Also, you are 100% right about the qualification matches... We were lucky that 2883 valued our shooter's accuracy and they did their scouting. We should have adjusted our play in the qualification matches and our drive team is well aware. There is nothing wrong with this game, it was our team's strategy in qualification matches that was lacking.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Totally agree. The OtterBots have set the MSHSL States as our goal every year since inception. Very meaningful to us. Looks like we will be on the wrong side of the bubble this year, and disappointed, which speaks to the value of the event to us.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I think there's a little nuance you're not bringing out here. If the goal is to have the best teams, teams who win RCA at their first event seems like an excellent way to ensure you get some of them. If the goal is to get the best robots, it obviously misses the mark, but that particular goal seems to do less to inspire kids and be what FIRST is about, that I would ignore it. (Admittedly, I wasn't there last year but...) I would love to see the MSHSL State Championship hand out awards to teams. Maybe they would be similar/the same/analogous to the normal FIRST set, or whittled down to a few important ones due to judging constraints, but I think that would go further in "figuring out the best of the best" in the right ways.

The problem with counting second events or not is fairness. If teams simply got credit for the better of the two events, (or even both events!) that would be obviously unfair in favor of teams with more resources. Averaging the two dampens the effect, and certainly allows a second event to harm teams, but many teams do tend to do better at later events, both through iteration, and sheer student experience, so you're still advantaging teams with more resources. Picking the first event seems to be the closest to rewarding "competitive" teams, while giving all teams a fair opportunity.

And on the topic of you "speaking for all teams" when saying that winning state is a big deal, it obviously isn't all of them, but the last time I was in MN, there were a good number of teams who see Winning State as a big deal, whose relationships with their districts and schools would be improved by winning an MSHSL banner, and would be further legitimized in their community. And I'm not sure those folks are well-represented on CD. I think it's not universal, but should be taken seriously. And MNFIRST knows this, and maintains a positive relationship with the good folks at the MSHSL.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

So how exactly do you recruit more FTAs into the region if there are only three FTA "spots?" If the regionals don't advertise that they need FTAs, because all their FTA spots are filled, how is anyone supposed to learn how to do the job or even know that it is needed?

The same thing goes with any other key volunteer position. I hear this argument all the time: "My region can't go into districts because we don't have enough key volunteers." But how are you supposed to get those key volunteers if there is nowhere for volunteers to go? In other words, you really have to just bite the bullet and go into districts in order to get those key volunteers. You won't get enough volunteers for 16 district events if you only have three regionals to put your volunteers in. I think you'd be surprised how many volunteers will show up if the spots are open.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

FTA's have FTAA's. LRI's have inspectors. Head Refs have refs. The list goes on, but the point is that every key position has others they work directly with - that's where those volunteers go. If you look at FIRST's list of volunteer positions, you can probably figure it out - most of the positions even tell you the exact experience needed - for example, LRI's require two years of prior experience as inspectors. Head Ref's need to ref for two years. It's spots like that where the whole "if you build it, they will come" thing falls apart - it doesn't matter if we have 200 volunteers show up for every event - if we don't have experienced Ref's, we won't have a Head Ref to run it. That's the issue when people say "we don't have enough key volunteers" - they mean we don't have enough when considering those we currently have and those ready to step up when there's room for more key's.

If anyone is interested in a key position, whether it appears "full" or not, your best bet is to approach someone in that key role or the VC (whom you should know, as you're already volunteering!) and tell them that you're interested. Ask them what you can do to work towards the position and who you should be talking to. I know it hasn't always worked out that way for LRI's in MN (all of the current LRI's, including myself, were asked to step up to fill the need, but one of the ones in training came to us and told us he wants that position when he's ready), but ideally that's how it would work. Then we would have a list of interested people to keep an eye on, and call up when needed. The problem is, we just don't have that many people banging down our doors for these positions!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

This. I couldn't volunteer this year because my team is competing at Iowa and Minneapolis, and I had a test on the Thursday of the Duluth events. If there were more events, particularly if those events were relatively local and I didn't have to miss much/any school, I would gladly volunteer at a couple of events.

I doubt that I am alone in this regard.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

And to what extent are those positions advertised in MN? Or in other areas for that matter? Has MN taken a proactive stance and put out a plea for these kinds of volunteers and say "if we want to move forward with the district system, we need trainees in these positions, so please volunteer?" In my experience, if you expect people to volunteer on their own to fill the voids, you won't get much. But if you ask them to volunteer and tell them why they are needed, you may get different results. People may not know that these kinds of volunteers are needed or why they are needed, even if it is up on FIRST's website for everyone to see. My hypothesis is that there are a number of people who would put in the time for one of these key positions if they knew how badly they were needed to move forward with districts, or even what the volunteers do. I'm sure we have many parents/mentors on our team who are clueless about where their abilities could be useful as an event volunteer. My other hypothesis is that there would be a number of potential volunteers that would be more likely to do so if the event was closer to them and they didn't have to miss work to do so (like a district event would be).

Again, I'm not from MN so this is just my educated guessing.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

In my post, I meant "best teams" as in the best teams on the field, aka best robots. Should've made this more clear.

I'm not sure why getting the best robots to the State Championship would inspire fewer kids. You're just inspiring a different group of students. Having the most competitive competition would inspire more students in my opinion by showing them the game being played at a high level.

With the current state qualification system, great teams (sometimes the best teams) miss out on qualifying for a competition that is supposed to (in my mind) determine the best robots. I won't pretend to know the solution to this issue, but I know taking a second event into consideration in some way would help.

I don't think "fairness" should be a factor, because I don't believe it's unfair to consider two events. Teams that attend two events worked hard to raise funds to do that second event. They put in the effort, they should be rewarded for doing so. The teams doing two events are iterating, and improving their robots in between events. When they show up at a 2nd event with a fantastic robot, they should be rewarded for that extra work that they've put in. If anything, it's more fair to consider a 2nd event.

I really like the concept if doing awards at the State Championship. Brilliant idea.

