pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Another, under-appreciated benefit to district events: With 12 qualifying matches being played instead of ~8, it's more likely that the most deserving teams will be in picking positions. A larger sample size will help ensure that the best teams end in their rightful position.

With the exponential growth of FIRST in Minnesota, I would be surprised to see them stick with regionals for much longer.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

This is a great way of explaining districts in general, not just Minnesota. How would the math work out for California - as in, how many district events would there likely be and how many teams would qualify for district and world champs?

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

The readout from FIRST that I can see shows 258 registered teams in the state of California. Mark McLeod, the spreadsheet whisperer, might have a more accurate number.

Standard district event size is at 40 teams. Some of the small single state districts like North Carolina lean towards 32 team events, but this would definitely not apply to California.

Each team is required to get a spot at two unique events in a district system format. That means there must be a minimum of 516 spots. At a clip 40 teams per event, you would need 13 events. If California transitioned any later than next year, a requirement for 14 events would be all but assured. The state championship would be a 15th event.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

That's a remarkably one-sided view of a switch to districts. I wonder how much experience the person who put it together has with what the impact is on those organizing and running the events, as opposed to what the teams see.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I feel like the people of Minnesota are very in tune to the other side.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I mean as a strategic communicator I learn how to write a message for a particular audience. If the audience for this specific message was potential planners and people who would be involved in moving Minnesota to districts the message would be different. I'm focused on the WIIFM (what's in it for me) and for our specific audience our particular message worked well. We were trying to educate teams about what districts would do for teams.

Once again this was to educate teams, if in the future people want to change to districts in Minnesota that's great! But I think the message was pretty spot on for the target audience.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

In addition to what Jess said, if teams asked about some of the more behind-the-scenes details, I answered them to the best of my ability. I have not personally been involved in organizing or running a district event; however, I am aware of a fair number of the details from my time in FIRST in Michigan.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

While I agree that having the 12 matches is great for getting better ranking results, one important thing to keep in mind is that playing 12 matches played over ~1.5 days with 40 teams is usually a much more grueling pace than teams that attend regionals are used to. I think the biggest break in scheduled matches we had this year was like 30 minutes (any longer was due to field issues) but most matches we played were within less than 10 minutes of each other making robot maintenance much more problematic if you have any major issues.

Not sure if anyone here can speak to this, but does anyone know if MN plans to still have scheduled practice matches like regionals do (curious due to the last part of the 3rd paragraph)? One of the things I liked about how practice matches are handled in FiM events it's all first-come first-serve, so if you have a robot that's ready to go, you can get back into the end of the queue and keep practicing, and if you're a team that's robot isn't ready right when practice matches start, you can still squeeze a few in at the end of the night without worrying about missing scheduled practices.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Trust me, less than 40 is even worse. At IN DCMP 2015 (32 teams), every team got 13 matches, and 5188 was one of the (un)lucky teams to get a surrogate match on top of that. We had 7 gaps between matches that were 3 matches or shorter.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

This flyer is awesome. I did not get a chance to see it while at the venue yeaterday. I plan on stealing this and using it in my push for Wisconsin.


I know everyone keeps talking about volunteer needs for a switch to district but the focus needs to be on the teams. Minnesota grew too big too fast to the detriment of all teams in Minnesota. Minnesota should have been the 2nd region to move to districts. Now they are in the no-mans zone of not knowing which direction to go.

Again growth for the sake of growth is a detriment to all teams in FRC and Minnesota is showing us all how true that is.

I know the RPC in Minnesota has all the best intentions and wants whats best for those teams in MN but it has come to make the jump and learn as they go before they're in a place that when they switch they need 20+ districts...

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Could you expand on that statement? I've seen no indication of FRC in Minnesota "growing for the sake of growth", rather it's been quite organic.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Minnesota grew so fast that the support for all those teams to truly be successful couldn't possibly be there.

If you think throwing $ at teams and then watching them routinely flounder to pass inspection or even field a robot that moves is beneficial to the kids on their team or the kids on other teams your wrong.

