them in when we do identify them. Unfortunately, they don't grow on trees.
Speaking of the discussions I've had with others helping to run things here, the common theme is "Districts are coming... and we're not ready yet". We're working on it.
Are you sure the key volunteers are only doing two events because they have to? Every single key volunteer I've ever met does multiple events because they love volunteering and would be there anyway even if they weren't needed.
Caleb Sykes
31-08-2015, 20:57
Lets put it this way... would you want to attend a district with a head ref who got the job because someone was desperately needed for the position, or one who got the job because they had been reffing for years and were identified as a good fit for the position?
Personally, I would be content with having a lower-quality head ref at my events for one year if that meant we could get to districts faster. Even if one whole district event of mine is completely ruined by a series of stupid calls, I would still participate in another whole event as well as (possibly) district championships were we in the district system, which is more than most teams have currently with one regional.
I'm probably in the minority here though.
Are you sure the key volunteers are only doing two events because they have to? Every single key volunteer I've ever met does multiple events because they love volunteering and would be there anyway even if they weren't needed.
Funny, that's how it is out here too. It also, for some reason, breeds consistency between events when the LRIs for later events drop in on earlier events to help out for a day (and the same for head referees). I can't quite figure that out ;).
That being said, most of them (out here) aren't in the key spot for all of their events. That makes life a bit easier on them, I think.
From the point of a view of a student in Indiana, prior to the 2015 season (as in Spring 2014), we were under the impression that Illinois and Indiana were going to form a district together. Not sure why that plan changed, but it probably was through FIRST mediating their smaller district trial and IndianaFIRST's and Illinois FIRST's own discussion.
As for coming years, I think that an Iowa/Illinois district makes more sense than Wisconsin/Illinois geographically. The Iowa teams may have to travel quite a bit, but then, when don't they?;) Adding Missouri in would also be pretty easy if they wanted it to be a larger Midwest district, since there would be enough teams/events that Chicago teams won't have to go to Southwest Missouri or vice versa. Also, St. Louis would be a great place for a Midwest DCMP.
Obviously, volunteer base would have to be flexible and available for such a large (area) district to work out with a lower team density than, for example, Michigan. Also, I would be sorry for Wisconsin if that district happened along with Minnesota.
IN and IL were supposed to form a district. From my understanding IL decided they weren't ready.
Im still trying to figure out why IN went to districs. We are waaay to small IMO to be a district.
IN had been preparing for the change and when IL said not this year they convinced FIRST to let them pilot the mini-district model which they did very well with.
whatever happened to getting at least northern idaho into the PNW district? The last few times just this year it seems the idea is brought up,gets a little headway, then just disappears without a trace.
As I've said in the past WFR really really wants the N. ID teams to join. Summer 2014 FIRST agreed to that plan. N. ID teams got together and decided/were convinced to not join the PNW district. Come the week before registration they changed their mind and everything was a go for the 2016 season. In the mean time plans to put a Regional in Boise popped up (not that I've seen it show up on in the system) which took the N. ID team out of eligibility to join the PNW at least for the time being.
On the plus side AK is joining PNW for the 2016 season! OK so it is only one team. They decided they wanted in, they asked WFR and we said yes they asked FIRST and they said Yes with the caveat that they need to commit long term and not decide next year that they want to go back to the Regional system. Presumably if a new team pops up in AK they will be required to join the District system.
Jacob Bendicksen
31-08-2015, 21:14
Presumably if a new team pops up in AK they will be required to join the District system.
I'm happy to see our Alaskan friends joining us in the PNW, but this has the potential to really stifle team growth in Alaska for a while. Two travel events with a reasonable likelihood of a third would be a tough sell for most schools.
I'm happy to see our Alaskan friends joining us in the PNW, but this has the potential to really stifle team growth in Alaska for a while. Two travel events with a reasonable likelihood of a third would be a tough sell for most schools.
Not just regular travel either; AIR travel.
Not just regular travel either; AIR travel.
On the other hand, I rather suspect that a particularly good (read: persuasive) teacher/set of teachers could justify spending the entire week between back-to-back events "down there" in an extended field trip. This would include such items as college visits, some trips to museums of things that might not be available back home, plenty of homework time, and any other items deemed educational by administration, faculty, and parents.
This would probably depend a lot on the school and parents agreeing, however. And I'm really not sure they could pull the same trick if they qualified for DCMP; CMP would certainly be a bit of a buzzkill on that.
I'm happy to see our Alaskan friends joining us in the PNW, but this has the potential to really stifle team growth in Alaska for a while. Two travel events with a reasonable likelihood of a third would be a tough sell for most schools.
AK really hasn't been on an expansion tear so I don't think that there is a big risk there.
Not just regular travel either; AIR travel.
And how did the AK team get to their events before, it certainly wasn't driving or a boat. Fact is traveling to Seattle is much cheaper and is quicker too than their other options. Hotels around where we hold most of our events are also much cheaper than the CA events they have been attending. So 2 events for not much more than the one they had been attending. The current team obviously thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have asked to come to the rainy PNW instead of continuing in the Regional system.
On the other hand, I rather suspect that a particularly good (read: persuasive) teacher/set of teachers could justify spending the entire week between back-to-back events "down there" in an extended field trip. This would include such items as college visits, some trips to museums of things that might not be available back home, plenty of homework time, and any other items deemed educational by administration, faculty, and parents.
This would probably depend a lot on the school and parents agreeing, however. And I'm really not sure they could pull the same trick if they qualified for DCMP; CMP would certainly be a bit of a buzzkill on that.
Well, in theory, they could go to the Week 4 and 5 district events, as well as the Week 6 DCMP all at once. CMP would be hard to pull off, definitely.
And how did the AK team get to their events before, it certainly wasn't driving or a boat. Fact is traveling to Seattle is much cheaper and is quicker too than their other options. Hotels around where we hold most of our events are also much cheaper than the CA events they have been attending. So 2 events for not much more than the one they had been attending. The current team obviously thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have asked to come to the rainy PNW instead of continuing in the Regional system.
Point made and I agree, but they'll still have to house themselves in a hotel for weeks at a time, in addition to the two round-trip flights, assuming they make it to Championship again. However, you're right, it has to either save more money/provide more educational benefit.
Minnesota's growth in recent years has slowed. We've reached a temporary plateau, but I don't expect that it will hold. There are a lot of potential teams to the northwest of the cities. However, with that said I don't think switching to districts will become more difficult over time. The oldest, active Minnesota team is just going into their 11th season. A lot of younger teams are just starting to figure things out and provide volunteers for events.
Also from conversations with smarter people than myself, I've learned that running an event of any size requires a pretty similar amount of volunteers. Especially key volunteers as you stated. That's without even considering the workload of the volunteer coordinator...
Assuming you do need to run 2 events per week for 6 weeks rather than our current 5 events (counting Iowa) during 3 different weeks, that's 7 more events in total. Focusing solely on key volunteers, it would require more than double the current number if they maintain the same workload. It's not feasible for an LRI to take 6 weekends off to help run an event.
TL;DR: As Minnesota gets older, the number of key volunteers will go up, which is the limiting factor for going to districts. The non-key volunteers will be there when we need them.
If definitely will get harder if MN waits too long. As it is they can handle things with less than 12 events, and better yet less than 11. Once the team count gets too high depending on the size of venues that are willing and fit with in the schedule you get into a situation where there needs to be 3 events on the same weekend. Now you really do have a volunteer problem and an infrastructure problem needing to worry about 3 fields worth of equipment or renting the stuff which increases the cost of an event dramatically.
The other thing is that a district event is 2/3 the length and many are on Sat/Sun and are potentially closer to home. So a person can take off the same time form work or less to volunteer at 2 district events vs 1 Regional. Since they are potentially closer to home that also means no or less cost for lodging. Add in the fact that you now have 3 times as many weekends to choose from and you get people who are willing to do 2 or maybe even 3 events when they have only done 1 Regional in the past.
Jon Stratis
31-08-2015, 22:04
Funny, that's how it is out here too. It also, for some reason, breeds consistency between events when the LRIs for later events drop in on earlier events to help out for a day (and the same for head referees). I can't quite figure that out ;).
That being said, most of them (out here) aren't in the key spot for all of their events. That makes life a bit easier on them, I think.
This.
We usually end up having all the LRI's up in Duluth, but only 2 are actually responsible for the events. There's a certain amount of prep that goes into an event if you're the LRI, and then stress during the event that I enjoy not having at every event i'm at :)
Doug Frisk
31-08-2015, 23:34
Funny enough, that's exactly what I've been doing. I started volunteering this past year with FTC and, time permitting, plan to do the same this year. The key thing being that "time permitting"-- as a student I don't know my schedule for FRC's season until at the earliest November, and at the latest January, after trying to switch things around to make volunteering a possibility. I have a great deal of love for FRC, and last year I did a great deal of work to make it possible for me to volunteer at two regionals and Championships, plus an FTC Super Regional, but as I'm pretty sure anyone who volunteers at events knows, sometimes it simply isn't possible for it to work, and that's even more of an issue for college students who are passionate about the program and want to stay involved.
