[FRC Blog] Inter-District Play for 2015
 

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...-Play-for-2015

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

Excited for the opportunities this opens up, though I doubt we'll see many MAR or NE teams rush across the country to PNW, simply due to logistics. Once more districts start closer to each other though, this will be great.

My big question though is, despite not being eligible for culture awards, will teams be allowed to present/submit Chairman's "for exhibition", to essentially get a " practice run" at Chairman's.

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

This definitely an interesting concept. I'm glad we're moving in this direction.

It's feasible, to go play in two out of district events in weeks 1-3 and then play in your two home district events in Weeks 4-6. That would be a great way to get a ton of practice in before your matches start counting.

It's little weird that they still aren't letting regional teams have this opportunity. Since the event doesn't count for points. The only reasons I see are finical or to incentivize regions to move to districts. Any other reasons that I'm missing?

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

Keep in mind that it's becoming increasingly difficult for district teams to register for regionals. This may be the only chance for some district teams to play an event outside of their area.

That being said, it may then follow that district teams should be locked out of regionals, because they can go to other districts anyway, with the added bonus that those teams do not have the chance of stealing spots from their own district like in 2014

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

It's also becoming increasingly difficult for regional teams to register for reagionals as well! A lot of regionals fill up really fast, and the opportunity to play in multiple regionals seems to decrease every year - partially due to increasing numbers of teams fighting for the same spots, and partially due to regionals disappearing as districts pop up.

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

I agree, I don't see any major reason why this should not happen.

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

Which is why district teams really should be excluded from regional registration at this point. Clears up more regional space for regional teams while allowing district teams to compete out of the district without negatively impacting teams in their own district

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

We pretty well are. Every regional team gets a crack at 2 events before we get to apply.

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

Will the registration cost therefore be the same as if we did a 3rd event in our home district?

EDIT: MAR and MI have a cheaper ($500) 3rd event cost, while PNW and NE have a more expensive ($1k) cost. Which cost would the traveling team have to pay? Saucy Sauce

EDIT AGAIN: Okay, I honestly just skimmed through the blog the first time through. Its answered in there.

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

Two things:
1.) No, all inter-district play is $1000, no matter what your home district charges. All of that money goes back to the district in which the event lives.
2.) You just hit on the secret bonus in this announcement. There are no more 3rd plays. Only additional plays.

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

Now who in their right mind would need more than 3 plays....oh wait :rolleyes:

-Brando

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

That's what occurred to me as well. If an out-of-district event in week 1 is a no points event, does this also mean that an additional in-district in week 1 can also be the no points event (i.e. - counting the best two events or choice two events, rather than the first two events)?

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

It sure is fun being a team not in a district and having your options so limited. Lets please start the NY district

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

I think a feature that should be explored is inter-district trading - two teams in different districts that are able to sign up for an additional event each would be able to trade their additional event to play in each other's districts.

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

At the risk of sounding ignorant, can you please explain the difference implied by a 3rd play as opposed to an additional play. Is it just a matter of it being possible for it to occur before the 2nd play (i.e. if it is out of district then it doesn't count regardless of the chronological order of the events)?

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

It's a small, but important difference. Last year, an additional play was only defined as a third. Now, it can be your third....or your fourth....or...

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

Totally agree. Teams in our region must either travel to Canada, drive more than 8 hours, compete back-to-back, or not attend our home regional. Meanwhile a half dozen events that were within 3 hours are behind the great wall of districts.

Not sure what I'd prefer - the burnout of back to back, or the pain of planning a long trip through Canada to GTR Central.

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

I cant see why we are unable to participate in a district event, just because of where we live.

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

Or first or second, that is the big difference. Before, district teams needed to go to two district events before points didn't count, or they could go to a regional for their first or second event for practice. Now an outer district event can take that place. District teams with enough resources would go to regionals for their first or second event to get some practice in so they could get enough district points in their two events to advance, but cross district play changes that. It's also cheaper with cross district play.

I think this is a huge proactive step to get things ready for more district's. It answers the question about teams being able to visit other district's when more come around, which is one of the fun things about regionals.

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

I could not agree more makes no sense. Or at least leave a limited amount of spots open at events for non district teams. Non district teams are getting much less bang for our buck and having to travel more in the current system.

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

I would understand the restriction if points were awarded to competing teams, but they aren't. Only district teams can enter, but nothing about being a "district team" comes into play at all. No changes to how the event is handled would be needed to accommodate regional teams.

That said, the inability for a regional team to qualify for Championship is a big reason not to go to a district, but I know many teams would still strongly consider district events as an option.

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

I know there are people within FiM pushing for non district teams to participate in district events, but I don't remember the reasoning against it.

I agree with you, it doesn't make sense. Maybe someone can explain it.

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

It's not everything we wanted out of Inter-District play, but it's a step in the right direction.

