Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprog...idays-07252014

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

inb4 Gregor comments on "nationals"

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

This is rather interesting. Last year Michigan had about 10% of all FRC teams. If this continues next year then they will have about 60 slots at Championship. Only 4 or 5 of the teams at the Michigan State Championship will not qualify for St. Louis. At this point the state championship is essentially meaningless in deciding who advances. In fact, many teams can completely skip MSC and still qualify for World's. This seems to go against the point of the state championship.

How can Michigan solve this problem? Increase the size of MSC by moving to a new venue? Adding divisions like World's?

Jim Zondag addressed this issue a few years ago in his whitepaper.
Well, I think we've arrived at the bridge, now what?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Yes, having so many teams make it from a district that the championship is worthless is a problem... but perhaps more of a problem is for the areas that aren't districts.

Minnesota, for example, is probably going to have about 200 teams next year. As a state, we have 4 regionals... which means 24 slots at champs. Sure, a few teams travel to out of state regionals, but even more teams from out of state come to our regionals and win slots. What it ends up meaning is that, as a state, the number of teams we send to champs is essentially a constant, and not comparable to the number districts send, as a proportion to FIRST population. We don't grow as champs grows - if we want more MN teams to make it to champs, we have to hold more events. The same isn't true for the districts, which creates, in my opinion, a severe imbalance across FIRST.

FIRST needs to come up with a system whereby they can support both the district and regional model while allowing proportional representation from every distinct area. Picture something like drawing up district lines across all of FIRST for Champs participation, but the method of entry for each individual region could be different - The district model could use the point system with a district championship, while the regional model could pull X teams from each regional, based on the number of teams needed for that area (with each area designed to have a minimum of 6 teams attending). For the regional, you could use a point system for the event, or base it on awards, or whatever.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Why does FIRST have to ensure proportional representation from all areas?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Of course it doesn't. But it's a way of saying that, to a first-order approximation, all teams have a roughly equal opportunity to advance to CMP. This is part of what makes a compelling competition.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Almost no where in FIRST is an equal distribution of CMP slots to number of teams. Florida for instance, there are 12 total possible slots for CMP and yet Florida hold roughly 4% of FIRST; this would be 17-18 slots of CMP. Florida actually sent something like 10-12 teams to CMP this year too.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

It really doesn't but with a potential increase of 200 teams I would like it to. If FIRST told Florida that we had to use the District point system to determine who were the highest ranked teams in our state not attending (according to my math to be represented beyond our Regional guarantee spots, we would get 2 more slots.), 744 and 1251 would have been able to attend, personally speaking I feel they were more than championship caliber bots with 744 giving us a tough finals game in South Florida and our twin 1251 was just as tough as we were and arguably the better catcher.

But personally I would rather there be some new determining factor that is fair to all teams other than who can click a mouse the fastest.

We are actually more like 2.5% of all teams so one could argue previously we were over represented

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I'm not sure why a FIRST-wide points system based on the standard district model points system wouldn't work....

Top 600 teams in the world go to champs.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Because of Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All Star, plus it would mean waiting until the last possible week for all 600 teams to make their plans to go to Champs.

EDIT: Though if that idea would have been applied last year Florida would have been represented by 180, 179, 744*, 1592, 1251*, 108, 79, and 233*, meaning 1902, 3932, 4013, 5145 and 5196 wouldn't have made it (All who won the awards above except 3932 who was the last pick of the South Florida Winning Alliance)

*-did not qualify

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Hm. Something is vaguely unsatisfying with the comment about 'a district with 10% of the teams gets 10% of the slots'. That's the case now (more or less), but I'm just not following the logic to expand that to 600 slots, guaranteeing a near-overbooking situation every year. And the absurdity of sending 60 teams from MI.*

I think it's me.

I do understand the logic of equal representation though. Either you run districts, which get a proportional representation (and rewards you for growing FRC), or you run regionals, which gets you (about) 6 slots per regional (and rewards you for being able to fund more regionals).

I don't envy the task force.


*Not that they're not welcome, but as AGPapa pointed out, the MSC becomes pointless for everyone but 4-5 teams.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

FIRST doesn't have to have proportional representation at champs... The problem comes in when some areas are proportional while others aren't. Teams from Michigan don't have to compete for spots with teams from Hawaii, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, etc... But Minnesota teams do. I'm completely willing to back a non-proportional system, so long as it provides equal opportunity for everyone, not two radically different sets of rules that potentially benefit one group but not another. Giving proportional representation to one group but not another simply doesn't present a level playing field.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I think once districts completely displace regional events, then that only makes sense -- especially with the promise of inter-district play.

I'm all for having the most competitive Championship experience, but the impact of a Championship on a less-than exemplary team also needs to be noted -- I've had the distinct pleasure of seeing faces light up with inspiration at the level of play at the Championship. However, some of those teams wouldn't have gotten there if they hadn't been that third robot to the #1 alliance. So I guess what I'm saying is that the top teams should go, but that also needs to be weighed against the merits of letting weaker teams experience Champs.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

According to this awesome whitepaper I found, Minnesota is the most under-represented state for FRC teams at CMP (a 14 team difference). (link)

There's also a paper on representation of regions at CMP (link) that goes back quite a bit. (It probably doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand but I think its a good read as well).