Contact Laurie Shimizu, lfshimizu@gmail.com she's essentially lead volunteer coordinator for Minnesota and tell her what roles you want to volunteer in and ask her what you can do to prepare. (I think it's safe to list her email her since it's here: http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/event/17435?ProgramCode=FRC )
Create an account in VIMS and register to volunteer. https://my.usfirst.org/FIRSTPortal/Login/VIMS_Login.aspx?eventid=17435 that's the Northern Lights Regional in Duluth next year. I'll likely be there as scorekeeper again. I look forward to seeing you there.
The Iowa regional coincides with Easter , so your college may be on break and that may be an easy one to volunteer at.
But don't wait or you'll miss your chance.
cadandcookies
01-09-2015, 08:51
Contact Laurie Shimizu, lfshimizu@gmail.com she's essentially lead volunteer coordinator for Minnesota and tell her what roles you want to volunteer in and ask her what you can do to prepare. (I think it's safe to list her email her since it's here: http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/event/17435?ProgramCode=FRC )
Create an account in VIMS and register to volunteer. https://my.usfirst.org/FIRSTPortal/Login/VIMS_Login.aspx?eventid=17435 that's the Northern Lights Regional in Duluth next year. I'll likely be there as scorekeeper again. I look forward to seeing you there.
The Iowa regional coincides with Easter , so your college may be on break and that may be an easy one to volunteer at.
But don't wait or you'll miss your chance.
Thank you for the contact info; like I said, I volunteered at a couple of events last year here in Minnesota plus Champs, so I'm very aware of VIMS and Laurie (it's pretty impossible not to run into her when you've been around the FRC program here for five years!).
If everything allows, I'm definitely planning on volunteering up in Duluth for a second year as well. See you there!
logank013
01-09-2015, 12:43
Is their any website or map of how many teams are in each state? I know in Indiana, there are 49 teams. I'm Curious about the other 49 states.
If not, How did you make your map. I'd like to know for future maps. Thanks
Doug Frisk
01-09-2015, 12:53
Is their any website or map of how many teams are in each state? I know in Indiana, there are 49 teams. I'm Curious about the other 49 states.
If not, How did you make your map. I'd like to know for future maps. Thanks
http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/teams?ProgramCode=FRC&Season=2015&Country=USA&StateProv=LA
That will give you the teams in Louisiana. Replace LA with whatever state you want.
KrazyCarl92
01-09-2015, 13:06
http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/teams?ProgramCode=FRC&Season=2015&Country=USA&StateProv=LA
That will give you the teams in Louisiana. Replace LA with whatever state you want.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. This list ends up including extinct teams from the state searched.
For accurate team lists I use frclinks.com/t/MI-USA. Just replace the abbreviation and that'll give you the list you want.
frclinks is awesome
ratdude747
01-09-2015, 17:00
Im still trying to figure out why IN went to districs. We are waaay to small IMO to be a district.
A handful of reasons (as far as I have been able to tell, this is in no means official):
1. FIRST HQ- They probably wanted a small region to try it out, to disprove the notion of "too small"...
2. ...and IndianaFIRST had been looking to go this direction for some time. I've heard it mentioned as far back as CAGE Match 2013; I've gotten the impression that this was in the works long before that too.
3. More events, based on where the teams are. Before, all IN had for official events were Boilermaker (local for quite a few, but growth stunted due to venue and possibly cost limitations) and crossroads (local for nobody in 2013, and only 5188 in 2014). You see, events were based on who had the means to host a full blown regional, not on where the teams actually are. Now, we have events in Indy (local for many teams), Purdue area (also quasi-local for many), and Kokomo (Not just local, but historic too!). Teams south of Indy are still no longer local to anything, but as their numbers grow, I'm sure an event down there will be a thing (Columbus?). Not to mention that Indiana teams get two events for the price of one out of the deal, in addition to less travel.
4. Volunteers- Indiana has a relatively large and more notably, devoted volunteer base that is the special sauce needed to make a district thrive. I'd say this is the main reason why IndianaFIRST made the jump. If it counts for anything, at all four events, many of the higher volunteer positions had the same people filling the roles at all four events. I was scorekeeper at all four, and the same was true for the other key field volunteers (FTAs, Field supervisor, etc.) and most of the AV crew. Where we somewhat lack in sheer numbers, we make up for in devotion to what we do to make the events awesome for all who attend.
Despite some early hiccups and other quirks, ultimately, it worked great, especially for the teams (as far as I know, anyway). Whatever reason you want to pick, the decision, at least IMHO, was the right one.
Richard Wallace
01-09-2015, 17:32
Volunteers- Indiana has a relatively large and more notably, devoted volunteer base that is the special sauce needed...^^ This.
Indiana FRC volunteers made the IRI what it is. I would love to be in Kokomo for Week 7, but my team intends to be in Grand Rapids that weekend. ;)
logank013
02-09-2015, 09:35
Im still trying to figure out why IN went to districs. We are waaay to small IMO to be a district.
Again, these are just my thoughts. I feel like making a district where there are already a lot of teams is not very smart. The whole point of districts is to make a fairly well populated area and turn it into a very populated area. So basically, I feel like if you have enough teams to make 3 district events in an area the size of our state, switch to districts. As is, Indiana has 1 team per every 738.5 square miles. Then, due to the cheaper model, you can see more teams in that area. That's the whole point of districts. It's to make an area to have a higher frc team population density. Does that make sense?
Andrew Schreiber
02-09-2015, 11:01
My point is, you can develop key volunteers as you expand. It would be a big jump the first year for MN, simply because of the size - they should have gone to districts 2 or 3 years ago. But I understand why they didn't, because they had so many new rookie teams in the years prior, they couldn't handle districts then. If they don't go to districts soon, though, the initial implementation will only get worse.
Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.
If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.
logank013
02-09-2015, 11:11
Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.
If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.
So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.
Andrew Schreiber
02-09-2015, 11:40
So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.
I'm not sure where you're getting that I do or don't support districts. I was responding to the number of folks in this thread saying MN can't go to Districts because they are too large and their current volunteer base would be spread too thin. I proposed a solution to that problem.
As a long time Michigander and short time New Englander... I support districts. I was a volunteer the first year in MI, a volunteer in MAR the first year they went to districts, and a volunteer the first year when NE went to districts. I know the pains of going to districts fairly well.
Jimmy Nichols
02-09-2015, 11:41
I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.
That isn't the only reason the area isn't going Districts anytime soon. Also, Kentucky is not being included in any of the models.
logank013
02-09-2015, 12:03
I'm not sure where you're getting that I do or don't support districts. I was responding to the number of folks in this thread saying MN can't go to Districts because they are too large and their current volunteer base would be spread too thin. I proposed a solution to that problem.
As a long time Michigander and short time New Englander... I support districts. I was a volunteer the first year in MI, a volunteer in MAR the first year they went to districts, and a volunteer the first year when NE went to districts. I know the pains of going to districts fairly well.
Ah. Got you. I wasn't meaning to say you did/ didn't support districts. I was just curious if the only reason people in MN are against districts for the sole reason of volunteers. Hopefully that make thing clearer ;)
Doug Frisk
02-09-2015, 12:06
So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.
The volunteer issue is one thing and over 3 or 4 years could be addressed.
The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.
Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.
That's not loud, that's LOUD.:eek: :ahh: :eek: :ahh: :eek:
Minnesota would lose that going to districts.
People talk about how districts are awesome because teams get two plays where they'll see maybe 60 or 70 different teams across those events. But in Minnesota there's already 122 other teams at these double regionals. It would be a step backward for teams in Minnesota.
Not to mention, we've had Chinese, and Turkish teams at Minnesota events. We've had the Hawaiian Kids out. We'd lose those international and long distance participants if we went to districts.
Quite frankly FIRST should be using Minnesota as a model for the rest of the program, not trying to move Minnesota away from what is currently the loudest program in the world.
Andrew Schreiber
02-09-2015, 12:08
Quite frankly FIRST should be using Minnesota as a model for the rest of the program, not trying to move Minnesota away from what is currently the loudest program in the world.
... [citation needed]
The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.
Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.
That's not loud, that's LOUD.:eek: :ahh: :eek: :ahh: :eek:
Minnesota would lose that going to districts.