The question we really have to answer is: What is the purpose of the state championship? Is it to determine the best robots? The best teams? Is it to showcase FIRST in yet another off-season event? If we want to think of FRC as a sport, I think the purpose of the state championship should be to determine the best robots (athletes) in Minnesota.

Also, I wasn't the one who was "speaking for all teams", although we do share the same logo. Chief Hedgehog has taken back his comments, because nobody can speak for everybody.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Our regional director sent out an email yesterday to all team contacts requesting the following:

10,000 Lakes
Field Reset (7)
Flag assistants (2)
Safety Advisor (1)
Safety Glasses: Friday and Saturday
Spare Parts Desk (2)

North Star:
Welcome Table/Event Concierge (2)
Team Queuing (1)
Saturday - Safety Glasses attendants
Practice Field (1)

Volunteering for one of these positions is the first step towards many other positions.

Additionally, he sent out the following to all team contacts in December:
No one is trying to keep volunteering a secret.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I think one reason the MSHSL tournament misses out on some of the best teams each year is because of the chairman's system we have set in place. If like you said we want to be a competitive tournament then we should not give 10 points towards every team that submits chairman's or even give teams that win chairman's at the regional level a spot to the tournament. Honestly I have my team submit chairman's every year even if we do very little outreach because we know we will get those points towards the state tournament.

I think the goals for the state tournament was that it is meant to showcase FIRST in Minnesota and usually when you have media personnel at events like these, you have them talk to kids who can inspire others through communicating with the news or a journalist. It normally makes for a better story if they are talking with students that can coherently convey the message of FIRST and do stuff for there community. I'm not in anyway saying that other teams cannot do this but usually you'll find that teams that produce chairman's submissions or have a strong speakers know how to make FIRST look good.

I think Minnesota needs to figure out their goals before going forward and changing their qualification system. If we want higher caliber teams at the state championship level then maybe implement something like you said, average of all the regionals a team attends. But if our goal is to inspire more like a showcase system and less like a competition it might be better to keep with the same system, from my experience a team are more likely to change their ways (from one regional to multiple) if they are invited to events like the MSHSL's competition or champs. If the state competition instead limits that opportunity for teams that for some reason do not currently go to more than one event there might be less of an attempt to try to get better.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'm a bit late to this topic, but I have a left-field idea that keeps growing on me.

Would a 6 play regional, with 6+ minute long matches be so bad?

The pros are that the matches could be far more interesting and dramatic, with time to run more complex strategies (and to fail and adapt). They would also be more spectator friendly too, with gameplay to reset time ratio increased from worse than 1:1 to better than 2:1. The overall play time per team will not go down, in fact it will go up since less time per regional is spent doing field reset.

The con is that it is much less likely that the robots will seed in order of how "good" they are. Playoff alliances will be influenced strongly on luck and schedule strength, and what I see in this thread is that people consider this "unfair". Also we'd need batteries that can hold more charge, but that is trivial imho.

I would argue that unlikely playoffs are not a con at all! If we are so concerned that the "best" robots win, and we all seem to know what makes a good robot, lets just have them run a demo in front of a judge panel like show dogs. On the other hand, if we want robotics to be a sport, with all of the drama and excitement that entails, we need to open the space for underdog teams to catch a lucky first-seed pick and ride it to champs. Imagine an exciting, 6 minute finals match between two rookie teams with power-house teams as their first picks!

So, have I made my case? Who else is on team 6 minute matches? :)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I know who isn't up for 6 minute matches, the batteries, at least with the amount of motors used on many robots, especially those teams with 6 CIM drives.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Understood, I mentioned that. But that's an easy easy fix. We could switch to bigger SLA batteries, or NIMH batteries of the same weight but larger capacity (though I'm having trouble finding a source right now, which is telling).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

While team dynamics and needs will vary, I have volunteered during the events that my team participated in pretty much every year since 2009. If you have enough mentors attending the regional, some of them can volunteer. Volunteering at the event is a great way to model for your students the importance of volunteering to give back.

Also, you don't have to volunteer for the entire weekend, you can volunteer for only the days where you are available, although this may limit the positions you are eligible or selected for.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Robot Inspector in particular, which Caleb has done before, is primarily needed on Thursday. I know both events in Minneapolis are at the minimum of 10 robot Inspectors at last check.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Yes.

If your robot fails to connect to the FMS, or something breaks on your robot, radio becomes unplugged or something, you lose a lot more playtime.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Yes the need for inspectors is greatest on Thur for Regionals or load in night for District events. So it is certainly possible and highly desired to have people who are interested in doing Robot inspection on that day and then have the rest of the time free or do another job.

For example one of the RIs for my event this weekend will be queing after Thur night inspections, I've also had people who inspect load in and are then refs the other days.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

One of our mentors will be volunteering at Iowa and 10K, and I would volunteer at our competitions as well if I thought that was the best usage of my time.

I understand that there are opportunities for me to volunteer in the regional system, but there are clearly vastly more readily available opportunities in the district system.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I completely sympathize with this post. There's a really interesting amount of calculation that goes into whether it's "worth" volunteering at an event-- part of that comes down to what you're doing (for example, I feel like I'm making much more of an impact as a CSA/FTA/emcee when I do FTC events than I do doing field reset at FRC, which makes me far more excited/willing to volunteer over working with my FTC team), how much the team needs you (at North Star, I'll be the mentor for 2667 that has the most FRC experience at the event, which is terrifying, especially for nearly a 10 year old team), and of course work/schedule conflicts.

Truthfully, I'd much rather be in a position to volunteer at North Star (and any event) than not, even if it means I'm just sitting at the safety glasses table. But there's definitely a hard call that needs to be made between that idealism and the reality that I'm probably helping more by making sure my team is running smoothly. I think that a lot of teams have mentors who have to make that call and, rightfully, pick their teams. This comes back to the main point of this thread-- by my count (which might be slightly off-- I did this manually) 166 MN teams are going to one regional event. The majority will not make elims, or qualify for Champs, or qualify for State. Those teams get EIGHT matches. So yeah, when it comes down to it, evaluating cost/benefit for taking one of the incredibly appealing roles Bryan posted as being open as a mentor, it's an obvious choice if you're not from a large team. For a lot of people helping their team and volunteering are mutually exclusive, and this is exacerbated by having double regionals (which shouldn't be misconstrued-- I love our events, it just makes volunteering at more than one other event difficult).

