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

There is a difference between traditional "3rd Plays" and the new "travel districts". 3rd play spots were reserved for teams inside their own district, which makes sense. For example, the event in Michigan is reserved for a team in Michigan.

But because a team is in Oregon seems like a poor reason to be more deserving of a spot in an event in New Hampshire then a team from New York (of course, I used an extreme case.) Hope that made sense.

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

They are essentially the same, but an ADDITIONAL PLAY is not in your home district while a THIRD PLAY is. Neither counts towards RCMP points, and the price to attend may vary...

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

In the district system, a portion of the registration fee does return to the district. As for the amount I'm not certain on that.

That is all returned to HQ. None of that is seen by the district.

Yup. Some of the expenses you mentioned are on the regional committees as well, such as food, venue, or A/V. For most regional events, A/V is coordinated through HQ, but is an expense that still falls on the RPC. In districts the coordination now falls on local leadership, as well as the expense.

Other items you listed, such as event management and field logistics, as well as other items including the majority of consumable for the event (tape, zip ties, office supplies, etc.) are things that in the regional system are covered by HQ, but up to the district leadership in the district system. (Disclaimer: HQ does help out with a lot of that stuff in the first year of a district, but that is 1st year only).

Local district leadership set the price as those 3rd event registration dollars return to the district.

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

In reality, District events cost 8X - 10X less than Regionals (and sometimes even 20X less).
FIRST pricing per team to attend has nothing to do with production costs for the events.
Enrollment costs are set by FIRST. Enrollment in the FRC league costs $5000. This has never changed in over 20 years despite 100X league growth.

When we launched Districts, the pitch was essentially:
"Most of our Michigan teams only attend one event, and a small percentage attend more. If ALL teams get 2 events for the same $5K, and then 64 teams pay an additional $4K to attend the DCMP, then FIRST will get MORE money than they did with the old Regional system".
That's it. If Michigan did not provide FIRST with an economic reason to support this change, the change to Districts never would have happened.

As much as everyone on CD talks about opportunity, growth, and advantage, these are side effects: it is pretty much about the money.
FIRST doesn't make these system migrations at a loss.
Selling open District capacity is another sales opportunity. Inter-district play is indeed a great opportunity for many District teams and I am a fan of this change, but FIRST will not offer it to Regional teams at a $3,000 loss.

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

Just as an informal question...

Given that district events tend to run more matches per team than a regular regional (obviously dependent on the number of teams in said regional, but most are >40 by enough to make a difference), and give less time away from school... How many "Regional" teams would be willing to take a chance on attending a district event if the cost for it were the same as the cost of a regional?

That is, would $4000 for a district event (with more plays for the team/less time off of school/one less night in a hotel) be worth it for the regional teams?


Just a thought to ponder.

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

http://www.filedropper.com/2014data

For everyone requesting more data:
The CSV file at the above link has international growth metrics 2013-2014, and percent growth values.

My favorite detail:
Ontario Canada had more FRC net growth in 2014 than all of the non-Michigan US states combined.
Ontario and Michigan lead the world in the growth of our sport.
Ontario and Michigan are also neighbors.

I am a native of Ontario who now lives in Michigan,
How awesome is this?

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

Link is private

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

Fixed,
http://www.filedropper.com/2014data
Sorry,
I'm my 'real life' I seldom share my work online, since most is not shareable under my confidentiality agreements.
JZ

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

One concern I have is more political than anything else.
Each district event has a finite number of points to distribute to the participants. These points are absolutely critical for the success of the local teams that are involved in their first or second play.

So imagine that a team from out of state comes into a district for a travel play and wins the event, or an award, or both. Those points are permanently removed from the event and effectively wasted. Every win, every award, every draft selection, every playoff win, represents a point that could have gone to a team that needs it locally to survive.

All of these points are "empty calories" for the travel team. Now you could argue that the same is true of a local team making a 3rd play. But somehow it seems less intrusive when its within the "family".

I just keep visualizing some rising local team that is having a great year, getting crushed by a visiting powerhouse that is only looking for some extra playing time. This could make for some pretty hard feelings if that rising team misses the state championship because of this situation.

Maybe no one cares about this specific situation and I am just over thinking things. I am just thinking out loud about this concern. Thoughts?

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

I find this concern not unlike the concern of district teams competing at traditional regional events.

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

Except a district team traveling to a "Regular Regional" can get their ticket punched to STL by winning the event or EI or RCA.

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

As far as I can tell, the number of "third play" teams at event is pretty low. Only a handful are typically offered within a district (even in Michigan, there were only ~3 per district). So what are the odds that this small percentage of teams in attendance takes away a significant number of the points available? I'm willing to bet it doesn't happen a lot. Sure, one team sometimes takes points away, but it would take several teams sucking up points at the same event to really throw things off balance.

Some numbers to back this up would be good, but this is the feeling I have about it.

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

While I doubt everyone involved is entirely this cynical, there is definitely truth to this. I'm sure it's very difficult to get anything by a non-profit's board if it's going to hurt their financial situation, since their job is to make sure everything stays afloat.

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

So you are saying it's worse because district teams have the chance actively removing a regional's CMP spots from an area in this situation, or it's better because district teams have a chance to actively remove them?

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

Isn't that exactly what you disputed in post 48?


When the team from New York had to expectation of being able to compete in New Hampshire this season in the first place, I fail to see how allowing teams from Oregon to compete there would make anything worse. If closed borders are an issue, this is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't help all teams. From a financial competitive standpoint, it doesn't aid district teams when compared to regional teams, so there's no "widening of the gap," either. Nobody is arguing this is a perfect solution, I simply don't see what there's to be mad about. It's a change in the positive direction.