Although I do find it interesting, I really have no idea what can be done about it, if anything (especially the under-representation some regions face).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Just to add some numbers to this:
MN Teams in 2014: 186
FRC Teams in 2014: 2707

Percentage of FRC teams from MN: 6.87%
Number of slots if represented at champs by percentage: 27.5
Current in state slots available: 24
Percentage of MN teams at champs if all slots won by MN teams: 6%

2014:
24 slots available, 6 slots won by non-MN teams
2 MN teams double qualified (one of them providing a wildcard slot to another MN team)
Slots won by MN teams: 18
Slots used by MN teams: 17
Percentage of champs teams who are from MN: 4.25%

The percentages currently aren't that far off, but as MN grows it will become farther and farther away from equal representation if more slots aren't available to MN teams. Of course there are two other regionals frequented by MN teams that are available but for the most part MN brings in more out of state teams then we send to other states.

I may go through at some point and run the numbers for 2013 as well if I get the chance.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Unfortunately, there is a conflict between continuing the idea of a World Championship for FIRST, and "having s team in every high school".

How many High School sports have a National Championship, let alone a World Championship?
Why do we want to believe it is possible to pull this off?

Do the math.

The FIRST experience practices project management with technology.
It's a time and motion study to coordinate the creation, competition and ultimate arbitration (Einstein).
To keep growing, the four month window should to be doubled to a September start.

If you had to pick just one of these goals, Growth vs. No World Championship, which would it be?
(check your ego).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I don't see the conflict between having a world championship and having a team in every high school. Can you explain with some facts (not unsubstantiated rhetoric) why you believe that to be the case?

I'm not sure how the lack of a national championship for most high school sports means FRC can't pull it off-- for one, if I remember correctly most sports aren't completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC is-- they don't have a national/world governing body that issues guidelines to teams from elementary to high school on starting and competing as a team in the broader sense of robotics. FIRST fills that role for us-- sure they partner with local organizations, but the advancement criteria are defined by FIRST.

I also don't see how increasing the build season length would increase growth, perhaps you could explain this to me?

Also, regarding your question, which, if I read it correctly, looks like I can have growth and a world championship or no championship or growth, which seems contrary to your point.

The fact is there is always an opportunity cost. Right now, if what you are saying is that the cost of having a world championships is too high, I completely disagree with you. Perhaps my mind may change in the future (the future is such a funny place), but right now I don't see FIRST outgrowing a championship event in the near future.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Next year we will have 600 teams at champs representing about 3000 teams. If all high schools had a team there would be 30000 just in the US. How would a 6000 team world championship work.
I do agree that if anyone could pull it off it would be FIRST- a unified organization run by engineers.
There are ways to do it but if we get to the point where there are so many teams, it makes it extremely difficult to have a world championship that includes both the elite teams and the rookie/lower tier teams.

I think he's talking about increasing the length of competition season which would be necessary and has already been happening as FRC grows.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Can you give me a substantiated example of a High School "World" Championship? Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Lacrosse, et al...?
Track and Field has "National" Championships, but they are conducted by many different organizations.
The only real "World Championships" are of Olympic proportion.

"completely vertically and horizontally integrated like FRC" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and hyperbolic as well. Have you seen the variety of teams in FRC?
Nonetheless, if anyone can do it, we can do it.

This V
Math! Release the game in October, Build until End off Year Break, Six weeks of District/State/Province/Nation High School competitions in January/Feb. "Regional" competitions in March, World Championship in April.

Math! Hello Mentors / Volunteers. This will strain the organization.
High Schools will need to buy more deeply into this program to make a longer season work.

I was asking people to prioritize. I do not like to think of this tradeoff.
I prefer both, but this thought has been bothering me.

I disagree with me too, though not "completely". :)
The future is a harsh mistress. TANSTAAFL

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Agreed. In preparation for the 2015 FRC season, I've already worked 180 hours, and it's not even August 2014 yet. School boards typically see a year long class as about 180 hours, and they have difficulty wrapping their head around paying teachers/coaches/advisors for more than that. In some cases, it can become an equity issue with teachers in other extracurricular programs.

As the schedule currently stands, it already takes far more than 180 hours per school year to run a comprehensive successful FRC team. If it expands to much more than currently, you're going to see two things happen: the quality of the program will fall, and adults will drop out because the time commitment required.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

They don't have to do anything, but hypothetically if only 20 out of 110 teams from an area got a bid into championships, while another region got 30 out of 115 bids, someone is going to call BS on misrepresentation based purely on geography, event structure, venue size, etc.