That situation changes when a team can attend more events, events within a reasonable distance are more common, events require less of a time commitment, or a team gets large/good enough that it can afford to lose a couple of mentors for a weekend (yes, this is probably an oversimplification, but I think it covers the main things).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Sorry I haven't posted much here, out of the country at the Australian event. There seems to be a lot of conjecture on what actually takes place at an event and how volunteers are recruited and trained. If you really want to know ask. We have done a lot of training to get inspectors in Minnesota, and other positions as well, up to speed. Yes, the robot inspections on Thursday take a lot of effort, but that is not the only need. Events run better when inspection staff assist teams with robot problems and redesign throughout the weekend at any event. I want our inspectors to insure that all teams play every match to give the remaining teams a full alliance every time. That is a lot to ask but that is why we look for inspectors to be team members who actively have worked on a robot prior to volunteering. I want experienced people. Having worked in Minnesota since the beginning, I can tell you that there are some really great and knowledgeable people who work those events. Great refs, CSAs, FTAs and inspectors. It is actually pleasant to work in MN events as everyone is professional and very nice.
That being said, almost every event (not only MN) will have inspectors go to other roles, most often reffing and judging. CSAs and other volunteers will stick with their roles throughout the event but game dependent roles like field reset can have significant demands. Building a field can take most of a day or longer depending on the field and the venue. This year can take easily 20 people to unpack and setup and a similar number for teardown. Then there is the pit setup and teardown, volunteer check in, judges and a lot of other positions.
Six minute matches? I think you need to take a hard look at the last two year's games and you will soon realize that two minutes is an awful long time for the game and robots. Many teams do not design efficient mechanisms and will often run a battery down in just two minutes.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The worst thing about a six minute match would be the pain and humiliation of having your team's non-functioning robot on the field for that length of time. The second worst thing would would be the audience boredom that would come as we had to sit through six minutes of non-functional robots on the field. So, no thanks.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I highly doubt MN will go to districts, the leadership of the state doesn't seem to like the idea. My guess is that they'll continue to add regionals in the larger areas out-state, such as Rochester, St. Cloud, La Crosse/La Crescent, Fargo and Thief River Falls. Followed by MN teams and sponsors complaining about the cost per regional match vs. district match. That will force them to try to reduce costs for teams, which could be done the following ways;

• Finding additional sponsor money so all teams can afford a second regional. This is doubtful, as there are only so many large companies in Minnesota.
• Negotiating a reduction in cost for teams attending a regional, to align more with districts. This would be complex, as it would have to go through FIRST and it would affect all areas with regionals. My assumption is that FIRST wants all areas to move to districts and Israel/Austraila would have issues with this as they are single regional countries, making transportation to a second regional uneconomical.
• Moving to districts. From the posts on ChiefDelphi, this seems highly unlikely.

Overall, it seems that things will continue how they have been in Minnesota with an increase in the overall number of regionals. Perhaps with more regionals, team counts at the event will go down and this will allow for more matches. Only time will tell.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Here is one thing to realize. Local leadership fighting districts will certainly delay the switch, but if HQ wishes for it to happen, sooner or later it will.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I am way behind on this thread, but - Ian, I would love to have you join us as an inspector at 10,000 Lakes! We can always use more inspectors. Inspecting is something that would be tough for just anyone (parents, etc.) to jump into without FRC experience, so it's a great role for technical mentors and alumni. I am not sure what timing constraints there are regarding getting the background check and inspector test completed in VIMS, but I would hope there's still time. Feel free to PM or email me!

Edited to add: CSA is another position which really requires some specialized skills and experience. It would be great to continue to build a base of strong volunteers in this role. Mentors and alumni are perfect candidates.

Katie

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

It would excite the students, certainly. But what exactly are you wanting to inspire them to do? A high-level robot competition can inspire people to build high-level robots, but high-level robots aren't the goal of my participation in the FRC program. I want to inspire students to become (or at least to appreciate) engineers and scientists and advocates for technology. That kind of inspiration is what the Chairman's Award celebrates.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

There is no Chairman's Award given out at the Minnesota State Championship. The goal of the State Championship isn't necessarily to inspire students to go into STEM fields after high school, that's the goal of FIRST as a whole. The purpose of the State Championship is to determine the best teams in the state, just like purpose of IRI is to figure out the best teams in the world (more or less).

Either change the name of the Minnesota State Championship to "Minnesota Robotics Exhibition", or change the qualification process. You can't have a state championship without the best teams in the state.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I think this is definitely a good point, and I'll add my perspective based on my experience. The first 3-4 years I was a mentor, there were a total of 3 adults who attended events with our team. My capacity was fully consumed by making sure the team got to the event and put a robot on the field each match. To be honest, I didn't give much thought to how the event was run or where volunteers came from. If we had been required to provide volunteers I'm not sure what we would have done, and it certainly would have added to my already high stress level. It was only several years later, when we had developed stronger parent support and added several more mentors, that when I saw an email stating "we're looking for technical mentors to be robot inspectors" I thought "you know what, I think I could do that." I'm not sure how long it would have taken me to identify this need on my own - probably several more years.

After becoming more aware of the need for volunteers, our team has made concerted efforts to recruit students, parents, mentors, and alumni as event volunteers, and I'm proud to say that it's become part of our team culture. But, we are now a large team with a strong base of mentors, parents, and alumni to draw from. There are many, many teams in Minnesota that are still in the position I was for my first few years - one or two mentors just trying to stay afloat. This is hard, hard work and I commend them for their efforts.

