View Full Version : California District Proposal
Michael Corsetto
24-06-2016, 17:10
Hello CD Community,
I've prepared a proposal for bringing the District Model to California.
Here is the California Districts Proposal document. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iReJ1p6F_cWmnJB3570Vw3d_YiDAAAPJP7frbGKxR-Y)
Here is a "Districts 101/Q&A" document (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AEyvewEe78pA89s-cw4qYJ6Ne_e9qnHgN4V9Svv257E)
Here are some finance estimates. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=11mbr3Wu8yz8b1jqhEalP4mmZdrZM7nDS_a3WeFS-urQ)
Unfortunately, many people on the Golden Coast do not understand districts, or have heard vastly exaggerated information regarding the resources required. These documents aim to educate on what Districts are, and what it could mean for California.
Please let me know what you think, what information needs to be updated, and, if you feel like it, please share these documents with your friends/teams.
Thanks for your time.
-Mike
Rangel(kf7fdb)
24-06-2016, 17:36
I would very much like to say thanks to you and everyone else who helped work on these documents. I could definitely see it being a great guide for other regional areas to model future proposals. I'm sure this will be a great guide and resource for California teams as well. Will definitely be studying the documents and data very thoroughly!
Lil' Lavery
24-06-2016, 17:40
Are PODS really a viable storage and field transportation method in California? I believe there's only one event where MAR PODS have to travel in excess of an hour from their usual storage locations*. Can PODS scale to a much larger geographic area for California without too much additional cost? Delivery rates for PODS are based on mileage. That concern is compounded further by any field specifics/FMS equipment shipped to/from Manchester each year.
*Some event-to-event trips may be longer, depending on schedule
Michael Corsetto
24-06-2016, 17:43
Are PODS really a viable storage and field transportation method in California? I believe there's only one event where MAR PODS have to travel in excess of an hour from their usual storage locations. Can PODS scale to a much larger geographic area for California without too much additional cost? Delivery rates for PODS are based on mileage. That concern is compounded further by any field specifics/FMS equipment shipped to/from Manchester each year.
Sean,
You bring up a very good point.
FIRST California currently moves our field in PODS to offseason events. If I remember correctly, the entire 2015 field was packed into one POD. Unfortunately, I am not privy to what we currently pay for that service. I was going off estimates I could get from other districts.
Very good point. Thanks!
-Mike
Mark Sheridan
24-06-2016, 18:04
Great resource. A good read. I will make sure we go over this document when the Orange County teams meets next.
I echo everyone else's comments about how well written and prepared the documents are. Great job with them! I really hope this is what gets the ball rolling on districts in CA.
My understanding is CA FIRST has a deal negotiated with PODS where they pay a very reasonable flat fee for delivery and pickup of the pod.
billbo911
24-06-2016, 20:03
My understanding is CA FIRST has a deal negotiated with PODS where they pay a very reasonable flat fee for delivery and pickup of the pod.
This is my understanding as well.
Based on last year's experience, the PODS worked extremely well for both storage of the field(s) as well as transportation of them. I hope FIRST CA can continue our relationship with PODS. They have really made the process of moving the field from event to event a non issue.
If I can point something out here:
The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal. And, in my experience, FIRST California tends to be more focused on NorCal.
Were any SoCal folks involved? Because, I'm going to say this once, there is significant opposition in high places down here. You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.
Not a criticism, just a question and a statement of fact.
FarmerJohn
24-06-2016, 20:14
If I can point something out here:
The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal. And, in my experience, FIRST California tends to be more focused on NorCal.
Were any SoCal folks involved? Because, I'm going to say this once, there is significant opposition in high places down here. You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.
Not a criticism, just a question and a statement of fact.
None of the higher-ups in FIRST CA like districts, which I'm guessing is why California doesn't have them. When I first started learning about this program I was told by some regional directors that districts were a surefire way to ruin everything that we've worked so hard for. Now after spending some time learning about them myself, especially with the help of these documents, I believe the FIRST CA higher-ups have their own agenda they're trying to push that isn't necessarily in the best interest of California teams.
Michael Corsetto
24-06-2016, 20:15
If I can point something out here:
The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal. And, in my experience, FIRST California tends to be more focused on NorCal.
Were any SoCal folks involved? Because, I'm going to say this once, there is significant opposition in high places down here. You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.
Not a criticism, just a question and a statement of fact.
Eric,
Thanks for the feedback. I understand there will be people in favor/opposed to the district model.
I hope this proposal will educated people on the district model. I have heard certain Key Volunteers in CA say things like "Districts will cost 3 million dollars the first two years" and California needs "35 Districts". And I have heard a California RD back those numbers up!
The purpose with a plan is to fact check the guesstimates and make an educated proposal for Districts.
If you don't mind, please share this with the SoCal teams you know! Education is a great start.
-Mike
Edit: To answer your question, I've had some help from a few SoCal folks, including the great folks at Code Orange!
None of the higher-ups in FIRST CA like districts, which I'm guessing is why California doesn't have them. When I first started learning about this program I was told by some regional directors that districts were a surefire way to ruin everything that we've worked so hard for. Now after spending some time learning about them myself, especially with the help of these documents, I believe the FIRST CA higher-ups have their own agenda they're trying to push that isn't necessarily in the best interest of California teams.
+1, couldn't have said it better.
Pauline Tasci
24-06-2016, 20:28
If I can point something out here:
The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal. And, in my experience, FIRST California tends to be more focused on NorCal.
Were any SoCal folks involved? Because, I'm going to say this once, there is significant opposition in high places down here. You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.
Not a criticism, just a question and a statement of fact.
Hi Eric,
In fact, I'm working with this document as we speak adding some so cal venues I have hosted events at. I will also be adding my personal experiences with aiding the planning of a first year regional in So Cal. It would be fantastic to add some more so cal people into this! I've only been at this for 7 years, would love some more people to spread this around.
Do you have proposed cities/venues for District Championships or would those not be identified until the district event planning process?
Rafi Ahmed
24-06-2016, 21:42
Eric,
I hope this proposal will educated people on the district model. I have heard certain Key Volunteers in CA say things like "Districts will cost 3 million dollars the first two years" and California needs "35 Districts". And I have heard a California RD back those numbers up!
Is there a copy of the $3 million/2 years numbers somewhere? It would be interesting to compare it to your numbers and to what other districts cost.
plnyyanks
24-06-2016, 21:43
Amazing work to everyone involved creating these materials - they're incredibly thorough and well written. This is a great resource for other regions looking to make the transition as well (hello, New York :rolleyes:)
Based on last year's experience, the PODS worked extremely well for both storage of the field(s) as well as transportation of them. I hope FIRST CA can continue our relationship with PODS. They have really made the process of moving the field from event to event a non issue.
PODS are a pretty great way to transport a field, assuming they aren't cost-prohibitive. The biggest advantage is that your venue doesn't need a loading dock, which opens up the list of possibilities greatly (loading a field into a truck with only a lift gate/forklift is not fun, especially with the really heavy side boarder cases on an AndyMark field).
Do you have proposed cities/venues for District Championships or would those not be identified until the district event planning process?
I believe the documents indicated SVR and LA as possible options. I could see either of those two, or possibly San Diego, at the regional venues, fairly easily. Not quite sure how an outdoor DCMP would go over, but it's an option.
Off and on there's been discussion of "If an event was held in our general area, where would it be held?" among some of the Torbot mentors. That said, we never really liked the answers for one reason or another.
Amazing work to everyone involved creating these materials - they're incredibly thorough and well written. This is a great resource for other regions looking to make the transition as well (hello, New York :rolleyes:)
PODS are a pretty great way to transport a field, assuming they aren't cost-prohibitive. The biggest advantage is that your venue doesn't need a loading dock, which opens up the list of possibilities greatly (loading a field into a truck with only a lift gate/forklift is not fun, especially with the really heavy side boarder cases on an AndyMark field).
Michigan owns their trailers that house the fields and other equipment. I believe they were donated. They borrow a heavy duty truck from a sponsor to move the field and store the trailer at another sponsor's facility. Zero costs. The trailer has ramp door so it is easy to roll things on and off. No need for docks or liftgates. It is good to have a different mindset when running districts. Some Regional directors are used to writing big checks to get things done because they got enough funding from sponsors and they were budgeted. Running a district event is different because each district event is not expected to raise money from sponsors to cover all costs.
None of the higher-ups in FIRST CA like districts, which I'm guessing is why California doesn't have them. When I first started learning about this program I was told by some regional directors that districts were a surefire way to ruin everything that we've worked so hard for. Now after spending some time learning about them myself, especially with the help of these documents, I believe the FIRST CA higher-ups have their own agenda they're trying to push that isn't necessarily in the best interest of California teams.
Let's not jump to conclusions. I am sure they have good reasons. May be they believe sponsors prefer flashy regionals, or they get better press coverages when they are not at a crowded high school gym. Who knows. It is best to sit down and talk about it and hope the leaders will do what is best for most CA teams. It will never make everybody happy. Good leaders will do what is best for majority of current teams and the future of the program.
Let's not jump to conclusions. I am sure they have good reasons. May be they believe sponsors prefer flashy regionals, or they get better press coverages when they are not at a crowded high school gym. Who knows. It is best to sit down and talk about it and hope the leaders will do what is best for most CA teams. It will never make everybody happy. Good leaders will do what is best for majority of current teams and the future of the program.I've heard one or two of the reasons. Here's a sample:
When MI went district, a then 2nd-year team got kicked out of the only event they'd called home (GLR). They landed in L.A. that year--it would NOT repeat NOT be the same without them now. Particularly since they've started bringing friends with them, every year. With the rapidly decreasing numbers of regionals available to attend (and the rapidly decreasing available capacity of those regionals due to everybody wanting to go there), where are those teams going to go for their home event if CA goes district? There are no regionals on their entire continent!
Short version: We like visitors!
Counter-argument: With the lack of space in current regionals, it won't be long before there won't be any visitors anyway! When you need to put two more regionals just to take pressure off of existing ones and you can only put in one, it doesn't help much. I can count on one hand the international teams I saw in SoCal this year, and on the other I can count the out-of-state teams. (I was at all four events. I saw every team at least once. That's 200 slots, and maybe 10 teams were from outside both zones. 5%. I saw a lot of teams twice and I know more went farther away for their second--or third--event.)
And I've heard the "they like the big events" and the "they like the show" arguments too, but from different people. "They" referring not to the sponsors, but to the teams. To which the only appropriate response is to figure out how many teams actually want to go district...
Michael Corsetto
25-06-2016, 01:03
And I've heard the "they like the big events" and the "they like the show" arguments too, but from different people. "They" referring not to the sponsors, but to the teams. To which the only appropriate response is to figure out how many teams actually want to go district...
This parts isn't highlighted in the proposal, but worth mentioning:
In 2017, 4 of 8 California Regionals will be held on High School campuses.
I have an increasingly hard time buying the "big event" and "big show" argument, considering 1/2 of 2017 California events will already be in district venues.
Eric, if you and the TorBots want to host a District Event, let me know. We will find you a venue ;)
-Mike
When MI went district, a then 2nd-year team got kicked out of the only event they'd called home (GLR). They landed in L.A. that year--it would NOT repeat NOT be the same without them now. Particularly since they've started bringing friends with them, every year. With the rapidly decreasing numbers of regionals available to attend (and the rapidly decreasing available capacity of those regionals due to everybody wanting to go there), where are those teams going to go for their home event if CA goes district? There are no regionals on their entire continent!
Short version: We like visitors!
That is a valid point, but is that FIRST CA's responsibility or is it FIRST headquarter? Unless FIRST headquarter told FIRST CA not to go to district until there are more Asian teams to have their own regional in Asia, I think it is a wrong argument against going to districts. More and more areas will be going to districts in the near future, then you will see more international teams because they will have nowhere else to go. It is very noble for FIRST CA to raise money from sponsors so they can add regional events to accommodate international teams and other areas who have not gone districts.
If you like visitors, inter-district play is one answer.
cbale2000
25-06-2016, 01:11
Running a district event is different because each district event does not raise money from sponsors to cover costs.
Not entirely accurate, in Michigan at least, FiM seems to fund districts only "as needed" and strongly encourages district planning committees to find funding sources themselves. Our local district was almost entirely funded from our local sponsors (Though FiM does cover the costs associated with the field, such as carpet, tape, and transportation).
Not entirely accurate, in Michigan at least, FiM seems to fund districts only "as needed" and strongly encourages district planning committees to find funding sources themselves. Our local district was almost entirely funded from our local sponsors (Though FiM does cover the costs associated with the field, such as carpet, tape, and transportation).
You are correct. I have edited my post. Thanks. My point was MI district events try to save money because they don't have a big budget to spend.
I have an increasingly hard time buying the "big event" and "big show" argument, considering 1/2 of 2017 California events will already be in district venues. Just saying what I've heard. I don't buy it on the "big event" myself, per se. "Big show", maybe. On the other hand, as someone who does some "show" stuff (see below), it isn't about the "show" aspect as much as using the "show" to enhance what's really going on.
Eric, if you and the TorBots want to host a District Event, let me know. We will find you a venue ;) Let me put it this way: We're more than capable of finding venues, thank you very much. Several of us can come up with 3-4 possibilities without stretching, including items that could easily disqualify them or render them particularly suitable--like parking, access for robots, or (lack of) cheapness.
Just so you guys are aware, you're sounding like you're inviting me to join the planning. I've got a three-part answer: There aren't enough refs as it is (and refs who are planning group members tend to disappear from the zebra herd quickly), I'm not the type to do event planning if I don't absolutely have to, and I don't have the free time between work and stuff outside of FIRST. (Why, yes, I do have a life outside of FRC, thanks for asking! ;))
[Edit] Ed, I wasn't talking about the Asian teams. I'm talking about Chilean teams--L.A. is their home event for all intents and purposes right now. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure that the folks using that line of reasoning are aware of inter-district play. Also unfortunately, "interdistrict play" is more likely to be PNW-NorCal or NorCal-SoCal due to distances involved. From SoCal to the nearest events outside CA is a full day's drive--nearest district is at least two!
Any plans to send the proposal and the assorted documents to FIRST CA?
PayneTrain
25-06-2016, 02:37
You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.
This is the worst kept secret in the FIRST community.
I think it's something like 47% of the 2016 FRC population will be operating under the district system in 2017. Were California to also be in the district system we're talking over 55% of FRC teams in the district model.
The rules put in place back in 2008 before the inaugural season of FiM pilot were ones that were negotiated by Michigan and Manchester. Some of those rules were meant to intentionally wall off the laboratory the movers and shakers in Michigan wanted to build; people did NOT like the idea of districts when they started.
There are existing rules put into place that do not necessarily have to be followed (the district model ideally could scale that you could have zero steps between district events and championship events, or 1, or 2!) The locks on inter-district play are being fiddled with in this offseason and I would not be surprised to see some of the newer and smaller district systems open themselves up more to fill out their rosters.
If representation of 55% of FRC teams went to Manchester to petition modifications of district rules, could something happen? California does have an opportunity to lead FRC through sea changes, but they need to actually pick up their anchor and go. Trying to tweak the district model so it can be the path forward for 100% of FRC teams (yes, 100%) is the proverbial gorilla in the room. If the powers-that-be in California want districts, they will help drive that change. If they don't, the rest of the community will be held hostage until smaller confederacies that dot the midwest form up into the model. Then the leadership of FIRST California will likely need to adapt or die.
In SoCal, the big elephant in here with is is the Volunteer issue. The higher up you go on the event food chain (as far as skill and experience is concerned) the more you see the same faces repeatedly. Judges, Refs, Volunteer Coordinators, FTC's, the like. And these faces are doing ten other things: FLL, VEX, FTC, Academic Decathlon, etc., and some holding down a real job in public education, which has become a seventy hour-a-week thing.
Money: Just today our kids and team 294 brought this year's machines to a North/Grumm gig for show and tell, and to thank them for funding us. The bigger geopolitical picture in SoCal shows the firms most in need of the product we produce (technically educated kids), are repeatedly hit up for money by a hundred outstretched hands. Squeezing out more in this environment is becoming harder-- established teams with good organizations will always do well; those reinventing the wheel every year have no history to build on, no institutional memory of how to get funded, and struggle, and become the drop-out percentages. This could be an argument for Going District, but maybe not.
It's not the venues, it's the parking. Silly statement, but true. In the LA South Bay we've got lots of venues, good ones for forty-plus teams and pits, but they're already booked on weekends for paying 'customers' like AYSO, language schools, a hundred other events. School districts need this income and school site admin are leery of the liability incurred with what look to them like piles of rolling junk.
As for the NorCal/SoCal "rivalry" thing-- let's put it aside. We both have structural hurdles to overcome in our specific locales in order to promote this kind of education. Keep hashing the ideas, not the people. Thanks all for your generous allocation of time on this, for your devotion to preparing the next generation when we've left the playing field.
In 2017, 4 of 8 California Regionals will be held on High School campuses.
Really? I'm not sure about that. 2 venues have yet to be decided on.
PayneTrain
25-06-2016, 03:36
In SoCal, the big elephant in here with is is the Volunteer issue. The higher up you go on the event food chain (as far as skill and experience is concerned) the more you see the same faces repeatedly. Judges, Refs, Volunteer Coordinators, FTC's, the like. And these faces are doing ten other things: FLL, VEX, FTC, Academic Decathlon, etc., and some holding down a real job in public education, which has become a seventy hour-a-week thing.
This is at least a three headed issue in most areas, but it can be easy to cut off these two (and they won't grow back, I promise)
Shifting from WTRS to FSS events frees up more people to volunteer. A lot of people who love FIRST but need to work to live or be able to "afford volunteering" can't when they need to take 2-2.5 days off of work.
Shift small jobs to teams and get people to train up where there is interest. I know some positions can seem perpetually understaffed. In some regions, you lose the potential for repeat volunteers when the volunteers themselves are not properly engaged or subjected to volunteer cliques where a potential future KV may be shunned from learning from or training for their role. "But it doesn't happen to me!" It's happened to me and other people I know. It's anecdotal. I'd love to have data on it, but I know it has happened more than once, which is too much for something that is preventable.
Money: Just today our kids and team 294 brought this year's machines to a North/Grumm gig for show and tell, and to thank them for funding us. The bigger geopolitical picture in SoCal shows the firms most in need of the product we produce (technically educated kids), are repeatedly hit up for money by a hundred outstretched hands. Squeezing out more in this environment is becoming harder-- established teams with good organizations will always do well; those reinventing the wheel every year have no history to build on, no institutional memory of how to get funded, and struggle, and become the drop-out percentages. This could be an argument for Going District, but maybe not.
What's your point here? A team's individual ability to raise money does not really directly affected by the regional model or district model. I would say that through smaller events and the ability for iterations, the district model can directly lead to more quantifiable success for teams than the regional model and then indirectly can lead to a better buy in of team cultural and a development of an institutional memory.
Pauline Tasci
25-06-2016, 12:00
In SoCal, the big elephant in here with is is the Volunteer issue. The higher up you go on the event food chain (as far as skill and experience is concerned) the more you see the same faces repeatedly. Judges, Refs, Volunteer Coordinators, FTC's, the like. And these faces are doing ten other things: FLL, VEX, FTC, Academic Decathlon, etc., and some holding down a real job in public education, which has become a seventy hour-a-week thing.
As for the volunteer issue, it's addressed very clearly in this document.
For the 2017 season every role should have an understudy so that individual could fulfill the role as needed as we move to districts.
I know first hand what it's like to try to find volunteers, or for that matter find qualified volunteers.
But this is the thing, so many people want to volunteer for the "cool" positions and one's that seem to matter but they are told they are not qualified enough. Not many people want to volunteer at an event to pass out safety glasses. Thus, making them either not show up or just not volunteering for the position. Having someone be an understudy to let's say a Judge Adviser, a CSA, or an FTA would really help CA grow in the volunteer pool. I've heard from so many people that they wish they could do the higher roles but the older volunteer crowd seems to have it covered. Having them understudy these roles will also grow their want to continue helping out at events since many of these roles have a direct impact with teams and the event itself.
Another note on volunteering. FiM's approach to how they got over the volunteer hurdle when they were changing was to ask for volunteers from teams. This could cover our smaller roles. How many people do you see in the stands at our events just on their phones? Or sitting there bored out of their mind? I bet if teams required two people to volunteer those people would feel more apart of the event.
On Code Orange, this year at LA, the event needed more field re setters and I had a couple students who weren't going to be doing much at the event and we sent them over. Guess what? They loved it. They felt important to the event, could get a great view of the matches, and they wanted to continue volunteering in those roles for our next events and future events.
The volunteer issue is a definite one, but to be honest, I'm very tired of hearing it as an excuse and want to see people execute getting more key volunteers.
MARS_James
25-06-2016, 12:10
This is a really good read, a lot of the issues being discussed here actually sound similar to what we are dealing with in Florida, though on a smaller scale distance wise. Now since I am not from California nor have I ever been there some of the following may seem ignorant but humor me:
Somethings that I think may be cool for the California District to try, that may help in being applied to FRC as a whole when we have districts everywhere:
1. Don't make two unique districts, make 1 district with 2 championships based on geography, ironically exactly how FRC works right now with 2champs. By reading the proposal I couldn't tell if you were planning on doing this or not but I felt the need to bring it up. With the rise of interdistrict play, this can help keep some competitive integrity, make it so if you are a California team the first 2 California events you take place in, regardless of North or South decides your points. This will make some of the more affluent teams not just head to the other half of the state to try out their robot at an event with no repercussions to their standing in their home half of the state.