Provided that there are a series of normalizations for the points system, it's probably the best order AFTER you get through the idea of ensuring 6 teams from every regional go, instead of 5 or 4 or 3.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

To your first point, I dont agree with that on the basis of it depending on the qualification structure. If everyone was in the same points structure as say FiM, then if one region had 20/110 and another had 30/115, then that just meant that that other region had better robots.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

What if the region who had fewer bids than the other was locked in under FIRST's system, while the one with more bids had more regional competitions that are nearly as difficult to enter for a majority of FRC Teams out of the area as a district?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Not to misinterpret what cadandcookies meas, but I'm pretty sure he means that every FRC team is organized under, well, FRC. This allows for champs, no matter what the location and variety of the teams (or whether its regional/district). The reason sports can't do this like FRC can (besides at the Olympic level) is because they don't have an international organization linking teams around the world together. It's difficult to do that with more common sports due to varying interest levels and the ways teams can be organized at different tiers.

Also, as much as I love a longer competition season, what happens when high schools that have both and FRC and FTC team, or mentor an FTC team, start build in October? That would be two kickoffs within a month with roughly the same build time and (again, roughly) the same days for competition. I know FTC is a lot smaller compared to FRC, but it could possibly make an impact on bot quality for the teams involved.

edit: If a state (ie: Minnesota (a very popular state in this thread)) runs on regionals, what do you mean by "regional" competitions? Does that mean that the teams that compete in regionals don't do anything for six weeks, or that smaller competitions are held that lead up to a limited amount of teams going to "regional" competitions based on performance and/or awards (that then merit going to champs)? Because then there would be a problem on giving out awards and whether they count for going to champs or not. But it's a cool idea!

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

You totally didnt read my post. I stated my point under the premise of everyone being under a singular point structure like the one FiM had.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I was responding to two different arguments in my first post, and you connected them without me noticing. Sorry.

Still doesn't fix how you have to normalize a team who goes through an 8-match qualification circuit at a regional or a 36-round battery of qualification matches over 2 districts and a R/S CMP.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

FIRST has never said they want a FRC team in every high school in the country. They've only said they want a FIRST team in every school in the country.

It's not logistically possible to have a FRC team in every high school. It's too expensive, too much of a drain on teachers, requires too many mentors, and too many competitions. No matter what spin you put on it, it's simply not possible.

If you extend down to FTC (or VEX) it's a lot more plausible that every school in the country could have a robotics program, since it costs and order of magnitude less to participate.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I agree with what you're saying; there's a large trade off that has to be made. However, when looking at any high school sport, they have very different goals than FIRST. For example, the goal any high school volleyball organization is not to promote the game of volleyball and change culture such that volleyball is more accepted. The goal is simply to provide students with a place to play volleyball. FIRST on the other hand has multiple goals. They want to provide teams with a program that allows them to participate, but they are also trying to create a massive shift in culture. The World Championship is a huge part of this shift, as it's the stage FIRST needs to get the type of large scale publicity that's needed to achieve the culture change they're going for. Yes, there are other models that could achieve the same goals that FIRST is striving for, but as it stands right now, the World Championship is central to FIRST achieving their current mission.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I think that most teams would be able to make travel plans after their regional when it becomes obvious if they will qualify or not. For example, there would be a theoretical maximum points a team can achieve at their event. Say they go undefeated, win the event and win chairman's. That level of points should put them in the Top 100 and therefore for all intents and purposes qualify them for worlds as a fall from 100 to 601 most likely isn't plausible. Now let's say you have an average event, win half your matches, get knocked out in quarters and win the imagery award. If that puts you in the 1000ish range then you probably aren't going to qualify. If anything I think it would allow more teams to make travel plans sooner because it's easier to track your chances of qualifying. This system would also make wildcards very easy to hand out. 403 can't go, 601 gets in and so on.

Granted this system places a premium on performance and I know a lot of people, myself included, like the thought of rookies going to champs based of the RAS, simple way to handle that is to give the RAS (Also Chairman's) a decent amount of points but not quite an auto qualification. Say you need to win x amount of matches as well or something along those lines to also keep the level of competition high.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I really like this idea, and I think it solves a lot of the problems people have with the district system. It requires a certain base competitive level to qualify, but certainly rewards teams who win the culture changing awards.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I'm not sure why we're positing a linear scaling of championships. Wiki tells me there's ~15,000 school districts* in the US. (Add in other countries, but subtract a healthy chunk that wouldn't do FRC.) There are like 22,000 FLL teams in the World, and they have a very nice World Festival. It's darn near impossible to get into, but it means a lot. (I know it's "not a level of competition". But it's FLL.)

The point is, we can scale if we're flexible about our postulates. We'd need to tap many, many more resources to stay strong and stable at this size, and I concur that's going to be darn near impossible. But if we do, scaling Worlds won't be the way to provide a great experience and an inspirational environment. In fact, the idea that you'd need to a 2014-era Worlds to be so inspired would be downright laughable to these teams of the future.