Quality sustainable growth is what benefits all. Quantity growth is not.

We all want every high school student to have the possibility to be on an FRC team should they want it, but that doesn't mean we start a team at every school because the money and sponsorship is there, when the support to truly run a successful* team isnt.

*I do not equate winning with success but I can say that nothing inspires more than winning. I can also say that watching your robot not move or score points for 2 days straight doesn't inspire either.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

While this was certainly an issue in the first year of districts in New England, it hasn't felt like it was such a grueling pace these past two years.

In any case, teams should be prepared for quick turnarounds because that's the reality of the elimination rounds.

It certainly isn't a black and white comparison. Regionals and Districts have their benefits. I was just highlighting a benefit that isn't as obvious as cost per match.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

What Eric said is exactly correct, at least in my opinion.

I work with multiple MN teams via email and over the phone throughout the season to provide remote support. Too often, teams were created with money but no outside mentor support. Essentially, when you talk to a principal/district official and say you have $5,000+ to start a FRC team in their school and it is an amazing experience for students, who is going to say no? All they need to do is find a teacher to officially be coach and the administrator/district official can be the alternate contact. You then have a teacher coaching a team who potentially has no engineering background. I can speak from experience that this happens, I've worked with multiple teachers who have had close to zero computer experience. I have no issue being tech support for teams and I love to help but what we've done is almost a disservice to these students. My favorite example is a 3rd year team that had 5 students and 1 mentor. I worked with the mentor for two weeks over the phone and email to get labview up and running and their electronics connected correctly. I know how amazing this program can be; it inspired me, but in this case we were not inspiring these students. We threw $5,000 at a team ($1,000/student) that struggled to get even the basics done and that makes me incredibly sad inside.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Wiscosin just passed a bill that will throw money at teams and I'm fearful that Wiscosin will have this same problem. Especially because the RPC in Wiscosin has the flawed* view that we need more teams before we switch to districts.

*North Carolina and Indiana has proved this thought false.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Well why are you doing that then?

The state of Minnesota does not have grants to new teams. At least not that I've heard of. I know that Michigan and Iowa give (or gave) grants to teams but if Minnesota doesn't.

I go to MNFIRST.org and I see a button to donate, but I don't see any "free money for teams" verbiage.

So I ask again, explain how Minnesota is encouraging growth for the sake of growth?

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

The small single state district format is also in GA. I assume it is working there as well. I will attest to the primary reason that the single state district systems work is because they have a very great backbone of teams that pulls it all together. NC had a lot of teams volunteer to pull triple duty so they could get the system to work the way they wanted. We were VERY impressed and felt very welcomed in North Carolina because they have a lot of people that "get it".

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

My old team (2220) was started because somebody in our city saw that a company was offering grants to start an FRC team. He basically said he'd start one at Eagan High School and then told the school administration they had a new FRC team. From what I've heard of the team's early years, it's somewhat impressive that the team even came back for a second year, much less have gone on to become the impressive team they are now.

The team I currently mentor, 2667, exists because of a single sponsor. Despite having almost no communication with them last year and no idea that they planned to continue sponsoring the team (something that we tried very hard to correct), they paid for our fee this year. We did not know if we would be able to compete until that check came, completely unexpectedly, in the mail.

These are not isolated cases. There is a pattern here. Many teams here are constantly on the edge of disappearing, and don't have the resources or knowledge to effectively teach or inspire students.

Yesterday, I was talking with 2220's old faculty adviser, and he told me that going to the Wisconsin regional back in 2007 is the only reason the team came back for another season. I have to imagine that there are a number of teams that are perpetually in that situation.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Perhaps he's referencing the grant money available from FIRST or somewhere else.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I can attest to much of what Eric and Evan have said. Only in the last year or two have we seen a level of performance across the board where most teams can participate meaningfully in each match, and this is great to see. But for many years, there was a large swathe of teams (at times including 2175) that struggled to perform the basic tasks of the game, and yes, even do the bare minimum by passing inspection and submitting for awards.