2. If the two districts will be separate, allow Teams on border lines to declare which district they wish to be in. This could result in some headaches but lets say a team pops up in Inyo County (yes I looked up the names of the counties), it is a "Northern" California Team, but depending on where in the county it is, it's to closest events may be in the "Southern" district. This may become an issue later if the area develops enough to host it's own district event but could be brought up on reevaluation.
3. Extend the Shadow Program to include offseasons. Basically have key/essential volunteer roles be shadowed or overbooked for the offseasons. Now I know that this may seem challenging but getting more volunteers can be done by informing teams ahead of time that their will be sign ups for students to learn how these roles work. Now many of these roles can not be filled by students at official events, but students don't stay students forever and getting them the basic training will help in the long run.
Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?
1. Don't make two unique districts, make 1 district with 2 championships based on geography, ironically exactly how FRC works right now with 2champs. By reading the proposal I couldn't tell if you were planning on doing this or not but I felt the need to bring it up. With the rise of interdistrict play, this can help keep some competitive integrity, make it so if you are a California team the first 2 California events you take place in, regardless of North or South decides your points. This will make some of the more affluent teams not just head to the other half of the state to try out their robot at an event with no repercussions to their standing in their home half of the state.
If interdistrict play starts counting for points (and based on what Frank said on FUN, it likely will soon), 2 separate district systems can essentially function how you're describing.
Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?
If they are planning on mostly high school events, there will probably not be that many Friday/Saturday events. To my knowledge, there has never been a NE event during school at a high school (I might be wrong). Even disregarding the logistical issues, the security issue of having several thousand strangers in the building during school hours is a nonstarter for many schools.
MrTechCenter
25-06-2016, 14:41
Any plans to send the proposal and the assorted documents to FIRST CA?
They've seen it.
2. If the two districts will be separate, allow Teams on border lines to declare which district they wish to be in. This could result in some headaches but lets say a team pops up in Inyo County (yes I looked up the names of the counties), it is a "Northern" California Team, but depending on where in the county it is, it's to closest events may be in the "Southern" district. This may become an issue later if the area develops enough to host it's own district event but could be brought up on reevaluation.
I agree strongly on this one; it's one of the biggest disadvantages of district borders. I can think of at least one team that would need to make that decision, as they're on the northern/southern border for practical purposes. (They typically go south, BTW--hard to break old ties.)
3. Extend the Shadow Program to include offseasons. Basically have key/essential volunteer roles be shadowed or overbooked for the offseasons. Now I know that this may seem challenging but getting more volunteers can be done by informing teams ahead of time that their will be sign ups for students to learn how these roles work. Now many of these roles can not be filled by students at official events, but students don't stay students forever and getting them the basic training will help in the long run. Working on it, and I think I can say that it works if you can do that. On another note, anybody want to ref or shadow a ref at Fall Classic?
Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?I can't answer that one for sure, but there's only been one FSS event in this area, and they went to TFS last year. (Not counting offseasons.)
I don't agree with the statement that "FSS means less vacation time taken for volunteers/mentors". Personally, and I'm not speaking for anybody else, if I have an event that has me there on Sundays, I take Monday off to recover and recalibrate for the work week ahead! While I can see how it can work, it certainly isn't true for all volunteers. Also, as some folks in NE found out last year, some teams have a hard time doing Sunday events. (That's also a variation by team, but it is something to be aware of.)
Pauline Tasci
25-06-2016, 14:44
Working on it, and I think I can say that it works if you can do that. On another note, anybody want to ref or shadow a ref at Fall Classic?
A lot of the people who would want to shadow reffing in so cal will be attending chezy champs that weekend, I assume you will also be at Battle at the Border and can extend that offer there as well.
A lot of the people who would want to shadow reffing in so cal will be attending chezy champs that weekend, I assume you will also be at Battle at the Border and can extend that offer there as well.
The problem with assumptions is that, well, they're often wrong. I have no plans to volunteer at any events that aren't Fall Classic or the SCRRF Workshops this fall. (It should be noted that I had no plans to attend San Diego Regional until shortly after practice matches started there. When you get a message passed both directly and indirectly... you kinda figure you need to show up.)
Pauline Tasci
25-06-2016, 14:58
The problem with assumptions is that, well, they're often wrong. I have no plans to volunteer at any events that aren't Fall Classic or the SCRRF Workshops this fall. (It should be noted that I had no plans to attend San Diego Regional until shortly after practice matches started there. When you get a message passed both directly and indirectly... you kinda figure you need to show up.)
Understood. Still stands that many will be at Chezy Champs. Maybe you can help connect people with the refs at BATB so people can connect that way, I'm sure you know at least one ref working that event since you've been reffing for a while.
Understood. Still stands that many will be at Chezy Champs. Maybe you can help connect people with the refs at BATB so people can connect that way, I'm sure you know at least one ref working that event since you've been reffing for a while.
I've only been reffing for 3 years... Not sure which BatB ref(s) I might know.
Incidentally, at least 50% of the referees at SoCal FRC events were rookie refs. Most of the ones that I know were experienced were on one crew. Two refs worked every SoCal regional... and another two had had Fall Classic experience.
What I'll probably do is hold the offer open for the Scrimmage as well. Gets lonely when you're the only one...;)
(It should be noted that I had no plans to attend San Diego Regional until shortly after practice matches started there. When you get a message passed both directly and indirectly... you kinda figure you need to show up.)
It should also be noted that there is never a 'Need' associated with Volunteering.
At the end of the day, under any circumstance, we Volunteer out of the goodness of our hearts, out of respect for the program, and because (at least some of us) enjoy it.
Incidentally, at least 50% of the referees at SoCal FRC events were rookie refs.
You have to be a rookie somewhere! Sounds like a good start to getting more trained referees in the region.
A lot of the people who would want to shadow reffing in so cal will be attending chezy champs that weekend, I assume you will also be at Battle at the Border and can extend that offer there as well.
EricH, I'll referee at FC and BatB.
Danielle has committed to be trained as an FTA when she returns to CA in July.
Michael Corsetto
26-06-2016, 10:41
EricH, I'll referee at FC and BatB.
Danielle has committed to be trained as an FTA when she returns to CA in July.
Sisk family coming in clutch! Thanks a ton!
Michael Corsetto
26-06-2016, 10:46
If they are planning on mostly high school events, there will probably not be that many Friday/Saturday events. To my knowledge, there has never been a NE event during school at a high school (I might be wrong). Even disregarding the logistical issues, the security issue of having several thousand strangers in the building during school hours is a nonstarter for many schools.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like some FiM district events at High Schools run TFS?
Good point though, and something to be aware of.
Personally, I like districts having a good mix of TFS and FSS, but I don't think that has to be a hard line at all. Districts have shown that both can work.
-Mike
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like some FiM district events at High Schools run TFS?
Good point though, and something to be aware of.
Personally, I like districts having a good mix of TFS and FSS, but I don't think that has to be a hard line at all. Districts have shown that both can work.
-Mike
Can confirm, lots of MI districts run TFS in high schools with class in session during Friday.
Richard Wallace
26-06-2016, 12:10
Can confirm, lots of all MI districts run TFS ....
FTFY.
FTFY.
Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.
Richard Wallace
26-06-2016, 12:18
Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.Thanks for the correction -- edited my post above.
My point is that in Michigan we generally have not played robots on Sunday. The only exception I know of was the 2016 Kettering Week 0 Scrimmage, which was not an official event.
Michael Corsetto
26-06-2016, 12:20
This is a really good read, a lot of the issues being discussed here actually sound similar to what we are dealing with in Florida, though on a smaller scale distance wise. Now since I am not from California nor have I ever been there some of the following may seem ignorant but humor me:
Somethings that I think may be cool for the California District to try, that may help in being applied to FRC as a whole when we have districts everywhere:
1. Don't make two unique districts, make 1 district with 2 championships based on geography, ironically exactly how FRC works right now with 2champs. By reading the proposal I couldn't tell if you were planning on doing this or not but I felt the need to bring it up. With the rise of interdistrict play, this can help keep some competitive integrity, make it so if you are a California team the first 2 California events you take place in, regardless of North or South decides your points. This will make some of the more affluent teams not just head to the other half of the state to try out their robot at an event with no repercussions to their standing in their home half of the state.
2. If the two districts will be separate, allow Teams on border lines to declare which district they wish to be in. This could result in some headaches but lets say a team pops up in Inyo County (yes I looked up the names of the counties), it is a "Northern" California Team, but depending on where in the county it is, it's to closest events may be in the "Southern" district. This may become an issue later if the area develops enough to host it's own district event but could be brought up on reevaluation.
3. Extend the Shadow Program to include offseasons. Basically have key/essential volunteer roles be shadowed or overbooked for the offseasons. Now I know that this may seem challenging but getting more volunteers can be done by informing teams ahead of time that their will be sign ups for students to learn how these roles work. Now many of these roles can not be filled by students at official events, but students don't stay students forever and getting them the basic training will help in the long run.
Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?
These are all very good points!
1. I'm not sure how that would go over with FIRST HQ, but I wouldn't be opposed to it as an option.
2. I was thinking the same thing, give teams in the middle a chance to choose when the format is established. Caveats being A. They have to stick to their choice (for planning reasons) and B. They need to be near the "middle" between the two proposed DCMPs.
3. Great idea! I know I've learned a lot running CCC, and I plan on running at least one district event when the switch is made. We also have a brand new head ref for CCC 2016!
I hope Florida can use these docs!
-Mike
Michael Corsetto
26-06-2016, 12:25
Really? I'm not sure about that. 2 venues have yet to be decided on.
CVR - Confirmed. High School
SF - Confirmed. High School
Ventura - Unconfirmed. Historically High School
IE/OCR - Unconfirmed. Historically High School
I think the above is accurate, correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I'm just hedging my bets on 4 of 8 :)
-Mike
CMBrandon
26-06-2016, 12:28
Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?
CVR - Confirmed. High School
SF - Confirmed. High School
Ventura - Unconfirmed. Historically High School
IE/OCR - Unconfirmed. Historically High School
I think the above is accurate, correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I'm just hedging my bets on 4 of 8 :)
-Mike
Ventura Community College isn't a high school, though there is one on campus and another across the street from one end of campus (both with FRC teams). I would guess they'll be back there again, as the support is really good.
IE had a university for one year, but has been high schools since then (and OC's home is highly supportive--three events this year, plus a pair of Fall Classics before then and a Fall Workshops). I would assume that that would only change if there was a pressing need.
Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?
Regionals:
Bigger tournaments
Anyone can come and compete
Winners and major award winners go to World Championship(s)
Districts:
Smaller local tournaments
Limited to teams within the district (for the most part)
Two tournaments for the price of one
After everyone plays their two district events, top ranked teams in the district go to a district championship event
Winners/major award winners/top ranked teams at the District Championship go to World Championship(s)
The main benefits are:
Removes the "win or die" system from regionals, introduces a better ranking system that rewards consistent performance over the season
More tournaments for the same amount of money
Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?
Regionals: $5K = 1 event, 40-66 teams, 8-12 matches, one shot at Championships (win, wildcard, win certain awards).
Districts: $5K = 2 events, 40 teams each, 12 matches each, points from matches, seeding, and awards determine whether you go on to the next level (District Champs, or Champs if looking after District Champs)
District teams can play in Regionals or in other Districts if they want to (and can get in after 2nd regional registration); Regionals teams can't play in Districts at all.
Michael Corsetto
26-06-2016, 12:41
Ventura Community College isn't a high school, though there is one on campus and another across the street from one end of campus (both with FRC teams). I would guess they'll be back there again, as the support is really good.
IE had a university for one year, but has been high schools since then (and OC's home is highly supportive--three events this year, plus a pair of Fall Classics before then and a Fall Workshops). I would assume that that would only change if there was a pressing need.
Thanks a ton Eric, had no idea! I heard stories about Venture and assumed it was a high school. You know what they say about people that assume!
-Mike
AdamHeard
26-06-2016, 12:57
Thanks a ton Eric, had no idea! I heard stories about Venture and assumed it was a high school. You know what they say about people that assume!
-Mike
Assuming that thus far in the conversation High School == District sized venue, then Ventura is essentially a high school.
The point stands, 4 of the CA events next year are district sized venues.
Can confirm, lots of MI districts run TFS in high schools with class in session during Friday.
I wasn't really familiar with what other districts did. From a quick look at TBA:
TFS events at high schools 2016 (Not overall)
Chesapeake, Indiana, NE - only 1 TFS event (It was Good Friday)
Georgia - No high school events at all
MAR and NC - all FSS
PNW and MI - quite a few TFS
I didn't look at DCMPs and I did it quickly so I might have missed a few events, but it looks like only PNW and MI had events while classes were going on. I don't know if having/not having events during school is due to the schools in those regions, the decisions of the districts, or something else, but I am interested to see how it will turn out in California.
cbale2000
26-06-2016, 13:33
Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.
To my knowledge Kettering University and Grand Valley State University are the only two Universities hosting Districts, and it's mostly because both had hosted events (in-season and/or off-season) prior to the switch to districts and still wanted to be involved in the program. Ironically, Kettering is actually one of the more crowded events (when at full capacity) that I've been to, because the pits, "cafeteria", field, and seating (which they have to bring in because the site doesn't have any built-in) all have to fit in one moderately-sized gym.
FiM doesn't really pursue a lot of events on College/University campuses because such venues usually charge a fee to rent the space, where as most High Schools do not, or if they do it's substantially lower.
FiM doesn't really pursue a lot of events on College/University campuses because such venues usually charge a fee to rent the space, where as most High Schools do not, or if they do it's substantially lower.
I actually have heard that some colleges are willing to offer the venue for either a significant discount or free because they can still make their money from their $4 water and other concessions whereas high schools typically only receive income from the rent itself. At least in NE, high school event concessions are typically run by the host team, not the school.
jlindquist74
26-06-2016, 18:12
If I can point something out here:
The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal.
It shows. It's not an issue of bias, but of awareness. This proposal is great work, but there's a serious problem to resolve before this can fly. Key quote from the "District 101" document:
With {...} the excess of potential venues all over the state of California
I'll come back to that later.
This parts isn't highlighted in the proposal, but worth mentioning:
In 2017, 4 of 8 California Regionals will be held on High School campuses.
Three of which are in NorCal. You will have problems finding SoCal venues. Look again at that wonderful by-county map. The three numbers that should jump out are 71, 19, and 37. You have to put them somewhere.
It's not the venues, it's the parking. Silly statement, but true. In the LA South Bay we've got lots of venues, good ones for forty-plus teams and pits, but they're already booked on weekends for paying 'customers' like AYSO, language schools, a hundred other events. School districts need this income and school site admin are leery of the liability incurred with what look to them like piles of rolling junk.
I don't think the schools will worry about liability. They're familiar with their own teams.
Parking *is* part of venues. We'll be competing with those other events to line up venues. Many schools may let go of higher revenue in favor of supporting their own academic programs (that's us,) but many are under too much financial pressure to let that kind of money walk. This is not a trivial issue.
Remember that bit about an "excess of venues"? It isn't valid in San Diego. Call it a consequence of us having better weather than the rest of you, but we have little history of building large or multiple gyms. We really don't have venues to offer.
Of 116 schools in San Diego and Imperial Counties, only 7 have two gyms. Three (Carlsbad, Fallbrook, Escondido) are at schools with no team. Grossmont (4919) and Mar Vista (no team, but same district as 2543, 3704, 4616, 5627) have a long distance between them. That leaves Ramona (2029) and Sweetwater (3704). (And Ramona's a bit off the beaten path.)
Can we fit pits into Mission Hills' (5137) or Canyon Crest's (3128) gyms? (Same design, a large spectator gym with an 84'x50' practice court stubbed off to the side.) Can 5137 get us the huge gym at San Marcos HS? (Large enough for three side-by-side courts, large-capacity bleachers cover one, bleachers closed on the third for pit space. Is that even large enough?) Can 1972 get neighboring Southwest HS in El Centro? (Similar config to San Marcos. And of course, that means driving two hours to El Centro.)
The junior colleges and private 4-year schools lack facilities, and the ongoing budget crisis has forced the state universities to treat outside rentals as revenue sources. (SDSU and UCSD won't give us any breaks.) If we can't be assured of three (maybe two) district events close enough to drive/bus to daily, I don't expect much support for a proposal which would eliminate our present home event.
I actually have heard that some colleges are willing to offer the venue for either a significant discount or free because they can still make their money from their $4 water and other concessions whereas high schools typically only receive income from the rent itself. At least in NE, high school event concessions are typically run by the host team, not the school.
In Ontario the universities and colleges that host regional/district events are often very willing to offer a significant discount or even completely donate the venue. They do this because they see the event as a significant recruiting opportunity; what better way to attract a group of incredibly bright and motivated students to visit your campus than by hosting a robotics event.
Liam Fay
26-06-2016, 18:39
While there are many positives to the district system that I do not need to mention more than has already been done so in this thread, I can see a few issues arise:
The San Diego and Los Angeles regionals host a non-zero number of international teams from Chile and Mexico for whom those events are their second regionals. While the district system may help to strengthen FIRST in CA, it could very well be at the cost of weakening FIRST globally.
Second, we can't completely disregard how much that regional-level ambience matters to some people. For teams that will not make it to Champs, it's not worth it to have a regional that is all about just being a stepping stone that doesn't matter as much as later events. If these teams can't go to Champs, all they're left with is that middle of the road.
araniaraniratul
26-06-2016, 18:45
Second, we can't completely disregard how much that regional-level ambience matters to some people. For teams that will not make it to Champs, it's not worth it to have a regional that is all about just being a stepping stone that doesn't matter as much as later events. If these teams can't go to Champs, all they're left with is that middle of the road.
Ventura, CVR, and OC Regionals are objectively districts pretending to be Regionals, and I have a strong suspicion that Palmdale, San Fransisco, or any new regionals added are probably in the same boat.
cadandcookies
26-06-2016, 18:47
In Ontario the universities and colleges that host regional/district events are often very willing to offer a significant discount or even completely donate the venue. They do this because they see the event as a significant recruiting opportunity; what better way to attract a group of incredibly bright and motivated students to visit your campus than by hosting a robotics event.
At Champs this year, I was talking with Ken Stafford from WPI and this was the way he recommended framing it to colleges-- there are very few opportunities to get kids with the traits FIRST/VEX encourage on campus in the sheer numbers that a robotics event can. Recruitment is a huge plus for colleges, almost as much as getting on a college campus can be for the students. We have numerous tours at the Twin Cities regionals (which are held at the University of Minnesota) that I know have led to students picking the U. It's a great angle that I'd encourage areas to try.
Remember that bit about an "excess of venues"? It isn't valid in San Diego. Call it a consequence of us having better weather than the rest of you, but we have little history of building large or multiple gyms. We really don't have venues to offer.[...]
The junior colleges and private 4-year schools lack facilities, and the ongoing budget crisis has forced the state universities to treat outside rentals as revenue sources. (SDSU and UCSD won't give us any breaks.) If we can't be assured of three (maybe two) district events close enough to drive/bus to daily, I don't expect much support for a proposal which would eliminate our present home event.Discussions among folks on my team focused in on 3-4 separate places: Our school (gym, plus either cafeteria or secondary gym--primary issues access for robots and parking), the one other high school in the district with a team (space concern? but plenty of parking), one of the other high schools (no team, but has parking, but...), and the main community college which would have space (two gyms, plus theater) but it's a community college...and in the middle of a years-long construction project all over campus.
Now, that being said, I can understand that "hey, we can make this work". The two biggest problems down here are the Big Vs: Venues and Volunteers. IE went through three venues in three years, and two of them were "interesting" (lack of seating at one, and distance+a swarm of minor factors at the other). And I've already mentioned about the volunteer problem of how people are doing 2, 3, 4 events and there often aren't enough--that part can be worked around, given time and people who want to step up.
volunteer problem of how people are doing 2, 3, 4 events
A large number of NE's volunteer base does multiple events. There were even a few Vols that likely did upwards of 7-8 events. ((MAAAAAD RESPECT FOR THESE PEOPLE))
HOWEVER...
I don't remember anyone saying it was a problem
A large number of NE's volunteer base does multiple events. There were quite a few Vols that likely did 6,7, even 8 events.
HOWEVER...
I don't remember any of them saying it was a problem
NE events are how far apart again, by time? See, out here, that's a minimum of 2 events that are a 2-hour drive away (overnight stay), and that's for someone in the middle of the four SoCal ones. In NE, I'd imagine that there's a bit more events that are closer than that, so it's a fair bit easier to do more events.
I find that folks from the East Coast tend to not be accustomed to the large amount of distance/driving time needed out here. San Diego teams are far enough away from any other regional to need hotels. Ventura, same thing if you don't like traffic (it's doable, but it'll be a long day). L.A./OC are pretty close to each other, and more northern teams could probably commute to Ventura, but beyond that, it's overnight stays required. NorCal teams have a similar issue--SVR/Sacramento/CVR are just at that edge of "overnight or not" from each other, with Sacramento in the middle of the arc.
