Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

This is becoming a pretty tired refrain. Michigan is not evenly distributed. There are portions of MAR that lack team density. PNW is massive for the quantity of teams in contains. These are challenges, yes, but they are quite easy to surpass in the grand scheme of things. Some teams will definitely have more travel costs, but when you compete two or three times instead of just once, travel costs are going to rise in any system. The point is to allow teams more options than just going to their one local regional (and plenty of teams don't even have a local regional).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I will try not to go too far off topic...after reading numerous threads on team growth, the need to transition to district models and the future of FIRST, I would offer some points to consider:

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

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

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

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Personally, I see New York as a good candidate to transition to districts in the next few years. It's important to keep in mind the changes that come with the implementation of a district system before shooting down the prospect. With 147 teams in 2014, New York would likely be required to host at least 8 district events to accommodate 2 plays by each team at the district level. This is double the number of regional events currently in the state. While this seems daunting, the PNW district went from 4 regional events in 2013 to 10 district events plus a district championship in 2014 (by a quick count, I could be wrong). These district events would likely be located throughout the state in a manner which best accommodates the teams, given venue availability. The possibility of inter-district play in the near future could also help reduce team travel for district competitions by making it possible for eastern NY teams to compete in New England, and downstate teams to compete in MAR.

The 6.5-7 hours it takes to drive from Buffalo, NY to NYC is not prohibitive of a district in New York State. Other districts have longer drives to their respective championships for some of their teams. Additionally, NYC is not the only possible location for a district championship. A more centrally located district championship in Albany or Syracuse, for example, would minimize travel times from most directions.

While there are hurdles to making it happen, the implementation of a district system in New York State does make sense in many ways. I suspect the same is true of other regions in FIRST, but often teams are opposed to such radical changes or lack the vision to see how the changes that come along with a district system make a district more reasonable.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Putting aside the dubious allegations concerning proportional representation in Minnesota... I strongly disagree with the sentiment that we need to lock out teams from outside the state, just because Michigan, MAR, etc. are getting that same "advantage." For one, these teams are a lot of fun to have around. Second, it's something Minnesota really really needs while its team are where they are right now. A lot of MN teams still have difficulty getting something together that can reliably connect to the field and the driver station. More have trouble performing the basic tasks of each years game. The chance for us in MN to compete with and learn from strong, successful, experienced teams from out of state is invaluable. I can't imagine MN events without the likes of 27, 359, 525, 967, 171, 2826, 1714, 3928, 1986, etc. etc. etc. etc.

And besides, where do you want them to go?
I (along with those in the current districts) wish FIRST didn't require districts to be exclusive. I think this is bad. But we shouldn't keep doing something bad just to make things fair.

I'll echo what I've said over here. If MN wants to reap the benefits of a district system (a competition structure that's better for its teams growth and success, or a competition structure that's more exclusive, whatever you perceive them to be), MN needs to work for it. It's not fair to point fingers at our good friends in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Hawaii, and everywhere else for having an unfair advantage when in fact we are probably benefiting a lot more from them than they are from us.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Frankly, I don't want to see those teams go, either... I don't know what we'd do without the volunteers some of them bring to our events! But it's still a problem when you have different qualification requirements for different groups of teams. It creates a situation where one group or another is at a disadvantage. The solution isn't just "more districts!" - that puts more and more of a squeeze on the areas that aren't districts. We have to develop a solution that fixes the inequity between the regional and district models. As it stands today, districts get proportional representation, but regionals only get 6 teams per regional. As a result, there's a wait list... which means if you look at the regionals as one huge district (ignoring the issue of representation for local areas), they don't get the same proportional representation as the districts do. They get less. You might have 30% of teams in districts and 30% of teams at champs earning their way from districts... but the other 70% who are in regionals only have a 60% representation at champs (as an example). The extra 10%, as things stand right now, is based on who can click a mouse to register the quickest. We should be able to do better than that.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

27 is the only team on that list that comes from districts. I don't have a solution for Iowa, but if you feel that teams from Hawaii, Wisconsin, or Missouri are taking qualification slots from Minnesota teams, maybe it's time for Minnesota teams to start traveling to Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Missouri.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

The wait list is, likely, not solely based on time of registration. I'd like to see more transparency on how that's done, but I have a strong feeling that it's like regional wait lists which have more flexibility.

That being said, I'm a believer that if a team wants to compete at the big stage they need to play on that level. How many CMP level MN teams are being left out?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

The inverse of this discussion is important as well. It's entirely possible to be proportionally overrepresented in the regional system. Ontario held several smaller regional events, and as a consequence ended up being the most overrepresented population in FRC at the world championship event.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

This is why I've been trying to stay out of this discussion. The truth is, there are very few MN teams that are even slightly competitive at Champs, and most of them are already pretty consistent at making it. Only a small handful of teams (2052, 2175) have been anywhere close to consistent (and I use consistent loosely here-- 2013 was 2052's first trip to Champs and also the first time 2175 made elims at champs) at making elims. The majority end up at the mid-bottom of the rankings. There are maybe a couple of CA contenders that might, eventually, someday have a shot at CCA.

I don't say this because I'm embarrassed or angry about where MN is right now. I say this because I think it's time to stop letting excuses ruin our game-- the comparative youth of our program isn't an excuse for how low the level of competition is here, that district might be hard to do is no excuse not to pursue it more seriously, that out of state teams take significant amounts of "MN" slots isn't the only reason why we're underrepresented at Champs. We need to step up our game. And that onus is on us, not FIRST, not the broader FIRST community, not on our sponsors, not on Chief Delphi.

If there's one thing on here that I've seem time and time again, it's that dedicated individuals are capable of succeeding in the most adverse of circumstances. I know MN isn't lacking in talent or dedication, so lets prove it.

/* and that turned into more of a soap box than I wanted it to be */

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

2169 made elims 3 years in a row from 2011 to 2013. 2512 made it in 2011 and 2013.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

We'll see if they can make it back to their former strength. I'd bet on the affirmative there, but it's caught up in that wibbly-wobbly future-y thing.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

We have had some teams traveling in recent years. (several in Wisconsin, couple at Midwest and Colorado last year) But the number isn't as high as teams traveling to MN. Part of the reason is that most MN teams are either in the Twin Cities area (where there are 2 regionals already) or Duluth (another 2) so to most teams, it's more convenient and cheaper to stay in Minnesota.

But trust me, most MN teams would LOVE to go to Hawaii in the middle of winter ;)

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

One idea is to have an entire division of rookies (first and second year teams) in one division. you can crown a rookie champion this way. All teams winning rookie award are placed there. rookies that have won a regional can have a choice. just a thought.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Personally I like having other teams come to Minnesota regardless if they win our regional's or not. Considering I am a new member to FIRST, and we didn't attend worlds this year, I got to see teams compete that I other wise wouldn't have seen. I formed bonds with out of state teams, and really enjoyed their company. Overall, expanding my horizons.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I think going all districts is the way to go. Having some districts some not only provides cost and competitive benefits to those within districts. Those of us out of districts are still paying the same amount for less than half of the playing time (not to mention the higher travel cost due to distance and number of nights). Plus they are given more playing time and thus more opportunities for advancement.

A permanent "some district some not" only benefits those teams in more populated areas and alienates those in more rural areas. We need an all district system eventually or we will see rural teams diminish.