I guess my point is this: for the teams that have the resources to provide volunteers, awareness is important, and it's not automatic. If you're reading this thread and want to help, this is a great place to start. Spread the word! The more teams who are actively involved in providing volunteers in various roles, the better position we'll be in to take that involvement to the next level required by districts. More geographic diversity in our volunteer base is also important if we want to be able to support districts all over the state.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Teams should get a partial refund for every event that they attend that has less than 10 matches.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Regionals should be required to post a "minimum matches played" so teams can shop around for events where they get the requisite bang for their buck. Failure to meet that number results in a refund to the teams. [1]


[1] Scheduled matches. Crap happens sometimes see AR this year. That shouldn't count.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I agree.
We got a lot of scrutiny back when Champs were back in Atlanta. 7 matches for $5000 registration fee.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Wev'e got 8 at North Star this week. I think part of it is there is a 5K tomorrow so the day is starting an hour later than usual. But at the same time the organizers knew about the 5k well in advance, schedule Friday an hour later than usual to make up for it.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

No, they are not reasonable, unacceptable.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Friday is indeed scheduled for about an hour later. The public agenda has matches ending at 6:30 tonight vs 5:30 to 5:45 for a "typical" event.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I fully support Midwest districts, but I foresee a problem for my team, as we kind fit between large areas. We are one of only 11 IA teams (+1 Nebraska team) surrounded by 208 MN teams, 57 IL teams, and 50+ MO teams, means we my need two districts. I think there should be two districts, an Upper Midwest district (MN, ND, SD), and a lower Midwest district (IA, MO, IL, NE).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

How can a regional determine the number of matches they'll play when they don't know the game or the time required for field reset? As an example, North Star has 8 matches this year, 10 in 2015 and 2014, 8 in 2013, 9 in 2012 and 2011... It's all highly dependent on the game and what has to happen between the matches.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Well, district events (at least MI) play 12 matches regardless of turnaround time or field faults.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Simple solution.
Run the event until you play required number of matches per event i.e. Friday and/or Saturday.
And before anyone mentions about volunteer limitations and scheduling, then I say follow the suggestions above and adjust price accordingly.

This can become a very sensitive subject whenever price is involved, especially when other programs pay less AND play less vs. others.
We played a sanctioned regional last year in a high school gym for $5000.00 with no practice field in the building.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

So far districts haven't had an issue sticking to the schedules they need to follow to give teams their 12 qualification matches.

Recruit more volunteers?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Throwing more people at it is not a solution, asking everyone present to put in more hours also isn't a really viable solution either - to go from 8 to 12 qualification matches would require an additional 5.5 hours of matches (given the public schedule for North Star, which has 11 hours for quals listed, if I counted right). You can't just squeeze that in to what already amounts to 12+ hour days for the volunteers, and there's no way adding additional people could save you that much time.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Jon is right. The biggest difference between an 8-play event like MN and L.A. run and a 12-play event in the district systems is NOT number of people.

Well... it is. Just not the people you were asking about.

How is it that Los Angeles runs a 8-play event, San Diego runs something like 8-9 plays, but Ventura and O.C. run 12-play events with the same teams in the area and similar staffs? Simple, really. L.A. and S.D. are 66 and 56 teams, respectively (or give-or-take that many), while the other two are 40-42 team events. 10-20 fewer teams results in more plays per team in the same time.

So, the best way to get more plays is to convince all the other teams in your area to NOT go to your event, because then you get more plays. The problem then becomes that they've got no events to go to, so they try to convince you to do the same thing... Or you could just push for more small events (or just plain more events, period, which would probably be better in the long haul).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Sounds a lot like districts.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Yeah, no disrespect to the people of FIRST California, but I wonder if they could point out the differences between the Orange County Regional and literally almost any random district event. There is one obvious difference (price tag) that can't be used as an answer.

Outside of the price tag... not a bad thing either

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

4 of 7 California events are essentially districts.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Then only commit to 8. At least teams know what they are getting when they come to your event. But if UMD can run 12 matches for 40 teams in a single day I don't have a ton of understanding why your guys can't run more than 8 matches. Work volunteers in shifts to lighten the load.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

While the organizers may not know the game, FIRST does tell the people running the events the expected cycle time for a given year.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Fairly certain that's because there are less teams in district events.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Andrew, the part you're not getting is that this is a 60-team event, PER EVENT, for 120 teams total (on two fields). And if it wasn't that many, there'd be a bunch of annoyed MN teams.

Understand this: the key part to getting more matches is smaller events. I'd suspect that some folks might consider a 50-team event optimal (10 matches/team, and time to fix issues), but 40 gives more plays. If you want more matches, the easy way to do that is to go to a smaller regional, or a district system.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

If you really want to increase the number of matches teams play, the solution isn't districts or cycle times or longer hours. The solution it to put more teams on the field at once.

In the 2v2 alliance era, 6-8 play regionals were the standard. Yes, your $5000 could buy you as few as 6 matches. When 3v3 was introduced in 2005, we instantly saw plays per event increase.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Multiply 40 teams times 12 matches, then multiply 60 teams by 8 matches.

Understand now?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

When we generate qual schedules, there are three input parameters to the "algorithm": number of teams, matches per team, and cycle time. Additionally, the event needs to fit within the public agenda posted.

As an example, the Regional Planning Guide, section 2 suggests the following agenda (districts are different, but they get 12 matches/team anyway):

The guide suggests 9:30 - 4:30 (less 1 hours for lunch) and 9:30 - 12:00 over two days. That's a total of 9 hours for qual matches. If we use 6 minute cycle times (which is about as fast as it will ever be, this year the goal was 7 minutes), that's 10 matches per hour, for 90 matches (540 plays) total.

So for an event with 40 teams, you can do floor(540/40) = 13 matches per team. A 65 team event can do floor(540/65) = 8 matches per team.