And again, we're still in regionals. So TFS volunteering... with all associated rush hours for those that commute.
So let me rephrase that:
You've got volunteers doing 2, 3, and 4 events, with all associated driving, vacation days, and hotel stays, and there still aren't enough in key areas. Now you want to tell me that there isn't a problem?
Let me be clear: I don't have a problem doing that. I have a problem that not enough people are stepping up to do those jobs, which makes it necessary for those volunteers to do 2, 3, and 4 events as volunteers. And if CA goes district, those same volunteers will probably now be asked to do 5 or 6 or even 7 events.
PayneTrain
27-06-2016, 00:59
And I've already mentioned about the volunteer problem of how people are doing 2, 3, 4 events and there often aren't enough--that part can be worked around, given time and people who want to step up.
If someone was exclusively volunteering at FIRST events and not double dipping into their life force to mentor and volunteer, going to multiple events should not always be considered a huge barrier. I think most people who love this stuff and don't have insurmountable life priorities keeping them at bay wouldn't hesitate at picking up at least 3 weeks of work in a 9 week season.
EDIT:
NE events are how far apart again, by time? See, out here, that's a minimum of 2 events that are a 2-hour drive away (overnight stay), and that's for someone in the middle of the four SoCal ones. In NE, I'd imagine that there's a bit more events that are closer than that, so it's a fair bit easier to do more events.
I find that folks from the East Coast tend to not be accustomed to the large amount of distance/driving time needed out here. San Diego teams are far enough away from any other regional to need hotels. Ventura, same thing if you don't like traffic (it's doable, but it'll be a long day). L.A./OC are pretty close to each other, and more northern teams could probably commute to Ventura, but beyond that, it's overnight stays required. NorCal teams have a similar issue--SVR/Sacramento/CVR are just at that edge of "overnight or not" from each other, with Sacramento in the middle of the arc.
And again, we're still in regionals. So TFS volunteering... with all associated rush hours for those that commute.
So let me rephrase that:
You've got volunteers doing 2, 3, and 4 events, with all associated driving, vacation days, and hotel stays, and there still aren't enough in key areas. Now you want to tell me that there isn't a problem?
Let me be clear: I don't have a problem doing that. I have a problem that not enough people are stepping up to do those jobs, which makes it necessary for those volunteers to do 2, 3, and 4 events as volunteers. And if CA goes district, those same volunteers will probably now be asked to do 5 or 6 or even 7 events.
In the regional system in VA, you would need a hotel for at least 1 event if you wanted to do 2. For a lot of teams, they needed a hotel twice. Now, there are 2 that I can pretty easily do in a day's drive, plus a potential third, plus the district championship, all without needing a hotel. Without knowing exactly where venues would land, you can't confirm this, but you likely would not need overnight expenses outside of a DCMP if you are in a population that has 20 teams within an hour of a central point. If you do need overnight travel, volunteer positions outside of the FTA, CSA, RIs, and supporting roles that are filled by host teams or local teams would only need 1 night stays.
You can also argue that California, in the vacuum of a regional model in perpetuity would be better served with 1 or two more regionals in the state.
Outside of the FTA position and one or two others, the bounceback from an FSS event won't really hit you that hard unless you are volunteering on consecutive FSS events.
It's a lot easier to commit to multiple weeks in the district system (I went from 2-3 to 6 this year without much of a fuss) The discussion is inevitably going to circle back to "you will get more volunteers when you switch to districts" which is anecdotal and speculative. The district model was speculative in 2008. Dunno what else to tell you.
If someone was exclusively volunteering at FIRST events and not double dipping into their life force to mentor and volunteer, going to multiple events should not always be considered a huge barrier. I think most people who love this stuff and don't have insurmountable life priorities keeping them at bay wouldn't hesitate at picking up at least 3 weeks of work in a 9 week season.
Possibly.
OTOH, "insurmountable life priorities" should also include making sure that one is in good standing at work. I work in a crew--we notice when someone is missing a pile of time.
PayneTrain
27-06-2016, 01:14
Possibly.
OTOH, "insurmountable life priorities" should also include making sure that one is in good standing at work. I work in a crew--we notice when someone is missing a pile of time.
Maintaining a livelihood would be considered an insurmountable life priority. A lot of us are very stupid unfortunately and ignore that one more than we should.
Michael Corsetto
27-06-2016, 10:51
Remember that bit about an "excess of venues"? It isn't valid in San Diego. Call it a consequence of us having better weather than the rest of you, but we have little history of building large or multiple gyms. We really don't have venues to offer.
Of 116 schools in San Diego and Imperial Counties, only 7 have two gyms. Three (Carlsbad, Fallbrook, Escondido) are at schools with no team. Grossmont (4919) and Mar Vista (no team, but same district as 2543, 3704, 4616, 5627) have a long distance between them. That leaves Ramona (2029) and Sweetwater (3704). (And Ramona's a bit off the beaten path.)
Can we fit pits into Mission Hills' (5137) or Canyon Crest's (3128) gyms? (Same design, a large spectator gym with an 84'x50' practice court stubbed off to the side.) Can 5137 get us the huge gym at San Marcos HS? (Large enough for three side-by-side courts, large-capacity bleachers cover one, bleachers closed on the third for pit space. Is that even large enough?) Can 1972 get neighboring Southwest HS in El Centro? (Similar config to San Marcos. And of course, that means driving two hours to El Centro.)
The junior colleges and private 4-year schools lack facilities, and the ongoing budget crisis has forced the state universities to treat outside rentals as revenue sources. (SDSU and UCSD won't give us any breaks.) If we can't be assured of three (maybe two) district events close enough to drive/bus to daily, I don't expect much support for a proposal which would eliminate our present home event.
Thanks a ton for this valuable feedback. Yes, RC, Andrew and I are all from NorCal. Your feedback on gyms is very insightful. If I ever got some free time, I was going to start google-earth-touring around all the high schools (starting with FRC team schools and working my way from there) to start looking for venues, but you seem to have a strong grasp of the region already.
Hopefully you got to read in the proposal a bit on the venue needs for a 40 team district event (including stands for 1200 people, square footage for field and pits, etc). Maybe someone in another district could enlighten the conversation, but I am not sure that the pits need to be strictly a second gym? I've been to multiple unofficial FRC events where something like a cafeteria/MPR was used as a decent pit space. Maybe that could open up some more options in SoCal (and SD specifically).
Is something like a big tent/easy up a possibility for district event pits? I've seen this done once in the US (Sacramento Regional 2014), and the pits at the 2012 Israel regional were underneath a giant tent as well. I wonder what the cost is to rent one of those for 3 days?
Also, a note for parking. FiM will hire a bus/shuttle to move people from a remote parking lot to the event if there isn't enough parking directly at the venue. Turns out, when you are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, you can drop 1-2k to hire a shuttle bus :D
Another aspect not touched on in the proposal is doing a multi-year district roll-out. The idea here is NorCal has a few more things in it's favor to switch to districts than SoCal, at least in the short term. Next year, NorCal will have 4 Regional events (at least 2 at High Schools, still waiting on the new Sacramento location). With just over 100 teams in NorCal, 6 district events are needed. Add in a DCMP, and that is 7 events. Subjectively, the jump from 4 events to 7 events does not seem that bad. Add in that NorCal already has 40+ team off-season events and established HS venues, I have no doubt that NorCal could make the switch fairly painlessly in 2018.
I am interested in hearing peoples thoughts on rolling out districts in California over multiple seasons.
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
-Mike
Jon Stratis
27-06-2016, 11:21
In Ontario the universities and colleges that host regional/district events are often very willing to offer a significant discount or even completely donate the venue. They do this because they see the event as a significant recruiting opportunity; what better way to attract a group of incredibly bright and motivated students to visit your campus than by hosting a robotics event.
The same is true here in MN - The U of MN is extremely generous when it comes to our events, and St. Cloud State started to get into it last year with a training event (and I've heard they want to do more as well).
Pauline Tasci
27-06-2016, 11:26
Another aspect not touched on in the proposal is doing a multi-year district roll-out. The idea here is NorCal has a few more things in it's favor to switch to districts than SoCal, at least in the short term. Next year, NorCal will have 4 Regional events (at least 2 at High Schools, still waiting on the new Sacramento location). With just over 100 teams in NorCal, 6 district events are needed. Add in a DCMP, and that is 7 events. Subjectively, the jump from 4 events to 7 events does not seem that bad. Add in that NorCal already has 40+ team off-season events and established HS venues, I have no doubt that NorCal could make the switch fairly painlessly in 2018.
-Mike
Rolling out districts in NorCal first would limit so many teams from attending events. And what defines NorCal or SoCal? Where would Central Valley go? Both our regions depend on that area for another event. I understand the idea behind it, since there is a larger pull from the northern region for districts, but then we get limited down here. We already depend on Arizona and Vegas for our regionals, taking out the northern California options for us limit our interactions with the events and the teams in northern California. Especially since we are considering as 2 district champs model, that means the only time SoCal would compete with NorCal for the years NorCal has districts and SoCal is still on the regional model would be at 1/2 champs.
Brandon Holley
27-06-2016, 11:45
So let me rephrase that:
You've got volunteers doing 2, 3, and 4 events, with all associated driving, vacation days, and hotel stays, and there still aren't enough in key areas. Now you want to tell me that there isn't a problem?
Let me be clear: I don't have a problem doing that. I have a problem that not enough people are stepping up to do those jobs, which makes it necessary for those volunteers to do 2, 3, and 4 events as volunteers. And if CA goes district, those same volunteers will probably now be asked to do 5 or 6 or even 7 events.
This is coming from a fairly ignorant ole east coaster, who has a ton of cali friends, but obviously am not as intimate with the area as I am my homelands of NE and MAR...
Have you considered perhaps that potentially people aren't 'stepping up' simply because they do not know how to? This was something I've seen and still am approached about at almost any competition I attend in NE. Volunteers in a role are too shy or simply unaware of how to 'step up'.
There is also the Field of Dreams situation that I think is inherent to any region jumping into Districts - "If you build it, they will come". You may not know who or where these people are coming from, but without the open opportunity, you'll never find them.
Eric- You've been around for a long time, you know how the system works. I'm in the same boat. I find it hard to put myself back into the shoes of a new volunteer who is filled with ambition, but nervous to 'mess something up' or even ask how to take on more responsibility.
California FIRST is filled with awesome people, that I've gotten to know and interact with for a long time now. These concerns are extremely VALID, but are they insurmountable? Absolutely not, and I've seen numerous useful suggestions in this thread already to start moving the needle.
The hardest part is rallying the massive group to make it happen.
-Brando
Michael Corsetto
27-06-2016, 11:51
Rolling out districts in NorCal first would limit so many teams from attending events. And what defines NorCal or SoCal? Where would Central Valley go? Both our regions depend on that area for another event. I understand the idea behind it, since there is a larger pull from the northern region for districts, but then we get limited down here. We already depend on Arizona and Vegas for our regionals, taking out the northern California options for us limit our interactions with the regionals and the teams in northern California. Especially since we are considering as 2 district champs model, that means the only time SoCal would compete with NorCal for the years NorCal has districts and SoCal is still on the regional model would be at 1/2 champs.
Very fair concerns.
In a quick count, I tallied ~7 SoCal teams at CVR, out of 49. It is definitely a primarily NorCal event (confirmed by team distribution map from 2014 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwpF5TsB9f7jX1IxVUtRNDRJbmc))
I think SoCal will depend on Vegas/Arizona regardless until Districts happen. And, luckily, both of these areas appear to be strong and/or growing (I've been particularly impressed with AZ in the past few years).
Once Districts are established, the state will likely be split in half anyway, with only a few teams traveling for inter-district play. It is the natural progression to the model of a High School sport.
Why could this roll-out be beneficial to both regions? I hear so much doubt and misinformation surrounding districts in CA. It's almost like 1/2 of FRC hasn't made the switch already and disproved many of the concerns that get recycled almost daily. :rolleyes: If half the state can go to districts in 2018, then maybe that opens the door for the other half to come in as soon as the following year. Showing what is possible is part of garnering support of people that would be hesitant to embrace change otherwise.
From my perspective, it could very well be a win-win. Believe me, I am pushing for this because I want all FRC teams, particularly in CA, to be more sustainable, more successful, and more inspirational.
Maybe it is less of a "Goodbye" and more of a "See you on the other side"? ;)
-Mike
Pauline Tasci
27-06-2016, 11:51
Have you considered perhaps that potentially people aren't 'stepping up' simply because they do not know how to? This was something I've seen and still am approached about at almost any competition I attend in NE. Volunteers in a role are too shy or simply unaware of how to 'step up'.
+100
Maybe someone in another district could enlighten the conversation, but I am not sure that the pits need to be strictly a second gym? I've been to multiple unofficial FRC events where something like a cafeteria/MPR was used as a decent pit space. Maybe that could open up some more options in SoCal (and SD specifically).
Off the top of my head, MAR Mt. Olive uses the cafeteria for the pits.
Hopefully you got to read in the proposal a bit on the venue needs for a 40 team district event (including stands for 1200 people, square footage for field and pits, etc). Maybe someone in another district could enlighten the conversation, but I am not sure that the pits need to be strictly a second gym? I've been to multiple unofficial FRC events where something like a cafeteria/MPR was used as a decent pit space. Maybe that could open up some more options in SoCal (and SD specifically).
In NE:
North Shore and Rhode Island were held in field houses where everything fit in the one space. Granite State had pits in a cafeteria. I am not familiar with any of the other high school venues. While not a high school, WPI has pits in some weird room that I don't what to call, but is a great example of creative pit layouts. They really crammed pits in every corner they could find for DCMP in 2015.
One other thing to consider for pits is if the school has any large halls or lobbies that they would allow pits in. Even if there isn't enough room for 40 pits, you may have just enough room that you can squeeze the rest in the main gym.
Aloha from Maui, I'm the lead mentor for team 3882 the Lunas out of Lahainaluna HS on Maui. We have been to San Diego in 2016 and Los Angeles in 2015 and really enjoyed ourselves at both regionals. Thank you to the event crews and volunteers. We will be sad if California goes to districts, but I understand the reasons. We have figured out that playing in 2 regionals is definitely a plus for improving our program, so I see the rational behind districts allowing more matches. Unfortunately for us travel is our biggest challenge $$, even our home regional is on another island, Oahu, and we need to fly there, hotel cost etc.. California is our closest regional opportunity other than Oahu.
Very fair concerns.
In a quick count, I tallied ~7 SoCal teams at CVR, out of 49. It is definitely a primarily NorCal event (confirmed by team distribution map from 2014 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwpF5TsB9f7jX1IxVUtRNDRJbmc))
I think SoCal will depend on Vegas/Arizona regardless until Districts happen. And, luckily, both of these areas appear to be strong and/or growing (I've been particularly impressed with AZ in the past few years).
Once Districts are established, the state will likely be split in half anyway, with only a few teams traveling for inter-district play. It is the natural progression to the model of a High School sport.
Why could this roll-out be beneficial to both regions? I hear so much doubt and misinformation surrounding districts in CA. It's almost like 1/2 of FRC hasn't made the switch already and disproved many of the concerns that get recycled almost daily. :rolleyes: If half the state can go to districts in 2018, then maybe that opens the door for the other half to come in as soon as the following year. Showing what is possible is part of garnering support of people that would be hesitant to embrace change otherwise.
From my perspective, it could very well be a win-win. Believe me, I am pushing for this because I want all FRC teams, particularly in CA, to be more sustainable, more successful, and more inspirational.
Maybe it is less of a "Goodbye" and more of a "See you on the other side"? ;)
-Mike
While I agree historically CVR is more NoCal teams, if I remember CVR was on the same weekend as the Long Beach Regional this year, and I think the week before in 2015. So you may have missed out on a lot of potential So.Cal teams these year just due to scheduling issues. Typically on my team we are not a fan of back to back events as its a burden on iteration plus it is hard for our students to take consecutive weeks off.
294 attended CVR in 2013 as it was on an advantageous weekend. We found that its really was not a hard drive or trip. The venue we thought was great and we would most definitely be willing to go back. In our regional trade space CVR is always in there just as long as we have enough separation from our "home" event of Los Angeles.
Without speaking for all the rest of them mentors on my team. I can see lots of pros/cons for Districts. We regularly compete in Long Beach so seeing 60+ teams is very normal to us. Holding the event in the arena can be a very special memory for most students on not only our team but also teams that have never gone to Champs. Keeping the regionals to have a "larger" feel can not only have tremendous inspirational effects but it also puts on a "great show" for our local sponsors. Often times when we invite our sponsors having them see an arena filled up usually gets them realizing the scope of the program that I am afraid may not be seen at the district event level.
I am not saying the district event cannot have the same effect, its just one of the things having regionals has going for it.
For me, Districts has to be the way to go for the future. We are already playing half of our Regionals in High school Gyms. From Inland Empire, to OC to CVR our 2nd regional is essentially a district event. So not only do we get limited to 8 matches at a 60+ regional but we also are paying a regional fee for essentially a district event. Man the worst $/match out there!
The crews who have put on I.E. OC and the other smaller regionals have all done a fantastic job and we have always enjoyed playing at those venues. The Orange county regional this year was a smashing success and we really look forward to coming back. Its just just a bummer to be spending the same amount for essentially what the rest of FRC would call a district event.
I have only quickly scanned the document but is very well written. I did notice that the South Bay (LA) area is an ideal location as well for a district. It looks like EricH mentioned that his team had looked at the venues. At 294 some of the mentors have talked(mainly whispered) that there has to be a school around here that has a chance. We would need to explore the requirements more carefully so thanks for helping us outline what is needed. But most important would be getting school buy-in and understanding how the gyms get booked. Our schools are so sports dominated that typically the gyms are constantly being used from girls volleyball to deep CIF boys/girls basketball championship runs.
Christopher149
27-06-2016, 16:55
Hopefully you got to read in the proposal a bit on the venue needs for a 40 team district event (including stands for 1200 people, square footage for field and pits, etc). Maybe someone in another district could enlighten the conversation, but I am not sure that the pits need to be strictly a second gym? I've been to multiple unofficial FRC events where something like a cafeteria/MPR was used as a decent pit space. Maybe that could open up some more options in SoCal (and SD specifically).
-Mike
FIM Escanaba uses part of the cafeteria for approx 10 pits and a small practice gym for approx 30 pits and the practice field. FIM LSSU used the hockey arena for pits and the basketball arena for the field.
Many people mention using two gyms because many schools have two gyms separated by a hallway which makes for a convenient arrangement. But, it is not an absolute rule by any means.
and the main community college which would have space (two gyms, plus theater) but it's a community college...
That sounds great. What's wrong with a community college?
AdamHeard
27-06-2016, 17:43
That sounds great. What's wrong with a community college?
That threw me off as well.
The Ventura regional is held in their community college.
notmattlythgoe
27-06-2016, 17:50
That threw me off as well.
The Ventura regional is held in their community college.
Well we wouldn't want kids thinking that community college is an acceptable route to go...
Michael Corsetto
27-06-2016, 18:07
I have only quickly scanned the document but is very well written. I did notice that the South Bay (LA) area is an ideal location as well for a district. It looks like EricH mentioned that his team had looked at the venues. At 294 some of the mentors have talked(mainly whispered) that there has to be a school around here that has a chance. We would need to explore the requirements more carefully so thanks for helping us outline what is needed. But most important would be getting school buy-in and understanding how the gyms get booked. Our schools are so sports dominated that typically the gyms are constantly being used from girls volleyball to deep CIF boys/girls basketball championship runs.
Thank you for all of your feedback regarding CVR, and please do investigate possible venues! As some other posters have noted, it looks like we can be flexible with Pit locations if need be, so two gyms right next to each other likely is not a "hard" requirement, just like parking spots are not a hard requirement. I think 1200 spectator seating, and some of the other points in criteria, would be "hard" requirements though.
It is encouraging to see so much community engagement into the proposal. I'm planning a few revisions to update some numbers and make some other misc. corrections. Let me know if you see anything else worth updating/adding!
-Mike
smurfgirl
27-06-2016, 18:38
NE events are how far apart again, by time? See, out here, that's a minimum of 2 events that are a 2-hour drive away (overnight stay), and that's for someone in the middle of the four SoCal ones. In NE, I'd imagine that there's a bit more events that are closer than that, so it's a fair bit easier to do more events.
This has been one of the biggest barriers to me being more involved in California. I used to do at least three events per season in New England, even before we switched to districts there. I could usually drive to 2-3 events from my house, my parents' house, or a friend's house, meaning I wouldn't need a hotel.
Now in California the closest event is over 90 miles (over 2 hours) from where I live, which means I need to pay for several nights at a hotel in an expensive area and take even more time off from work. In 2015, I took a lot of time off from work and paid a lot out of pocket to volunteer at three events in California and Nevada. In 2016, between some major deadlines at work and dealing with a family emergency, I couldn't even make it to a single FRC regional in California.
Hi Liam Fay of W.A.R. Lords- Your point two that the "…regional level ambience…" is the high point of a kid's FRC career is germane-- the consistently winning teams do see the points gathering thing as a stepping stone. The teams working out of the janitor's closet on the cafeteria benches in January want to go to something Big, Big, to make all their sacrifices and unplesantnesses worthwhile. What with our fabulous weather, Jan/Feb on the cafe benches still means you're working your robot in mittens and ushankas. Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.