People talk about how districts are awesome because teams get two plays where they'll see maybe 60 or 70 different teams across those events. But in Minnesota there's already 122 other teams at these double regionals. It would be a step backward for teams in Minnesota.
Sounds like it would make an excellent State Championship.
On the other hand, I rather suspect that a particularly good (read: persuasive) teacher/set of teachers could justify spending the entire week between back-to-back events "down there" in an extended field trip. This would include such items as college visits, some trips to museums of things that might not be available back home, plenty of homework time, and any other items deemed educational by administration, faculty, and parents.
If you're an Alaskan school new to FRC, are you more likely to approve giving students an entire week off to go to two highschools in Washington, or giving them a single weekend at a big convention center in San Jose/LA/Salt Lake City/wherever?
Districts are great, but they don't belong everywhere, especially not Alaska.
logank013
02-09-2015, 12:26
Districts are great, but they don't belong everywhere, especially not Alaska.
Totally agreed. You probably should have around 50 teams to go to districts. You may be able to get away with 45 teams but assuming you have at minimum, 32 teams go to District Champs, you need around 50 teams. That's basically where Indiana was last year.
Kevin Leonard
02-09-2015, 13:06
Minnesota doesn't have enough volunteers, Regions X, Y, and Z don't have enough teams.
You know where has a large number of teams and a large volunteer base with dozens of teams that only get 8 or 9 qualification matches total for their registration fee? NEW YORK
There was obviously an in-depth thread about districts in New York a while back, but almost every team in the state would benefit greatly from districts.
Upstate teams that currently travel to get to two events can now have two events for the price of one, and possibly closer by. Downstate teams that currently attend one event can now attend two for the price of one, with more matches/event. Teams that build tremendous machines both upstate and downstate, but fail to win regionals can now have an opportunity to compete at higher levels if they choose.
Logistics issues include the great distances between upstate and downstate, and the location of a district championship, but these wouldn't affect the majority of teams in the state, and teams both upstate and downstate have close-knit networks of teams and sponsors that can assist with travel fees if necessary.
This would be huge for teams that consistently build good machines, but have trouble winning events with the intense competition at New York events, like 229, 694, 1126, 1511, 2791, as well as help bolster smart teams with lower resources, like 5236.
it could also help to spur team growth in New York City, as well as more sparsely populated areas of the state, like Central New York and the Adirondacks.
So please New York. Get it together and let's make districts happen for 2017 or 2018.
Jon Stratis
02-09-2015, 13:35
Sounds like it would make an excellent State Championship.
It does. We've had a State Championship each of the past 4 years, sponsored by the Minnesota State High School League, the same organization that runs all the football, hockey, soccer, etc across the state. It's the oldest high school league sponsored championship around.
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is our existing relationships with certain organizations in the state... For example, the University of Minnesota, which makes our Minneapolis double regional possible. You really can't understate the value the U of M or MSHSL places on FIRST and our current level of interaction with them. Switching to districts would affect both those relationships, something that needs to be done very carefully. It wouldn't be good to tick off some of the biggest event sponsors we have...
logank013
02-09-2015, 14:04
It does. We've had a State Championship each of the past 4 years, sponsored by the Minnesota State High School League, the same organization that runs all the football, hockey, soccer, etc across the state. It's the oldest high school league sponsored championship around.
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is our existing relationships with certain organizations in the state... For example, the University of Minnesota, which makes our Minneapolis double regional possible. You really can't understate the value the U of M or MSHSL places on FIRST and our current level of interaction with them. Switching to districts would affect both those relationships, something that needs to be done very carefully. It wouldn't be good to tick off some of the biggest event sponsors we have...
I see what your saying about sponsors. I actually never thought for about how much sponsors affect the events. AndyMark being in Indiana helps by sponsoring I believe all of the district events. I bet that's why the Championship is in Kokomo since that's where they are located I believe. They make the district model work well. The only bad thing about switching to districts in Indiana sponsor wise is that there is now no event at Purdue and they sponsor 3 teams. I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.
Peyton Yeung
02-09-2015, 14:59
...The only bad thing about switching to districts in Indiana sponsor wise is that there is now no event at Purdue and they sponsor 3 teams. I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.
There are four teams in the Lafayette/West Lafayette area sponsored by Purdue FIRST. The fact that we are not hosting a district event at Purdue this year does not affect the sponsorship to the teams.
I bet that's why the Championship is in Kokomo since that's where they are located I believe.
Like I mentioned in the Indiana thread, dates and locations for Indiana districts this year were mostly driven by venue availibility.
jajabinx124
02-09-2015, 15:25
I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.
Purdue has a college organization for FIRST alumni that mentors FRC, FTC, and FLL teams around the Lafayette/West Lafayette area I believe (I found this out when I visited the Purdue University campus this summer, here is the link (https://engineering.purdue.edu/PUFIRST/) to their website).
ehochstein
02-09-2015, 16:01
Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.
If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.
I work with a lot of different FRC teams in Minnesota, often times I get the late night phone call or email from a coach that needs help installing labview on their computer, or needs help figuring out how to CAD or just wants general support on building, programming or wiring of their robot. During the build season I'll be up late at night answering these emails trying to support teams to the best of my ability. Currently we don't have enough experience in Minnesota to truly run 192 FRC teams the way they are supposed to be run, in my opinion, about 50 of the teams are missing out on the full FRC inspiration and experience due to not having enough experience in the state. If you were to reduce the number of teams and switch to districts at the same time, you could more effectively reach and inspire the students Minnesota. You would be getting more bang for your buck.
I said it once and I'll say it again, the biggest issue with MN not going to districts at the moment is the fact we don't have a non-profit. We could have all of the volunteers in the world but if we don't have an organization running it, we will still not have districts.
The volunteer issue is one thing and over 3 or 4 years could be addressed.
The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.
Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.
That's not loud, that's LOUD.:eek: :ahh: :eek: :ahh: :eek:
Minnesota would lose that going to districts.
People talk about how districts are awesome because teams get two plays where they'll see maybe 60 or 70 different teams across those events. But in Minnesota there's already 122 other teams at these double regionals. It would be a step backward for teams in Minnesota.
Not to mention, we've had Chinese, and Turkish teams at Minnesota events. We've had the Hawaiian Kids out. We'd lose those international and long distance participants if we went to districts.
Quite frankly FIRST should be using Minnesota as a model for the rest of the program, not trying to move Minnesota away from what is currently the loudest program in the world.
Who won the Make it Loud Award at championships last year and what state was he from? What was the reasoning he won the Make it Loud Award? Here is a link if you don't remember. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136568)
As a coach of a FRC team in Minnesota I feel it would be a step forward to switch to districts. Right now, my team gets 10 qualification matches in a good year for $5000, if we were in districts, we would be getting 24 matches for the same amount of money. In addition to that, there would be a potential to host a district event at our high school on a Friday which would in turn cause the school population as a whole to get more involved. Our cafeteria is right next to the Main Gym and it is pretty much impossible to miss anything going on in the gym during lunch.
KrazyCarl92
02-09-2015, 16:05
This excuse about different regions not having enough volunteers to go to districts is silly. Having just moved to Southwestern Ohio, I begin to think about where I would volunteer at events if I choose to. Why would I volunteer at an Ohio event and take 2 days off from work when I could take 1 day off and volunteer at a district event in Indiana? If I have to use personal vacation time, quite simply I wouldn't.
In each of these regions that claim to "not have enough volunteers" there are plenty of people for which the marginal difference between 2 vacation days vs. 0 or 1 vacation days to volunteer at an event is a significant difference. So by going to districts more people will choose to volunteer. And I'm aware this isn't the case for everyone, but Saturday-Sunday district events would make the choice to volunteer very easy for me.
So please New York. Get it together and let's make districts happen for 2017 or 2018.
Where do I sign up to volunteer? ;)
Jon Stratis
02-09-2015, 16:43
This excuse about different regions not having enough volunteers to go to districts is silly. Having just moved to Southwestern Ohio, I begin to think about where I would volunteer at events if I choose to. Why would I volunteer at an Ohio event and take 2 days off from work when I could take 1 day off and volunteer at a district event in Indiana? If I have to use personal vacation time, quite simply I wouldn't.
In each of these regions that claim to "not have enough volunteers" there are plenty of people for which the marginal difference between 2 vacation days vs. 0 or 1 vacation days to volunteer at an event is a significant difference. So by going to districts more people will choose to volunteer. And I'm aware this isn't the case for everyone, but Saturday-Sunday district events would make the choice to volunteer very easy for me.
Where do I sign up to volunteer? ;)
The issue isn't a "number of bodies" thing - switching formats means reducing the number of vacation days and (hopefully) decreasing travel distance to events. The problem is the number of experienced and trained Key Volunteers. I don't care how many new volunteers you get, you can't take someone with no experience and make them an LRI, Head Ref, or FTA overnight. It takes experience at events and some amount of training from people already in those roles before you can step up.