I struggle to say it's a disservice (Evan only said "almost") to the teams and students. Surely the something we've had and that has now matured a little more is better than nothing. There is certainly some benefit to the students, though it may not be the best use of resources to start large numbers of team with the generous donations of corporations without ensuring local connections that help the team succeed with that money. Any successful team would agree, it takes more than $5000 in cash to do well, and extensive mentor and sponsor support on a personal level are key as well.

Perhaps this is also true for volunteer supply (event venues, etc.); I can imagine that a higher level of competition and community connection among teams would lead to higher levels of volunteer involvement and more opportunities to make this district transition, which many of us feel is several years overdue.

The state of WI offering financial support for new teams is fantastic, and should not be turned down. Of course this will benefit students, and isn't just "growth for the sake of growth." But it will take more than just covering the registration fee for a team to survive and do well, and to ensure that WI's growth does not see the same growing pains MN has.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

My point being that it's not a Minnesota thing. Minnesota has had phenomenal growth the past few years, greater than the rest of the US, but it's not because the state is throwing money at creating teams.

As I said upthread, the growth is organic, not because one major entity is pushing a grow at any cost strategy.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Not the state. The Fortune 500 companies and other generous corporate sponsors in the Twin Cities and throughout the state. This is nothing but commendable on the sponsors' parts, and has also been a major focus of the RPC since the beginning (connecting these sponsors and their grant money with new teams). We've seen enormous benefits and phenomenal growth. But many teams have lacked the mentor support and mature infrastructure to do well. It's not a novel idea that growing very very quickly will have unintended side effects and shortcomings.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I see your point. It would be interesting to know why growth has exploded in MN if it weren't from some cash infusion.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Are you seriously asking why a WFFA winner who has spent almost ten years in FIRST as a student and mentor, who is currently one of the FIRST senior mentors in Minnesota, is trying to help teams as best as he can? It is literally his job to help teams, but he's here since well before you've been involved, and the impact Evan has had on teams across the state, but especially in the Twin Cities area, is nothing short of incredible. The efforts he continuously goes to in order to help teams in this state across every program are incredible.

Edit: If you're talking about "why are these teams started with $5000 and no support", I really don't know, other than guessing that FIRST's push for growth made this seem like the logical step forward to those in charge here. While I appreciate the amount of effort to connect these teams to money, you need a LOT more than money to run an effective FRC team.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Erik,
I have to disagree. The level of rookie team robots and their ability to pass inspection is higher in Minnesota then in almost any other region that I attend. Australia is also doing what Minnesota does, and has many training exercises for rookie and veteran teams alike. Australia has similar issues that Minnesota has but on a much larger scale. If you want to look at small teams consider an Australian outback team from a town of 150 people, that has a K-12 school with 18 students.
Minnesota is not the only region that lacks engineering support. Wave is very lucky that they have good engineering support but take a look at other teams in your state. They make some pretty great robots too. Compared to your team, they have a fraction of the engineers.
It is not possible to measure inspiration. We may never know if our students succeed because we may not hear from them. But I know in my heart that we are inspiring small, struggling teams as well as large teams. My inspiration in Duluth this year came from a small team from Grand Marais. Those students faced some serious issues when they opened the bag. We worked with them and made suggestions and everyone of their team jumped in and took care of the robot. They did a spectacular job and had a functioning robot that anyone would have liked to ally with.
If we know this program is having that kind of an effect on students, how can growth be bad? Why would anyone stand in the way of giving a rural team the opportunity to join something that big city teams have been enjoying? How can we deny FRC, FTC or FLL to a student simply because they live in a small town, or have to travel 140 km through the outback to school or have no engineering support? This is my 21st season and I have seen the effect on students for a long time. I have met students who experienced their first stay in a hotel or their first travel away from their hometown going to a FIRST event. I have met students who were given the choice of joining a team or going to jail. I have seen students who never considered anything but work after high school (if they graduated at all), go on to full ride scholarship at a good university. They are the lucky ones, I can't deny that chance to anyone.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Hello all,