EricH- Add to the volunteer conundrum another, which may be a Left Coast mentality: Some school site admin are totally bought into understanding what this kind of education means, and give their sites to teams for only janitorial fees. The majority (anecdotal, but research nonetheless) look at the rolling junk on the playing floor and only see rolling junk; they've an inability to break out of intellectual tunnel they've made for themselves to grasp what's going on. * They are happy to have a kid cite FRC on the college app, but care little for the day to day wrenching and welding and bandaids. Thus kids and mentors delegated to working out of janitor's closets or having to lease space in the community (at market rates).
Hi Michael C- thanks for putting your time in on this- it's a set of thoughtful pieces. On GoogleEarth, take a look at Torrance South High School- we've a great gym, a second Vball gym maybe for pits, but the access is up stairs and through narrow passageways, seeing as how the place was built in the early 60's (and despite rebuilds to make us Section 504 compatible). The California architects expect kids to play outside most of the year and give no thought to fieldhouse size venues and secondary gyms.
------
Pits have a dynamic that gets fragmented if you put four teams here, eight over there, a couple next to the playing field, some in some other building. We want teams to rub shoulders and be Graciously Professional while so doing, with veterans pulling up the newbies.
Perspective at the doer level is all. The teacher/mentor/parent/volunteer pool is devoted. I/we want kids to get out of school and be a success at whatever. I'd invite District proponents to play a season with us to get a grasp of the perspective (great perspective smurfgirl!), and fit your good ideas into our socioeconomic/cultural/geographic template--good minds solve big problems--I admit to a crushed viewpoint and tunnel vision as much as the next guy/gal, and like critiques from our vision point.
Joe Petito
LA Robotics
* See the discussion on Quality by Persig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
FarmerJohn
27-06-2016, 21:58
Hi Liam Fay of W.A.R. Lords- Your point two that the "…regional level ambiance…" is the high point of a kid's FRC career is germane-- the consistently winning teams do see the points gathering thing as a stepping stone. The teams working out of the janitor's closet on the cafeteria benches in January want to go to something Big, Big, to make all their sacrifices and unplesantnesses worthwhile. What with our fabulous weather, Jan/Feb on the cafe benches still means you're working your robot in mittens and ushankas. Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.
Gonna be honest here, if a team is working out of a closet, I don't think a big flashy venue is gonna matter to them more than getting the robot they worked on for 6 weeks functioning, and it doesn't take a genius to know that more opportunities to play is gonna help you improve more than big event ambiance will. Do you really care about the experience of the teams that don't have much to work with? Give them more chances to get better and make something of their season. Big flashy lights don't help when you're 0-10 at your only event and your season just finished. That's why some teams go home early, and why others don't come back next year.
Gonna be honest here, if a team is working out of a closet, I don't think a big flashy venue is gonna matter to them more than getting the robot they worked on for 6 weeks functioning, and it doesn't take a genius to know that more opportunities to play is gonna help you improve more than big event ambiance will. Do you really care about the experience of the teams that don't have much to work with? Give them more chances to get better and make something of their season. Big flashy lights don't help when you're 0-10 at your only event and your season just finished. That's why some teams go home early, and why others don't come back next year.Having spent hard time on one such previously hole-in-the-wall team, I wholeheartedly agree. The flash of the regional provides very little motivation--none to me as a student--especially given how short-lived it is. When we worked in a barn, anywhere was up in terms of location. The great part is getting play time with other teams and, eventually, hopefully succeeding at something that lasts (a record of playing Saturday or winning an award). This is much more likely at smaller districts events with more play time and smaller competitive fields. Having now played in districts, we've also found that those titles, e.g. "Innovation Award Winner" or "quarterfinalist", etc, are far more interesting to sponsors (and recruits, and us) than the flash of any event "we played" at. People don't probe about the size of the field when you show them a trophy. Moreover, having more events via districts has helped more potential funders and other outsiders show up at one.
BrendanB
27-06-2016, 22:28
Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.
Sponsors love hearing about districts especially when their $5k = more matches = more time on the field = more time for iteration = more success.
I remember when one of our core sponsors a few years back asked "What are districts and how do we get in them?"
PayneTrain
27-06-2016, 22:42
Hi Liam Fay of W.A.R. Lords- Your point two that the "…regional level ambience…" is the high point of a kid's FRC career is germane-- the consistently winning teams do see the points gathering thing as a stepping stone. The teams working out of the janitor's closet on the cafeteria benches in January want to go to something Big, Big, to make all their sacrifices and unplesantnesses worthwhile. What with our fabulous weather, Jan/Feb on the cafe benches still means you're working your robot in mittens and ushankas. Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.
Sponsors can walk into a lot of people at District Championship events, see them shouting and screaming, get impressed, and write checks. They can also go to at least twice as many events as previously offered in the area if the shouting and screaming isn't for them.
EricH- Add to the volunteer conundrum another, which may be a Left Coast mentality: Some school site admin are totally bought into understanding what this kind of education means, and give their sites to teams for only janitorial fees. The majority (anecdotal, but research nonetheless) look at the rolling junk on the playing floor and only see rolling junk; they've an inability to break out of intellectual tunnel they've made for themselves to grasp what's going on. * They are happy to have a kid cite FRC on the college app, but care little for the day to day wrenching and welding and bandaids. Thus kids and mentors delegated to working out of janitor's closets or having to lease space in the community (at market rates).
This is a pretty good argument for districts.
Pits have a dynamic that gets fragmented if you put four teams here, eight over there, a couple next to the playing field, some in some other building. We want teams to rub shoulders and be Graciously Professional while so doing, with veterans pulling up the newbies.
Now I have heard it all, I think. This was an existing problem at a regional in southern California.
Perspective at the doer level is all. The teacher/mentor/parent/volunteer pool is devoted. I/we want kids to get out of school and be a success at whatever. I'd invite District proponents to play a season with us to get a grasp of the perspective (great perspective smurfgirl!), and fit your good ideas into our socioeconomic/cultural/geographic template--good minds solve big problems--I admit to a crushed viewpoint and tunnel vision as much as the next guy/gal, and like critiques from our vision point.
That sounds like a great offer! I'd love to take 422 to San Diego or Anaheim. Unfortunately the regionals in California are packed with teams from the state so much already that it is really hard to get out there and play a season with you. SoCal teams are occasionally shipped off to Nevada or Arizona for a second play; I imagine district model teams will not fare much better.
That sounds like a great offer! I'd love to take 422 to San Diego or Anaheim. Unfortunately the regionals in California are packed with teams from the state so much already that it is really hard to get out there and play a season with you. SoCal teams are occasionally shipped off to Nevada or Arizona for a second play; I imagine district model teams will not fare much better.
Can Confirm-
A short-lived attempt to get 125 into San Diego this year was met with a response along the lines of "we don't even have enough space for California teams..."
We, too, "got shipped" to Arizona (Which was a great event, don't get me wrong. We just wanted to play with robots outside...)
Now I have heard it all, I think. This was an existing problem at a regional in southern California.
Are you sure? L.A. hasn't had that, ever. Ventura is all in one room (albeit, with some spread for "peripheral" parts of the pit). OC is practically all one room (slight overflow to odd corners of said room); IE same thing the last couple years it existed. Not quite sure about San Diego but in the venue this year it was one area. A couple of times offseasons have dealt with that particular problem, but not often.
With respect to the "community college" statement: This particular community college tends to be extremely busy (except when not in session). I'm also not quite sure on the layout of where the key venues might end up; they're (generally) on the same path, but cover is spotty. (You know, it does rain down here on occasion...typically in February and March.) Though if something WAS hosted there, something breaks and the machine shop is under a hundred yards away, fully equipped, and at least one of those instructors "GETS IT" with FRC.
Now I have heard it all, I think. This was an existing problem at a regional in southern California.
And it happened in Northern California, at least at SVR. All teams with a number higher than around 45xx (IIRC) were put in a separate room than the rest of the pits. I found no issue with the separation, and veteran teams like 1678 were coming through and talking with all of us. If I wanted to go to see the other teams, it was just a short walk away. In my opinion, it's really not important, and none of my teammates felt "less inspired" or "a lack of GP" from being in a separate room.
Pauline Tasci
27-06-2016, 23:20
Are you sure? L.A. hasn't had that, ever. Ventura is all in one room (albeit, with some spread for "peripheral" parts of the pit). OC is practically all one room (slight overflow to odd corners of said room); IE same thing the last couple years it existed. Not quite sure about San Diego but in the venue this year it was one area. A couple of times offseasons have dealt with that particular problem, but not often.
=
The last year IE existed (2015) we had to run a tent for teams to transport their robots from the pits the the arena because the gyms were farther apart.
While the pits were in one location, I think Wil's comment pertained to that layout.
The tents were not in the plan, no one really expected there to be rain, but mad credit to the IE committee for having a back up plan.
Good points all John. Much to be said for that.
I don't think there is too much I can add here that was not already covered.
1) 40 teams in a high school gym can be as loud if not louder than in a big arena with 60 teams.
2) I like how close the bleachers in a high school gym are to the playing field. You are close to the action from most seats.
3) My experience is there are a lot of different types of sponsors. I have not run across any sponsors that support teams to write a check because they were impressed with the venue. There are sponsors who cared that your robot does reasonably well because their name is on it. There are sponsors who cared that your team is involved in the community. There are quite a few sponsors who cared that the students learned something that they wouldn't have learned if not for FIRST Robotics. When they hear that the program mimics real world engineering with opportunities to iterate and improve and ultimately succeed, that's when they open their checkbook. That is what district model gives students. 8-10 matches and out for the season is not inspiring no matter how great the venue is.
4) District championship is the same experience as regionals except the robots are more competitive in general so the matches are usually more exciting.
5) I like district events in a high school because you always feel welcome. Most of the time, the high school principal or even school district superintendent is there. They are proud of their school and they want you to have a good experience. Some schools have their cheerleading squad kick things off. Some have their band or singing group for national anthem. They go out of their way to inconvenient their students on Friday to give you the cafeteria, parking and other space. You can bring in your own food or order in food that is much better and more economical than at the regionals that I have attended. Most of what I said here is true for Kettering and other district events at college campus in Michigan also.
Michael Corsetto
28-06-2016, 12:41
Hi Liam Fay of W.A.R. Lords- Your point two that the "…regional level ambience…" is the high point of a kid's FRC career is germane-- the consistently winning teams do see the points gathering thing as a stepping stone. The teams working out of the janitor's closet on the cafeteria benches in January want to go to something Big, Big, to make all their sacrifices and unplesantnesses worthwhile. What with our fabulous weather, Jan/Feb on the cafe benches still means you're working your robot in mittens and ushankas. Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.
EricH- Add to the volunteer conundrum another, which may be a Left Coast mentality: Some school site admin are totally bought into understanding what this kind of education means, and give their sites to teams for only janitorial fees. The majority (anecdotal, but research nonetheless) look at the rolling junk on the playing floor and only see rolling junk; they've an inability to break out of intellectual tunnel they've made for themselves to grasp what's going on. * They are happy to have a kid cite FRC on the college app, but care little for the day to day wrenching and welding and bandaids. Thus kids and mentors delegated to working out of janitor's closets or having to lease space in the community (at market rates).
Hi Michael C- thanks for putting your time in on this- it's a set of thoughtful pieces. On GoogleEarth, take a look at Torrance South High School- we've a great gym, a second Vball gym maybe for pits, but the access is up stairs and through narrow passageways, seeing as how the place was built in the early 60's (and despite rebuilds to make us Section 504 compatible). The California architects expect kids to play outside most of the year and give no thought to fieldhouse size venues and secondary gyms.
------
Pits have a dynamic that gets fragmented if you put four teams here, eight over there, a couple next to the playing field, some in some other building. We want teams to rub shoulders and be Graciously Professional while so doing, with veterans pulling up the newbies.
Perspective at the doer level is all. The teacher/mentor/parent/volunteer pool is devoted. I/we want kids to get out of school and be a success at whatever. I'd invite District proponents to play a season with us to get a grasp of the perspective (great perspective smurfgirl!), and fit your good ideas into our socioeconomic/cultural/geographic template--good minds solve big problems--I admit to a crushed viewpoint and tunnel vision as much as the next guy/gal, and like critiques from our vision point.
Joe Petito
LA Robotics
* See the discussion on Quality by Persig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Joe,
Thanks for all of your feedback. A few of my observations to your points:
1. Sponsors want flashy events: I do not know of these proposed "see us waste 5k on 8 matches in an oversized venue and write a check" sponsors you seem to speak of. We have a 150k budget, and all of our corporate sponsorships are developed and finalized outside of competitions. The only sponsor that visited our team at competition last year was NVIDIA, but they are pretty deep in FRC already. Also, I agree with everything Ed Law said.
2. School Admins: For the past three years, CCC (NorCal Offseason) has moved to three different HS here in the Sac area. Not because that is all we could find each year, but because all three schools want to host the event, and we are spreading the event out to benefit more communities. Your anecdotal evidence is fine, but does not 100% line up with the majority of areas already in districts that seem to be able to get high schools to host events.
3. Venues: There are many HS in California. I know we can get creative and make it work. Its a matter of intelligence over convenience.
As an FYI, both Sacramento and SVR already have split pits. Both events have 12-16 teams in a secondary area in order to support the massive 60+ team rosters. So going down to a 40 team event with the same pit split up seems entirely reasonable. No one is advocating for the pits to be in 4+ different places, I'd rather not tolerate that sort of hyperbole in this discussion.
All,
Currently, California is spending over $1 Million Dollars on 7 regional events. We can run 18 events for almost half the price in our first year of switching, with additional savings in subsequent years. I am not proud of the amount of money in California that goes to unnecessary venue, A/V, union and catering charges. I want us to do better, to use our event sponsor's money more effectively to support the STEM revolution we are all a part of.
Joe, we have a ton of amazing minds in California, I totally agree with you. I'd like to put that brain power into solving the problems of "how do we make this happen?"
Keep the conversation going everyone.
Request: Could someone forward me contact info for Volunteer Coordinators for the various RPC's in CA?
I currently just have CVR and Sac contacts.
Thanks!
-Mike
Chris is me
28-06-2016, 13:07
I just want to add one quick note to this discussion, having participated in regionals for 7 years and then districts for 1 year now. People talk about the quality of district events versus regionals as if you have to give up the regional feel to do districts. That really isn't true. For one thing, the District Championships tend to have either the same or better production value compared to a regional. So you still have that 60 team event with thousands of screaming kids in a stadium to change lives and invite sponsors to and stuff. That doesn't go away.
And some district events feel basically identical to small regionals anyway. District events at colleges or community colleges are pretty much the same as a regional event at a college or community college. If you walked into the Rhode Island District Event and the Tech Valley Regional, the only immediately noticeable difference is that Tech Valley has the Show Ready lighting.
Even at the high school gym level, sponsors are impressed by district events. The company I work for sends some volunteers to the local district competitions regularly, and they certainly aren't turned off by the high school feel. They see kids and engineers working side by side on machines and playing matches with robots. That's cool no matter how you dress it up.
Districts are worth it. You can make the events as snazzy and fancy as you want to - no one's forcing you to give anything up in the District system - but I also think you're overstating the necessity of every event being a 60+ team event in a big stadium with fancy lights. You're also ignoring the current reality that many regionals are already run "like districts", and those kids aren't walking away any less inspired.
Richard Wallace
28-06-2016, 13:16
..., I agree with everything Ed Law said.I do, too.
I have not lived in California for the last thirty years, but I do still have family there. It is important to me that FIRST continues growing in all states, and especially in California, with its nation-size economy and enormous stake in future STEM-based careers.
To reinforce a point others have made: large corporate donors are generally smart enough to understand that they are buying into a culture changing program, not backing a show, when their money goes to FIRST. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok7tsXF_VSE) is an example from my neck of the woods.
The video was made by Whirlpool Corporation, with help from several of the teams they sponsor. Most of the footage is from the St. Joseph District, which they also sponsor. Whirlpool leaders have attended MSC and CMP, but it is their local teams and event that inspire their continued engagement. This is what an FRC partnership of business, schools, and community looks like to me. If we can do this in Southwest Michigan, it can be done in California.
Lil' Lavery
28-06-2016, 13:42
People talk about the quality of district events versus regionals as if you have to give up the regional feel to do districts. That really isn't true. For one thing, the District Championships tend to have either the same or better production value compared to a regional.
This definitely has not been the case in MAR since 2013. In 2012, Show Ready was still involved in the MAR DCMP (which was then hosted at a former Philadelphia regional location). From 2013 onwards, the venue was shifted to a more affordable venue and the production value was dropped significantly. The first year there weren't even drapes separating the field and pit areas, which gave it a distinctly "off-season/district event" feel. In subsequent years, low canopy drapes were added (providing separation at field level, but not from the stands), but house lighting and projection remained wanting.
While MAR has very valid motivations for the cost savings in terms of DCMP venue selection and production costs, it still leaves a lot to be desired from a production value standpoint. MAR is not necessarily representative of how a California district championship event(s) would be run, but it does show the possibility for reduced production quality even at a DCMP event.
(edit, I now see that this thread (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=149201) has individuals expressing similar concerns with the FiM and PCH DCMP events' production values)
Ben Martin
28-06-2016, 13:43
One additional point I haven't seen brought up that I think is worth mentioning--districts definitely promote having an 'identity' for the region. From my experience, teams and event staff have been generally more invested in both the competitive success and event experience of all teams at the event, maybe because we play each other much more frequently or we are labeled as being from a particular region.
AdamHeard
28-06-2016, 13:44
While MAR has very valid motivations for the cost savings in terms of DCMP venue selection and production costs, it still leaves a lot to be desired from a production value standpoint. MAR is not necessarily representative of how a California district championship event(s) would be run, but it does show the possibility for reduced production quality even at a DCMP event.
I'm really not concerned about the production quality of whatever the CA state champ(s) would be.
With the amount of ego mixed with talent out here, I'm certain our state champ(s) will be quite a spectacle compared to all current CA regionals and current District Champs events.
Lil' Lavery
28-06-2016, 13:47
I'm really not concerned about the production quality of whatever the CA state champ(s) would be.
With the amount of ego mixed with talent out here, I'm certain our state champ(s) will be quite a spectacle compared to all current CA regionals and current District Champs events.
Ego and talent are awesome, but if your 501c(3) decides to invest money in areas other than production/venue selection, it's a moot point. Unless you're purely talking about the on-field robot performance creating the spectacle?
AdamHeard
28-06-2016, 13:49
Ego and talent are awesome, but if your 501c(3) decides to invest money in areas other than production, it's a moot point. Unless you're purely talking about the on-field robot performance creating the spectacle?
The ego and talent I'm mentioning wouldn't stand for the 501c(3) to not allocate sufficient budget to make it the show they'd want. I'm certain they will be involved from the get go in the transition to districts, and will shape decisions in that direction.
I'm really not concerned about the production quality of whatever the CA state champ(s) would be.
With the amount of ego mixed with talent out here, I'm certain our state champ(s) will be quite a spectacle compared to all current CA regionals and current District Champs events.
+1. Personally, I'd much rather have the opportunity to play more matches, save money, and go to several smaller events than attend one "flashy" regional where smaller teams might get lost in the shuffle.
One additional point I haven't seen brought up that I think is worth mentioning--districts definitely promote having an 'identity' for the region. From my experience, teams and event staff have been generally more invested in both the competitive success and event experience of all teams at the event, maybe because we play each other much more frequently or we are labeled as being from a particular region.
Not only that, but also much more of a community. You become a lot closer with other teams when you see them 3 times a year versus once.
PayneTrain
28-06-2016, 17:47
Ego and talent are awesome, but if your 501c(3) decides to invest money in areas other than production/venue selection, it's a moot point. Unless you're purely talking about the on-field robot performance creating the spectacle?
As far as I am aware, the reason you have and will likely continue to see higher quality production at the NE, PNW, and Chesapeake championships are because it is something that the powers that be can prioritize without having to make a trade-off they would deem unfavorable. As long as Lehigh is free and not other comparable or better venue is free in MAR, MAR will continue to get the CMP it gets. FiM won't tell you this themselves but if it wasn't considered a safety hazard, the FTAs would probably be transporting the fields across the state via a series of rickshaws just to save money. The switch to districts in Michigan and the Mid-Atlantic were not ones made primarily out of a desire to evolve and grow the region, but an imperative to keep the regions financially solvent in the short and long term. NE, PNW, and Chesapeake did not have an evolve or die mandate that MAR and FiM had.
PCH, NC, and Indiana each historically had one regional to their name (the 1 year stopgaps of the Crossroads Regional and the other Georgia event excluded). The model those three operate on for all intents and purposes are taking the money the old RPC could raise and are putting it across 5ish events of the same quality while trying to get favorable deals with venues and figure out parts of their states where they can get more investment into the program locally and in turn, statewide. In all seriousness, there are merits to an argument that small single-state districts are in the short term a very tenuous deal for teams and will require a lot of right moves on the chessboards to get bigger payoffs. An observation worth noting is that ISC had a very small chance to not actually award any points-based slots this year outside of the finalist captain and first pick. I think they got 1 more.