Plus, most volunteers get signed up in VIMS and committed in the December-February time frame... I know myself and the other MN LRI's were asked to commit last month for specific events this upcoming season - that's at least 6 months in advance, if not more. It's hard to find that level of commitment, to find people willing to commit for events well before their teams has even decided where it's going.
If MN had switched to districts 2 years ago, I would have been asked to be LRI at an event every weekend. As it stands now, I've been able to recruit enough other LRI's that I would only need to do 3 district events this year (and with the other identified LRI's we're starting training plans for, pretty soon that will be reduced to 2, even if the number of potential district events increases). Other Key Volunteer positions aren't in as good of shape here, not yet.
Brian Maher
02-09-2015, 17:31
The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.
Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.
That's not loud, that's LOUD.:eek: :ahh: :eek: :ahh: :eek:
Sounds like it would make an excellent State Championship.
The Duluth double-regional venue would probably make for a rather loud two-field state championship similar to Michigan's this year.
If MN sends half of its 192 teams (96) to MNSC, each team could have 12 qualifications matches with 96 matches played on each field, which is comparable to the current Duluth regionals (90 qualification matches at NLR, 95 at LSR).
Bryan Herbst
02-09-2015, 19:01
The Duluth double-regional venue would probably make for a rather loud two-field state championship similar to Michigan's this year.
If MN sends half of its 192 teams (96) to MNSC, each team could have 12 qualifications matches with 96 matches played on each field, which is comparable to the current Duluth regionals (90 qualification matches at NLR, 95 at LSR).
Duluth wouldn't make a ton of sense for a state championship location. While the venue is fantastic for accommodating two fields and large number of teams, it is about two hours from the Twin Cities, where the vast majority of MN FRC teams are from. While that isn't prohibitive for most (any?) teams in terms of sheer distance, it does mean that most teams would need to get hotel rooms. It also means fewer spectators, as parents would have to make the trek, and you wouldn't have nearly as big of a population to pull in random passer-bys.
If we are talking about a bigger-than-just-Minnesota district, the Twin Cities becomes even more attractive.
But talking about a (in-season) state (or bigger) championship is getting far from the original discussion, and is jumping the gun by at least a year anyway.
logank013
02-09-2015, 19:11
Thanks for all that replied to my thoughts about the Purdue sponsorships. I honestly didn't know anything for sure I was just guessing (I always forget to mention that in my posts ;) ) thanks for commenting because now I know the facts ;)
I said it once and I'll say it again, the biggest issue with MN not going to districts at the moment is the fact we don't have a non-profit. We could have all of the volunteers in the world but if we don't have an organization running it, we will still not have districts.
The mechanics of setting up a non profit is not a big deal, it is having the people who are willing to step up and do it that is the issue. I'm pretty sure that before joining the District system IN didn't have a non profit. I know you know the Executive Director of that organization and she stepped into the job as part of the switch to the District System.
The issue isn't a "number of bodies" thing - switching formats means reducing the number of vacation days and (hopefully) decreasing travel distance to events. The problem is the number of experienced and trained Key Volunteers. I don't care how many new volunteers you get, you can't take someone with no experience and make them an LRI, Head Ref, or FTA overnight. It takes experience at events and some amount of training from people already in those roles before you can step up.
Plus, most volunteers get signed up in VIMS and committed in the December-February time frame... I know myself and the other MN LRI's were asked to commit last month for specific events this upcoming season - that's at least 6 months in advance, if not more. It's hard to find that level of commitment, to find people willing to commit for events well before their teams has even decided where it's going.
If MN had switched to districts 2 years ago, I would have been asked to be LRI at an event every weekend. As it stands now, I've been able to recruit enough other LRI's that I would only need to do 3 district events this year (and with the other identified LRI's we're starting training plans for, pretty soon that will be reduced to 2, even if the number of potential district events increases). Other Key Volunteer positions aren't in as good of shape here, not yet.
When the PNW district was formed we had 2 LRIs, I FTA, 2 head refs. We recruited the FTAs who did their basic training at our off season events. We had people who had been RIs and Refs step up and agree to those lead positions. The first season we did have a couple of those key volunteers do 3 events, including CMP with 11 events. Last year no one did more than 2 other than our Chief LRI stepping in at an extra event when the LRI at one event was very sick and she was sent home.
In the PNW it really was a case of build it and they will come.
Chief Hedgehog
03-09-2015, 02:39
I love this thread. It has provided great fodder for the MNFIRST higher-ups to chew on.
Here is what I see - and this is my own opinion:
MN is an anomaly for a few reasons:
1. MN grew so large so quickly - MNFirst is not sure what is a 'trend' or what is a 'growth pang'.
2. MN has 4 incredible regionals that draw in teams from around the US and the rest of the world - it would be hard to step away from this model. The media coverage of all four events is incredible.
3. MN is not done growing. Most MPLS/StPaul area teams are now maturing into strong teams; almost all Duluth area/Arrowhead/Iron Range schools have teams; the southeast has been covered and most students have access to a team. However, the Central Minnesota area is still an untapped resource. The areas around St Cloud and Mankato have the potential to produce another 30-50 teams.
4. Because of the strong, rapid growth, it is hard to gather/train a large volunteer army - and MNFIRST is doing all that they can to help this!
5. The MSHSL adopting FRC as the State's Robotics High School program proves to be an issue. It is not the sole fact that the MSHSL adopted FRC - it is the fact that the State Tournament happens on the calendar constraints of the UofM.
6. The UofM has been a great partner with MNFIRST. If MNFIRST decides to stray from the Regional Model, we could lose the UofM as one of our oldest and best sponsors. I am not ready to accept that outcome.
7. MN needs another regional - possibly two - to gather the support from the local communities and the state's top companies to throw their support behind FRC. IF St Cloud can gain enough support (from the local companies) to bring in a FRC Regional, this could be the lynchpin for MN going to Districts.
8. ALL of MN's regionals happen on the East side (including the new IA regional) of the state. Because of this, there is no growth in volunteer numbers in the greater part of MN.
In fact, some of the larger high schools in Minnesota do not yet have an FRC team. Saint Michael-Albertville, Rogers, St Cloud Tech, St Cloud Apollo, Sartell, Princeton, and 30 other schools in Central MN do not have their own FRC team. Students from these schools have to join other teams or be apart of a conjoined team.
What most people don't realize is that St Cloud is the HUB of manufacturing in Minnesota. It is not that St Cloud has more manufacturers that other metro areas in MN - it is that the greater St Cloud area (Central MN) hosts a great many mid-level manufacturers that have not yet seen the benefits of FRC in their local communities. The CMMA (Central Minnesota Manufacturers Association) has recently started a program to help sponsor teams in the area. If the business and hospitality communities see the benefit, St Cloud has a real chance of gaining the next Regional in MN.
The next hurdle for MN is St Cloud State University. IF SCSU can come into the fold of MNFIRST - and provide MNFIRST the same ammenities that the UofM does, then Central MN can start to grow additional Volunteers. Until then, we will be relegated to bringing up Volunteer talent in the east - or from WI, IL, etc.
Before MN goes to districts, I would like to see two more Regionals. One in St Cloud, and one in Mankato. If MNFIRST finds a way for these to happen, then I see MN going to districts in short order.
And I like Regionals. It is like a poker tournament in the final round - all chips in from all participants. It also allows for great team-building events for those that have to travel great distances...
logank013
03-09-2015, 07:09
I love this thread. It has provided great fodder for the MNFIRST higher-ups to chew on.
Here is what I see - and this is my own opinion:
MN is an anomaly for a few reasons:
1. MN grew so large so quickly - MNFirst is not sure what is a 'trend' or what is a 'growth pang'.
2. MN has 4 incredible regionals that draw in teams from around the US and the rest of the world - it would be hard to step away from this model. The media coverage of all four events is incredible.
3. MN is not done growing. Most MPLS/StPaul area teams are now maturing into strong teams; almost all Duluth area/Arrowhead/Iron Range schools have teams; the southeast has been covered and most students have access to a team. However, the Central Minnesota area is still an untapped resource. The areas around St Cloud and Mankato have the potential to produce another 30-50 teams.
4. Because of the strong, rapid growth, it is hard to gather/train a large volunteer army - and MNFIRST is doing all that they can to help this!
5. The MSHSL adopting FRC as the State's Robotics High School program proves to be an issue. It is not the sole fact that the MSHSL adopted FRC - it is the fact that the State Tournament happens on the calendar constraints of the UofM.
6. The UofM has been a great partner with MNFIRST. If MNFIRST decides to stray from the Regional Model, we could lose the UofM as one of our oldest and best sponsors. I am not ready to accept that outcome.