So if you want to increase matches per team, you'll have to do one of the following:

• Reduce the number of teams attending each event
• Reduce the match cycle time
• Increase the time spent playing matches

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Give this man a cookie. I think we've got the solution!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

So they might be able to run a QUAD regional? Now there's an idea.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Listen man, I'm just trying to help avoid the decimation of FRC in MN that would occur if they switch to a district system.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

To chime in on the issue of not reaching enough potential volunteers and the advertisement of this need for volunteers, I'm one of those people that hasn't volunteered for a single event. I have friends who volunteer quite often. I personally didn't however because I simply thought that my time was needed elsewhere more than it was at the event...

Until I overheard said friends freaking out a week before my local regional, because there was no one to do x, y, and z at the event... Until I spent the entirety of the regional in the stands because the programmers had everything working nearly flawlessly and didn't actually need me to be free as a mentor.

I was, until the build season ended and events started happening this year, entirely unaware that volunteer supply was an issue. This is after 4 years, going on 5 in FIRST.

Of course now that I am aware of the problem I can be a part of the solution, for both offseason events and the next year.

The issue is however, that I feel I'm a part of a large group of oblivious people who might have the time and energy, but are simply unaware of the level of need. I'm going to be entirely honest. I don't read my email very thoroughly. There was likely an email asking for volunteers, but it got lost in the pile of emails that FIRST sends out that I frankly don't have the attention span to read.

So how do we get the oblivious shmucks like me to actually know about this?
That wasn't a rhetorical question, I seriously just don't know.

My best guess would be a more personal word of mouth approach to advertising the positions, talking to teams directly, and having the lead mentors of said teams place emphasis on this aspect of FIRST, but I suck at organizing things, so that's all this is, a guess. Maybe this is already being done, and I'm simply more oblivious than I thought. I don't know, the fact remains that people like me exist, and solving this problem could get areas closer to being able to support more small events.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Why was my first thought, "that's an anagram for medication?" ;)

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'm fully aware of how math works. You can obviously do it too. So remind me again what your objection to posting "we only commit to 8 matches at this event" is? [1] since APPARENTLY that's a fairly easy number to compute given estimated field turn times (provided by first) and number of teams (provided by venue) I'm not seeing an issue.

As for "well 12x40 is less than 12x60" no duh. But it's not much less than 10x60, at least that's a more reasonable number of matches and you have a day and a half to get through them. Of course, I still stand by that it's a better team experience to play more matches in a smaller venue but we clearly have different views on that.



[1] other than the obvious of "it's crappy to only get 8 matches" and the fact that it'd be open and honest communication with teams.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

And that's a problem with almost any organization. When my sons played soccer ages ago, we went to practices and went to games. There was a referee at the game, we expected that. Kind of like the league supplies uniforms and soccer balls, the league supplies referees.

It wasn't until talking with my sons' coach (who was also a ref) that I began to appreciate the human aspect of it. You can buy equipment (whether that be uniforms or FRC fields). You can rent venues (athletic fields or regional sites). But you can't "buy" the people. Or it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

When my sons wanted to take the soccer referee course, I went along with them. I did it for 16 years before my knee and ankle gave out. And that led directly to me becoming a ref for FLL and FRC. (Believe me, the worst mentor arguing a call in FRC is a whole lot more GP than the average soccer coach.)

I don't want to be telling other areas what they should do regarding switching to districts. There are unique situations everywhere that will require a lot of work before areas can change to districts, if that is even what they want. Every area needs to evaluate more than just number of plays per dollar. But if number of volunteers per event is one of the things that is lacking - and we have difficulties with that in some FiM events - the only way to fix that is to ask for more volunteers. And give them reasonable pathways for getting trained to become better volunteers.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

If the Duluth regionals do this, then it would be a double DECCer event.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

You claimed a lack of understanding for why an event can't give 12 matches to 60 teams, when another event can do it for 40. It did appear appropriate to point out the math, since you didn't seem to be taking it into account.

Your definition of "much less" probably needs tweaking. 480 is much less than 600. It's 20% less. In the other direction, 600 is fully 25% more than 480.

All other things being equal, having half again as many teams means getting only two thirds as many matches per team. That's just how it works. If you play eighty matches, a 40-team event gets 12 matches per team, and a 60-team event gets 8. Period. In order to give the 60-team event 10 matches per team, you need to play one hundred matches. Twenty more matches is a lot.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

He claimed a lack of ignorance why other events couldn't give 9+ (more than 8) plays for 60 teams (over a full event) when another event did 12 plays for 40 teams in one day.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I wonder if the following solution would be one the Minnesota RPC, Minnesota teams, and HQ could find tenable:

Make all regional events with a roster near or over 60 teams function like a district championship, but permit a 6 hour unbag window as well. Start qualification matches at 2 PM on Thursday and you find the hours you need to provide teams with a service similar to what smaller regionals give.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

This is actually a great idea to get teams at large events more matches and with pit setups starting on Wednesday evening at regional events it is doable. Six hours on Thursday morning should be enough time to get teams inspected as long as A. they show up with less than two hours of work to do and B. there are enough inspectors on hand.

It doesn't work out to a perfect balance of time between teams in districts and teams at regionals in terms of access to your robots but even under the current system that doesn't exist. It would also help with the transition to future districts (or more regionals) because it would require the event to increase their inspection crew. Increasing just one section (or potentially doubling it) of volunteers is easier than needing several planning committees and several new key volunteers.

Its not a perfect solution but its a good option.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

For reference, 4 teams at North Star (60 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday Morning, and 10 teams at 10K (63 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday morning. They all had serious issues that they worked hard to fix throughout the day on Thursday. These are the same teams that a 6 hour robot access period wouldn't help. If they're oblivious enough to have a 140" frame perimeter, I seriously doubt that they will have the capability to fix that frame perimeter in their 6 hour robot access period on their own.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Keep in mind these teams would have had the same issues if they were at districts and probably wouldn't have seen the field til later on Day 1. The first events of the years are typically the hardest and have a handful of teams who are in that same situation of working into qualifications to get inspected.