Why? if we pulled this off, MAR alone would have ~500 teams (60% FRC). If 100 teams gets me young-ish teams like 1676, 1923, 2016 and 2590, then 500 with similarly distributed money and mentorship would be...whoa. And MAR Champs would have a steeper drop off than Worlds does now. And they'd all be closer to home! These top 10%-quality events would be a train ride away from a lot of the students in the country. Imagine a top 10% event in NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, DC, Dallas, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston, Portland, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Detroit, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Denver, Phoenix, San Francisco, Portland... I'm not very good at this, but you get the point. It's a heck of a recruitment and retention tool.

*We also shouldn't conflate "FIRST team in every high school" with "every high school has a FIRST team".

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

What I really want to see eventually is a competition of different areas of the United States. For example, say Team A is running a district system and qualifies for "Championship" on the East Coast. Team A would then go to the East Coast Championship that hosts all of the winners from around the East Coast. From there, either national or international competition.

I understand that this isn't feasible for a lot of teams due to the multiple long distance trips and missing school/work for the events. However, eventually that could be a solution to the problem at hand.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

First off, a quick aside. When 1676, who just celebrated their 10th anniversary, is still considered "young-ish" in MAR, it tells you a lot about the team demographics in the region.


To those thinking a true world championship is feasible if a future where FRC is ubiquitous, consider FLL and why it has a "world festival" instead of a championship.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Agreed; everything we're talking about would take a really long time. (Which is kind of the point, yes?) But if it does and when it does, I doubt we'll we worried about the fact that we have a 2%-qualifying World Championship/Festival. At least, no more worried than we are about every FRC decision. If we can accept that our growth would cause this, we can focus on leveraging that growth into much more local inspirational experiences.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Not every region has seen the same stagnation in growth that MAR has. While, barring a game changer like the state funding Michigan has, the ~100 team mark seems to be the currently saturation level for the region, other regions have continued to grow. That's the reason why Championship qualification has become a contentious issue in the first place. FIRST bought themselves some more time by expanding the field to 600 teams, but they haven't really addressed the root cause yet or set a definite path for the qualificaiton method going forward. So far as we can tell, they want to keep the style of their premiere event the same, but even that is inference.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Us Iowa teams have no where else to go but out of state :(

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Sounds like FTC and the 4 Super Regionals.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I think Jenny really hit it here. There are a lot of false dichotomies floating around (regional vs district, culture vs competition). If the program grows to FIES (FIRST In Every School), then regionals/districts probably won't exist as we know them now.
The model we use now is the model that works (mostly) now. As engineers :] we experiment and tweak (think Indiana model) and adapt and iterate. The future is a dark and mysterious place, and trying to force our current methods on that are patently absurd.

So it's really not a proposition of "our choices are A B or C" - the future may hold GHI. Or 7. Maybe Purple. Things that are inconceivable now, but will be obvious then.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

In the presentation FIRST was giving to areas about districts, the super regional model is already their plan.

Districts > District Champs > Regional Champs (200-400 teams?) > World Champs

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Fair to say we should be prepared for a longer season to handle the extra stage of competition? And if AP exams are still considered as a determining factor for season end then Kickoff would possibly be before Christmas?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

From memory there wasn't much info on this section and it essentislly was just a rough flowchart.

The vibe I got from the entire presentation is that it wasn't terribly planned out, and the FIRST representatives themselves weren't actually familiar with team's experience in the district system (didn't know what the unbagging window was, wasn't able to cite any of the benefits that Jim Zondag can from memory, etc...)

Someone please correct me if I remember wrong.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

It would have to be. If it goes to the model Adam has in the flowchart, there are four levels of competition. There would have to be many more weeks in the schedule for FIRST competitions. Assuming that the teams will go to at least 2 district events, that will be 6 competitions in one season for a team that would make it to champs.

Big problem with this: Each competition will be about half a week for kids that are in school, and the kids would have to take off the equivalent of around 3 weeks of school time that most could not afford to miss. While larger teams can send a contingent to different events, smaller teams or teams that don't train more than one drive team may see a major drop in grades or participation from the events.

EDIT: I know I had a problem this year with keeping up with school work and going to the 3 competitions that our team participated in this year.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

That's a flawed assumption. I know many of the District events here in NE were Sat/Sun affairs and students missed no school. We attended 4 districts this year and our students missed very little time at school. Then DCMP and CMP happened and they missed a ton. But still.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I'm sorry, I didn't know about the NE districts, but as a whole, there will be a lot of school time that will be missed adding that extra step in the road to CMP. Even though kids might not miss for the districts, the other three competitions after that will be Thursday - Saturday not accounting for travel.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Why will they be Thur - Sat? My point was that, by removing practice days, events can be weekend only affairs. And once you're at the DCMP or higher level practice days seem less valuable as you should already have your bot working.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Then why hasn't this happened already? Why are most regional events and District Championships held Thursday-Saturday? The missed school time has been an issue for a while now, why would we think this would change if we add in a Regional Championship?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

A fair amount of CA regionals are on this Sunday model now (2-3). Which is 1/3-1/2 of our events.

I know some teams aren't stoked about sunday events for travel, so for regionals with a lot of traveling teams it's not desirable.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Sunday being sunday is why. People crave that day off.