I am currently in the process of translating this flyer in Spanish (and also adding more background information on the regional system for parents), and was wondering if anyone would be interested in perhaps translating it into another language. :D

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Two points

1) if people are going to copy this, let's improve the sentence at the bottom of the flyer. "Transition" is a (3-syllable) noun, not a verb. In English, you don't change nouns into gerunds by appending "ing"; instead nouns simply stay nouns. I suggest picking a nice simple verb like "switch", "change", or "move" to use in the sentence at the bottom of the flyer.

2) If this flyer is intended to sell folks, who don't understand the bigger picture, on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District, it's fine. If the flyer is supposed to deliver a complete and accurate picture of all the changes involved in a switch from Regionals to a District, it is obviously, hopelessly one-sided and incomplete - incomplete to the point of being misleading.

I suggest that anyone thinking of reusing the flyer should think twice before laying a foundation that only emphasizes assumed benefits, and leaves out the costs of paying the pipers.

Blake
PS: I didn't do a grammar check on the entire flyer, but if the flyer is going to be reused, someone well-qualified should do one. If users can't find a well-qualified editor (then they aren't looking very hard), they can ask me to take the time for a thorough grammar review.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Hi,
Jess and I are both communication majors. We are also having many people peer-review the flyers (in both languages), and will be taking your considerations into account.

The Spanish flyer is specifically going to parents and family members that have students in FIRST, as it is hard to explain the district model without explaining the regional model - both will be covered in the flyer. This flyer was given out to teams and is supposed to be "...intended to sell folks, who don't understand the bigger picture, on the what's-in-it-for-me aspects of competing within a District" as you said.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Contact your regional planning committee and ask how you can get involved in transcendentalizing to the district system.

Contact your regional planning committee and ask how you can get involved in metamorphosing to the district system.

Contact your regional planning committee and ask how you can get involved in transmogrifying to the district system.

Contact your regional planning committee and ask how you can get involved in permuting to the district system.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

It's both a noun and a verb. https://www.google.com/#safe=strict&...ion+definition

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I'm not sure If I was too subtle in my other post, so I'll be more clear.

In this context, "selling" people is not the same as educating them, and in my opinion it is a terrible, unprofessional thing to attempt.

One-sided "selling" creates a mess, not a Distrct. Do you want to create a mess?

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Hey again,
Thank you for your viewpoint - I do agree that some of the drawbacks to the transition model should be covered, as well as emphasizing the need for a nonprofit base and volunteer base to create a district system. I will take this into account when translating and explaining this flyer.
Thank you.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Yeah, it's a verb in the same way "ain't" is an example of good grammar.

"Transit" plus "ion" creates the noun "Transition".

That North American slang has recently grown to include "transitioning" doesn't mean that we all should follow rules in our STEM fields, but discard them in our speech and writing.

Regardless, using something with fewer syllables will probably make the sentence more effective (just ask Mr Trump ;). He is wise in that way).

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

This flyer was not meant to sell people it was meant to educate teams.

Listen, main point of this flyer was to inform Minnesota teams and I had no intention to send them out to other areas. I made this flyer at 1am the day of a regional in between studying for an exam. I'm sorry if small grammar mistakes are that much of an issue to you that you're trying to invalidate someone else's work because of it. If you really have an issue with it you can go and make your own, but I'm going to stand behind the work that I did.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I think our backgrounds are affecting our opinions here. As an English major and high school English teacher, I think that using the word "transitioning" is perfectly fine. Language is fluid and over time some words become more appropriate to use, like "transitioning" (IMO). I don't see it as slang but as the adaptation of language to fit modern communication. At one point, until Shakespeare invented it, the word "dislocate" wasn't proper English either. Now it's accepted as a medical term. But, I see your point and leave it up to those using the flyer to proceed as they believe best.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. That includes informing them well about the total "picture"

A way someone might invalidate their own work would be accomplishing the wrong thing (or rushing it late at night, or ...). That was my point #2 about the purpose of the flyer.