Now, I hope that there's still an open spot in CT week 1 and I can convince 1712 to compete in weeks 1, 3, 5, AND 7. :rolleyes:

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

If I am reading this correctly, does that mean if we play out of district and win an award or the event we are basically removing points from that districts "pool of points"? I'm not sure how I feel about how this will play out.

It's one thing when a team from within the district does a 3rd event (it only effects the teams in the district, but this allows outside forces to have an impact on district points).

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

Yes. For all intents and purposes, an out-of-district play is treated like third districts previously were, except you can't win culture awards.

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

Because the stampede of hundreds of teams who would want to get 12 plays plus playoffs, two days of open robot access, and 6 hours of in-shop robot access for $1000 would bring FIRST's servers to their knees?

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

and FIRST would lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in registration fees.

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

I remember when I was a student, people were still arguing whether district were still worth it. Now it's "almost" universally agreed upon.

I think this may be one of FIRST's unofficial tools of encouraging (prodding) regions into transitioning to district play. If you dangle this really neat opportunity in front of a bunch of teams ineligible due to their region's outdated format, it gives them all the more incentive to organize and modernize.
The problems associated w/ the logistics of an ever-growing FRC Championship is becoming too prominent to ignore, and having a proportional tiered system alleviates that problem by distributing the over-crowdedness to the regional championship level where it is much smaller scaled and easier to handle.

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

This is probably one of the big reasons. Also, I would view this season as a "pilot season" for interdistrict play. I expect <15 teams to do this*



*no statistic backup,just my own guess

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

[quote=Zebra_Fact_Man;1400559]I think this may be one of FIRST's unofficial tools of encouraging (prodding) regions into transitioning to district play. If you dangle this really neat opportunity in front of a bunch of teams ineligible due to their region's outdated format, it gives them all the more incentive to organize and modernize.
QUOTE]

Ohio and the neighboring states would love to go to a district setup...

Someone please explain why regional teams are excluded. This is pretty asinine.

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

[quote=Michael Hill;1400561]My guess, the same reason they have always been excluded. Mothership FIRST says so.

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

I do love how FIRST didn't like the district idea originally forcing Michigan to be an island in a sea of Regionals, and now they are pushing to get everyone to districts and are still scared to let everyone try it out. I really feel that FIRST should let teams decide if they want to opt into a existing district system or not from season to season.

Eventually either everyone will want to opt in and we will have a giant district for all of FIRST or everyone will opt out and the experiment will be over, the two systems have enough issues coexisting that we need to resolve it sooner rather than later.

EDIT: Also I think that Indiana (and by extension all districts that may develop in the future) should not be a part of inter-district play for their first year.

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

More than 15 I think, just check how many district teams went to regionals last year and increase the number due to the lower cost.

I can think of 7 FiM teams, off memory, that went to regionals last year.

This will definitely be a trial year to see what shakes out.

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

Does anyone have hard data compiled on districts capacity and how many were filled/how manyopen spots there were?

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

If anyone does, it would be Jim Zondag

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

It's very simple. Money. Why would FIRST allow you, as a regional team, to compete in districts, when they will lose $4000 every time that happens?

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

MAR has 7 events with 36 slot capacity. Assuming growth of 6 teams, that makes 117 teams needing 234 of the 252 slots available for 18 open slots.

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

More specifically, the option to spend $1000 on a district reduces the incentive to spend $4000 on a second regional, since regional teams will likely do this instead of, rather than in addition to, their second/third regionals.

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

I'm not smarter than the average bear and I'd tell you that we could shuffle our team up to Pennsylvania/New Jersey for Week 1 and 2 to play around with the robot for half the price if we could. Sure we wouldn't get a bid to champs, but we'd get 12 hours of unbag time and 24 matches, which are the gold and crude oil of FRC.

So FIRST wouldn't want people stampeding for districts they don't get financial benefit from when they can lock the sorry saps in the regional system into a second regional.

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

Convince? I'm already hooked.

Can you explain this a bit more? Because they shouldn't have to deal with teams coming into their districts? I could certainly see this making it harder for some Indiana teams to make it to their district championship, but if the encroaching teams spread out over the district events (taking what events they could get), wouldn't they have about an equal force on each Indiana team?

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

I really like these changes. I'm sure MAR teams will be happy to play with some new faces and friends from other districts.

That being said, I do wish regional teams could have the opportunity as well, especially in the case of places like NY, where it would actually make more sense to come down (or up) than it would be for a team from, say, Michigan.

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

I'll take baby steps in the right direciton over no steps at all.

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

This.

I've proposed the idea in threads before, but essentially the idea is to have teams get acclimated to the transition themselves and build their own culture (ie. from experience, districts in NE feel different than districts in MAR).