All you can do is educate teams on where they need to try to be walking in the door and give them some resources to succeed (send out the inspection sheet before bag day and encourage teams to run through it).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I suppose I have a different mindset. Minnesota Inspectors have the goal of getting every team inspected for their first match. Obviously this is so they can get the most out of the experience. In the district system they would have another full event that they would be ready for, even if they didn't pass inspection until near the end of quals... makes sense to me!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

If they happen to pass inspection before the end of Thursday in this scenario, they are already getting more out of the events than they are now.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Even a team takes until Friday morning to get inspected and make their first match, they would still play in the current 8 matches/event. Everyone else would get the extra benefit of playing in the extra 3-4 matches. Even if everyone just goes to one event, this is probably better than the current system on a whole.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I wouldn't say its a different mindset. Our inspectors have that goal as well and I remember working hard with one team in 2014 to get them inspected by their second match (of their first event).

The scenario you are pointing to is valid however it is an extreme. If a team can't pass inspection at a district event with 6 hours of unbag time at their shop, 5 hours on load in night (Day 0 as we call it in Districts), and another 8 hours on Friday (or Day 1) that is a serious problem but it can't define a system that the other 59 teams are competing in it.

Would getting all teams inspected by 2pm on a Thursday (with 6 hours of unbag time) be a challenge. YES and you probably won't get every single team ready. Could it work as a solution to give regions that currently can't (or won't) move to districts for a long time the ability to give their teams more bang for their buck without adding more events. Yes.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Going into a team's first event, they don't really have the 6 hours of unbag time to pass inspection - most of the time we find inspection issues that the team is completely unaware of - you can't fix what you don't know! It's something I (personally) and concerned with, and am trying to think about ways we could address it. Trust me, I haven't heard anyone use this as an excuse - I think everyone just assumes that I'll be able to make it work for us just like we have at our regionals for years :p

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I must have skipped over that part of the claim. What event did 80 matches in one day?

The part that I haven't seen anyone bring up yet is the fact that you get 2 events in the district model. So really you are getting in the area of 20-24 plays for the $5k. But then must pay more $$ to go to district champs, then more $$ if moving on to worlds

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Would you consider having some sort of "inverse kickoff" where teams can bring their robots to be unbagged and inspected and adjusted at a large public location? It would be a great opportunity to bring together new and potential future key volunteers.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

But the fact that you have more matches to fine-tune your robot before champs makes the price of the district events, DCMP and CMP (5K+4K+5K) much more worth it than paying for two regionals and CMP (5K+4K+5K).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Umass Dartmouth, due to concerns about weather on Sunday evening of the event we condensed the entire event to be done by 2pm Sunday. This meant that qualification matches were completed by Saturday night and alliance selection was right after opening ceremonies on Sunday. So, 80 matches in one day is certainly doable. You're telling me that doing the remaining 20 matches can't be done in the morning before eliminations?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Assuming that UMD means UMass Dartmouth, that event wasn't 40 teams, it was 32. They ran 64 matches on Saturday. 10000 Lakes ran 70 matches on Friday.

No one says you have to do two regionals. I mean if you win at a regional your in for champs. If you win say Chairmans at a regional you are in as well. Our first year we won rookie all star at the one regional we went to, and then went on to worlds.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Andrew was referring to the 2016 UMass District Event, where all of qualification matches were ran on Day 1 due to impending weather later Day 2.

I want to clarify however that event only had 32 teams at 64 qualification matches, not the 40 and 80 as everyone has been discussing.

On another note, while yes we did it in one day, we cut things out of the schedule, and played through meals, which isn't ideal. It was worth it to get everyone home safe, but I wouldn't make it the norm.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

You're right, I forgot that I'm not in MI where every event is full. However, the fact that 10k lakes ran 70 matches Friday almost proves my point of, we can do better than 8 matches a team.


Ok, let me put this very bluntly - 8 match events is terrible for team experience, it's a borderline offensive to see all these folks "oh we can't do any more" and that's acceptable. I'm tired of skirting around the issue - Jon, Doug, Alan, if you don't CARE that the teams are getting jack for their money fine. But at least advertise the fact that your events don't care about team experience. Or try to come up with some ideas on how to make it better for them that aren't "it's hard".

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The closest that I've been able to find was this 2011 event in Hartford, CT, which played 72 matches on Friday:
http://www2.usfirst.org/2011comp/eve...chresults.html

However, they had one of the most capable FTAs in all of FRC; running 5 or 6 minute turns with some 4s mixed in is not typical nor can be expected across the board.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Well, thank you for putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't care - Here in MN we care a lot, and we do everything we can to maximize the team experience. At our volunteer training event last fall, I spent about 45 minutes talking to inspectors about what we need to do to maximize the team experience at events. So please, don't say or imply that I don't care.

We are limited in what we can do. We do everything in our power to run as many matches as we can. Our field volunteers have worked through meals more than once at events, which is certainly less than ideal. Running events longer than we already do is a non-starter - it would mean needing to pay for more meals for the volunteers, which requires more money. adding volunteers to run them in shifts runs into the same problem. We're already doing everything we can to raise the money needed for these events.

It's not a question of shying away from something that is "hard" - it's a question of what we are actually capable of doing. We're already tackling a hard problem putting these events on and everyone at the events is working flat out to make them happen. So please, check the insults at the door and come up with actual useful advice.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

You haven't checked your insults, at me, at some of the very volunteers you need to help, or at literally anyone who disagrees with you. I'm just a little more honest and up front about it.

Here's my question for you, and it's a simple one - Do you think 8 play regionals are a bad experience for teams?

Everyone needs to take a breath!!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

If you're going to pick a fight, don't do it with Jon Stratis. He is one of the most passionate and driven people I know. He's also one of the most graciously professional people I know. No more insults are necessary.

8 play regionals aren't ideal for anybody. Everybody on the RPC wants to give teams as much field time as possible. If you don't believe that, just talk to them face to face. They all want the best for teams, and they work their butts off to make that happen.