7. MN needs another regional - possibly two - to gather the support from the local communities and the state's top companies to throw their support behind FRC. IF St Cloud can gain enough support (from the local companies) to bring in a FRC Regional, this could be the lynchpin for MN going to Districts.
8. ALL of MN's regionals happen on the East side (including the new IA regional) of the state. Because of this, there is no growth in volunteer numbers in the greater part of MN.
In fact, some of the larger high schools in Minnesota do not yet have an FRC team. Saint Michael-Albertville, Rogers, St Cloud Tech, St Cloud Apollo, Sartell, Princeton, and 30 other schools in Central MN do not have their own FRC team. Students from these schools have to join other teams or be apart of a conjoined team.
What most people don't realize is that St Cloud is the HUB of manufacturing in Minnesota. It is not that St Cloud has more manufacturers that other metro areas in MN - it is that the greater St Cloud area (Central MN) hosts a great many mid-level manufacturers that have not yet seen the benefits of FRC in their local communities. The CMMA (Central Minnesota Manufacturers Association) has recently started a program to help sponsor teams in the area. If the business and hospitality communities see the benefit, St Cloud has a real chance of gaining the next Regional in MN.
The next hurdle for MN is St Cloud State University. IF SCSU can come into the fold of MNFIRST - and provide MNFIRST the same ammenities that the UofM does, then Central MN can start to grow additional Volunteers. Until then, we will be relegated to bringing up Volunteer talent in the east - or from WI, IL, etc.
Before MN goes to districts, I would like to see two more Regionals. One in St Cloud, and one in Mankato. If MNFIRST finds a way for these to happen, then I see MN going to districts in short order.
And I like Regionals. It is like a poker tournament in the final round - all chips in from all participants. It also allows for great team-building events for those that have to travel great distances...
I'm curious about a few things since I've never participated in the regional model before. So what would adding two regionals add to benefit FIRST in MN? Is it just to get the community to rally behind districts? Or would that be to help MN train volunteers to the higher positions. If MN adds more regionals, more teams would join and MN would be in the same situation. MN would need more districts with more teams after adding more regionals. Either which way MN goes, MN will need more volunteers. MN had 192 teams last year. NE district had 175 teams last year. They had 10 district events and the championship. MN would probably need around 10-12 district event and the championship. The championship would be Like a regional volunteer wise so the 10-12 district events would be like the volunteers from 3 regionals. With that said, district events are smaller which requires a little less volunteers (by my guess) since each district event would be around 35-42 teams where the regionals in MN were around 62 teams at each. NE had a district championship with 60 teams so that would be the equivalent of a regional. The. You could host that event at a regional facility. My thoughts are, if MN adds more regionals or they switch to districts, the volunteer problem would still be there. The only reason to stick with regionals over districts would be due to Sponsors, lack community support, or lack of facilities. And I feel like sponsors wouldn't care as much because with districts, you'll be able to send more teams to worlds. Last year, NE had a guaranteed 35 spots not including wait list. MN only had 24 spots guaranteed last year if my math is correct. And NE is a smaller district. So I could see MN having 38 spots for worlds. That would make many robot sponsors happy, wouldn't it? Thanks for reading. I'm curious to see how close or far off I am. ;)
Jon Stratis
03-09-2015, 08:11
5. The MSHSL adopting FRC as the State's Robotics High School program proves to be an issue. It is not the sole fact that the MSHSL adopted FRC - it is the fact that the State Tournament happens on the calendar constraints of the UofM.
Just a note on this... Yes, we have to work with the U of M calendar to get a venue for the State Championship, but that time of year it's actually not that difficult. The hockey arena across the street (you know, the build with AC) is usually being used for graduation stuff, but where we are isn't (probably because it has no A.C.!). For a large part the Championship date is based on the earliest date we can expect robots to be shipped back from Champs with expedited shipping. That is really our biggest constraint in scheduling it each year.
Alan Anderson
03-09-2015, 10:40
The mechanics of setting up a non profit is not a big deal, it is having the people who are willing to step up and do it that is the issue. I'm pretty sure that before joining the District system IN didn't have a non profit.
According to my email archive, IndianaFIRST, Inc. was established as a 501(c)3 organization in summer 2011. The first IRS records I found were from April 2012. Districts in Indiana starting being pursued in earnest more than a year later, with a pilot "state championship" event, and didn't come about until the 2015 season.
6. The UofM has been a great partner with MNFIRST. If MNFIRST decides to stray from the Regional Model, we could lose the UofM as one of our oldest and best sponsors. I am not ready to accept that outcome.
Is there any actual reason you believe this could be the case?
Doug Frisk
03-09-2015, 12:11
Is there any actual reason you believe this could be the case?
The two Minneapolis regionals are hosted on the U of M campus. During the regionals there are continuous tours of campus departments which has led to a measurable uptick in students attending the U of M College of Science and Engineering.
That level of involvement with the school would be difficult in a district model where participation from the U of M would likely be a kid behind a 2'x6' table with some pamphlets.
That level of involvement with the school would be difficult in a district model where participation from the U of M would likely be a kid behind a 2'x6' table with some pamphlets.
Source?
cadandcookies
03-09-2015, 12:57
The two Minneapolis regionals are hosted on the U of M campus. During the regionals there are continuous tours of campus departments which has led to a measurable uptick in students attending the U of M College of Science and Engineering.
That level of involvement with the school would be difficult in a district model where participation from the U of M would likely be a kid behind a 2'x6' table with some pamphlets.
I mean, to me, UMN seems like the most likely candidate for holding the State Championship event, provided that was a typical 60 team event. Unless something changes, I don't see UMN support for the program waning any time soon-- I know the Dean of the College of Science and Engineering is a fan of the program and getting a variety of students on campus. And even if we didn't have the State Championship here, I would be very surprised if we didn't have at least one District event.
Jon Stratis
03-09-2015, 13:04
The two Minneapolis regionals are hosted on the U of M campus. During the regionals there are continuous tours of campus departments which has led to a measurable uptick in students attending the U of M College of Science and Engineering.
That level of involvement with the school would be difficult in a district model where participation from the U of M would likely be a kid behind a 2'x6' table with some pamphlets.
I wouldn't go that far. I think it's highly likely that the U of M would be doing everything possible to host the District Championship at that point, which, as a 3 day event, would give them the same impact they have today. This assumption, however, hinges on two rather important points. First, that the U of M can get us into the schedule every year on week 7. With a regional model, it's a lot easier as we can easily move around a bit - week 5 vs week 6 doesn't make much of a difference. Second, we have to assume that we could fit a form of district championship into the U of M facilities. If it's just 60 teams, that's easy. If it's more, it becomes significantly harder. If we need to do it like Michigan with 2 fields, it would need to be split into two separate events like the double regional now, or moved to a different facility where we could fit 120 teams and 2 fields under the same roof (like the DECC).
But however things end up shaking out in the coming years, I think it's safe to say that both FIRST and the U of M are interested in maintaining and strengthening our relationship.
Andrew Schreiber
03-09-2015, 13:08
The two Minneapolis regionals are hosted on the U of M campus. During the regionals there are continuous tours of campus departments which has led to a measurable uptick in students attending the U of M College of Science and Engineering.
That level of involvement with the school would be difficult in a district model where participation from the U of M would likely be a kid behind a 2'x6' table with some pamphlets.
Let me apply some facts to your hand wringing...
Kettering which, while always a huge supporter of FIRST (thanks for paying for college guys), went from a small off season event to holding an official event running tours, giving NEW scholarships, building an entire space for local FRC teams to practice, hosting workshops, and even announcing winners of scholarships as part of the closing ceremonies of MSC (which is televised). FRC alumni at Kettering during this time rose from ~9% of the student body to ~%25 and, from what I've heard, has continued growing.
- One of the students who was responsible for FRC recruitment from 2008-2011
Aren Siekmeier
03-09-2015, 14:04
Also remember that Kettering continues to host a district event. It doesn't have to be a 60 team regional (or two of them). MN could easily fit a 40 team Twin Cities district event in each of Williams and Mariucci, in fact it would be much more comfortable.
I understand that what we have right now seems pretty cool. But change doesn't mean completely losing that, just modifying it. Smaller, more numerous events is important for the involvement and inspiration of more kids in our area, and we want to make it cooler.
DCMP is also a great candidate for the U. I personally like the giant 100 team type event MI is going for, and this might be necessary if FIRST keeps inviting so many teams to champs (192/2892 teams in MN earns 53 spots at an 800 team doublechamps), but this could require a different venue. However, I don't doubt our resourceful volunteers, organizers, supporters, and sponsors will come up with something, in any case.
