Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

To add on to what others have said, if you look at MN we currently can send up to 24 teams (not all of which are necessarily from MN). If last year MN was in districts we would have made up ~6.6% of FRC teams which would have given us ~40 spots under the district system which is ~166% more teams sent from the state, all of which would be MN teams.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

Lets not forget that wildcards are given out at regionals sometimes, so that's another way to qualify to champs through a regional in addition to the ones you listed above. Even with wildcard rules at regionals, I still think/agree that it's easier to qualify to champs via the district system.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

Yeah... I have never been to a regional and I know that qualifying via wildcard is sort of complicated... lol

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

You still only send 6 teams/regional, max.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

It's not really that complicated.

Here is the championship eligibility criteria for this year, you'll find the whole explanation regarding wild card slots on that criteria.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

Yeah, your right. If you look it at from that point of view, regionals only send 6 teams max to champs, regardless of number of wildcards.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

That was the qualifier that I was looking for, your first statement without it could mean many different things otherwise. For the "average" team (whatever that means), districts do not drastically improve the probability of attending worlds.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

Exactly. It helps teams with good robots to not run into bad luck and not make it to worlds.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

On the flip side of the "districts are easier to qualify for the championship", if Minnesota had 8 ~30 team regionals (such as those in Canada, for example), Minnesota could send up to 48 teams. I think an arguement could be made that smaller regionals are the ideal structure.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

8 regionals in 1 state?!?! the most is california with 7. A state with 8 regionals would be way too many in my opinion.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

canada has regionals that host up to 48 teams
just waterloo regional is small 30 team regional

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

I can tell you aren't from CA. CA with fewer than 7 regionals is a nightmare waiting to happen. There just aren't enough regional spots to go around out here!

(Of course, I can also point out that CA supports more teams per league in the big 4 sports leagues--5 if you count MLS--than any other state, including NY's "3" NFL teams where 2 play in NJ.)

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

I understand Canada has larger/normal sized regionals, but also had three with 35 or fewer teams.

I do think districts are the best structure, but if you're a region/team that values the feel of a 'professional' regional (over an event in a high school), the best chance of qualifying, and don't want to go to three events in seven weeks, smaller regionals are probably the best solution. This also just highlights what a poor value the large 60+ team regionals are.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

The map says that california has 7 regionals btw.

Re: pic: FIRST USA MAP
 

I know. I also don't know of any plans to add one for 2016.

2017... is another story.

If CA were to lose a regional (fewer than 7 regionals), you can bet that there would be a bunch of VERY unhappy teams. CA gaining a regional means a bunch of happy teams.