The grammar suggestion hopefully improves rather than invalidates, and comes from agreeing with Churchill when he said "Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all." "Transitioning" is neither short nor old.

Churchill was a very effective communicator (So is Trump ;)).

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

As a fellow lover of the English language, I am familiar with your point, and understand that languages are fluid. I also encourage individual English users to not be too much of a lemming.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Then I believe it does a very poor job. To me, education implies acquisition of knowledge, not indoctrination with propaganda. This flyer, which presents everything as benefits and fails to mention either costs or roadblocks, qualifies as propaganda. It is a great piece of salesmanship, but it is not what I would call educational.

I can accept that you think you are informing teams. However, from the point of view of the organizers, and as seen by someone who knows how the sausage is made, you are selling people on the idea of Districts in a way that misrepresents the situation and makes it sound like a simple choice is all that is necessary in order to proceed with the change.

If that's the goal, then the flyer should start by saying "How do districts benefit teams?" instead of "What are districts?" It is not "A simple district system guide". It completely glosses over what I consider the biggest fact of implementing districts: a greatly increased number of competition events. It ignores the need for a larger base of volunteers. It barely mentions the idea of qualifying for the District Championship, and completely misses one of the best benefits that I can think of: the criteria make it likely that a consistently good team will qualify to attend the World Championship, even if it is consistently outmatched by a few outstandingly good teams.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

All of which I personally explained to each of the 120 teams I talked to as I handed them the flyer. You can only fit so much information on one page. The main intent of this flyer was not to be the sole piece of information given to the teams, but a supplement to the discussion. Posting them around the regional is what we did with the extras after I spoke with every team I could find. Do you want a general transcript of what I told each team as well?

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Let's get real.

Why didn't you reverse what you did?

The stuff you told teams could have been put onto the flyers that were handed out, and were posted; and the info on the flyer could have been what you told them.

I think that Alan and I made valid points.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Because then people would be arguing about him doing it that way.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I wouldn't; and I doubt Alan would.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

What costs or roadblocks do the average team, who is not involved in their local FIRST community outside attending their regional event(s), face when an area transitions to districts?

I can name a few...

• Potential volunteering requirements
• Increased travel costs for rural teams who won't feasibly have an event within driving distance
• Less "flashy" venue options
• Lack of out-of-state teams

...and I agree these could have been better addressed in the flyer. However, since they were already printed, I resorted to communicating this information verbally.

I'm not going to argue that the flyer doesn't have a positive bias. However, the accusation that we were spreading "propaganda" or attempting to hide information is insulting.

Frankly, most teams don't really care for things like the required number of events or which organization is taking financial risk for events. For teams that only attend one event and struggle to field functional robots, I believe their primary concern is how much they're benefiting their students for the amount of resources (time, money, materials) they're putting in, so that's what the flyer focuses on. Even to these teams, I did mention the increased number of events in an attempt to plant some thoughts of volunteering in them. I also made sure to express several times that everything I was saying was of my own opinion and experiences.

To more established teams, I did speak at length about some of the behind the scene changes that they might not have been aware about, such as the need for a 501c3, and the big shift of responsibility from HQ to the local organization. Frankly, the flyer was not meant for these teams; most of them already knew about the district system.

Also, several people reviewed this flyer prior to print, including a member of GOFIRST and a member of the RPC. If any of them saw this as propaganda, I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

In a tweet, I said that this was, and I quote (without the emojis) "grade A bull crap". While this might seem slightly extreme, I stand by this, for a number of reasons:

1. The word 'transition' has been used as a verb since at least 1946.
2. 'Transition' is commonly used as a verb. While it isn't the clearest word in this situation, it also isn't a word that inherently obfuscates meaning.
3. Your point can be made (and is valid) without bringing in your personal grudge against a particular word (or rather, one of the large set of words you have in your signature).
4. Indirect phrasing is something that's part of how people in Minnesota communicate. Yes, it's frustrating (and something I've complained about more times than I can count), but it's part of effective communication here.
5. Finally (and primarily), this is such a minor thing that has taken up far too much screen space. I'm actually annoyed that I'm even taking the time to write this when there are much more pressing issues to address.