Of course, Indiana (might?) is different than all other district transitions so far due to the number of teams and number of events; how many open spots they'll have I can't say, but I assume it'll be small.

Also, when I've mentioned that idea before, in my mind, that was in a situation where OOD play would count for points (something I would expect a few years down the road).

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

Or it might just be because they're testing the waters on this...

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

With 54-56 teams and only 40 spots per event the number will be very small.

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

There is still no reason why district teams can go play in other districts. These district teams only see the same advantages from inter-district play that "Regional Event" teams would have attending district events. And the argument that it would flood the system to allow "Regional Event" teams to attend districts is crazy, because in most of the areas affected by districts (Northeast and Midwest) district teams could flood other district events much more than "Regional Event" teams could. Outside of NY, Ohio, and teams west of Lake Michigan, everyone is districts at this point.

Cory is completely right. If I was FIRST, why would I not want an extra $3000 from a team registering for a second event?

It's one thing if FIRST really wants everyone to go to districts, but its not fair to penalize teams when we are not in control of whether our are goes to districts or not. Trust me, there are plenty of us in IL who wanted to go to districts, and thought/expected that we would with Indiana.

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

The making it to district championship is not my issue, my issues are more about the following:

1. Every other district got at least 1 year where it was just that district systems teams with no outsiders coming in, this allowed you to get a realistic look at what would happen if we operated like other highschool sports.
2. It allows the newly formed district committees a year to have some transitional pains and easier contact with all teams competing.
3. Establishing of an identity, you can look at MSC and PNW and see two very distinct "brands" in terms of production value
4. No artificial inflation of volunteer base, if you are a team traveling to a high school gym and have no chance of qualifying to get to Championship I could see several of your members joining up to volunteer at the event. The issue this causes is when Indiana looks back and sees X number of volunteers attended the event they may think that it shows the potential for the next district event to be placed close by as the volunteer base appeared strong.

Those were 4 off the top of my head but If you want more I will probably think of more on my drive home from work

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

I disagree on the part that we are excluded.

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

I didnt want to say this at first, but since you did, I totally agree here.
There is no other logical explanation to exclude everyone else.

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

I think this is the forest that ChiefDelphi often misses as we're picking the branches off every tree.

Is this perfect? No. Is it the beginning of the right move? Absolutely.

FIRST HQ can't do everything perfectly, and certainly can't do anything instantly. But they're listening and improving things in baby steps. That's a good thing.

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

My understanding is that this means a team will not be able to win a DCA or DEI at their third district, even if it's within their district region. Is that interpretation correct?

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

Thank you. I understand now.

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

The demand would also be massive and teams would be outraged that certain teams got spots and others didn't. That's a practical limitation that is probably a bigger concern than the money, given that there will not be that many open spots available for teams to cross-play in this year.

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

According to last year's rules, teams in-district can still win CC Awards and receive the appropriate invites to the District Championship in all additional events. The points only count for the first two chronological in-district events.

Teams out of district coming in can not win CC Awards at that event. Not only would it be a logistical nightmare ("hey! get your robot back here in 3 weeks!" as well as "ok, so if they get to go to CMP, who are they representing?"), but the DCMPs are meant to be the best of that particular region.

(As an aside, I honestly know we talked about whether the out of district teams would be able to interview anyway, but I'm completely blanking on what was agreed upon - I'll see what I can dig up.)

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

Indiana's volunteer base is already strong. We know what resources we can count on.

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

Same. Everyone is eager to react negatively rather than say what is positive.

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

This was more my line of thought. Of course FIRST sees the benefit not losing out on regional registration fees, but however easy we want to make it seem for them to let regional teams play, or x, or y, they're trying something new and they're acting with a bit of restraint-- remember that it is a large enough organization that it has a bit of inertia. Opening the floodgates entirely would be rather irresponsible on their part-- not to reiterate Cory's statement too much, but having a ton of teams vying for a few spots is a recipe for conflict. That first would like to avoid introducing new venom into the FIRST community after the 2014 game shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, a gradual transition of one or two seasons really isn't that long of a wait.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I trust that FIRST HQ genuinely has the best interests of teams at heart.

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

As of this post, from my own interpretation, from posts of which I could distinguish a side to favour:

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a positive comment:
10

Posts from those located within a district system who gave a negative comment:
2

Posts from those located outside a district system who gave a positive comment:
1

Posts from those located outide a district system who gave a negative comment:
12

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

Theory: Those who pay less for more plays are predisposed to be happier and more positive, as reflected by their posts.

:D

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

I do think that this is a very good change and I am happy to see it implemented. I understand that FIRST is intentionally taking things slowly to see what the results are.

However, the clear assymetry between districts and regionals is only made more obvious by this change. It bothers me to some extent to see this gap grow wider (and there aren't even any districts nearby to my team, I can't imagine how teams from Ohio or New York are feeling now).

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)

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.

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.