Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

What is "unknown" about regional teams?

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

I think you're burying the lede

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

Attendance Summary from 2014 Season.



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

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

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

Minnesota is outside of the district model currently.

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

Re: [FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

A few things I take away from this:

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

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

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

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

(Not trying to derail the thread)