I don't believe 8 play regionals are a bad experience for teams. My team had a great time at both 8 play regionals that we went to. I've spoken with hundreds, if not thousands of people at events, and I've heard very positive feedback. Stronghold is an amazing game, and getting to watch it live is a ton of fun. I'd rather have 8 matches of Stronghold than any number of matches of Recycle Rush (except maybe zero...). So no, 8 matches is not inherently a bad experience. It isn't perfect, it could be better, but it's not bad.

Things are only going to get better in Minnesota. We are recruiting new volunteers, and are in the process of starting new events. I brought down 30 people this year, I'll have more than 50 next year. A few years down the road many of these people will be in key volunteer roles, some already are. Again, things are only getting better in Minnesota.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Care to share their ages?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'm 20. My volunteers range from 18-23. Most aren't old enough to drink. About half are FIRST alumni and the other half decided to volunteer through Bison Robotics' outreach program.

We all had a blast at Minneapolis and Duluth. I have tentative commitments from all but a couple to be back again next year, schedule dependent obviously. The goal is to get everybody hooked on volunteering so that when they graduate from NDSU, they decide to keep doing it because it's so much fun. Now that's how you make progress towards forming districts. I want them as badly as anybody. I just want them to be feasible and sustsinable.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I can say that both venues this weekend had key volunteers pushing for 9 matches but the people who determine how many matches vetoed it. Also for some reason it was determined that both events had to have the same number of matches. North star was running ahead of schedule and had to routinely slow their pace, we easily could have had 9 maybe even 10 matches but since 10K didnt think they could with 3 more teams North Star got shafted.

These 2 events were just that 2 DIFFERENT events and should be run that way.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

This is absolutely great, and definitely a big help to MN.

Do you think that ND would be lumped together in MN if MN were to switch to districts? I'm just wondering why the solution seems to be for 30-50 college students who are located 3.5 hours away from the venue to volunteer at a regional held in a university 3x the size of NDSU. Is there just a proportionally higher amount of FIRST alumni or students willing to volunteer at NDSU compared to the University of Minnesota?

According to the lookup page on firstinspires.org, ND as a state only has 3 FRC teams. Is Bison Robotics also involved in expanding the FRC program within the state of North Dakota?

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

The reason, simply put, is Ryan :) He is far and away the most passionate recent grad MN has had, and has done amazing things with Bison Robotics. He's the one who brought us all the volunteers.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

There are two things that are never brought up in these conversations.

What about out state teams that will have to travel for both distinct events. Take say 30 students and 5-8 mentors (and don't forget about parents, they are not in these numbers), put 4 students into a room and 2 mentors into a room that leads to 11 to 12 rooms. Say you find a room rate of $80; that comes to around $1000 just for rooms. Now teams are gong to have to pay to drive maybe 5-8 hours to get to the events in maybe a school bus, multiple vehicles, coach bus (our coach bus for 5 days to champs was $4000 - $5000, you could find a cheaper price for transportation but it will not be free). Now on top of getting to the event you have to pay for meals (yes you would still be paying for food for one event (regional) but not two (districts)). Once you add all this up double it, this is what out state teams will have to pay just to get there. Now yes, you get more plays but you have to pay more (maybe $5000 with district vs $2500 for regional) with school bus to get those extra plays. What I am getting at is not everyone is going to have the opportunity to stay in there bed for two events.

The other thing I never hear about is you have 2 practice matches on Thursday, and if you get inspected early, you can be in the backup line and play more. So realistically they are not just getting 8 plays. Yes I understand 8 in qualification plays.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

My goal when I decided to attend NDSU was to put North Dakota on FIRST's map. It hasn't really changed but there are interesting road blocks. So Bison Robotics has been volunteering in Minnesota because they host the closest events, and also because most NDSU students are from Minnesota (I love volunteering in MN for the record).

I don't believe there are a higher percentage of FIRST Alumni here than there are at most Universities. NDSU doesn't do anything special to target FIRST alumni outside of what Bison Robotics has started. I certainly think we do a good job of recruiting the FIRST alumni that do go here, as well as bringing new people into the FIRST community. FIRST volunteering is not difficult to recruit for in my opinion, get people to events, hang out and have fun at the end of the day, wake up early and repeat. Pretty easy sales pitch.

If I had to guess, I would say a Minnesota-only district system would devastate the surrounding areas. Iowa with 11 teams, North Dakota with 3 (including 1 that is no more than 15 minutes from the MN border), etc. I just don't see those states thriving if they are put on an island. If we include them in our district, we have to decide who we eventually cut off. We take Iowa and North Dakota, but should we take Wisconsin? South Dakota? I don't believe there is an easy solution.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

I'll take some credit here, and hopefully clarify the decision to play 8 matches. I was on 10,000 Lakes with 63 teams.

I'm apparently one of the people who "vetoed" 9 matches, though I don't recall doing it in a way I would consider "vetoing." I would also like to add that at no point did a key volunteer approach me and say "Bryan, we should really get 9 matches in," so I'm not sure where that information came from.

On Wednesday as we were generating the schedule here is what we put into the FMS:

• The public agenda for the event (which had the same amount of time allocated to qualification matches as most FRC regionals)
• A 7 minute cycle time (as presribed by FIRST, and corroborrated throughout the previous 5 weeks of competition)
• A 45 minute lunch on Friday
• 3 minute breaks for audience defense selection as generated by the FMS

The first time we did this, we put in 8 matches per team and our schedule ended up about a half an hour short on Saturday and a hair early on Friday.

At this point, the event manager joined the FTA and the scorekeeper and asked if 9 matches was possible. We changed the matches per team to 9, and the FMS informed us that doing so would put us 45 minutes late on Saturday and just a hair late on Friday. That is how we made the decision to go with 9 matches.

Here's the deal with the public agenda: One of the biggest responsibilities of FTAs and event managers is to keep the event running as close to the schedule as possible. Failing to do so has serious implications for teams. Some teams have buses that cannot wait or charge for waiting, some teams have multiple hour drives to get home, and the list goes on. Playing through lunch is not only terrible for the volunteers, but it is terrible for teams as well because suddenly they need to chose between lunch or playing matches as well. Playing through lunch is an absolute last resort- for situations like it sounds like UMass Dartmouth was in.