Also, in regards to districts specifically, the reason for the shift there to Sat-Sun is due to the fact that many are held in high schools; practice day not starting until 4-ish Friday limits conflicts with the Friday schoolday.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

From looking at last year's calendar I see 5 regionals on the Friday-Sunday schedule.

How have the Friday-Sunday regionals worked out so far? Opinions? I know I'd like this because it means less time I have to take off work each year.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I understand this and it reinforces my argument, my point was we shouldn't expect a switch, so the missed school is a very valid argument since it would add at least another 2 days of missed school, probably 3 for teams that have to travel, to teams that qualify.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Why would there have to be many more weeks of competition? Districts/regional qualifications wouldn't have to occupy the six week period they currently do. There would only be one additional stage compared to the current district model, so it would be a minimum of five events for a championship competitor, not six (district 1, district 2, district championship, super regional, FRC championship). That could perhaps be condensed further if district championship events are not required to attend the super regional.

1712's students missed a grand total of 3 days of school this past season to compete in two districts and the MAR championship. In 2012, 1712's students missed no school at all. Districts are only 2.5 days, with the load-in/practice day occurring entirely during the evenings. Many run the qualification and elimination matches on Saturday and Sunday. The events are close in enough in MAR that we don't need travel days or hotels. For the "FiES" hypothetical scenario, there's a lot less cost in terms of school missed and travel.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

DCMP Practice days typically end up with qualification matches being played on them. But that is optional. By increasing the number of event levels you can decrease the size of the events meaning you get more matches without increasing the number of matches played.

Basically, there's a handful of knobs you can work with to get the desired results. Assuming that the way things have been done is the only way to do them is completely invalid. Actually, in order for FRC to scale I don't think our current approach is feasible in the least bit.

Personally, I'd like to see a move to a longer competition season with no bagging.
5 week build season (I've kept it at 5 weeks as that allows for 1 wk proto, 1 wk cad, 1 wk order, 1 wk assemble, 1 wk test)

3 weeks of local meets - events with no judges, smaller AV covering only scores and rankings, and a single elimination bracket. Focus these on getting teams comfortable playing the game and iterating their robot. Almost like preseason events.

Several weeks of district play (districts as we know them) with an attempt to play mostly sat/sun events.

Then we move into Regional (District CMP) level play for a week. But these events are much smaller, still only 40-50 teams.

Qualifying teams go to State/Region Cmp (again, 40-50 teams)

Qualifying go to CMP (8 divisions of 50 teams?)

Smaller events let us keep quality high, use smaller (and cheaper) venues, have shorter events with a reasonable number of matches. No bagging allows teams to iterate and prevent teams from having terrible seasons (and being disillusioned) as a result of poor game eval.

The big issue I have with these is it assumes a relatively uniform distribution of teams which isn't currently the case (nor will it likely EVER be). It also adds about 2 weeks to the competition season (assuming that the district season is still 6 weeks, we could shorten that and make smaller districts to alleviate this issue).

Before anyone says that no bagging will increase mentor burn out. Even with a bag and no practice bot, 125 was still in the shop EVERY night from January until late April. It's your choice to do that, if mentors/students don't want to, don't.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Absolutely terrible. The Monday after at school was my least favourite afternoon (...) of the year.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I love it because it is less time off from school/work, but I do miss the recovery day after when I have these type of events. I still haven't made up my mind though if (Thursday)Friday-Saturday or (Friday) Saturday-Sunday events are better though.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I remember the Monday after the 2010 New Jersey Regional my sophomore year for being... difficult. You either take the day off on Thursday or your body wishes you take the Monday off.

That being said, regionals that attract a very local crowd (>85% of the teams within a 2.5 hour drive) might be better suited with a Friday-Sunday schedule (which I assume is the makeup of the Fri-Sun California regionals).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

After rereading this entire thread, I still have a couple questions unanswered:

1. Was this presentation ever cited specifically in this thread or only referenced? I HAVE seen a presentation that referenced possible super-regional championships, and I want to make sure that the one I saw is the same one everyone is referencing here.

2. I don't see the purpose of adding another layer of competitions in-between State/Regional CMP and the FRC CMP any time soon. In a universal district system, if the whole idea with proportional representation is to reserve a number of slots proportional to the size of the district, as FRC grows can't we simply adjust the number of slots allotted to each region?
I suppose if FRC ever grew to near capacity this may become a problem then, but we're at least 2 decades away before that could ever become a problem.

I think it's becoming fairly obvious (to myself at least) that regionals are becoming increasingly difficult to fit into the qualification structure we find ourselves in. Honestly ~600 FRC teams competing in one event is going to be a logistical nightmare (or close to one), and then when we hit that max. barrier with regionals, are we going to try to expand again? Universal District Championships are expandable and proportional, and can allow us to cap the World Championship at whatever number we feel like. Why isn't FIRST Headquarters encouraging regions to transition to districts (faster)? Clearly they work.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Because some areas are still too spread out. Also switching before a region is prepared to run the extra events can cause a lot of problems.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

They are. For areas with many teams/events per area (high-density), districts make sense. There are some areas, though, where districts still don't make sense (to me, at least). New York, is one of those areas -- teams are not uniformly distributed throughout the state, and are more or less are clustered into NYC, Long Island, Rochester, Buffalo, or the Capital Region (Albany/Tech Valley).

