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

I will work up some of these numbers for you when I get a chance. I made the statewise view as a way to reinforce the effectiveness of the 2014 grant program to our state leadership. Percentage views and international would be valuable additions.

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

If the members of the individual teams are not in control of your region, then who is? Rise up and organize. If people/teams are unsatisfied with the pay/play ratio, fix it.

Illuminati confirmed.

100% agree.

I agree; the state grant REALLY helped out the teams that were struggling with funds. A couple of team I know were able to complete in large part BECAUSE of the grant money.

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

PA went from 71 teams in 2013 to 70 teams in 2014.

MAR only includes the eastern portion of the state.

MAR PA team registration went from 38 to 37 in 2014 (35 teams in 2012). Two teams left (1 went to FTC), and we added 1 new rookie team for a net loss of 1.

MAR as a whole is relatively well saturated, with relatively low growth compared to the rest of the country. Here's NJ registration over the last few years.

2014 69
2013 69
2012 62
2011 63
2010 64
2009 61
2008 63
2007 57
2006 56
2005 46
2004 39
2003 31

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

If we're fishing for information on the district vs. regional systems in terms of team growth, we should really consider the districts as a whole, not as states. If we were considering them as states, we would be looking for information on The MAR district had (relying on memory here, not sure if it's failed me) growth of two teams. We can conclude that, as of now, MAR as a whole seems pretty stable. It certainly isn't changing that much. The data that the MAR portion of Pennsylvania lost a team is more related, then, to state laws and funds, then it is to the district vs. regional systems. Even then, it is one net team; I don't think we can find any meaningful data from this. I'm only saying that were we to see this as a significant change, then we'd have to draw the conclusion that it's due to state law.

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

It might also be useful to look at the numers per capita and per high school. Growth rates will change depending on saturation levels I imagine.

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

For FiM, there are 749 high schools. With 277 teams last year that equals 37% saturation.

It is a little higher than that because a number of teams combine schools.

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

"We" meaning regular non-district teams consists of a whole lot of teams.
Gregor said it best.

From a cost perspective, the disparity is great. The new rules further deepens the gap.

Its my perspective on the issue because I am the main person who is responsible for trying to keep up with the amount of matches played by district teams with the greater amount of resources it takes to make that happen.

Perhaps they could have provided that opportunity for all teams?
I understand Cory's point as well that for just a few spots, its impossible to offer it to everyone.

Something I highly doubt FIRST will do.......why not make any 3rd event or more that a team sign up for pay $1000 like the new rules offers to district teams to cross play?

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

Because FIRST already planned out their finances taking into account 99% of all regional slots are filled and they earn at least $4000 off of each...

I think you already knew that but it was fun to type out.

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

Going off last year's numbers that Jim posted, that change would still only effect 2.8% of non-district teams.

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

Except a lot of teams would play 3 if we could do it for $1000. The only reason we only do two events is because of event registration cost. If we were in the district model or could pay $1000 for our additional plays we would do a Foley Freeze or Nutrons and do 4 events if we could.

I would just like to say that I'm glad they made this move, however I do think they should explain their reasoning for not allowing regional teams to be a part of this. I'm sure they have their reasons, if it's money than just say that. It was my first question, and the first question of many others after reading this post. I wouldn't be mad if that was the reason, I know we (Texas in my case) need to move to districts to get costs lower and the areas that have done that are getting rewarded for their hard work.

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

To this day, I still don't understand why the district teams get 2 plays for the same registration cost that a regional team has for 1 play. They've always been able to get additional plays for far less than a regional team, but they must go through the DCMP which is the same as an additional event for a regional team. Why is that initial registration worth more for a district team? Here's the breakdown:

Initial Regional Registration: $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional Regional Registration: $4000

Initial District Registration (2 plays): $5000 ($6000 for rookie)
Additional In-District Registration: $1000 ($500 in MI/MAR - why cheaper?)
Additional Inter-District Registration: $1000
District Championship Registration: $4000

I know that 100% of the Regional registration fees go to FIRST. Each Regional is responsible for fundraising to cover their budget (venue, A/V, food, etc). None of the registration fees go directly to a Regional, however, FIRST provides services (event management, field, etc.) for the regional, which are paid for by registration fees.

I am fuzzy on where District registration fees go - does the full initial registration fee go to FIRST as well? What about the DCMP fee? Most of it goes directly to the District to distribute to its events, correct? But I'm also of the understanding that districts do not receive the same services that Regionals do - they transport their own fields (which FIRST modifies each year?) and provide their own event management, and also have the venue, A/V, food, etc. expenses. Is this correct?

These questions have something to do with why I agree with Glen that third events (or more) for Regional teams should only be $1000, but I think I've lost my point while trying to sound coherent....

As for the inter-district play, its a great step forward and will hopefully lead to allowing regional teams to play too in the next couple of years. WI is going to become an island while MN, IL, IN, and IL cross play. Then I guess we'll just save our money and go to Australia. But I think it should have also come with the restriction that district teams are ineligible for culture awards at regional events too. FIRST has got to retain SOMETHING of value for its regional-model customers...

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

My understanding is that any money you pay directly to FIRST goes to them, and the Regionals/Districts do not get any of it. The reason that $1000 is separate, is that it actually gets paid directly to the district and not to FIRST.

Also, since district events are cheaper, the money they fundraise allows teams to go to 2 events. For the same cost it takes the regional to have space for 1 team, the district can create 2 spots for that team. Basically it comes down to cost per spot, rather then cost per event.

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

Glenn, how does this change "deepen the gap?" Regional teams had no expectation of being able to compete in these districts before the change. Save perhaps Indiana (where there may not be any open slots), this does not reduce the cost of a 3rd play for district teams (and actually increases it compared to some of in-district additional plays). The only thing this does is allow a district teams' non-scored districts to be travel events.

I get that you're upset you can't compete in district events, but this change doesn't really impact that. Without this change, you wouldn't be able to compete in those districts anyway. Even if it doesn't benefit ALL teams, it opens options for some without creating any more of a supposed competitive advantage than what already exists. I fail to see how this is anything but a step in the right direction.

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

You can play in an open Michigan spot and you're not from Michigan, and get no points towards qualifying at CMP.
The question isnt whether or not its a step in the right direction. I never debated that.
Its a step in the right direction for a select group of teams.

Throughout my entire experience in FIRST, I have never been the crab in the bucket that pulls down on the one trying to escape. I hope no one here misunderstands my opinion on this. I just want to see everyone be given that opportunity. The $1000 reg fee is a big deal to a team paying 4x more.

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

Here's a summary for the northwest: Washington lost 2 teams, Oregon lost 1. Washington has about twice as twice as many teams so the two states had the same growth rate.