Additionally, ending 45 minutes late puts us at significant risk for an even greater setback. Replays, guest speakers like Dean Kamen, or broken defenses could easily make that 45 minutes and hour and half or longer. By sticking closer to the schedule we are able to be more confident that we can provide a good team experience.

And that's the real message here: Team experience at an event is about so much more than whether you played 8 or 9 official qualification matches. What you do at an event, the people you meet, and the teams you help. I would argue that if the only value your team gets out of an event comes from the number of matches you play, then you aren't getting the right things out of your events. Yes, I agree, more matches are always better. If I could give teams 12 plays at every regional event in Minnesota, I would. But I can't.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Great leaders definitely inspire the people around them, and it sounds like Ryan is a great example of this. I applaud Bison Robotics for what they do, traveling that far to volunteer is definitely a sign of true dedication to the program. I hope that other universities in the area follow this example as well; everyone is in agreement that more events are needed in Minnesota (regionals or districts), and more volunteers are needed to go along with those events.

Yes, there are a small group of teams that districts do make life harder for. 5188, for example, is located about 10 minutes from the Illinois border. Prior to districts, 5188 just competed at a local regional held in Terre Haute (Crossroads), and competed at the World Championship. When districts came in, Crossroads disappeared and all of the district events were held closer to the population center of teams (Indianapolis or Lafayette). All of 5188s events are at least an hour away from Terre Haute.

I know similar issues affected teams in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, hopefully some of those active on CD (857?) can comment on their experiences before district events were added in the UP.

I have heard that one goal when attempting to plan out where district events are located is to ensure that no team is outside driving distance for both their district events. The difficulty of this is highly dependent on the geographic size of the district, which is a consideration when initially forming the district area. If the area is too large, you do lose some of forcing more rural teams to travel several times.

On the topic of practice matches, district events also have pits open for a few hours on load in day where teams can get inspected and get in the filler line for practice matches as well (given the field is ready).

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Cool, so we've reached a consensus - More matches = more better for teams.

We've even agreed that we want what's best for teams. Yay! Progress.


So, you're telling me the primary issue is in the combination match turn time combined with teams. [1] What steps can we take to alleviate this?

- FiM runs two fields side by side, and I know some Canadian events have. Would that be a viable solution?
- Would leaning on FIRST HQ and the GDC to lower match turn times (i.e. field reset) help? What is the lowest we can get this number? What lessons can we learn from games with low turn times?
- I noticed you said that guest speakers were a problem, I understand the need for VIPs and what have you to talk. But would stuffing them into field breaks be a viable option?
- Field breakage, ok this is TERRIBLE this year. Goes hand in hand with match turn times I'd assume. What lessons can we take from the past games here? [2]
- Are FMS connection times an issue? I know it's something we had issues with in NE
- I'm gonna harp on this one a bit, cut down the number of teams? Option? [3]




[1] Yes I knew this already

[2] My role primarily involves not being around the field much.

[3] This is really why I push districts - it lets teams play more, for less money and lets more teams take home hardware. Hardware is REALLY inspiring which achieves FIRST's Mission. Just this weekend we played with a team that had, in 20 years, NEVER made it to the finals of an event. Their kids were inspired. A chance they wouldn't have had in a regional system where a second play was 4k.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Can confirm that Dean slowed down the event. He was trying to leave for well over a half hour, but of course he couldn't pass up a single autograph. He was absolutely mobbed in the pit area with well over 50 people surrounding him. I served as a "bodyguard" and did my best to hold back what felt like hundreds of crazed children in the most GP way I could manage. It was an interesting time.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Lets get this kid a Key Volunteer Position! Sounds like he would make a great Volunteer Coordinator.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

In all seriousness and despite my bias from being someone who put forth the idea that I had never heard of before, Minnesota could lead the charge to run a regional/dcmp hybrid schedule. It's sort of a brute force way to give teams more matches but it opens the door to give some light training to volunteers, get teams used to unbag time, you could keep the venues and team counts you have, and you aren't increasing travel burden.

This is a solution that comes with a different set of problems, but the current solution in MN is obviously causing problems and the mainline potential solution seems to be a nonstarter for leadership. My question is, por que no los dos?

Ok... Everyone sign up for North Star next year, you'll get to play more matches!

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

He is in training for LRI, which I believe is his preferred position :) Based on this past year, there isn't room for more LRI's currently, but we are looking forward with our training to ensure we always have enough, and Ryan is playing a key part in that for my crew! As we add more events in the area (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North/South Dakota, etc), we will need more LRI's. I'm personally hopeful that we'll get an event more in the North West part of MN in the next couple of years that he can take and run for me, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Re: Are 8 play regional reasonable?
 

Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?


Look, I understand you guys mean well, and want to make sure every team gets as many plays as they can possibly cram in. But there are a lot of other factors that come into play, and when you appear to be deliberately ignoring them, you really make people annoyed. Heck, I'm not in districts (though I'd really like to be), but I can understand why certain people don't want 'em, or can't go for 'em. Districts are not the end-all solution for "we aren't getting the value", necessarily. It depends on what your definition of value is--one of the Chilean teams spoke up a in another thread and pointed out that if CA went district, they'd lose their home regional, and that's not the first time that happened. That's not good for them, because they'd be traveling out here for two weeks--imagine doing THAT plus DCMP and maybe CMP! (For that matter, I'd love to hear from the AK team playing in PNW this year, as they've got a similar problem.)

BTW, L.A. could host a 72-team event. They've got the space for another 6 pits. That'd give each team... 7 plays. Guess what, they cap at 66 to try to help with the plays, and by teams/minute were the fastest regional to fill this year (third fastest by time). If they capped at 40 and there wasn't another regional around, you'd hear the complaining clear from the East Coast.