You can call me out for those reasons, but ultimately I think the entire tangent on the use of "transitioning" in a document is almost completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that because I disagree with it, I'm saying that because it's a pedantic discussion to be having in the first place.

Are we really still arguing the intent of this when the authors have already posted that they were trying to educate teams on the potential benefits of a switch to the districts system?

Most of the teams who saw this flyer either had no idea that districts were a thing or had only heard the other side of the argument (that districts would be difficult if not impossible to do in Minnesota). What you're missing when you see this document is the years of avoiding and suppressing discussion about the district system in Minnesota.

One of the things I found interesting was this statement:

I don't really see where you're coming from with this. In order to create a district, some amount of people in that area have to be sold on the idea of moving to a district. An area can't move to districts without wanting to move to districts. Is your objection that convincing some people that transitioning to districts is a good goal for Minnesota will create argument between people who do and people who don't want to go to districts? If you believe that argument (unlikely) or discussion (much more likely, since we're all passive aggressive Minnesotans up here) shouldn't happen, how do you propose we figure out what direction the state should ultimately be going? I'm not really interested in a quip here-- in my mind making progress on this issue means actually sitting down and talking to people. If you take away that tool we're back at square one, which is a few people shouldering most of the burden for organizing FRC in Minnesota (and the future of FRC in Minnesota). I think one of the parts of Rahul's post (in the other MN districts thread) is very relevant here:

There is a group of people (which, yes, I'm a part of) that theorizes that if people actually know what districts are, they might be more willing to support them. They might be wrong, or they might be right. If they're wrong, things stay pretty much as they are, and no real action needs to be taken to prevent people from talking about districts and, yes, trying to "sell" people on districts. If they're right, then we have more people willing to contribute by volunteering and organizing events that support FRC in Minnesota. I don't really see how either of those situations are detrimental to FIRST in Minnesota. Really the only way I see this turning into a mess is if people try to suppress discussion of districts, or if people get so entrenched in the ideas that the only two valid view points are "it's impossible for Minnesota to go to districts" or "Minnesota needs to go to districts immediately, regardless of whether we've actually planned to."

Remember that the people posting on here are still exactly that: people. Almost everyone here has a view point on this issue that is never going to be fully articulated through text.


(not directed at gblake)

Here is what I believe, when it comes to Districts in Minnesota (and surrounding states):

A properly planned, properly staffed, properly run transition to the districts system would be of benefit to the majority of teams in the state of Minnesota (and potentially surrounding areas)

Since inevitably someone will complain about volunteers, that is not what I'm getting at. My point is exactly what I said-- that Minnesota (and surrounding areas) would benefit from a properly run district system. I'm willing to concede that we aren't at a point where we can properly run a district system, but is it a common ground that we should at least be thinking in that direction? Personally I'm not sure if the arguments against districts in Minnesota are "we can't do this right now, but ultimately that's where we should go" or "I just don't think districts in Minnesota are a good idea." I see people articulate all the time the issues that need to be resolved to go to the district system (often with either the subtle or not-so-subtle implication that it's not even worth considering), but I very rarely see people arguing that it isn't where Minnesota should go. There's so much talking around the issue here.

Side note: I don't really see Chief Delphi as the correct place for Minnesota to talk about moving to districts. I'm working on moving that discussion offline, but in the mean time maybe we can all back off the rhetoric and have a more honest conversation about why districts may or may not ultimately be a good fit for Minnesota.