It will be interesting to see what they end up doing. One of the thoughts that I've had is to take the Capital Region teams and roll them into NE, and the NYC and Long Island Teams into MAR, which actually makes more geographic sense than the entirety of NY state becoming a district (could you imagine the travel times for Buffalo/Rochester teams to go to a DCMP that could be as far as NYC?).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Something teams should consider under the regional model is do you have to be there on Thursday? For teams who are traveling a distance to compete the answer is most likely yes. However if it is an event that your team will commute daily to or the drive is around 3-4 hours is completely doable to have a majority of your team in school for part of the day or work a full day before traveling to the event and being there for Friday/Sat of competition. I know this doesn't sound appealing however if your team is trying to do multiple regional plus Championships its something to consider at one of your events to reduce the number of days out of school/work. I know of many mentors/adults who do not come to regionals on the first day because it isn't worth the time out of work (for team leads its impossible).

As the seasons get longer its not easy to adapt and our team felt it this year. In 2013 we went to two regionals plus the Championship which took our team members out of school for two days (Week 1 events fall under winter vacation and the Championship has fallen during spring vacation for New Hampshire schools). Looking at 2014 we were concerned because in order to compete at the Championship it would require 8-9 days out of school! :eek: We competed during week 2 this year at a Thurs/Fri event because we wanted to avoid week 1 so that added two days. Our second district was a Fri/Sat and the district Championship was Thurs/Fri/Sat. Championships could either be 3-4 days out of school depending on our travel plans of which we it became 3.5 as we left halfway through the day on Tuesday.

It wasn't an easy season but we set aside time during long meetings for school/homework (about 5 hours a week) plus we decided not to meet on Wednesday or Sunday until weeks 5 & 6 giving everyone a break. This year we will most likely keep the same schedule but cut our meeting times nearly in half by meeting from 6-9 instead of from 2-8/9. Our plan from the start was that if students were struggling to keep up with their classes we would look into having some of the team forgo the first day at the district championship (which is half practice and half competition roughly 2-3 matches) and also examine their eligibility to travel to part or all of a two day district event. Overall the kids kept up with their homework/classes.

Its not easy but it can be done. Work harder not smarter and know where to draw the line.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Yes, I can imagine - it's about the same drive for a team to drive from NYC to the Michigan State Championship than it is to drive from Houghton, MI to MSC.

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.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Have you ever been on a team that has won Rookie All-Star? I have the (granted, we won the regional too, but by chance. Beside the point). We worked very very hard to make it to champs, and the biggest thing that kept us going was being on the same field as the powerhouses. Even though we got our butts kicked, the most inspiring thing about the whole year was being on the same field with the "big kids." And from there, the next year, we were inspired to build a machine that could beat those teams.

Putting all Rookie All-Star winners on their own field is kind of like saying "aw, that's cute, but you're not really worthy of playing with us real FRC teams." There was already enough of the "aw, you're a rookie team, you must need tons of help, and let's overcrowd you with advice and help that you don't need" our rookie year, but being put on our own field would have just been a slap in the face to us. It would have felt like FIRST didn't really want us there, but they had to. There's a reason that Rookie All-Star, Chairman's, and EI winners are invited to champs in the first place, and there's a reason they were never segregated.

Just my $0.02 coming from when I was a founding member of a rookie team.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

As trivial as this is to everyone who has done FIRST, especially teams like us in "rural" areas, I dont see any immediate changes happening anytime soon. I'm hoping that with Frank at the helm, he'll allow ANY team to participate in an existing district model after all teams from their own respective areas sign up first?
I found that over the years, I have changed and grown accustomed to playing more and more tournaments/matches every season. The thrill of a season with doing just 1 Regional and Championship is no longer enough. In the past, doing more than 1 event was a luxury. Now its the standard and I've grown accustomed to raising X amount of funds and playing X amount of matches.
Most district teams are used to paying only X amount of $$ to participate, and we want to be able to have the same pricing structure as well.
I'd give up the auto-qualifying HOF status and qualify via the State Championship route, if given the choice to participate in a District system with its associated costs.
Whether its in a HS gym or in a large stadium, I'm fine as long as there is Pizza at the concession stand.;)

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Here's the real question: No money from entry fees goes directly to the events you attend. WHY does a second play cost what it does?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Or a third as in our case.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Interesting how travel costs are both being used as an argument for and against districts. Perhaps it's time we realize that travel costs are not really a controllable expense for the FRC population as a whole, and that some teams will pay more than others regardless of the system used. Some teams will be hurt by having to travel 2-3 times in a season, instead of just once. Others will be hurt by having to travel a further distance because there are not regionals in their immediate area (though I would imagine that any near-future distrcit system won't put multiple events in day-trip range of those teams).

