Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Although I didn't build the climber, I would say that most of that excitement resulted from that climb coming in our first semifinal game, which we won by 10 points and would have lost based on the auto points tiebreaker had we not climbed.

I'll use that to transition to my main point here, which is that more matches are better... especially if they are elim matches. The greatest perk of a smaller event, in my opinion, is that a higher percentage of teams will make elims and have the chance to play a part in more meaningful games. Even if they lose in the quarterfinals, they certainly will have a greater sense of accomplishment resulting from at least playing a part in the most exciting and talked about part of the events, and they will have had a chance to work more closely with their elims partners than their quals partners.

Additionally, with fewer teams there will be more excitement for those who don't get picked. At a 40-team event only 16 teams don't get picked, so almost everyone is either in or on the brink of getting in. As a team looking forward, I would much rather see an event where more than half of all teams made it to elims than a 60-team sea of robots to be lost in.

This doesn't even have to happen at a real event. Increasing the number of offseason events will increase the likelihood that a given team makes it into elims at least once, which hopefully could give less fortunate teams a point to rally around, and validation that they were an important part of an event.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

One simple change of nomenclature would help teams understand the bumper rules more easily: stop calling the measurement FRAME PERIMETER. Call it something else, without the word "frame".

Maybe GIRTH. Or CONVEX PERIMETER. Either of these would remove the ambiguity behind many teams' misinterpretation of the bumper rules; i.e., they are mis-led by poor nomenclature, and believe the edges of their frame on either side of the robot's intake slot are "sides", which can be protected by bumper segments along their entire length if that is less than 8 inches.

----

My apologies -- this should be in a separate thread. I agree that bumper rules in games with floor level ball intake are a repeating issue for teams and inspectors. Some of the more difficult examples I saw this season were not on rookie robots.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Only if you include the water.

But with a chokepoint at the Mackinac Bridge, it's likely that maximum travel distances in MI are at least as great as those in MN.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I think the more interesting statistical comparison is population per square mile of land area:

• Michigan 174.8, Minnesota 66.6. (Michigan's population is 86% higher than Minnesota's.)

Minnesota will have a harder time putting districts within easy driving distance of the rural population.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

A picture is worth 1000 words.

Attachment 20584

Edit: Well, two pictures.

Attachment 20585

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

From what I can tell from the MI FIRST web site, there's one district that covers all of the Upper Peninsula, with district events in Escanaba and Soo St. Marie. And one other district that covers the rest of Northern Michigan, with events in Sterling and Midland...is this true? If so, then I wouldn't think that the driving distance would be all that different for rural MN districts.

Escanaba (pop. 12,562) is also potentially instructive for the question of whether there are cities spread across the state that have enough hotel rooms to support a district event. I counted 19 hotels/motels on their tourism web site...this is probably a higher per capita room count due to it being a vacation destination. But that's not unlike some Minnesota cities in Greater Minnesota. Brainerd, for example, has only 13,500 year-round residents, but more lodging options than you can shake a joy stick at.

Driving to district events on two-lane roads during the winter is indeed something to consider. Then again, there are probably a couple of hundred youth hockey tournaments across Minnesota each year, and plenty of Minnesota parents who have experience driving on snow-packed roads to those rural tournament towns. :)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Brendan,
I start working on the Inspection Checklist almost at kickoff and we post it as soon as possible. It was available on line by the second week of February this year if I remember correctly. I want teams to check it before it goes in the bag. Bumpers should not be as big a problem as they have been especially since I moved bumpers out of the bag many years ago. Teams can work on bumpers right up to competition.

Don,
Brainerd does have a lot of hotel space but many are only open seasonally. They don't have the staff during the winter to stay open. (My sister in law lives in Nisswa just up the road.)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

About half of my family lives in the Brainerd/Baxter area (I even have a cousin on FRC 2503!) and a few of my cousins work or have worked in the hotel industry up there. 10 years ago, I would completely agree with you, there wouldn't be enough hotel space for an event in the late winter. However, the whole Brainerd/Baxter area has really exploded in growth over the past few years and the family who works in the area says that the major hotel chains do remain fully functional throughout winter. That of course doesn't mean there wouldn't be challenges but I wouldn't count it out on hotel space.

Having an event in Brainerd would give me an excuse to go visit my family during build/competition season. Some have even resorted to volunteering at competitions with me, just to see me :P (which I wouldn't consider a bad thing...)