Edit: Also wanted to mention that the DECC could work great for a double district event, with 80 teams instead of 120, also less crowded...
Aren Siekmeier
03-09-2015, 15:29
This is a good read for this discussion, especially the first page and a half. Especially especially Q4.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2804
logank013
03-09-2015, 15:40
As some were saying above, the University would be great for a DCMP. NE FIRST with 175 teams had 60 teams at their DCMP with a total of 35 going to Worlds. That would be perfect for a regional sized DCMP. MN would have like 62 teams at DCMP and send 36 teams or so to worlds. That's be good for the university I would think except it would be only 1 regional versus 2.
Bryan Herbst
03-09-2015, 17:10
The next hurdle for MN is St Cloud State University. IF SCSU can come into the fold of MNFIRST - and provide MNFIRST the same ammenities that the UofM does, then Central MN can start to grow additional Volunteers. Until then, we will be relegated to bringing up Volunteer talent in the east - or from WI, IL, etc.
I'm not buying it.
While I fully agree that St. Cloud is a great opportunity for FIRST in MN, I don't believe that starting an event there (or switching to districts) will make more volunteers start showing up.
I understand it has worked in other regions of the US, but we haven't seen that success in MN. Despite the Duluth regionals having been around for a few years, we are still in an incredibly difficult uphill battle to get more volunteers from Duluth to volunteer for Duluth events.
I'm not buying it.
While I fully agree that St. Cloud is a great opportunity for FIRST in MN, I don't believe that starting an event there (or switching to districts) will make more volunteers start showing up.
I understand it has worked in other regions of the US, but we haven't seen that success in MN. Despite the Duluth regionals having been around for a few years, we are still in an incredibly difficult uphill battle to get more volunteers from Duluth to volunteer for Duluth events.
Because everyone is too busy competing at Duluth because there are only 2 weeks of regionals...
Minnesota is the only region that does this and appears to be the only region in which the "start it and they will come (re: volunteers)" model isn't working.
ehochstein
03-09-2015, 18:34
I understand it has worked in other regions of the US, but we haven't seen that success in MN. Despite the Duluth regionals having been around for a few years, we are still in an incredibly difficult uphill battle to get more volunteers from Duluth to volunteer for Duluth events.
I've seen volunteers turned away at the Duluth Regional because we already had too many helping hands. I've spoken with potential volunteers that signed up and then were told they were no longer needed when they arrived at the event.
I've seen volunteers turned away at the Duluth Regional because we already had too many helping hands. I've spoken with potential volunteers that signed up and then were told they were no longer needed when they arrived at the event.
From earlier posts, it seems that Minnesota is short of key volunteers. It's not a head count problem.
Caleb Sykes
03-09-2015, 23:05
This is a good read for this discussion, especially the first page and a half. Especially especially Q4.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2804
After reading through Q2, I think what Minnesota needs is to lose many of its key sponsors of FRC :p, I guess I'll get to work on that since no one else will.
On a more serious note, I think there is something very important to be taken from Q2, which is that Michigan needed a catalyst for change before they invented this crazy new system. Right now, I don't see any major catalyst in MN pushing us along into districts, part of me hopes I'm wrong.
Right now, I don't see any major catalyst in MN pushing us along into districts, part of me hopes I'm wrong.
Seems like FIRST HQ is trying to push all feasible regions into districts.
Aren Siekmeier
04-09-2015, 07:09
After reading through Q2, I think what Minnesota needs is to lose many of its key sponsors of FRC :p, I guess I'll get to work on that since no one else will.
On a more serious note, I think there is something very important to be taken from Q2, which is that Michigan needed a catalyst for change before they invented this crazy new system. Right now, I don't see any major catalyst in MN pushing us along into districts, part of me hopes I'm wrong.
:confused:
We have that catalyst. We cannot expect more team growth, or even many existing teams to do well, unless the program becomes less expensive. An indirect way to do this is to provide more opportunities for the same cost to the teams. MI also reduces their own costs, which allows them to go further with the contributions they get. Right now FIRST isn't entertaining any reductions in reg costs, but this is the most direct way to reduce team expenses. PNW's latest approach to its finances also puts pressure on their organization to reduce its costs.
Going to districts is not downsizing. It's making current operations more efficient to enable upsizing.
Akash Rastogi
04-09-2015, 11:27
Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.
If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.
This is a fantastic idea and makes the most sense when it comes to sustainability. Problem is that many people in the FRC world don't have too much common sense when it comes to sustainability and even FIRST just wants more teams even if they flounder around and waste grant money and funding from sponsors.
Personally, I think combining teams would be a cool idea. Difficult logistically, perhaps, but effective nonetheless.
Alex2614
04-09-2015, 13:43
I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.
I can definitely see either a SoCal+Arizona and a NorCal+Nevada district, or just a combined California (but that is A LOT of driving...we drove from SF to San Diego on our honeymoon, and I would NOT want to drive it for a competition). I'm surprised Texas isn't already a district. New York+Southern Ontario is a possibility as well, but I'm sure that district would get swallowed up by the Canadian teams there, so I'm not sure how much New York would really WANT to be in that district.
I can't wait for this to happen! I think the issue of volunteers is the same as everywhere else. You won't get enough volunteers until we actually make the switch, because there are currently fewer volunteer spots in the first place. Nobody is going to volunteer for a regional if all/most of the volunteer spots are filled, because they think that they will just be standing around doing nothing. But if there were a shortage of volunteers, you would see more. For example, there currently are not any FRC events in WV (WVROX 2014 was the first ever), so there are practically no FRC volunteers in our state, except for those that volunteer where their team competes. However, if we were to host a district event in West Virginia, we would get the volunteers. In addition, districts makes it easier to start teams, therefore getting more people involved in FRC to volunteer. Plus, we have many parents that would volunteer at events, but can't travel as far as we do for regionals (they can't get off to go 6 hours away with us). But if there were a district event in their hometown or very close by, they would be more likely to volunteer. I'm sure we aren't alone in this.
This was the main concern for WVROX. We thought getting enough volunteers was going to be mission impossible. But, people pulled through, and we ended up getting enough and then some. We probably would have had more if WVU hadn't cut off volunteer registration so early. Most of our volunteers, with the exception of a handful of people were first-time FRC volunteers. And they would volunteer at a future WV district event, I have no doubt.
It's like a "build it and they will come" kind of thing. You're likely not going to get enough volunteers until there are enough volunteer slots to put the people into.
Lil' Lavery
08-09-2015, 10:26
This is a fantastic idea and makes the most sense when it comes to sustainability. Problem is that many people in the FRC world don't have too much common sense when it comes to sustainability and even FIRST just wants more teams even if they flounder around and waste grant money and funding from sponsors.
Personally, I think combining teams would be a cool idea. Difficult logistically, perhaps, but effective nonetheless.
I think this is ridiculous. I'm certainly not a proponent of "expand at all cost" or measuring program health by team quantity, but suggesting to combine existing and sustaining teams for the sake of reducing headcount is absurd.
In certain scenarios it may work out beneficially (especially for teams that are currently floundering), but to use it as a blanket statement is far fetched. The vast majority of teams operate in a school-based system for a reason. While there are plenty of success stories outside of that system, don't interpret that to mean that any team can break away from their school and survive. Once you start merging teams, you're breaking that school-based system. You're forcing teams to haggle with logistics (student transportation/liability/meeting times/recruitment/funding/etc) that they wouldn't have to otherwise. In many cases, interested students may not be able to participate in a function that requires them to be transported off campus or meet outside of traditional afterschool hours.
In other words, what good is creating "sustaining" teams if you reduce the capacity for those teams to positively impact their students and community?
Andrew Schreiber
08-09-2015, 11:13
I think this is ridiculous. I'm certainly not a proponent of "expand at all cost" or measuring program health by team quantity, but suggesting to combine existing and sustaining teams for the sake of reducing headcount is absurd.
In certain scenarios it may work out beneficially (especially for teams that are currently floundering), but to use it as a blanket statement is far fetched. The vast majority of teams operate in a school-based system for a reason. While there are plenty of success stories outside of that system, don't interpret that to mean that any team can break away from their school and survive. Once you start merging teams, you're breaking that school-based system. You're forcing teams to haggle with logistics (student transportation/liability/meeting times/recruitment/funding/etc) that they wouldn't have to otherwise. In many cases, interested students may not be able to participate in a function that requires them to be transported off campus or meet outside of traditional afterschool hours.
In other words, what good is creating "sustaining" teams if you reduce the capacity for those teams to positively impact their students and community?
I've never found the One School One Team model to be better than the One Team One Community model. Would it be optimal? Possibly, I don't have anything but anecdotal data on the benefits or drawbacks of that model (and, to my knowledge there's nothing BUT anecdotal knowledge out there, if I'm wrong send me the study)
I proposed this culling partially in jest but mostly because I wanted to get folks talking about the idea of merging teams to increase sustainability, student impact, and community impact.