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Plus add on to this that teams in districts sometimes need to plan for four trips (including Champs) or more compared to some teams in regionals where it comes down to 2-3. Its hard to compare whats easier sometimes as its not universal that districts are always going to be better for all teams when it comes to cost and/or advancement.

I know of a few teams in our area who prefer to travel to their events compared to daily commuting other may not. Others are sadly stuck traveling because team density in their area isn't large enough to support two or even one event.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I would suggest it is not the added travel costs but the exclusionary policy of restricting district entry to teams within that geographic district that is the problem. When the PNW formed, Boise-based teams lost 2 out of 3 regional events within 400 miles and 4 out of 5 within 500 miles. Should Vegas fall from the schedule and when/if California goes districts, our 2nd event options will require driving 800+ miles each way.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

For those of you playing along at home, I was comparing MAR to Ontario.

Am I the only person that remembers we cut the fields down from 100 to 32? You're needlessly cutting out teams like 2013's New London Robotics because I can only assume you'd rather have rookie teams bumming around in their like-tenured squalor so you aren't weighed down by their varying abilities at champs, as other people on this board have thinly veiled this opinion before.

Since the culture changing awards moved to the regional level, there have been some wide fluctuations in robot acumen across those awards, and as the number of regionals grow, the more variation we can get. The district system is allowing this to be solved by curtailing the number of RCA/RAS/REI awards at the R/SCMP level.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I think this has been touched on a little bit, but I'd like to make it more concrete.

Many talk about a hybrid system (such as we have now) as if it's really bad. But we should think about how it compares to what we have now. Right now, most teams pay $5000 for a regional somewhere in their vicinity, maybe an additional $4000 for another event, and then go straight to CMP. Some teams in areas that have worked very hard to establish a district system benefit from this with more, cheaper playing time, smaller events, etc.

What makes adding an individual district worse? (vs going all districts, which is really not feasible for a while, if ever.) It definitely benefits the teams in the new district, and they deserve it because of the hard work needed to get there. Does it harm other teams? They do not see their playing time get more expensive, as some have suggested. It's still $5000 plus maybe $4000 and then straight to CMP. Maybe all nearby events are no longer available, but I think in these cases FIRST needs to consider opt-ins to the district system for nearby teams. Saying that district teams are coming and stealing your regional spots is kind of a sad argument (don't you think they would have traveled even if they weren't in a district?).

I'm saying that adding a district is good for those in the district, and really not a big deal for those well outside of it (those right on the cusp should have an option to join if regional availability suddenly vanishes). The people in district areas work their butts off to get the benefits, and the rest of us keep what we had. So let's not demand all or nothing on districts because of perceived inequality in a hybrid system. This inequality is directly related to the strength of the FRC community in your area, and as I've said before, a lot of FIRST happens because of the volunteers, mentors, and people at home, not the people at HQ.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Quick question for those in a district... Who is it that works so hard to create and run the district? The teams? The volunteers? The planning committee?

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Yes.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

159 was finally able to go to a second regional last season and might not be able to afford to do it again for a while. On the other hand, I see teams talking about how they are going to 3 or 4 regionals each season. This is why I support a transition to districts for everyone. Under the regional system, a team that is able to attend more competitions has a higher probability of going to CMP than a team that can only go to one. If it's districts, districts everywhere, then teams can only attend one competition and there is less of a power imbalance due to money in the regional system.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I totally agree with this! Putting Rookie All-Star winners off by themselves is basically saying "Well you're invited to be at the Championship event, but you really didn't actually make the Championship". Keeping RAS, RCA, REI, etc. evenly mixed in with field competitive teams is important.

So many people out there want championship to be about the best robots on the field. I understand where they are coming from, but at the end of the day that will not further the ultimate goals of FIRST, which is to create culture shift. Having a championship event where we have the best teams on every front, will help impact the general public, and having Rookie teams at the event with the "big boys" will allow them to be inspired to one day reach those same heights.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I know Sean knows this, but just to clarify for a more general audience: teams, volunteers, and planning committee members are very often the same people. Very engaged, passionate, overworked, under-recognized people. They are the ones who inspire me.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

That might be what Sean means, but even if there isn't any overlap between those roles, all of those groups have to work insanely hard to keep their region running with strong and competitive teams. It's not just 'show up at my regional and play' anymore.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Well I guess all of us rural teams in areas where it is extremely difficult to start teams are stuck paying more for less play. The more disadvantaged are stuck at an even bigger disadvantage. I understand why now we have a hybrid system but eventually it does needs to go everywhere. Otherwise you WILL see rural teams folding and/or less successful. Rural teams have to work twice as hard for a dollar than a lot of urban teams do, and now they are paying even more. We pay close to 8-10 thousand for two events, whereas districts get two events for the price of one.

I would like to see an opt in system. Otherwise you WILL see pockets of teams where travel to events is nearly impossible because the nearest event may be 10-15 hours away.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

To be clear, I don't mean to belittle the efforts of your team or any other in a rural area where travel, fundraising, and local growth are all more difficult. I've been very impressed with what 2614 has accomplished in the last 7 years.