NE, PNW, and Chesapeake all are folding in 3+ very long standing and large regionals into one system (for NE, it was what, 5?) so it is probably fair to compare a potential California district system to these systems. While it is definitely true to say this for regionals, not all district systems are created equal either, it just so happens that environmental factors (venue availability, available funding sources) have a smaller impact when you have already torn down the barriers of massive financial overheads and limited roster spots at events.
Jon Stratis
28-06-2016, 18:59
Not only that, but also much more of a community. You become a lot closer with other teams when you see them 3 times a year versus once.
You only see the other teams in your area at season events? My team sees them at off-seasons, various community out-reach events, training events, organized social events... a dozen times or so each year, and we aren't in districts!
Michael Corsetto
28-06-2016, 19:03
You only see the other teams in your area at season events? My team sees them at off-seasons, various community out-reach events, training events, organized social events... a dozen times or so each year, and we aren't in districts!
All of the events you list have 40+ teams consistently?
3. Venues: There are many HS in California. I know we can get creative and make it work. Its a matter of intelligence over convenience.
Mike, just to be blunt here: when is the last time you were down this way, other than IE 2014?
Yes, there are many HS in CA. There have to be, because of all the people (and all the HS students). But, the biggest question is this:
Of all those HS, how many are able to fit a 40-team FRC event? I would argue that maybe half of them would have the capability just on the "covered open space" requirement--enough space within reasonable proximity for fields and pits. Then you can rule out a few more on the seating requirements--witness said IE 2014 (seating was extremely tight, from what I could see--and so was everything else; they needed more space). Call it a third of the HS's in SoCal would be workable with some minor tweaking and/or major schmoozing with the districts. Still quite a lot, but not as many as you might think.
For ready-to-go regional HS venues (that aren't already hosting), with local team(s) to get a quick manpower boost, I can think of maybe 1-3 offhand, depending on how split you want the pits, all of which have hosted a small-ish offseason. (Adding in a CC or two, that means that I can count 'em on one hand if barely.) For various compromises (lack of local teams, more separation of the pits/field, shorting the seating, or adjusting access), you can get a lot more, maybe up to 2/3 of the HS venues can make it work. The question becomes, how big of a compromise can you actually take before it's unworkable, and people let you know after the season?
Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater? As in, like, theater where plays are put on? I betcha that a gym-theater combo could do the trick--if they were close enough together and the stage was big enough. And I can think of a couple of those down here that might just barely be workable... Seating, comfy; all seats have good view; plenty of room backstage for queuing... Just need a covered walkway or bagged robots if it's a bit rainy.
And for some reason, folks down here seem to be starting to emphasize the arts a little bit...
Kevin Sheridan
28-06-2016, 20:12
Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater? As in, like, theater where plays are put on? I betcha that a gym-theater combo could do the trick--if they were close enough together and the stage was big enough. And I can think of a couple of those down here that might just barely be workable... Seating, comfy; all seats have good view; plenty of room backstage for queuing... Just need a covered walkway or bagged robots if it's a bit rainy.
And for some reason, folks down here seem to be starting to emphasize the arts a little bit...
Not enough seats. My high school built a 31,000 square foot theater recently but the seating capacity is only 492 people.
Christopher149
28-06-2016, 20:13
Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater? As in, like, theater where plays are put on?
I've seen FLL in a small lecture hall. One off-season in Duluth, MN, (GGGT) had a bit of practice space on a theater stage in 2014.
Not enough seats. My high school built a 31,000 square foot theater recently but the seating capacity is only 492 people.
My university has an 80,000 sq ft theater with 1067 seats and a stage that might be just barely big enough. And I'm not even sure where pits could go.
Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater? As in, like, theater where plays are put on? I betcha that a gym-theater combo could do the trick--if they were close enough together and the stage was big enough. And I can think of a couple of those down here that might just barely be workable... Seating, comfy; all seats have good view; plenty of room backstage for queuing... Just need a covered walkway or bagged robots if it's a bit rainy.
Granite State actually put their practice field on the stage in their auditorium. I think an auditorium might be useful for some of those things that aren't too large, but you just can't squeeze in elsewhere. Ex: Practice field, volunteer lounge, table displays, FLL demos. If it has large stage and is close enough, it might even be a decent place to put some pits.
Also, if you are looking for space/tools for a machine shop in a school that doesn't have a team, the drama club is a good place to check. A lot of schools (at least near me) have pretty decent shops that they use to build sets.
PayneTrain
28-06-2016, 20:38
Not only that, but also much more of a community. You become a lot closer with other teams when you see them 3 times a year versus once.
Speak for yourself. If I have to see 1086 or 2363 at another event I'll probably burn my eyebrows.
You only see the other teams in your area at season events? My team sees them at off-seasons, various community out-reach events, training events, organized social events... a dozen times or so each year, and we aren't in districts!
I was only thinking in-season when I wrote that. However, while there are plenty of teams that we do see at all sorts of events, there are also quite a few that we only get to see in season. There are teams from several hours away in NH, RI, and ME that we have formed relationships with due to districts. If we were still in regionals, we probably would have never even met most of those teams because they had other regionals closer to them.
Pauline Tasci
28-06-2016, 20:49
Of all those HS, how many are able to fit a 40-team FRC event? I would argue that maybe half of them would have the capability just on the "covered open space" requirement--enough space within reasonable proximity for fields and pits. Then you can rule out a few more on the seating requirements--witness said IE 2014 (seating was extremely tight, from what I could see--and so was everything else; they needed more space). Call it a third of the HS's in SoCal would be workable with some minor tweaking and/or major schmoozing with the districts. Still quite a lot, but not as many as you might think.
Hey Eric!
Have you taken a look at the list of so cal venues (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HGUzR76b86oM6v4oNSMtoA7EMjExM49OfZfXMJKrYug/edit?usp=drive_web) that were all layed out to be able to fit at least 40+ teams. And thats just schools we know as of now, there is room to grow.
Many of these schools were even looked at for possible OCR and beach blitz locations. When you get rid of the show ready trusses, you actually gain a lot of locations that have the space for great events.
Pauline Tasci
28-06-2016, 21:16
You only see the other teams in your area at season events? My team sees them at off-seasons, various community out-reach events, training events, organized social events... a dozen times or so each year, and we aren't in districts!
Hm... but do you get to see how vastly those teams improved? Get to compete against a team that changed strategy, added features, and more for a chance to be the best?
Do you get to be inspired by designs to add to your next competitions?
You don't if you only see them once, maybe twice, a year at a large event. No one iterates for outreach events, no one gets inspired in the technical sense from a robot that hasn't seen a match in months.
You do if you get to compete at more events.
Hey Eric!
Have you taken a look at the list of so cal venues (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HGUzR76b86oM6v4oNSMtoA7EMjExM49OfZfXMJKrYug/edit?usp=drive_web) that were all layed out to be able to fit at least 40+ teams. And thats just schools we know as of now, there is room to grow.
Many of these schools were even looked at for possible OCR and beach blitz locations. When you get rid of the show ready trusses, you actually gain a lot of locations that have the space for great events.
I have looked. Great, OC and northern San Diego is covered, and there's a couple possibilities in L.A.
Question: What percentage of "looked at" school locations is that? And, has anybody been looking in L.A. (and any other "holes") at other former offseason-event locations? (Might be worth contacting 599--they hosted the Classic for a while, but I can't speak for whether they'd be up for hosting an event these days.)
I've gotten a note from someone who's looked at a lot of venues that maybe a third--at the outside--of high schools in SoCal could actually host a regional.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 01:05
I have looked. Great, OC and northern San Diego is covered, and there's a couple possibilities in L.A.
Question: What percentage of "looked at" school locations is that? And, has anybody been looking in L.A. (and any other "holes") at other former offseason-event locations? (Might be worth contacting 599--they hosted the Classic for a while, but I can't speak for whether they'd be up for hosting an event these days.)
I've gotten a note from someone who's looked at a lot of venues that maybe a third--at the outside--of high schools in SoCal could actually host a regional.
Eric,
Step by step logic here would be really helpful. I'll take it question by question:
1. Do we agree that Northern California has proven to have a sufficient number of already-tested high school venues to support 6 district events in NorCal?
2. Does SoCal needs 9 to 10 district events, assuming 175 teams?
3. How many district events could be covered from the current list, and how many more options do you think we need in SoCal to be "relatively confident" (whatever that means to you)?
4. How many High Schools are in SoCal?
5. Divide that number by 3 (the magic number from your source), how many potential venues to host a district does that leave us with?
6. Does this seem like enough options?
Just like Mark Leon always said, "Do the Math, Save the World!"
-Mike
Eric,
Step by step logic here would be really helpful. I'll take it question by question:
1. Do we agree that Northern California has proven to have a sufficient number of already-tested high school venues to support 6 district events in NorCal? You're the NorCal expert. I'm not going to make any statement here.
2. Does SoCal needs 9 to 10 district events, assuming 175 teams?
3. How many district events could be covered from the current list, and how many more options do you think we need in SoCal to be "relatively confident" (whatever that means to you)?Assuming 175 teams, 9. Assuming that no rookies crop up, which would probably put the count to 10.
That's actually rather dependent. There's at least one glaring hole in that list where there's maybe two spots that are going to be difficult (the colleges--trust me, I've got friends that go to one of 'em, getting a college gym is difficult--the exception would be spring break if someone doesn't beat FIRST to it). There's large areas--northwest LA county for one--that aren't covered.
4. How many High Schools are in SoCal? No idea.
Here's where the fun starts, though. Yes, there are enough high schools. (We'll assume that that's the case, because I don't have those numbers. I assume that you have made some effort to get them, or you wouldn't be asking.) The question is: At what cost? One of the possible places that the Torbot mentors were tossing around actually managed to nix an FLL Championship event being held there, simply by deciding that "hey, this robotics group has lots of money, let's charge them"--after said event had been held there previously. We should be out of CIF season, so that's less of an issue (Spring Scrimmage got bumped by a CIF basketball game). You've also got the "skeptical administrator" and the "Sure, pay us an arm and a leg" and the "Sorry, booked up by X, Y, and Z" to deal with. Those can be worked around... but it's going to take a lot more time.
Math doesn't lie: There is the possibility. But you've got to have people on the ground looking. What you've got down here is, largely, one team looking in their area. You need more people looking in more places. Central Coast? Lancaster/Palmdale/Antelope Valley? South Bay/Beach Cities? San Fernando Valley? I've seen people commenting in the thread from those areas. I can't say any of them have put venues in the list. I know I'm not in a position to put down a venue as "yes, this one can most likely host". (If I could, I would.) I know several venues that would probably be disqualified on one or more "obvious" grounds, so if one of those shows up I can put down a note that says "Hey, X is going to make life difficult".
Let me put it this way: I'm not opposed to districts, in the proper time. But when someone who is outside my area, with relatively limited visibility into my area, simply says, "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen"--I'm really sorry, but I'm going to call you on that. You need more people down here, to get more visibility into the situation down here. They should have been there from the beginning. And the people that are down here are telling you that there are problems--problems that you are blowing off as "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Problems that we know can be fixed, but we don't know how much time and effort it'll take over and above what we're already putting into this program just to find a solution, let alone execute it.
saikiranra
29-06-2016, 02:24
But when someone who is outside my area, with relatively limited visibility into my area, simply says, "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen"--I'm really sorry, but I'm going to call you on that. You need more people down here, to get more visibility into the situation down here. They should have been there from the beginning. And the people that are down here are telling you that there are problems--problems that you are blowing off as "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Problems that we know can be fixed, but we don't know how much time and effort it'll take over and above what we're already putting into this program just to find a solution, let alone execute it.
I believe the entire point of this thread and the documents shared is to bring awareness of districts to all of California. The documents and posts don't seem like they are trying to force anything onto us nor are minimizing the amount of work involved in making this transition.
Sure it will cost money and will be hard trying to find venues and volunteers, but if other regions can do it, why can't we? If there is a better way of doing things, we need to change. The District model offers more than our conventional regional model and we should do everything we can to switch, no matter the time and effort.
FarmerJohn
29-06-2016, 04:35
You need more people down here, to get more visibility into the situation down here. They should have been there from the beginning.
Then why don't you stop complaining about every possible detail and actually try helping for once, Eric? If I have to read another comment about how you "want districts" but don't even try because you think they're not feasible, I'm going to puke. Stop putting down other's ideas because you're so pessimistic about this whole situation. The only thing Michael is doing is pushing for awareness of districts, nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't want to support awareness for districts in California, that's fine, but stop throwing your dirty laundry all over this thread. You're not helping any.
Then why don't you stop complaining about every possible detail and actually try helping for once, Eric? If I have to read another comment about how you "want districts" but don't even try because you think they're not feasible, I'm going to puke. Stop putting down other's ideas because you're so pessimistic about this whole situation. The only thing Michael is doing is pushing for awareness of districts, nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't want to support awareness for districts in California, that's fine, but stop throwing your dirty laundry all over this thread. You're not helping any.
http://i.makeagif.com/media/7-03-2015/lRAQ49.gif
notmattlythgoe
29-06-2016, 11:07
Speak for yourself. If I have to see 1086 or 2363 at another event I'll probably burn my eyebrows.
http://rs895.pbsrc.com/albums/ac159/GIFsforhire/Sad-Crying/meangirls.gif~c200
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 11:45
Before this thread devolves into a slew of gifs, lets try to get back on track here :)
Let me put it this way: I'm not opposed to districts, in the proper time. But when someone who is outside my area, with relatively limited visibility into my area, simply says, "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen"--I'm really sorry, but I'm going to call you on that. You need more people down here, to get more visibility into the situation down here. They should have been there from the beginning. And the people that are down here are telling you that there are problems--problems that you are blowing off as "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Problems that we know can be fixed, but we don't know how much time and effort it'll take over and above what we're already putting into this program just to find a solution, let alone execute it.
Eric,
I've tried my best to pull together resources from other areas to inform our path forward. I've spoken with many people from other districts in person and on the phone to gather information (special thanks to Jim and Gail at FiM). I've even learned a lot since posting this, and am planning revisions to the proposal to reflect new information.
I currently have friends on FRC Teams 4, 399, and 3476 looking at venues. Dave from 399 has actually been helping for almost a year scouting out venues, but he is out on summer vacation right now.
If it wasn't already clear, I am relying on the community to rally around this proposal and make Districts in California a reality. Our community has been told for years that we can't, but as this proposal evolves, it is becoming increasingly clear that we can! I have been very encouraged by the community response so far.
Please, California, keep it coming. A friend from San Diego posted on this thread a few days ago about venues down there (so much knowledge in that post!), I am hoping he can respond further knowing that cafeterias/MPRs are also options for pits at venues.
If anyone is looking to help and is not sure how, shoot me a PM. It could take as little as a smartphone, tape measure, and spare hour of time ;)
-Mike
Before this thread devolves into a slew of gifs, lets try to get back on track here :)
Sowwy :(
notmattlythgoe
29-06-2016, 12:19
I know it at least one of the CHS events this year the pits were split between a cafeteria and a small gym. You can get creative with the pit locations. The more rigid requirements are the bleacher and field requirements.
I know in Virginia there are high schools in certain regions of the state that have much larger gym areas specifically designated for tournaments. I believe there are 4 of them in the state here. Luckily one of them has an FRC team. I don't know if this is also the case for CA but it might be a good thing to look into.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 12:47
I know it at least one of the CHS events this year the pits were split between a cafeteria and a small gym. You can get creative with the pit locations. The more rigid requirements are the bleacher and field requirements.
I know in Virginia there are high schools in certain regions of the state that have much larger gym areas specifically designated for tournaments. I believe there are 4 of them in the state here. Luckily one of them has an FRC team. I don't know if this is also the case for CA but it might be a good thing to look into.
Thanks for the feedback from CHS!
How large are these "tournament gyms", and how does that compare with a typical HS gym?
With "tournament gyms", do you fit all the pits in the same gym as the field?
Thanks!
-Mike
notmattlythgoe
29-06-2016, 13:09
Thanks for the feedback from CHS!
How large are these "tournament gyms", and how does that compare with a typical HS gym?
With "tournament gyms", do you fit all the pits in the same gym as the field?
Thanks!
-Mike
4,000 seats compared to the usual 2,000 that you'd find at our school. This allowed for only one side of the seating to be used and the remaining area behind and to the sides of the field to be used for the pits.
http://www.a10talk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/53189341.jpg
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 13:11
4,000 seats compared to the usual 2,000 that you'd find at our school. This allowed for only one side of the seating to be used and the remaining area behind and to the sides of the field to be used for the pits.
I assume that means all teams fit in those pits? 40 teams?
Thanks!
-Mike
notmattlythgoe
29-06-2016, 13:12
I assume that means all teams fit in those pits? 40 teams?
Thanks!
-Mike
You'd be correct, with room to spare.
I wanted to post why I am pulling for districts in CA. This year, my team attended the Silicon Valley Regional. As you may know, the teams that are at SVR come from very diverse backgrounds. There are powerhouse teams, rookies, and low-resource teams that really struggle to sustain their program every year. That last category is what really impacted me and made me want to go to districts. It hurt me to watch teams that have struggles finding space, raising money, etc. pay $5,000 and throw it away on 8 matches where they could be getting significantly more for thier money in the district system. With districts, these teams get to play in two events by default. They have unbag time to practice and iterate. It is my belief that students who have the opportunity to experience more FIRST are more inspired and get more out of the program. I believe that districts can be a game changer for teams like that. Will there be challenges? Of course, but I believe wholeheartedly that together we can overcome them.
- Nick
Nate Laverdure
29-06-2016, 13:38
4. How many High Schools are in SoCal?
I count 1,494 public and private high schools in Southern CA (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r0bPbPrczgy6z_APnvVcswR1f2MPZO8WsJrD0eWnQMk/edit?usp=sharing).
Pauline Tasci
29-06-2016, 13:39
I've gotten a note from someone who's looked at a lot of venues that maybe a third--at the outside--of high schools in SoCal could actually host a regional.
Because the contract regionals have that make us use the show ready truss systems cut a lot of the high schools out of the equation. Once we move to districts we could use any lighting/av system we want and not hang trusses that weigh more than schools can handle.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 13:40
I count 1,494 public and private high schools in Southern CA (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r0bPbPrczgy6z_APnvVcswR1f2MPZO8WsJrD0eWnQMk/edit?usp=sharing).
This is beautiful. Cannot thank you enough.
-Mike
Note on pulling team numbers into the first sheet. Some school names are duplicated (there are three Pioneer High Schools, so it shows 668 at three different schools). Unsure how to fix that.
I count 1,494 public and private high schools in Southern CA (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r0bPbPrczgy6z_APnvVcswR1f2MPZO8WsJrD0eWnQMk/edit?usp=sharing).
Awesome list! Just a note, Design Tech High School (row 2364) has an FRC team, 5940 :)
I've gotten a note from someone who's looked at a lot of venues that maybe a third--at the outside--of high schools in SoCal could actually host a regional.
Except the high school would not be hosting a 60+ team regional over 4 days but rather a 40 team district with a need for 1200 seats and spots for 400 cars over 2.5 days.
The room for 1200 people in bleacher style seats and 400 parking spots is the biggest deal breaker I've seen when looking into venues. The next most common deal breaker is lack of pit space.
Nate Laverdure
29-06-2016, 15:05
Note on pulling team numbers into the first sheet. Some school names are duplicated (there are three Pioneer High Schools, so it shows 668 at three different schools). Unsure how to fix that.
Most of the dupes should be fixed now.
plnyyanks
29-06-2016, 15:20
I know it at least one of the CHS events this year the pits were split between a cafeteria and a small gym. You can get creative with the pit locations. The more rigid requirements are the bleacher and field requirements.
Some more quick context from the two CHS events I made appearances at this season (NoVa (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016vahay) and Central Maryland (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016vahay)) (I'm going from memory here, mostly, so hopefully all the events I was at aren't bluring too much). Both had the field in the school's gym and the pits in some other room. That second room was cafeterias, libraries, anywhere that they could be squeezed in. IIRC, one of those had the pits spread out over multiple rooms. It was definitely a tight fit, but it worked. Here are a couple pictures (http://imgur.com/a/WTNHL) I was able to find of the pit/field setup at the Central Mayland event. In the first picture, the pits are behind me, sorry I don't have a better angle (I think it shows how they could look in a cafeteria though).
EDIT:
Let me also share a picture (http://imgur.com/um9ySla) from a smaller (district sized) regional, Tech Valley. In that picture, the pits are behind the curtain in a small auxiliary gym.
Rather than more words here on an ever-increasing chain, I've published a White Paper as summation of current status, and to refocus the topic. See it here:
California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations (http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/RichardsonMiddleSchool/Petito/1/default.aspx)
I've no interest in producing competing white papers, or being staid in my point of view. The District Model is meritorious. We have to find a way to implement it despite our multi-varied views.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 16:50
Rather than more words here on an ever-increasing chain, I've published a White Paper as summation of current status, and to refocus the topic. See it here:
California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations (http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/RichardsonMiddleSchool/Petito/1/default.aspx)
I've no interest in producing competing white papers, or being staid in my point of view. The District Model is meritorious. We have to find a way to implement it despite our multi-varied views.