Let's talk about the hierarchy of needs for teams.
1. Build Robot
2. Build functional Robot
3. Build reliable Robot
4. Build elimination caliber Robot
5. Do other stuff a team should do
If two teams are both sitting at level 1, maybe combining their resources could get them to 2 or 3... which, as someone who has been at level 1 before, is substantially less sucky.
It just seems like a bad situation where we incentivize folks to grow teams but we don't really seem to care if the teams are inspiring students and communities. I've said it before but a failed team is worse than never having had a team there.
Alan Anderson
08-09-2015, 11:40
I've never found the One School One Team model to be better than the One Team One Community model...
Let's talk about the hierarchy of needs for teams.
1. Build Robot
2. Build functional Robot
3. Build reliable Robot
4. Build elimination caliber Robot
5. Do other stuff a team should do
"Attend a competition" has to be somewhere in there. A school-sponsored team usually has a much easier time getting permission from the school for students to do that.
I've said it before but a failed team is worse than never having had a team there.
That's one opinion. Others might be "a failed team at least raises awareness that the program exists" or "a failed team provides a starting point for doing it again but better".
Jon Stratis
08-09-2015, 11:46
I've never found the One School One Team model to be better than the One Team One Community model. Would it be optimal? Possibly, I don't have anything but anecdotal data on the benefits or drawbacks of that model (and, to my knowledge there's nothing BUT anecdotal knowledge out there, if I'm wrong send me the study)
I proposed this culling partially in jest but mostly because I wanted to get folks talking about the idea of merging teams to increase sustainability, student impact, and community impact.
Let's talk about the hierarchy of needs for teams.
1. Build Robot
2. Build functional Robot
3. Build reliable Robot
4. Build elimination caliber Robot
5. Do other stuff a team should do
If two teams are both sitting at level 1, maybe combining their resources could get them to 2 or 3... which, as someone who has been at level 1 before, is substantially less sucky.
It just seems like a bad situation where we incentivize folks to grow teams but we don't really seem to care if the teams are inspiring students and communities. I've said it before but a failed team is worse than never having had a team there.
Combining teams is one solution for individual team sustainability problems, but not the solution. There are certainly situations where two geographically similar teams could benefit from merging... But there are a lot more situations where the benefit simply wouldn't be there.
Every team facing sustainability issues needs to sit down and do an honest assessment of the problem. What would give them the biggest boost? For some teams, it may be financial. Others may need to find more mentors. Some are having difficulty with recruitment, or with getting kids who sign up to be able to show up.
The solution any team finds for their sustainability problem could be radically different from other teams. Maybe one team look through 20 year old yearbooks from their school, finds a successful graduate, and convinced him or her to donate. Another may increase the number of demos they do at local businesses with a tailored sales pitch for new mentors. A third may realize they need to work on changing their public image within the school, or increase awareness of the team among their peers. A fourth may need to change their meeting times to stop conflicting with something else popular at the school, or change their location so more students can get to the meetings.
And yes, some may realize that the support they can get from their student body and community isn't really enough to maintain the team, but could work out great by merging with another nearby team going through similar problems.
Any solution to sustainability issues needs to be tailored to each specific team. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
Also, I personally don't agree with your "hierarchy of needs". Every team is going to develop their own goals and desires. For some, the goal may not be to build a competitive robot... It may simply be to increase graduation rate and scholastic achievement at their school. Or their goal may be more personal, geared towards individual inspiration (winning helps, but it's not required to inspire a kid!). They may have a goal to give every student a year working in a different part of the team so they get a well rounded exposure to different fields of engineering and business. The point behind FIRST is that the competition is not the goal, it's the mechanism used to help you reach your goal. I've seen teams that have never done well on the field reach and inspire their students, and they are still going strong after doing that for 10 years.
Andrew Schreiber
08-09-2015, 11:47
"Attend a competition" has to be somewhere in there. A school-sponsored team usually has a much easier time getting permission from the school for students to do that.
That's one opinion. Others might be "a failed team at least raises awareness that the program exists" or "a failed team provides a starting point for doing it again but better".
I assumed that was included in building the robot, I guess I could replace the word Build with Field but that's just nitpicking. The point is, if two teams are underperforming because they don't have the manpower and are burning their mentors out it's bad. If the teams are close together it might offset the increased logistical issues to merge them.
A failed team reinforces "STEM is too hard" that we're trying to fight.
Let's talk about the hierarchy of needs for teams.
1. Build Robot
2. Build functional Robot
3. Build reliable Robot
4. Build elimination caliber Robot
5. Do other stuff a team should do
That hierarchy is great for you. Glad you shared your experience.
Please don't assume that what works for your team works for all teams (seems like I've seen that on these message boards before...?).
Our current team hierarchy
1. Develop student skill sets
2. Create awareness of opportunities beyond high school
3. Build a Team
4. Create community awareness of team & program
5. Post snarky responses on Chief Delphi
The robot, and any successes from it, are byproducts of these Needs.
Edit: Why is "STEM is too hard" a bad thing?
That's one opinion. Others might be "a failed team at least raises awareness that the program exists" or "a failed team provides a starting point for doing it again but better".
In my experience (yay more anecdotal evidence), the schools/communities that resist starting an FRC team the most are schools that already had a team who failed and died out.
Lil' Lavery
08-09-2015, 13:22
I've never found the One School One Team model to be better than the One Team One Community model. Would it be optimal? Possibly, I don't have anything but anecdotal data on the benefits or drawbacks of that model (and, to my knowledge there's nothing BUT anecdotal knowledge out there, if I'm wrong send me the study)
I'm not arguing that a school-based system is the ideal solution, only that is the most practical for the most teams. Sure, as the FIRST community we can work towards other solutions that are more beneficial to FRC teams and FIRST's missions, however that's a larger undertaking. The school-based solution solves a great many issues for many FRC teams, and sticking with it is frequently the path of least resistance. Having to fight upstream to form a multi-school or community team may end up jeopardizing team stability and sustainability in many instances.
Alan Anderson
08-09-2015, 13:44
The point is, if two teams are underperforming because they don't have the manpower and are burning their mentors out it's bad. If the teams are close together it might offset the increased logistical issues to merge them.
Are you merely forgetting about the option for nearby teams to collaborate without actually merging, or did you consider and reject that possibility?
A failed team reinforces "STEM is too hard" that we're trying to fight.
You might be trying to fight the phrase "STEM is too hard", but I don't think I've ever heard anyone else give that as a motivation. To the contrary, FIRST is explicitly advertised as "the hardest fun you'll ever have."
I also don't think a team that "fails" is going to make people think that the problem is how difficult STEM is. I only have more than cursory knowledge of a few lapsed teams, but the overwhelming reasons for their "failure" as a team were a lack of funds or mentoring, not a lack of easy tasks.
Brian Maher
08-09-2015, 13:46
"
That's one opinion. Others might be "a failed team at least raises awareness that the program exists" or "a failed team provides a starting point for doing it again but better".
This is what happened with Team 1257. The team was originally established in 2004, disbanded in 2006 after losing many core members. The team was reinstated with completely new members in the 2008-2009 season. After a tough few years, we've been able to learn from the mistakes of the 2006 team to create the sustainable program we have today.
cadandcookies
08-09-2015, 17:04
You might be trying to fight the phrase "STEM is too hard", but I don't think I've ever heard anyone else give that as a motivation. To the contrary, FIRST is explicitly advertised as "the hardest fun you'll ever have."
I also don't think a team that "fails" is going to make people think that the problem is how difficult STEM is. I only have more than cursory knowledge of a few lapsed teams, but the overwhelming reasons for their "failure" as a team were a lack of funds or mentoring, not a lack of easy tasks.
I don't think anyone would disagree that doing STEM in general or robotics specifically is difficult. The issue isn't with people realizing robotics is hard, it's with using the phrase "STEM is too hard (for me)" to never even try the program. One of the biggest benefits a FIRST team has for participants (in my humble opinion) is giving students with technical aptitude an impetus to grow interpersonal skills and giving students with high interpersonal aptitudes a better understanding of STEm fields and why they're important.
Now feel free to ignore this last part, but my first day of courses was today and my algorithms and data structures professor had a fantastic thought that I think is relevant here (I'm slightly paraphrasing). She said: "I used to be of the opinion that education could be fun and exciting. Now I realize that education is hard. Education isn't easy, but it can be engaging and rewarding." Replace education with STEM (or add it to the front) and I think this is highly relevant to robotics. One of the greatest things I learned from this program is that learning technical skills is almost always very difficult, but that that was not a reason not to try.