However, I'd like to point that you say "even bigger disadvantage" and that you will be "paying even more," and this is what I was trying to address. You are not paying any more for your events just because someone somewhere else is paying less. District expansion does not make things worse for teams outside districts, only better for teams inside districts. You (and us) always had to pay 8-10 grand for two events, and this number won't go up with district expansion. Their number just goes down, so how is that anything but good?

The edge case is when all your event options are lost to the district, in which case opt-ins should be a possibility.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

And please correct me if I'm wrong (I am not someone from a district area), but as I understand it, the district non-profit and the volunteers who make everything happen are responsible for a whole lot more than most regional planning committees. Not only do they coordinate volunteers and secure venues and funding. They secure a lot more of these things, and have to provide field equipment, transportation, and storage, their own A/V coverage, key volunteers for all their events, all financial transactions relating to these (requiring a distinct, local non-profit bank account, instead of routing everything through HQ), etc.

A good illustration of all this can be found in this document (in particular on page 3). Regional Planning Committees bear no financial risk and have a lot of the process taken care of by HQ. They are only responsible for rounding up local volunteers, venues, and funding. Meanwhile, a district system takes all of these responsibilities and financial risks and manages them themselves.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

You paid 8-10k to FIRST. You also paid for travel costs. As more districts close off regionals to you your travel costs will, likely, go up.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Could not agree more with you. Should FIRST remove Vegas regional or roll it into California district Team Tators will have a choice between Denver or Calgary for the nearest second event with a substantial increase in travel costs.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

You don't get it.

A rural team, currently, pays $5K registration, plus travel to ONE event (let's just call that $5K, and include a few of the nice-to-haves like T-shirts in that if it's lower). So, for a measly little $10K (which, I might add, they have fewer places they can look for), they get about 10 matches plus practice at one regional.

Now let's take a district team from a relatively urban area. They pay the same $5K registration, plus travel to TWO events that are within a relatively short distance--I understand some teams in MI can go to two events without a hotel stay at either one!--so let's just say that they pay $2500 on total travel/other stuff (one fewer night in the hotel for the away event). And, they're in a more urban area, so more potential sponsors. $7500 gets them 24 matches at two events.

The rural team sees that they need a second event. Automatically double their budget for another 10 matches. $20K for 20 matches. They're paying more for fewer matches. (They're lucky, their 2nd event is still within a day's drive.)

Now... one or both of the rural team's events "goes district", with the team falling on the wrong side of the border. To get that 2nd event again, they've got to go even farther out--now it's 2 days of travel, or something like that. MORE money. Teams they competed with now have a huge discount for their 2nd event (as in, included with registration discount).



What you're saying is that that's NOT a huge disadvantage, and not getting even bigger. Nuh-uh. It's true that they're not paying more--but what he MEANT to say was "Paying even more than those teams in the district that just excluded us for the same number of events", or something like that. When the other teams are paying less for events, they can go to more events (and more chances to qualify for yet more events), invest more in the robot, all that good stuff.

It's not as trivial as y'all are making it sound.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

Exactly. And to be clear, I want necessarily talking about just put team, as our city actually has a lot of potential sponsorship to choose from. But other teams in WV where their BIGGEST funding may be the board of education and the local Wal-Mart or if they are lucky another company close by. This is why rural teams fold more often. Coming up with 20k is not easy for anybody, especial rural teams. And to be clear, I wasn't saying that our costs are going up, but rather the advantage for urban teams only gets that much bigger.

I think that eventually we will see a district system everywhere, if nothing else out of necessity.

I understand why the expansion of districts has been slow and "region by region" but saying that it should only be in certain areas is almost like a slap in the face to teams outside those districts. Our costs are not going up, but the advantage is there. Now, if our regional costs were lowered that would be a different story. But urban teams already have much more potential out there for funding, and lowering their costs even more is the growing advantage I was talking about.

Now I understand not all district teams are urban, but for the most part, in general, they are.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

The new districts in Michigan helped spread things out a bit, but for lots of teams in the southeast, a one hour drive will get you to eight districts or even MSC. It's a scouting frenzy!

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

I am allllll sorts of jealous.

For my team more-or-less in the center (edit:: population center of teams) of MAR, one hour gets us to one of our districts. Two hours gets us to most of the events, but still not the the DCMP. :( (With new events for 2015, we should be able to get to two districts within an hour's drive. But it's taken a lot of pushing with MAR to recognize that need for central NJ.)

Compounded with our silly school rules about travel distance/hotel necessity, it makes districts just as expensive (if not more) than regional travel. Just a personal case, as from my understanding most other teams don't have this problem. We're just unlucky with the school rules we're given to deal with.

Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification
 

NE, the longest drive to a district event I had this year was 2.5 hours to Pine Tree. Oddly, the shortest drive I had to a district was 1 hour to Northeastern/DCMP (It's only 40 miles but traffic in Boston is bad). Actually, I'm pretty sure that I live in the hole of the donut when it comes to NEFIRST events because they are all between 1 and 2.5 hours away.