Joe,
Thank you for the well thought out white paper. I am excited to hear you see the benefits that a district model can bring to our FRC program in California, but even more excited to see many of considerations and proposals you have put forward in your post. I'd mostly be giving thumbs up if I tried to address your whole post, so I just wanted to address the proposals set out at the end, and keep the discussion moving forward.
* Start small, prove it, expand based on success. This is not like going to space or the moon where we killed people meanwhile. But we built our capacity for spaceflight incrementally, with success propelling the next steps, and then the objective, a combined engineering/human relationship challenge. Maybe Northern Cal would be willing to be an incubator for the District model, proving it, gaining experience meanwhile to overcome our SoCal structural difficulties.
From my point of view, we have already started small. Looking at the list of California Venues, I am already seeing many HS venues that have hosted a off-season or Regional that can support 36-40 teams. This tells me that those dedicated California FRC communities that host Offseasons have already shown the viability of their venues to run a district event. Seems like we've already "started small" on venues, so now we are ready to fill out our venue repertoire at get a confident line up that meets the population needs (as you noted, 45 miles in LA could mean 2+ hour commute!)
* It's incumbent on us to go to places where the District model is successful, observe, shadow the principal players to better grasp the macro/micro views.
I've discussed Districts with many movers and shakers at MI, NE, IN, and PNW. This includes DPC Chairs, BoD members, and some of the creators of the original District Pilot Program in MI. You are welcome to contact some of these individuals as well with your questions, just PM if you'd like, or ask me specific questions.
* A simple, workable way must be found for teams outside the west coast Continental US to have choice of venue despite whatever District rules that others must adhere to. It's difficult enough to travel the distance to get here, and special accommodation must be provided.
This is very tricky. I feel the same angst as you, areas like South America, Mexico, China and Hawaii all have a regular presence in California. The walls put up between districts are partly self-inflicted, and partly established by FIRST HQ. I'd be very interested in seeing a way we could tweak district boundary rules to allow our distant friends to compete. Have there been ideas on how that could work?
Initial thought: An outside Regional team could register for any CA event (after CA teams get their 1st and 2nd events locked), pays 5k for FIRST HQ, 1k gets kicked back to FIRST CA, and the only bummer is this outside FRC team plays at the event like a game of Who's Line is it Anyway, where the points don't matter and they don't qual for CMP.
Throw stones :)
-Mike
Mark Sheridan
29-06-2016, 17:11
Initial thought: An outside Regional team could register for any CA event (after CA teams get their 1st and 2nd events locked), pays 5k for FIRST HQ, 1k gets kicked back to FIRST CA, and the only bummer is this outside FRC team plays at the event like a game of Who's Line is it Anyway, where the points don't matter and they don't qual for CMP.
What if regional teams get to treat the district event as a regional? So if they win the district and they get to move on to world champs, and the distinct points are just "loss." Simply the better team won.
No sure about how this would affect slots for champs. I guess it depends on how many open slots there are versus district slots.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
29-06-2016, 17:31
What if regional teams get to treat the district event as a regional? So if they win the district and they get to move on to world champs, and the distinct points are just "loss." Simply the better team won.
No sure about how this would affect slots for champs. I guess it depends on how many open slots there are versus district slots.
Considering South champs will have a lot of wait list teams as it is, I think this would be a *valid solution.
*By valid I mean the math would work out fine for South champ slots but maybe the international teams wouldn't be the happiest with their only event being a small district event. That being said, California and the rest of the southwest can't just be held hostage from going to districts forever so this is inevitable. This would likely put pressure to have more events overseas.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 17:37
Considering South champs will have a lot of wait list teams as it is, I think this would be a *valid solution.
*By valid I mean the math would work out fine for South champ slots but maybe the international teams wouldn't be the happiest with their only event being a small district event. That being said, California and the rest of the southwest can't just be held hostage from going to districts forever so this is inevitable. This would likely put pressure to have more events overseas.
Emphasis mine.
Many of CA regional events are already held in high school and community college gyms. If CA needs to not only be open to international teams, but also provide a 200k regional for them, I suppose our hands are tied :rolleyes:
I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.
-Mike
connor.worley
29-06-2016, 19:02
I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.
"Applying pressure" on overseas programs probably equates to killing them... I'd also be reluctant to travel to a mini-CVR/Ventura type event and probably end up switching to Vex. Running a domestic team is hard enough.
Considering South champs will have a lot of wait list teams as it is, I think this would be a *valid solution.
*By valid I mean the math would work out fine for South champ slots but maybe the international teams wouldn't be the happiest with their only event being a small district event. That being said, California and the rest of the southwest can't just be held hostage from going to districts forever so this is inevitable. This would likely put pressure to have more events overseas.
Out of curiosity, what is the main barrier to overseas teams traveling to other regions? As more and more areas go to districts, can FIRST provide ways for non-USA teams to visit districts instead of going to out-of-the-way regionals?
I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.
-Mike
I disagree with you there. I get that this is a FIRST HQ problem, not a California problem, but for an international team in a new country, the barrier of entry to FRC can't be starting 50 teams and 3 events (a district region). There must be a way to participate in FRC short of that, whether it's attending a district or regional. They should have a roughly equal opportunity to qualify for a Championship as well.
Having said all that, it's totally acceptable for the leaders of FRC California to mostly or completely ignore the needs of international teams. It's a FIRST HQ problem.
Then why don't you stop complaining about every possible detail and actually try helping for once, Eric? If I have to read another comment about how you "want districts" but don't even try because you think they're not feasible, I'm going to puke. Stop putting down other's ideas because you're so pessimistic about this whole situation. The only thing Michael is doing is pushing for awareness of districts, nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't want to support awareness for districts in California, that's fine, but stop throwing your dirty laundry all over this thread. You're not helping any.If you want to misread my posts, that's your problem.
I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.
Except the high school would not be hosting a 60+ team regional over 4 days but rather a 40 team district with a need for 1200 seats and spots for 400 cars over 2.5 days.
The room for 1200 people in bleacher style seats and 400 parking spots is the biggest deal breaker I've seen when looking into venues. The next most common deal breaker is lack of pit space. That's still a pretty good amount of space. One of the sites on the list that's been posted I'm skeptical of--I know it can be done, but having been there it'll be a tight fit. (Not that small venues aren't.)
Mike and Pauline--check your PMs in a couple of minutes.
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 19:22
I disagree with you there. I get that this is a FIRST HQ problem, not a California problem, but for an international team in a new country, the barrier of entry to FRC can't be starting 50 teams and 3 events (a district region). There must be a way to participate in FRC short of that, whether it's attending a district or regional. They should have a roughly equal opportunity to qualify for a Championship as well.
Having said all that, it's totally acceptable for the leaders of FRC California to mostly or completely ignore the needs of international teams. It's a FIRST HQ problem.
I agree with you that international teams should not be expected to set up a district event, that seems crazy!
I assume international teams are represented in FIRST HQ? Does Israel, Australia or China have an RD or the like? These individuals (if they exist!) should be doing the work to ensure their programs can be sustained outside of California events.
If there is no representation for international teams currently at HQ, that leadership should be established soon, because their available event pool is shrinking every year. CA moving to districts is just one part of that.
-Mike
plnyyanks
29-06-2016, 19:37
* A simple, workable way must be found for teams outside the west coast Continental US to have choice of venue despite whatever District rules that others must adhere to. It's difficult enough to travel the distance to get here, and special accommodation must be provided.
This is a consideration that has been discussed many times in the various New York district threads, as well.
There are a ton of possibilities...
International Teams Join the District
The team can attend 2 events like other teams and have to qualify for DCMP -> CMP
The team can attend one event, but get double points towards qualifying for DCMP -> CMP
The team attends X events, but with a larger points multiplier (4x for one event, 2x for 2 events, maybe) that lets them qualify straight for CMP alongside the rest of the district teams, but not be required to atttend DCMP, thus reducing the travel burden.
The district could set aside X slots at their DCMP for international teams (who attend as their only event), who earn points at some larger multiplier (4x?) towards qualifying for CMP
International Teams Don't Join the District
Teams can register for district events in the 3rd play window, and can qualify for CMP with one of the 6 slots the same way they do at regionals
The district could set aside X slots at DCMP for international teams, who could qualify for CMP via one of the 6 slots, like regionals
noop: international teams still can't compete in districts, they'll have to travel elsewhere.
Overall, I agree with Basal that this is primarily an HQ problem (although I personally like option 1c)
If CA goes to a district model, I know of one regional for sure that will be able to handle many of the international teams that attend CA Regionals.:D Many of the CA teams that attend our regional would likely not continue to do so, leaving many new spots open to join the numerous international teams we already serve. International flights to Las Vegas are in many cases less costly that those to California and other regions across the country and reasonably priced hotels are in abundance here.
Other Regionals that serve smaller/distant/low density FRC populations will likely be relied upon to also serve a growing international community as well...at least for the years to come. Our friends in China have formally submitted a bid for a Regional there next year and await a decision by FIRST HQ. Special thanks to 525 for getting things started with CUYRA there almost 3 years ago:D Teams like 3132, 4613 and other Australian teams have done a great job helping to establish an event there that serves that region of the globe and Israel has established a strong event. Expect more of these success stories as time goes on. As I have said before, I think FIRST realizes an assortment of event models will be needed to serve the mission of FIRST
and FIRST FRC resulting in a combination of Districts and Regionals around the globe.
Edit: Mia culpa...I forgot to mention the important role the Mexico Regional serves as well. ;)
plnyyanks
29-06-2016, 19:40
I assume international teams are represented in FIRST HQ? Does Israel, Australia or China have an RD or the like? These individuals (if they exist!) should be doing the work to ensure their programs can be sustained outside of California events.
According to my scan of this page (http://www.firstinspires.org/find-local-support), there are regional directors in Australia, Israel, and Mexico (outside of US + Canada)
Michael Corsetto
29-06-2016, 19:42
If CA goes to a district model, I know of one regional for sure that will be able to handle many of the international teams that attend CA Regionals.:D Many of the CA teams that attend our regional would likely not continue to do so, leaving many new spots open to join the numerous international teams we already serve. International flights to Las Vegas are in many cases less costly that those to California and other regions across the country and reasonably priced hotels are in abundance here.
Other Regionals that serve smaller/distant/low density FRC populations will likely be relied upon to also serve a growing international community as well...at least for the years to come. Our friends in China have formally submitted a bid for a Regional there next year and await a decision by FIRST HQ. Special thanks to 525 for getting things started with CUYRA there almost 3 years ago:D Teams like 3132, 4613 and other Australian teams have done a great job helping to establish an event there that serves that region of the globe and Israel has established a strong event. Expect more of these success stories as time goes on. As I have said before, I think FIRST realizes an assortment of event models will be needed to serve the mission of FIRST
and FIRST FRC resulting in a combination of Districts and Regionals around the globe.
Joe,
This is great to hear!
By my math, that puts non continental US/Canada Regionals at:
Hawaii
Mexico City
Australia
Israel
China (Hopefully!)
-Mike
Why couldn't CA district champs reserve spots for international teams, for that "high-wattage" effect?
In general, I'm glad this conversation is happening. We NEED cost-out to grow the program and inspire more students, without compromising on the physical scale of the sport.
(Also, I can think of 2 venues in the East (SF) Bay that could host District events; a full Regional would be much harder.)
Why couldn't CA district champs reserve spots for international teams, for that "high-wattage" effect?
In general, I'm glad this conversation is happening. We NEED cost-out to grow the program and inspire more students, without compromising on the physical scale of the sport.
On the flip side why should CA FIRST deny spots to their constituents in favor of outside teams?
I don't know which answer is right and it would be unfortunate to lose international (or even out of state) teams at CA events but you gotta look out for your own before you can look out for anyone else.
On the flip side why should CA FIRST deny spots to their constituents in favor of outside teams?
I don't know which answer is right and it would be unfortunate to lose international (or even out of state) teams at CA events but you gotta look out for your own before you can look out for anyone else.
True that.
Though - I think *we* get a lot of benefit from the out of state teams as well. I wouldn't want to discount that before it's thrown away.
True that.
Though - I think *we* get a lot of benefit from the out of state teams as well. I wouldn't want to discount that before it's thrown away.
Just as a random thought: What about teams whose "home" event happens to land in CA but aren't from CA, or who are on the border, have the option to join?
Example: Chilean teams like the L.A. regional--combined, I think there's three of them that have two events elsewhere (one regional). I don't think anybody'd be opposed to offering them the chance, at least down here. Or, see the Alaska team in the PNW this last season.
If they don't want to come, then they had the choice and declined. If they do want to come, then they get to spend the savings from the second-event registration on travel costs instead--or maybe on the robot... Interesting dilemma for them.
Naturally, if that team's "home area" also went to districts, they'd have to join their home district area--leaving open interdistrict play.
Liam Fay
29-06-2016, 20:25
I count 1,494 public and private high schools in Southern CA (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r0bPbPrczgy6z_APnvVcswR1f2MPZO8WsJrD0eWnQMk/edit?usp=sharing).
I wouldn't be too sure about that list - neither my school nor my team are there.
I wouldn't be too sure about that list - neither my school nor my team are there.
The more, the merrier!
Joe,
This is great to hear!
By my math, that puts non continental US/Canada Regionals at:
Hawaii
Mexico City
Australia
Israel
China (Hopefully!)
-Mike
According to the FRC Wikipedia page, the non-US or Canada teams are:
Israel (62)
Mexico (53)
Australia (39)
China (36)
Turkey (20)
Brazil (6)
Netherlands (3)
Taiwan (3)
United Kingdom (3)
Chile (2)
Dominican Republic (2)
Japan (2)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1)
Colombia (1)
Czech Republic (1)
Denmark (1)
Ecuador (1)
France (1)
Germany (1)
India (1)
Poland (1)
Singapore (1)
United Arab Emirates (1)
So lets pretend all of the US and Canada went to districts suddenly (so I don't have to account for team growth).
Completely ignoring the political/economical/many other factors and just focusing on geography and assuming teams from countries with Regionals go to that regional:
South American and Caribbean teams can go to Mexico
Taiwan, Japan, India, and Singapore can go to China
Israel goes to Districts (Based on geographical size and # of teams alone this seem feasible within a few years)
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the UAE attend a new regional in Turkey along with maybe Poland and the Czech Republic
This would leave 9-11 teams (depending on where Poland and Czech Republic go) all in Europe who don't have a regional. They could go to Turkey or that regional could go to somewhere in Europe that is more central to all of the teams. If Israel still holds a regional, then it probably makes sense to have the new regional in Europe. There could also just be 2 new regionals on the assumption that a lot of American teams would want to go to a European regional. Other than Europe, I think every international team is either as close or nearly as close to a regional as they are right now. It wouldn't be great and I have no idea how the international community will be able to adapt to growth and the potential transition of the large team population centers to Districts, but I think it is possible, at least right now, for the international teams to sustain their own events.
However, I do think it FIRST should come up with a way for teams in low density areas to at least compete in district events, if not qualify for Champs through them.
Nate Laverdure
29-06-2016, 20:56
I wouldn't be too sure about that list - neither my school nor my team are there.
Cool. That's because Francis Parker comes up as an Elementary School in CA DOE's database (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/details.asp?cds=37683386987770&public=N).
International Teams Join the District
The team attends X events, but with a larger points multiplier (4x for one event, 2x for 2 events, maybe) that lets them qualify straight for CMP alongside the rest of the district teams, but not be required to atttend DCMP, thus reducing the travel burden.
The district could set aside X slots at their DCMP for international teams (who attend as their only event), who earn points at some larger multiplier (4x?) towards qualifying for CMP
A district team will get 5 events worth of points throughout the season (1xdistrict1 + 1xdistrict2 + 3xDCMP), so if a system like this were to be implemented, the multiplier should be 5/# of events attended.
Andrew Schreiber
29-06-2016, 23:07
Emphasis mine.
Many of CA regional events are already held in high school and community college gyms. If CA needs to not only be open to international teams, but also provide a 200k regional for them, I suppose our hands are tied :rolleyes:
I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.
-Mike
Because, apparently a data set of high school gym square footages in the united states would be TOO FREAKING CONVENIENT...
Let's use school size as an analog for it. Kinda assume that high schools have a gym (last study I found said 81% percent did, but it was an old facilities survey from 05, the updated version lacked this data) A gym can probably sit a significant portion of the school population. So, based on this - https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=18RNKsEuwRJXXaLeyzbhbxgjjZms Here is a map of every public HS (offers grade 12 per NCES dataset) compared with the 2013 Team locations for the state of California with school population. [1]
[1] I actually have this data for everywhere, but Google Map Maker doesn't let me upload data sets with more than 2k records and my public schools data set is 90k or so
EDIT: The quoted post was totally NOT the one I thought I quoted... now i'm confused. Either way.
Texas is going to a regional model this year, which shall probably open up a number of slots at Bayou and other regionals surrounding Texas for teams in other states, and international teams. I fully expect Bayou to be a regional for at least the next 4-8 years, and the western half of the US to have regional competitions for a couple of decades at least.
Rick Vogl
30-06-2016, 00:26
Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater?...
Hartford Regional at the Meadows Music Theater 1999-2001. Teams that did not fit in the lobby were put in tents. It kept the snow off the robots. RAGE (FRC173) did a mean tailgate breakfast in the parking lot.
Hi JB987-
Pleasure to work with you guys/gals this last season.
Astute observations on prospective shifts in regional participation. What "offshore" team would not want to go to Vegas? And the airfare is not that much more than flying into LAX. District model would probably pull in the eastern Cal teams more so than present, even though the distances are almost equivalent.
Another bone to throw in the soup.
Joe.
Hi s-neff--
Like your ideas on reservations for offshore teams to have reserved spots at the larger events.
For them to come all this way, pay the fees, the airfare, the hotel and transport and meals and junk, a gym with 44 teams and pits in hallways is something of a let-down.
For those of you who are "offshore," please comment on your preferences, especially if your habit is to play in West Coast events. Our "little" discussion here will affect you tremendously.
Joe.
Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--
I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.
I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:
California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations (http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/RichardsonMiddleSchool/Petito/1/blog.aspx?Post=21f7ac9d-77a0-40a1-aa45-6a5e83e1392d)
it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.
Joe
FRC 1197
According to the FRC Wikipedia page, the non-US or Canada teams are:
Israel (62)
Mexico (53)
Australia (39)
China (36)
Turkey (20)
Brazil (6)
Netherlands (3)
Taiwan (3)
United Kingdom (3)
Chile (2)
Dominican Republic (2)
Japan (2)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1)
Colombia (1)
Czech Republic (1)
Denmark (1)
Ecuador (1)
France (1)
Germany (1)
India (1)
Poland (1)
Singapore (1)
United Arab Emirates (1)
So lets pretend all of the US and Canada went to districts suddenly (so I don't have to account for team growth).
Completely ignoring the political/economical/many other factors and just focusing on geography and assuming teams from countries with Regionals go to that regional:
South American and Caribbean teams can go to Mexico
Taiwan, Japan, India, and Singapore can go to China
Israel goes to Districts (Based on geographical size and # of teams alone this seem feasible within a few years)
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the UAE attend a new regional in Turkey along with maybe Poland and the Czech Republic
This would leave 9-11 teams (depending on where Poland and Czech Republic go) all in Europe who don't have a regional. They could go to Turkey or that regional could go to somewhere in Europe that is more central to all of the teams. If Israel still holds a regional, then it probably makes sense to have the new regional in Europe. There could also just be 2 new regionals on the assumption that a lot of American teams would want to go to a European regional. Other than Europe, I think every international team is either as close or nearly as close to a regional as they are right now. It wouldn't be great and I have no idea how the international community will be able to adapt to growth and the potential transition of the large team population centers to Districts, but I think it is possible, at least right now, for the international teams to sustain their own events.
However, I do think it FIRST should come up with a way for teams in low density areas to at least compete in district events, if not qualify for Champs through them.
Yikes!
What with the geopolitical events of the last couple of years (and just this week!), assuming teams from various countries would or could go to another is a large assumption on our part. We go outside the continental US we've got to consider much, much bigger issues, having nothing to do with FRC.
Joe
Brandon Holley
30-06-2016, 12:48
I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.
Hey Eric-
I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.
For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.
I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.
Just my 2 cents.
-Brando
Michael Corsetto
30-06-2016, 13:15
Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--
I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.
I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:
California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations (http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/RichardsonMiddleSchool/Petito/1/blog.aspx?Post=21f7ac9d-77a0-40a1-aa45-6a5e83e1392d)
it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.
Joe
FRC 1197
Joe,
Thanks for the important reminder. It is very clear that there are plenty of High School venues in California to cover 16 (or more) district events, as you have stated. These are venues that can support 36-40 teams, have stands, pits, etc. This is a good baseline to establish, and one that we are working towards with the growing list of venues that many individuals are beginning to contribute towards. To everyone continuing to hunt for venues, THANK YOU!
Second, Joe, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this assumption:
Venues that currently host FRC events (Regional or Off-Season), and to a lesser extent venues that used to host FRC events, are likely to have the people problem mostly solved. I know this goes for DHS, PGHS and COHS (three CCC sites). These administrations WANT us at their school and let us book only 6 months out to get the weekend we want. I'm going to bet that many of the other venues currently in use have decent or better relationships with the school administration as well.
Do you agree with my assumption?