FIRST is about creating a world where scientists and engineers are as celebrated as athletes and pop stars-- part of this is helping the world realize that while yes, STEM is hard, it is not "too hard" to understand the applications and benefits.
Richard Wallace
08-09-2015, 17:27
One of the greatest things I learned from this program is that learning technical skills is almost always very difficult, but that that was not a reason not to try.
As JFK said at Rice University, about 53 years ago, many great things are worth doing because they are hard. Why does Rice play Texas? Why did we choose to go to the moon?
As JFK said at Rice University, about 53 years ago, many great things are worth doing because they are hard. Why does Rice play Texas? Why did we choose to go to the moon?
Well...Rice plays Texas because they get paid $3,000,000.(Well, nowadays they think they can actually win)
As JFK said at Rice University, about 53 years ago, many great things are worth doing because they are hard. Why does Rice play Texas? Why did we choose to go to the moon?
Most potential FIRST students (i.e. all students) weren't alive 53 years ago, haven't heard that speech, and have never been to the moon. The best way to convince them that joining a FIRST team will be good is not to discourage them, which is exactly what embracing "FIRST/STEM is hard" is doing. It's best to let them discover that it's fun before finding out that it's hard, so that, you know, they actually want to do it.
Virtually the same is true of the teachers tasked with starting and maintaining those teams with minimal resources. The best way to let a teacher know that an FRC team is hard is for them to know a previous team failed, or for them to have been involved in that failed team. "If it didn't work the first time, why will it work this time?" is what they're thinking.
Bryan Herbst
08-09-2015, 22:59
Most potential FIRST students (i.e. all students) weren't alive 53 years ago, haven't heard that speech, and have never been to the moon. The best way to convince them that joining a FIRST team will be good is not to discourage them, which is exactly what embracing "FIRST/STEM is hard" is doing. It's best to let them discover that it's fun before finding out that it's hard, so that, you know, they actually want to do it.
You don't need to have been alive 53 years ago to appreciate the goal of landing on the moon, nor to appreciate the bigger meaning behind it when people talk about landing on the moon. Indeed, the idea of a "moonshot" doesn't literally mean going to the moon- it now means so much more.
I highly recommend Google's Moonshot Thinking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaquGZKx_0) video, and reading Larry Page's interview with Wired (http://www.wired.com/2013/01/ff-qa-larry-page/) on moonshots.
To the best engineers, scientists, and thinkers, something that is "hard" isn't something to avoid; it is something that begs for us to prove that we can do it. Don't tell people that a team folded because "STEM is hard." and it quit. Tell them that "STEM is hard" and that they can do better- that STEM is built on the very idea of trying something, failing, and trying something different.
If I were to quote everyone I'm going to address, it would get too silly, so I'm just going to include by context.
I'm the oldest active mentor on 3946, and I won't be 53 until next month. Nonetheless, the message stands. Kennedy's message inspired the generation of engineers and technicians a generation before me, and their results inspired my generation. Manned space flight peaked in the early '70's, and since then, space boundaries have been pushed by autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles and devices. Satellites also look back down at earth and AUVs (autonomous undersea vehicles) probe the ocean volume. Robotics is how we learn more about the universe. Robotics is how we make more stuff at home less expensively. Robotics is eventually how we shall achieve the Hellenistic dream of a society in which people are for deeper thinking, planning, and imagination, and all of the routine is taken off our hands. So robotics matters. And yes, STEM is hard. But if you apply yourself to it, it's not too hard.
Sean and Jon are 100% correct about downsizing. I don't recall the source, but as I was entering the workforce (late '80s, early '90s), I recall reading "No company ever downsized its way to greatness." The same is even more true of a political or cultural movement - and let's remember that at its core, FIRST is a cultural movement. There may be individual cases where teams can and should merge, and FIRST is right to acknowledge and support it, but should never force it or even encourage it as a regular thing to do.
As much as organizational structure, the "hierarchy of needs" is wildly variant across FRC. 3946 seeks to change the local culture as a primary mission. Diversity, improving student career selection and marketability, and developing leadership are secondary. And while building a competitive robot is tertiary, we don't kid ourselves that it's the engine that pushes the ship. The mission isn't to kill the gators. The mission isn't to drain the swamp. The mission is to make this area that was once a swamp a seat of productivity, creativity, and development. And that will almost certainly involve killing a few gators and running some pumps.
Here in Louisiana, school-based teams are the norm, and essentially mandatory in order to attend competition, at least for public school students. High School students are allowed five non-school-field-trip absences per semester, or they fail every class that semester. Period. No excuses, exceptions, ifs, ands, or buts. As such, community FRC teams are like hen's teeth around here. Going to districts wouldn't change things - two Fridays cost just as much as Thursday and Friday of Bayou Regional in terms of field trip time, and more in terms of travel. Then, if you were to get a trip to DCMP, you'd fill up the budget of days, and if any of your students went to CMP on top of anything else, they'd fail the semester. How inspiring would that be?
Learning from failed teams - Slidell High School had a team (2182) which did very well in competition (ranked 3rd at Bayou in 2007, rookie year, and 5th in 2008). However, it starved for funding and did not compete after 2008. When we formed a new team in 2012 (not a single student or mentor in common with the old team), we made a point to get enough funding to continue past the first couple of years. When we qualified for CMP, we did a blitz to find more sponsors. We now have our own trailer, and list 9 platinum sponsors ($1000+ in a year), and a couple dozen gold and silver sponsors on our web site, and we're still pushing on a few more. And most important, we are changing the school and the community, creating bonds among the different segments of our student population, encouraging clean living, and promoting school spirit. Not bad for a team that has never ranked over 20th at a regional.
Finally, districts. Louisiana only has 42 teams listed on usfirst, and a few of those no longer exist (or at least compete). 37 of those teams are within 100 miles of a point midway between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. So while districts would be great for those of us in southeast LA who can already day-trip to Bayou, it would probably just double travel costs for the others. A few years with a regional in the center or northern part of state (perhaps along the growing I-20 tech corridor) would be a good in-between step to get the rest of the state up to district density.
caseybarisax14
10-09-2015, 00:30
I think that South Carolina will go district in the next few years because about 8-10 North Carolina team where going there and they are not now because North Carolina is district
runneals
10-09-2015, 01:49
I don't know whether there will be a 5th MN regional. The new Iowa regional is technically the "5th MN regional" I think.. I think the MN volunteer base is going to be heavily involved with helping set up/run the new Iowa regional, but this will help free up some volunteers hopefully and give IO, MN, MO, etc. teams another choice for a regional to attend.
It's not the 5th MN regional, otherwise it'd be in Minnesota *in Minnesotan accent*. I have a feeling that the Iowa regional will draw some power house teams from across the country, and will primarily end up being a regional for IL, IA, WI, MO, MN, and maybe NE for it's centralized location. Also, I would kinda doubt that it is going to be primarily minnesotans. We have quite a few places (Rockwell Collins, John Deere, etc) that have lots of volunteers in FIRST and I would imagine send over to help out.
PS while you're here, you can visit the ORIGINAL place in Waterloo where John Deere first started :D
Ginger Power
10-09-2015, 13:49
It's not the 5th MN regional, otherwise it'd be in Minnesota *in Minnesotan accent*. I have a feeling that the Iowa regional will draw some power house teams from across the country, and will primarily end up being a regional for IL, IA, WI, MO, MN, and maybe NE for it's centralized location. Also, I would kinda doubt that it is going to be primarily minnesotans. We have quite a few places (Rockwell Collins, John Deere, etc) that have lots of volunteers in FIRST and I would imagine send over to help out.
PS while you're here, you can visit the ORIGINAL place in Waterloo where John Deere first started :D
I think what Jajabinx124 meant was that a lot of the MN leadership worked hard to get the Iowa Regional started, rather than focusing on starting a 5th Regional within MN.
Pauline Tasci
10-09-2015, 14:53
This has been said about 50 times in this thread, but I'll always be voting for California to go into districts sooner than later.
jajabinx124
10-09-2015, 16:39
I think what Jajabinx124 meant was that a lot of the MN leadership worked hard to get the Iowa Regional started, rather than focusing on starting a 5th Regional within MN.
Yeah that's what I meant.
I have a feeling that the Iowa regional will draw some power house teams from across the country, and will primarily end up being a regional for IL, IA, WI, MO, MN, and maybe NE for it's centralized location.
Don't mean to nitpick here, but FYI Nebraska doesn't have any FRC teams.
runneals
11-09-2015, 00:12
Yeah that's what I meant.
Don't mean to nitpick here, but FYI Nebraska doesn't have any FRC teams.
They don't have any *YET*! We are working with people over there, to get one started next year I believe ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.