If you agree, I think we are getting close to solving the people portion of our venue equation. Just like many other districts have done across the country. Unless you think that, statistically, California administrators are prone to be hell-bent against FRC events :p
Thanks for the feedback,
-Mike
Jon Stratis
30-06-2016, 14:04
Hey Eric-
I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.
For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.
I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.
Just my 2 cents.
-Brando
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
notmattlythgoe
30-06-2016, 14:06
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
http://preview.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/07/07__10_45_59/anm64gpb_01.jpg3b8754af-e2da-48dc-abcc-feea7c6ec0bdOriginal.jpg
Brandon Holley
30-06-2016, 14:17
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
Why would anyone contribute helpful or constructive advice if we're being told we can never understand the area or problems unique to that area?
That type of response is doing the exact opposite of inviting useful feedback which is why I pointed it out.
I'm not pushing anyone, anywhere. I've put a ton of effort into helping my region make a leap - and a lot of people are in a similar situation I was a few years ago. Many of them have reached out for my advice and I'm simply stating it.
-Brando
Pauline Tasci
30-06-2016, 14:49
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
As someone involved heavily in Southern California frc, I really do appreciate all the helpful advice from everyone. They in fact have dealt with the same issues and making SoCal open to that advice is something we need to do. And you know what, saying we don't have the venues, volunteers, ect are just excuses that others are trying to help us overcome. We will never be ready as a state if we don't push each other.
scottandme
30-06-2016, 14:57
Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.
I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.
Jon Stratis
30-06-2016, 15:10
Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.
I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.
If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.
Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.
Not a single outside person in this thread has said that California NEEDS to go to districts or has said that California should rush into it. Everyone has been providing reasons why California should want to go to distracts and has been working towards finding solutions to the problems with the transition, so California CAN go to Districts when they are ready. This thread is called California District PROPOSAL and thats what this thread has been: proposals, suggestions, and advice.
Andrew Schreiber
30-06-2016, 15:26
Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--
I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.
I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:
California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations (http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/RichardsonMiddleSchool/Petito/1/blog.aspx?Post=21f7ac9d-77a0-40a1-aa45-6a5e83e1392d)
it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.
Joe
FRC 1197
Joe, I agree with you that boots on the ground is what's going to find venues. I'm over here in NH and have no skin in the game. What I do have, however, is a willingness to dig through boring government reports and munge data into something that others can use without wanting to tear their hair out.
How to get buy in? Honestly, simplest approach is just ask. I assume each venue is going to have its own concerns and challenges.
Pauline Tasci
30-06-2016, 15:29
If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.
1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.
We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!
notmattlythgoe
30-06-2016, 15:32
1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.
We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!
From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.
From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.
Ya, I'm pretty sure its basically the same. I think NE only opens up 32?/36? out of 40 spots in each event initially, I presume to save some slots for the late registering teams and also to balance the # of teams at each event a little.
Ben Martin
30-06-2016, 15:40
We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!
Here is the MAR waitlist policy (http://www.midatlanticrobotics.com/news/waitlist-practice-for-2015-district-events/). Not sure if it is handled by the Board of Directors or somebody appointed by them.
Pauline Tasci
30-06-2016, 15:45
From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.
In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%
1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.
We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!
I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.
I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.
I am fairly certain that MI is the only district with home events. I think the NE waitlist is first come first serve just like for regionals, but I'm not entirely sure.
Edit: Never mind. This is wrong.
Brandon Holley
30-06-2016, 15:52
In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%
We still have RDs in District - so they still have access to this.
Andrew Schreiber
30-06-2016, 15:54
I am fairly certain that MI is the only district with home events. I think the NE waitlist is first come first serve just like for regionals, but I'm not entirely sure.
Wait lists are not first come first serve.
Jon Stratis
30-06-2016, 16:10
Wait lists are not first come first serve.
agreed, not entirely first come first serve. The RD's will "jump the line" with teams, based on certain criteria - rookies, local teams still looking for a first play, teams that bring a lot of volunteers or specific key volunteers that are needed for the event. They have to look at the bigger picture to do what they can to ensure a successful event and season for every team.
PayneTrain
30-06-2016, 16:55
If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.A lot of the problems Eric has with southern California have already been looked into by someone who is already posting here, as she is a contact for half a dozen potential venues in southern California. She's also an RPC member! It's inspiring to see what a 20 year old can do for her region beyond the bounds of a safety glasses table.
Chris is me
30-06-2016, 17:09
A lot of the problems Eric has with southern California have already been looked into by someone who is already posting here, as she is a contact for half a dozen potential venues in southern California. She's also an RPC member! It's inspiring to see what a 20 year old can do for her region beyond the bounds of a safety glasses table.
But the advice doesn't line up with his preconceived notions, so it must not be helpful or constructive...
In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%
One item I have struggled with is aligning LRIs to events by the timeframe FIRST HQ would like. Most of the LRIs in Michigan are affiliated with teams. Some prefer to do events their team I at. Others prefer to do events there team is not at. Almost all prefer to sign up for volunteering after they know what events their team will be attending...
It would be a good topic to have on whether or not teams should get preferential treatment on the waitlist via volunteer (key/critical....) support. Right now, I don't think we do that in Michigan (at least not explicitly to my knowledge), but it is an item I think we should discuss due to other scheduling hassles.
Additionally, on occasion, we have added an event after travel for Key volunteer training is booked, and this caused an added challenge to filling key roles.
On most of these occasions, all involved knew they would be a challenge, and some of us complained, but ultimately we found ways to work through the issues.
But the advice doesn't line up with his preconceived notions, so it must not be helpful or constructive...
What you didn't see is that little note I put a few of my posts back, to check PMs. Discussion doesn't have to happen in public.
Obviously, that note didn't fit with your preconceived notions, so it didn't happen.
If you'd like to continue that discussion, read the rest of the post before you do.
BTW, Jon Stratis hit the nail on the head. If you think back to the MN discussion a couple months back, it's a case of "'outsiders' trying to force something that isn't ready in this area", on the surface (in this case at any rate)--when all the listed input is in one area, it's a natural question to ask if the other area(s) and affected folks had any input (See also: MI District initial discussions, ChampionSplit initial discussions). If you dig a little deeper, it's not--but that wasn't readily apparent. Naturally, the initial response is, "You really don't know the situation around here". That being said, once it's a lot clearer that that is NOT the case, and that there's a decent shot that maybe they do know something, then support can be given a lot more easily. Again, if you read that note, you may want to consider that public discussion doesn't always have to happen to move something along.
Mark Sheridan
30-06-2016, 20:47
Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.
/S
RoboChair
30-06-2016, 21:18
Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.
/S
Didn't you know that Southern California is Baja California?
It sucks how everybody forgets about Baja California.
there's a decent shot that maybe they do know something
Congrats Pauline! There's a chance, that maybe, you know something
Jon Stratis
30-06-2016, 21:31
A lot of the problems Eric has with southern California have already been looked into by someone who is already posting here, as she is a contact for half a dozen potential venues in southern California. She's also an RPC member! It's inspiring to see what a 20 year old can do for her region beyond the bounds of a safety glasses table.
You'll notice that my comment wasn't directed at her, at all. It was directed at the non-productive comments designed simply to belittle individuals who were presenting issues. People saying others are acting closed-minded, or should just stop complaining... those are not productive, helpful posts.
And nice passive-agressive comment about safety glasses. Has anyone on here said a 20 year old was limited only to the safety glasses table and not capable of doing more?
Congrats Pauline! There's a chance, that maybe, you know something
OK, guys.
THAT'S ENOUGH.
Basel, I wasn't referring to Pauline, but the group in general. And in a very general way. In an explanation of why I was saying what I was saying. OK? Do I have to go to Thing Explainer?
If you guys are going to snip at every little thing I say, then it's really, really starting to feel like I'm being harassed/bullied. Last I checked, that sort of thing was frowned on around here.
Again, THAT'S ENOUGH.
Pauline Tasci
30-06-2016, 21:48
I really do wish this thread was the productive discussion it was earlier.
It's really unfortunate that so many people put such hard work into creating the document, finding venues, and more to just be shot down or argued with for reasons that are not valid.
This thread could have been something where California could really figure out how to make our region the best, and how to transition the easiest way we could.
Thank you to everyone in here who has offered constructive advice. From other districts to people from California offering venues. The advice has really helped me shape what I think our region should become. Thank you so much, can't wait for you guys to push us even farther in our journey into districts!
-Pauline
PayneTrain
30-06-2016, 22:25
You'll notice that my comment wasn't directed at her, at all. It was directed at the non-productive comments designed simply to belittle individuals who were presenting issues. People saying others are acting closed-minded, or should just stop complaining... those are not productive, helpful posts.
And nice passive-agressive comment about safety glasses. Has anyone on here said a 20 year old was limited only to the safety glasses table and not capable of doing more?
It was a reference to the alleged issues some other parts of the country are having with engaging young alumni in their communities and not primarily a direct attempt to be passive-aggressive, despite multiple claims. (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1562237#post1562237) The comment wasn't even directed at you, but to Jon.
Private messaging is a great conduit to transmit information to people who want it and is a channel I have and will continue to use (mostly outside of this website). It offers an opportunity to exchange experiences and share advice from scenarios that may be analogous or parallel to those of another party.
It definitely is a time to remember 3 things before someone wakes up a moderator and enacts a mercy killing of the thread:
-Perception is reality.
-The exchanges of ideas are a two way street.
-Be conscious of your intended actions and even more conscious of unintended consequences of those actions (Believe it or not, I am very conscious of these things, which probably constitutes a personal health hazard).
Thanks to Michael Corsetto and everyone who has exchanged ideas on the topic whether it be critical, supportive, or statistical.
What impact would going to districts have on California in terms of championship percentage? For purposes of an easy answer, compare to last year's number.
What impact would going to districts have on California in terms of championship percentage? For purposes of an easy answer, compare to last year's number.
It is on page 2 of the District 101 document which is a nice read. I encourage you to read it because it has a lot of other information also.
Jon Stratis
30-06-2016, 23:40
It was a reference to the alleged issues some other parts of the country are having with engaging young alumni in their communities and not primarily a direct attempt to be passive-aggressive, despite multiple claims. (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1562237#post1562237) The comment wasn't even directed at you, but to Jon.
Yes, I know exactly what it was directed at, and what it was a reference to. Frankly, it's a ridiculous comment, as I can point to many college-aged students right here in MN that are either in key roles or training for them. I'm not going to comment on issues that a few individuals have had, I feel it would be unprofessional of me to publicly discuss others in that way.
But really, you're going to drag out something posted 3 months ago about Minnesota into a thread about California? Why don't we keep those discussions separated and focus on actual productive posts. That's, literally, the only thing I've been asking for in all my posts in this thread. Because, believe it or not, I'm interested in the issues other areas are/have faced, the solutions they've used to solve them, and the results they've seen over the long run. It may be applicable to my area in the future.
Rafi Ahmed
01-07-2016, 01:21
What impact would going to districts have on California in terms of championship percentage? For purposes of an easy answer, compare to last year's number.
From District 101 document:
...with approximately 50 teams from California being invited to compete at the world championship (compared to the 42 teams that go currently).
Joe,
Thanks for the important reminder. It is very clear that there are plenty of High School venues in California to cover 16 (or more) district events, as you have stated. These are venues that can support 36-40 teams, have stands, pits, etc. This is a good baseline to establish, and one that we are working towards with the growing list of venues that many individuals are beginning to contribute towards. To everyone continuing to hunt for venues, THANK YOU!
Second, Joe, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this assumption:
Venues that currently host FRC events (Regional or Off-Season), and to a lesser extent venues that used to host FRC events, are likely to have the people problem mostly solved. I know this goes for DHS, PGHS and COHS (three CCC sites). These administrations WANT us at their school and let us book only 6 months out to get the weekend we want. I'm going to bet that many of the other venues currently in use have decent or better relationships with the school administration as well.
Do you agree with my assumption?
If you agree, I think we are getting close to solving the people portion of our venue equation. Just like many other districts have done across the country. Unless you think that, statistically, California administrators are prone to be hell-bent against FRC events :p
Thanks for the feedback,
-Mike
Hi John--
And thanks to all who are toning down the rhetoric, focusing on the actualities.
Basis of agreement:
--Many venues acceptable to FRC events, with adequate playing space and co-located pits.
--Numerous site and district administrators supportive of this kind of education, willing to take risks with these events.
--The volunteer issue is a problem that can be solved, though again the current volunteer pool is stretched beyond breaking. I appreciate all those outside the region for their strategic comments on helping solve the difficulty, though the perspective from "outside" cannot grasp the tactical difficulties on the ground (not a put-down of helpful ideas).
-- Admin are not Hell Bent against FRC. They're mostly ignorant (not the pejorative ignorant; merely not cognizant of what FRC MEANS, as opposed to what FRC IS). Admin are consumed by a hundred issues that occupy their time, and it's rare to find one who can take a portion of their day and focus on the structural needs of an outside entity (FRC)
To continue the discussion:
--Finding supportive admin with adequate facilities located where they are needed most: central locations for local teams. This takes legwork, and might merely be what Andrew/Data Nerd suggests: asking. This asking I think should start at the team level at the local school.
Oops-gotta run. Getting a mill and lathe and junk donated to us and can't wait…
Think we're getting close, though want success the first time out.
Joe
Andrew Schreiber
01-07-2016, 11:04
Hi John--
And thanks to all who are toning down the rhetoric, focusing on the actualities.
Basis of agreement:
--Many venues acceptable to FRC events, with adequate playing space and co-located pits.
--Numerous site and district administrators supportive of this kind of education, willing to take risks with these events.
--The volunteer issue is a problem that can be solved, though again the current volunteer pool is stretched beyond breaking. I appreciate all those outside the region for their strategic comments on helping solve the difficulty, though the perspective from "outside" cannot grasp the tactical difficulties on the ground (not a put-down of helpful ideas).
-- Admin are not Hell Bent against FRC. They're mostly ignorant (not the pejorative ignorant; merely not cognizant of what FRC MEANS, as opposed to what FRC IS). Admin are consumed by a hundred issues that occupy their time, and it's rare to find one who can take a portion of their day and focus on the structural needs of an outside entity (FRC)
To continue the discussion:
--Finding supportive admin with adequate facilities located where they are needed most: central locations for local teams. This takes legwork, and might merely be what Andrew/Data Nerd suggests: asking. This asking I think should start at the team level at the local school.
Oops-gotta run. Getting a mill and lathe and junk donated to us and can't wait…
Think we're getting close, though want success the first time out.
Joe
I'd actually suggest centrally coordinating the ask. Even if the actual ask is delegated down to a local team rep having multiple people asking could get REALLY annoying. Also it allows for having a central list of questions to ask about the venue.
I'd suggest trying to see if any existing district has a starting list of requirements. Brando I assume you're floating around here, do you know if NE has one?
I'd suggest trying to see if any existing district has a starting list of requirements. Brando I assume you're floating around here, do you know if NE has one?
I know this is a reference for the original proposal, but I don't think it has been mentioned in the thread itself yet, so here is FIRST's official district planning guide (http://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/frc/regional-and-district-planning-guides ). Venue Site Selection has a list of 'best practices'. I'm interested to see how well it matches up to the individual districts' list of requirements since it hasn't been updated since 2013 and FIRST HQ hasn't exactly planned a lot of district events.
Dealing with administration:
As getting administration excited can be difficult, it might be worthwhile to get some quotes comments from some of the long term FiM venues. There was one principle or Administrator that asked to speak at one of the events I attended. This was the second year for the event.
He said something to the effect that the previous year he was unsure. He had never seen an event before. When he watched the playoffs Saturday afternoon, it literally brought tears to his eyes. He had never seen his gym so alive before. There was crazy uproar during key matches. There was singing and dancing from 30+ schools that clearly were competing but also a common family. There were opponents helping each other get ready for the next match.
Other quotes I have heard from administrators: I got to meet political leader XYZ and or industry leader XYZ and give a speech to the same group as them. I got 30 different school districts to come and see what my school had to offer.
In Michigan, we have a lot of venues that have now been doing it for years, and there is a lot of pride the venue administrators take in their event.
It might be good to ask the leaders of other districts for a "reference list" or administrators that might be good spokespersons. Often those on the inside can come across as giving a sales pitch where as someone with equal position can help discuss concerns at the same level.
************************************************** **
On the negative:
We also have some 1 hit wonders. I think "floor damage" concerns are one of the primary causes for a venue to not want teams back, though you would have to talk to the FiM management for reasons they don't go back to a venue. I know at least a few of them were dealing with floor damage concerns. Though that is not the only reason.
************************************************** ***
Another item on venues. FIRST really does follow a field of dreams "If you build it they will come" trend.
What I mean by this is within a region, you may want a couple "stretch" venues that might not be the center of the current population. Once a new venue arrives, the local area tends to start a lot more teams. The proximity gives them a cheap option to play at (no hotel), and nothing gets people as excited about a FIRST event as seeing it live. While I would not make every venue remote, it might be a good idea to target a couple areas that could use a shot in the arm.
Dealing with administration:
As getting administration excited can be difficult, it might be worthwhile to get some quotes comments from some of the long term FiM venues. There was one principle or Administrator that asked to speak at one of the events I attended. This was the second year for the event.
He said something to the effect that the previous year he was unsure. He had never seen an event before. When he watched the playoffs Saturday afternoon, it literally brought tears to his eyes.
Yes. The best way to get administrative support for an event (and also for your team) is to get the administration to an event. The first year my team hosted an event, we got both our principal and superintendent to be judges and our superintendent also gave a speech at opening ceremonies. Let me say our team received more recognition and support from the administration in the month after the competition, than in the two and a half years we existed before the event combined and the event planning was A LOT smoother the second year (though it was also largely because it was our second time planning it). Our superintendent also loved it so much, he did it again the next year. Judging is an especially great way to get your administration involved because they will get to talk to so many kids and hear from them about why FRC is so great. The best way to ensure the long term success of your event is to have the administration personally invested. Bringing administrators to other events is also a great way to get them to want to start hosting one and to just get them to understand and support your team even if you aren't trying to host an event.
TL;DR: GET YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO EVENTS!!!
Collin Fultz
01-07-2016, 11:51
I'd actually suggest centrally coordinating the ask. Even if the actual ask is delegated down to a local team rep having multiple people asking could get REALLY annoying. Also it allows for having a central list of questions to ask about the venue.
I'd suggest trying to see if any existing district has a starting list of requirements. Brando I assume you're floating around here, do you know if NE has one?
Here (http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/files/2017IndianaFIRSTBidProcess.pdf)is the document outlining the IndianaFIRST RFP process.
This is sent from the InF Competition Committee to prospective hosts (usually teams) and they can use it for discussions with their school's administrators.
Michael Corsetto
01-07-2016, 11:54
Here (http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/files/2017IndianaFIRSTBidProcess.pdf)is the document outlining the IndianaFIRST RFP process.
This is sent from the InF Competition Committee to prospective hosts (usually teams) and they can use it for discussions with their school's administrators.
Thanks Collin!
I got a similar document with some more step-by-step instructions from CHS, these are really helpful resources, and a great way to equip the "boots on the ground"!
-Mike
PayneTrain
01-07-2016, 12:40
But really, you're going to drag out something posted 3 months ago about Minnesota into a thread about California? Why don't we keep those discussions separated and focus on actual productive posts. That's, literally, the only thing I've been asking for in all my posts in this thread. Because, believe it or not, I'm interested in the issues other areas are/have faced, the solutions they've used to solve them, and the results they've seen over the long run. It may be applicable to my area in the future.
You're right Jon! Why don't we keep the posts productive? I promise from here on out, I will remain on topic and/or just remove myself from this thread entirely. I have the luxury of getting off work early on Fridays, so sometimes I can go down to the river, take a nap at home, or prepare for a robotics meeting. Today, I decided to use some of my time to re-read every single post in this thread and try to find any similar words to the effect of what you and Eric described.
I made an effort to go look at every post possible, hoping to see it the way you do. I was really hoping someone said something to the effect of "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen" or "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Throughout the entire thread up to post 120, the only real thing happening in the thread was a series of exchanges that were mostly like this: "I have this concern"-->"here's what we do" or "here's what we have thought of for that." I'm really sorry if the idea of sharing these experiences in this way have made people feel personally victimized. I really doubt a neutral observer would see it that way, but your perception is your reality.
After that, there was a single slightly malicious post. It was very emotionally charged and probably could have been less direct.
From there, we keep maintaining discussion. People bring up a concern, someone shares a way they solved it. Pictures and documents to illuminate the discussion are shared. Joe P even was able to sum up the discussion in one of these documents, which I hope was helpful to the people involved. There was a slightly tangential but very important discussion regarding the well-being of international teams. While California hosts fewer international teams than some of the posts could lead one to believe, they certainly host more international teams than Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington DC and State, Oregon, Michigan, New England, and Indiana combined! There was really great discussion about that.
However things really seemed to take a turn for the worse.
Brandon Holley, who is without question probably one of the best active mentors in FIRST, shared the same concern I have with Eric's take on the posts above. It appeared to me, a lowly outsider, that the discussion for all intents and purposes was productive and the sentiment Eric described was not at all present in the thread until he himself stated it. It felt really disappointing that all of the conversation up to that point potentially could have been rendered for naught as those from outside California saw themselves being edged out of the discussion.
Then you decided to tell Brandon and the rest of the thread that essentially helpful and constructive advice was not to be found in this thread if your Location didn't list California. You implied that the sentiment of the thread was that "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse". I think you might be mistaking that for another thread because, as I have said, I really haven't seen that in here. The real coup de grâce came when you played the Gracious Professionalism trump card on Brandon ******* Holley and expected people were just going to be cool with that.
I guess it could be fair to say "wow, this is just like the Minnesota drama" when I would argue that it really isn't. People that know things were answering questions of people who didn't in both directions. "I don't know how this works in districts"-->"This is how" and "I don't know what it's like in California"-->"This is how" were exchanges happening all over the thread until you made the decision to implicitly draw parallels to Minnesota (and Eric made them explicit). The people who are far stronger willed than I am ignored you, but alas, I am not that kind of person.
I went through the whole thread with an open mind, trying to see it your way, but I come to the end of it more bitter than before. I guess it's my fault for taking the bait; I just can't seem to follow the wise words someone said: "If your [sic] from a district, stop posting about how an area you don't play in and you don't help run should make a big, sweeping change."
Keep it professional.
-Wil
Tom Bottiglieri
01-07-2016, 13:49
Thanks for doing the work on this Mike. I hope California can figure out how to move to a district style format soon. It seems like there are some hurdles on the way there, but there is also plenty of incentive to jump over them.
plnyyanks
01-07-2016, 13:56
I'd actually suggest centrally coordinating the ask. Even if the actual ask is delegated down to a local team rep having multiple people asking could get REALLY annoying. Also it allows for having a central list of questions to ask about the venue.
I'd suggest trying to see if any existing district has a starting list of requirements. Brando I assume you're floating around here, do you know if NE has one?
I dug through my email and found the Chesapeake venue RFI document that was sent out to their mailing lists last year: here it is (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8_MA4vtQSARLTkzU193TUJtMUU/view?usp=sharing)
I dug through my email and found the Chesapeake venue RFI document that was sent out to their mailing lists last year: here it is (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8_MA4vtQSARLTkzU193TUJtMUU/view?usp=sharing)
One interesting thing I noticed is that Chesapeake starts load in at 8 am on day 0. I understand how having that much time is really nice, but I also know that it is not absolutely necessary. The first year that my school hosted (2015), they didn't let anyone start load in until school got out at 2:11 and, while stressful, teams were still able to start load in at 5 and IIRC, there were some practice matches that night as well. It definitely is nice to start earlier (and we were able to start at 12 this year), but # of volunteers and load in time are inversely correlated, so the more volunteers the host team can provide, the later load in can start. 8 am, or even 12, is definitely not a hard requirement, especially if the field is simpler than it was this year.
notmattlythgoe
01-07-2016, 16:13
One interesting thing I noticed is that Chesapeake starts load in at 8 am on day 0. I understand how having that much time is really nice, but I also know that it is not absolutely necessary. The first year that my school hosted (2015), they didn't let anyone start load in until school got out at 2:11 and, while stressful, teams were still able to start load in at 5 and IIRC, there were some practice matches that night as well. It definitely is nice to start earlier (and we were able to start at 12 this year), but # of volunteers and load in time are inversely correlated, so the more volunteers the host team can provide, the later load in can start. 8 am, or even 12, is definitely not a hard requirement, especially if the field is simpler than it was this year.
Almost all of the things in the CHS facility list are "requirements". They're things they'd like but are flexible.
RoboChair
01-07-2016, 16:24
From District 101 document:
...with approximately 50 teams from California being invited to compete at the world championship (compared to the 42 teams that go currently).
No more burned Wild Card slots is a nice benefit!
I know I have been at some events that I would feel somewhat bad for winning at because the way alliances advanced would burn Wild Cards. On top of that is Qualifying Awards being granted to a team that has already qualified having an unreasonable likelihood of burning a card under many circumstances.
I find it really sad every single time a Wild Card gets burned.
In a perfect world every regional should grant 6 NEW slots.
Hi John--
To continue the discussion:
--Finding supportive admin with adequate facilities located where they are needed most: central locations for local teams. This takes legwork, and might merely be what Andrew/Data Nerd suggests: asking. This asking I think should start at the team level at the local school.
Oops-gotta run. Getting a mill and lathe and junk donated to us and can't wait…
Think we're getting close, though want success the first time out.
Joe
To continue the discussion part II
--Timing: does the northern half want to pull this off for season 2017?
--I cannot speak for all, or even a portion, but we're nowhere near ready for this in the south.
--Probably means a bunch of people on the north end have to sit in one room looking at one another with a big map. The remote control digital thing only goes so far.
--Probably a targeted list of schools, and then a delegation of students and parents willing to take on meeting with admin.
--Those schools who have hosted previously are assumed good to go?
Joe.
AdamHeard
01-07-2016, 18:58
To continue the discussion part II
--Timing: does the northern half want to pull this off for season 2017?
--I cannot speak for all, or even a portion, but we're nowhere near ready for this in the south.
--Probably means a bunch of people on the north end have to sit in one room looking at one another with a big map. The remote control digital thing only goes so far.
--Probably a targeted list of schools, and then a delegation of students and parents willing to take on meeting with admin.
--Those schools who have hosted previously are assumed good to go?
Joe.
I don't think anyone is pushing for districts in 2017, afaik regionals are already approved by FIRST.
2018 would be the earliest possible year to push for.
Michael Corsetto
01-07-2016, 19:05
To continue the discussion part II
--Timing: does the northern half want to pull this off for season 2017?
--I cannot speak for all, or even a portion, but we're nowhere near ready for this in the south.
--Probably means a bunch of people on the north end have to sit in one room looking at one another with a big map. The remote control digital thing only goes so far.
--Probably a targeted list of schools, and then a delegation of students and parents willing to take on meeting with admin.
--Those schools who have hosted previously are assumed good to go?
Joe.
Joe,
Beautiful lathe! If you are looking for a DRO, we bought ours from DRO PROS, they are based in NorCal and gave us an educational discount for our DRO's.
1. Definitely not 2017. The RD's are working hard right now to finalize 2017 Regional Venues. This is all looking at 2018 at the earliest.
2. I understand the sentiment. I believe the next logical question is "when will we know that we are ready?" You've brought up some great action items in your White Paper that are great next steps to get closer to the elusive goal of being ready.
3. There are plans for NorCal people to get together again to talk more details (obviously, very fluid right now). I had an in-person meeting with the organizers of MTTD and CC in 2014, back when I started researching districts.
4. Love the plan of action. Other regions have posted venue check lists which I will adopt to FIRST CA's application. Hope to post that this weekend.
5. I would not assume that 100%. CCC, yes. Madera, yes. Looks like SF as well. But I have also heard that some existing venues are not very warm towards FRC. So I think at this point it is a mixed back, but maybe your action items in point 4 would help put more boots on the ground and return more yield on venue proposals?
Great thoughts, please keep them coming!
-Mike
I don't think anyone is pushing for districts in 2017, afaik regionals are already approved by FIRST.
2018 would be the earliest possible year to push for.
True. As I read the document, 2017 would be a year to do a number of things to prepare, including lots of volunteer recruiting/training and lots of team educating on the "finer points"--example, more matches means more robot maintenance, so build strong. Essentially, build a foundation so that districts can hit the ground running.
Thanks Mike!
Except the obvious benefit for FIRST California, your work have made great resources for the entire FIRST community.
Pauline Tasci
01-07-2016, 21:32
I'm curious why people are under the impression we are not ready for this in the Southern Half of the state? Is it simply the lack of push on this forum exactly? The volunteers?
We have more teams in our half, with that we have potential for more volunteers.
Everyone I seem to talk to at events, from a team standpoint, seems to be in favor of the district model. They just are not vocal on forums.
I'm curious why people are under the impression we are not ready for this in the Southern Half of the state? Is it simply the lack of push on this forum exactly? The volunteers?
We have more teams in our half, with that we have potential for more volunteers.
Volunteers--but to be more specific, KEY volunteers. To be even more specific, key volunteers that have enough available time to work give-or-take double their current event load (because we'll need give-or-take double the number of events). There's ways to work with and around that, partly by some outside recruitment (MI did this early on, as I recall--not sure about any of the other district areas) and partly by interested parties jumping onboard now.
These numbers are specific to SoCal, BTW--I'm excluding NorCal from this due to lack of knowledge, though crossover between the two is probably desirable.
FTA: I think we could probably muster 2-3 FTAs currently, and good ones (and one of those has district experience already if he's available). Might be enough, for a couple years, which buys time to train more. There's always the "import" option as well, which is generally employed on Week 1 events as it is. 2017 will need a lot of FTAAs and some more FTAs stepping up.
LRI: That one is a bit easier. 3-4 currently, and several long-time inspectors that would have a pretty good chance to move up to LRI. I would suspect that this one would be the easiest of the key volunteers to fill. (In addition to the LRIs' habit of showing up at other events as inspectors anyway.)
Field Supervisor: I think we've got 4... get a few more trained, and that should be OK.
Head Ref: 1-2, maybe 3. Actually, reffing in general is a weak point. But with that few head refs, that's going to be very interesting. (I should also note that one of those typically only does one event.) This is a role that would be good to run some crossover SoCal to NorCal, and that does happen currently to at least some extent. That'd really help--unless NorCal is in the same situation.
Lead Queuer: I want to say there's 4, shouldn't be too hard to train more cat herders.
VCs and other "behind the scenes" key volunteers I'm not as familiar with. I will say that those folks tend to crop up--er, "be volunteered"?--pretty handily to my point of view, which is a bit limited on that.
Most of the other (read: non-key) roles are relatively easy to say "Hey, you with the volunteer paperwork! You're doing this" and have someone trained in the role day-of-event. Even inspectors and possibly refs have a decent chance at doing that, if it weren't for the required online training, if they've got rules knowledge. But the key volunteers have to be developed. Development takes time. For some things, I'm not sure 1 year is enough. (Head Refs are either a 2-event or a 2-year minimum as a ref except in exceptional circumstances--I forget just which. That's from FIRST's description, which I'm currently too lazy to go digging through the site for.)
Can that be solved? Sure. Potential volunteers for those roles--or for filling in any "promotion holes"--should be volunteering for 2017 regionals (and 2016 offseasons) in that role if it exists at that offseason. TBH, there's a reason that I volunteer, and that's part of it.
I would also go with the lack of push as being one other reason--part of that is that I would say that a lot of teams aren't on CD. The ones that are here tend to be more vocal for districts. Maybe there's a "silent majority" going on? Not sure which way it'd be going, at present--hard to know, with silent majorities. I know most of the mid-to-upper level teams that I've talked to on that are interested, at least in principle. Even some of the not-so-upper level teams, if conversation's gotten around that way.
tl;dr: The trained key volunteer positions need some more filling, which in some cases will be quick and in others will take a couple seasons. "Untrained" positions won't be an issue. And for whatever reason, I don't think the SoCal teams are being quite as vocal right now.
And for whatever reason, I don't think the SoCal teams are being quite as vocal right now.
The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.
The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.
That would explain it. Not sure that's limited to SoCal, either (the thinking these forums are toxic part--I've heard of folks saying that from all over). But that's beside the point.
Ali Ahmed
02-07-2016, 00:15
It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school. :cool:
Or maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:
In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.
Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.
As a data point, a general number for key volunteers would be the number events/2 rounded up. Based on the proposal, this would be 7 total of each for 1 California District Championship and 8 total for 2 California District Championships. This isn't set in stone - some key volunteers seem to have a tendency to go crazy and do more than 2 events, but strikes a nice balance, especially where events are not all within a 2 hour drive and allows for some overlap/trainees in positions.
I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.
Hi Ed-
Thanks for devoting your skill and the extra effort collating the data on teams/venues/weeks. It's tedious.
May I caution you on the spreadsheet/distance thing? Getting from South Torrance to John Burroughs HS on a Thursday/Friday afternoon will take an hour and a half, maybe two, depending on the variables. Probably about the same out to Valencia HS in Placentia. And the same time back, not counting a Chavez Ravine event or some basketball soccer thing downtown, or Knotts BF or the DisneyPlace. Even though it's only thirty-five miles via GPS device.
Joe.
Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.
/S
Hey Mark- If it's not already, it may soon be… hard for me to keep the orange/citrus teams distinct!
Joe
May I suggest a holiday on this thread?
Have a nice one.
See you next week!
Joe Petito
MeGuttieri
02-07-2016, 03:47
don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.
Preach girl preach. Plenty of people in SoCal want districts, and want to be part of the change to make it happen. We can't forget that OCR was a new regional with a rookie volunteer coordinator who did an excellent job. It's more than possible to find the support for districts if we can band together.
For me, it's unbelievably sad to watch teams fall apart because massive regionals like LA haven't been worth the bang for their buck.
It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school. :cool:
Or maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:
In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.
Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.
As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.
billbo911
02-07-2016, 12:11
As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.
Correct, 2017 is almost completely booked. 2018 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible. 2019 is much more reasonable.
No where in this thread nor in the documentation Mike, RC, and Andrew put together does it ever suggest 2017 is a possibility.
I think the biggest take away from all of this is, we need to seriously do the groundwork and preparation that is needed to move to Districts. This means training up volunteers, locating venues, finding the financial backing, and the physical resources need to support the much larger number of events.
2108 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible.
Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California. :D :D
Munchskull
02-07-2016, 14:36
Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California. :D :D
Think that they could get it down to at least 2097? Perfectly reasonabe, right?
But seriously I would love to see California in districts, it would allow cross play between them and PNW.
Ali Ahmed
02-07-2016, 14:51
As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.
Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.
billbo911
02-07-2016, 15:07
Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California. :D :D
Thanks for the catch! Corrected.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.
Not from MI, but as I recall the statements made previously, the 2 volunteers can be anybody and don't have to be at an event that the team is at.
And TBH, that setup makes a lot of sense. (What I'd be wondering is if one person could account for both, but that's not as important.)
Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.
The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.
Ali Ahmed
02-07-2016, 20:08
The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.
This is great news! I really hope we can implement the same policy. Thanks Ed.
cbale2000
03-07-2016, 22:14
This is great news! I really hope we can implement the same policy. Thanks Ed.
It's also worth noting that the volunteers in FiM do not necessarily have to volunteer at the event the team is attending to count. For example, if a team were competing in a week 3 and a week 4 event, they could send two volunteers to a week 1 event and two more to a week 2 event, alternatively, they could send 4 volunteers to a single event and meet the requirement. This can sometimes lead to some events being shorter on volunteers than others (especially newer events or events with many new, small teams), but overall it seems to work out fairly well.
There are times that younger, smaller teams have exceptions made for them, but I find that generally this is more due to either a lack of knowledge of the requirement, and/or the teams coach being too in-over-their-heads to coordinate getting volunteers to fill the requirement. Generally though there aren't many repeat offenders when it comes to not providing volunteers, and most teams seem to figure it out by their second year in the program.
One of the keys to making the volunteer piece work is not just having more volunteers - but putting the attention and recognition into have good Volunteer Coordinators. This role is just as important as most of the key technical roles. It starts earlier than most of the technical roles. It takes a diplomat who is good with people, being able to facilitate, mediate and organize and making the volunteer feel valued no matter what the position. It starts way before most of the other positions and lasts after the other positions. It takes the whole planning committee to help with recruitment - both within the existing community of FIRSTers as well as reaching out to new people. And all the VC's in a District need to be able to communicate with each other unless you have a system full of silos.
Richard Wallace
04-07-2016, 09:40
Volunteer Coordinators. This role is just as important as most any of the key technical roles.
Fixed that for you.
Great VC --> Great Event.
One of the keys to making the volunteer piece work is not just having more volunteers - but putting the attention and recognition into have good Volunteer Coordinators. This role is just as important as most of the key technical roles. It starts earlier than most of the technical roles. It takes a diplomat who is good with people, being able to facilitate, mediate and organize and making the volunteer feel valued no matter what the position. It starts way before most of the other positions and lasts after the other positions. It takes the whole planning committee to help with recruitment - both within the existing community of FIRSTers as well as reaching out to new people. And all the VC's in a District need to be able to communicate with each other unless you have a system full of silos.
Hi RoboMom--
We tend manytimes to pass over the Volunteer coordinator as a Key Role. As we sit in our dark rooms dashing off our geeky perceptions, it's the VC's, able to make the human connection between people that pull it all together. It's like the drummer and the sound guy before and after the gig- they've got the most gear and have to do the most planning, and come early and stay late, and there's little acknowledgment for how they make the pretty people on the stage look and sound pretty.
Connect this to Ali A's comment on being Too Cool, and the willingness of so many on the Left Coast who let others stoop to the Hard Jobs. Going from the Regional to the District will make for grubby competition between consortiums of teams or organizations to locate venues, and timing of events to avoid conflicting needs for finding the hard-to-locate lead positions. We don't want that drama between personalities and between venues--it distracts us from our focus as an educational organization. As is, we're facing two off-season events in our area that will siphon off teams, making neither event successful.
We existed with a silo system because it works/worked. Going to Districts will mean, as you've suggested, a means for Volunteer C's to communicate state-wide so as not to rob one another of skilled people. ErichH has outlined the numbers of skilled people clearly, I think, and the difficulties of keeping their skilled volunteerism, not throwing it onto the bonfire of our perceptions.
Joe Petito
Veteran, USMC
PS- On Ali's point of being Too Cool: we are a geeky lot; let CD not become a substitute for real relationships.
Michael Corsetto
05-07-2016, 09:17
One of the keys to making the volunteer piece work is not just having more volunteers - but putting the attention and recognition into have good Volunteer Coordinators. This role is just as important as most of the key technical roles. It starts earlier than most of the technical roles. It takes a diplomat who is good with people, being able to facilitate, mediate and organize and making the volunteer feel valued no matter what the position. It starts way before most of the other positions and lasts after the other positions. It takes the whole planning committee to help with recruitment - both within the existing community of FIRSTers as well as reaching out to new people. And all the VC's in a District need to be able to communicate with each other unless you have a system full of silos.
Thanks for the sounds advice Jenny!
Can you elaborate on the role of the VC in districts?
How do they communicate volunteer needs across events?
Is there a different VC for every district event, or do some perform the role of VC at multiple events?
Is there one "master VC" in the district to help coordinate all the volunteer efforts within the district?
Thanks!
-Mike
Collin Fultz
05-07-2016, 10:23
Thanks for the sounds advice Jenny!
Can you elaborate on the role of the VC in districts?
How do they communicate volunteer needs across events?
Is there a different VC for every district event, or do some perform the role of VC at multiple events?
Is there one "master VC" in the district to help coordinate all the volunteer efforts within the district?
Thanks!
-Mike
Indiana has Carolyn Beyer (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=31915) as the Chair of our Volunteer Committee, member of the BOD, and "master" VC. She helps manage the VC's for our district events and helps place key volunteers at each event.
Having her in this position also makes it easier for new event VC's, since she can use her experience to help mentor the new VC.
Thanks for the sounds advice Jenny!
Can you elaborate on the role of the VC in districts?
How do they communicate volunteer needs across events?
Is there a different VC for every district event, or do some perform the role of VC at multiple events?
Is there one "master VC" in the district to help coordinate all the volunteer efforts within the district?
Thanks!
-Mike
In Michigan, each event has a VC, though many VCs cover more than one event, especially in SE Michigan where the events are much closer together.
In Michigan, due to the number of events, we have also been assigning key position leads. These leads help with organizing key volunteer coverage for events as well as mentor for the new key volunteers.
Jon Stratis
05-07-2016, 11:22
In Michigan, due to the number of events, we have also been assigning key position leads. These leads help with organizing key volunteer coverage for events as well as mentor for the new key volunteers.
We've done this in Minnesota, even though we aren't in districts. So for example one "Chief" LRI to help keep all the LRI's organized, oversee training opportunities, and coordinate with our VC and the regional planning committees. It may be a little overkill right now with just 4 events, but I think it's helping to set up a good structure that can easily grow when needed. It also helps to spread out the training concerns - While a VC may just be worried about having someone in that role at their event, the chief's can focus on ensuring they have enough to cover existing events and enough in training to account for attrition and the addition of new events. You definitely need that overall view of the region, regardless if you are in regionals or districts... if everyone is just focused on their event, you'll never have the right people available to add events without forcing people to do extra duty the first year or two of a new event.
Thanks for the sounds advice Jenny!
Can you elaborate on the role of the VC in districts?
How do they communicate volunteer needs across events?
Is there a different VC for every district event, or do some perform the role of VC at multiple events?
Is there one "master VC" in the district to help coordinate all the volunteer efforts within the district?
Thanks!
-Mike
In FIRST Mid-Atlantic, each event has their own VC, including the DCMP. We also have a VC Coordinator who serves as a coordination point for all the VCs in the region, and helps out where needed, especially training new VCs as they adjust to their role.
In and out of season, the group of district VCs get together on conference calls and quite a few email chains to sync up on any issues or new instructions from FIRST that may come up. We're also connected via a few email chains & encouraged to check in if we need more people for an event (especially trained roles - We had some referees drop last-minute before Montgomery this year and being able to email the other VCs with 'can you contact your referees and see if they're free, pretty please?' was a godsend), or to report after our event on any hiccups, or things future-week VC's could help streamline for the upcoming events.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.