A final thing about this document (specifically directed at Blake and Alan): I think it's somewhat odd to be complaining that Rahul and Jess put a positive light on districts. Do you really expect them not to? Do you think it's misrepresentation to say that a well-run district system is a bad thing for teams? Do you really think it isn't educational to say "hey, you might not know it, but the district system does have some benefits for teams?" Yes, there's an inherent persuasive component to this, but I for one commend them on trying to make what they (and yes, I) see as a positive impact on the MN FRC community. I even commend them for not putting the many things that need to happen for MN to move to districts because they don't necessarily know what those things are. The correct way to help is to tell people to contact the people that actually know what needs to be done, not to take guesses and create split efforts.

I don't know if this is your intent, but you seem to be saying that trying to tell people that districts might be a good thing is problematic or has a negative impact on the area. I'm curious why you might think that.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Cake-ster

Let's get real.

Talking to someone who happens to be in the RPC, but who is not speaking on behalf of the RPC, then whipping together that flyer at 01:00, and then writing the initial post in that "Experience promoting districts in Minnesota" thread, is tossing yet another uncoordinated log(s) onto a fire that shouldn't exist.

In your message you wrote "I'm willing to concede that we aren't at a point where we can properly run a district system, but is it a common ground that we should at least be thinking in that direction?"

I believe that anyone who asks the current RPC about that will find out that more than thinking is already going on. Thereby hangs a tale.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Stop the passive aggressive posts. They do not promote productive discussion.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Are the people sharing this in a position to guarantee that any of the assertions made on this flyer will be true?

The information about program costs doesn't apply to all districts today; I don't understand how you can create the expectation that it would apply in new districts. Similarly, the remarks about the number of spaces available to teams at the Championship is a guess; you have no way of controlling that and presenting it as a given is irresponsible.

Encouraging folks to contact the RPC intimates that this is endorsed by that RPC. I understand that it isn't explicitly stated as such, but I think any reasonable person could believe that this was created by the planning committee as an effort to drum up support. That's a pretty underhanded tactic for effecting change.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Everyone please breathe before you post.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

LOLs - Apparently I've been tweeted about in an out-of-band channel. - It's a good thing there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Hey, people were mangling English long before 1946, and they ain't likely to slow down any time soon.

If the folks reusing the flyer want to improve it, I still suggest adopting Churchill's approach. He was really good at communicating.

It is possible for one post to contain an important big picture observation, and a separate recommendation to improve that sentence.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

As a breather - can we discuss what is wrong graphically with this flyer?


a) QR code... is this still a thing? What URL is it to? Those of us without a QR reader (which I presume means everyone) have no idea. Even those with one, it's a huge security risk can we just kill this whole concept and use human readable URLs?

b) Where is my eye supposed to be drawn? I see some charts, I see a question, I see a heading... then I see some clip art looking things down at the bottom.

c) There's a LOT of text. As a informative handout this might work well to an invested audience. But as a flyer or as a handout to a neutral/opposing party it's "too long, where's the nearest dumpster?"

Suggestions - axe the QR, figure out where the eye should be drawn, less text and put together a website with more info with a human readable URL if folks want to know more. I'd also suggest coordinating this effort instead of reaching directly to RPC. Perhaps you should collect interest and then schedule time to meet with the RPC, have a discussion on why you and others think this is a good move.


But, overall - a good start at getting some information out. Fact check a little better next time though ;)

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Blake and Schreiber,

Thank you for your advice on how to improve the flyer. I will be sure to send these suggestions to those who have asked for an editable copy to use in their own regions.

Madison,

No, I cannot control any of the numbers on the flyer, and I understand your concern. Given published information from HQ they are the most reasonable numbers we came up with.

The pricing information from events was taken from this page: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...ng-and-payment. Since the majority of the current district areas are on the same pricing model, we elected to use that.

Cost per qualification match assumed 12 qualification matches per team at each district event and 9 qualification matches per at each regional event. Nearly every district event I've attended over the past several years had 12 qualification matches per team (not counting surrogates) and 9 was taken from last year's 10,000 Lakes schedule.

For the number of spots to the World Championship, Minnesota currently has 209 teams registered this season. The latest figure I've heard for number of registered teams this season is 3131, causing Minnesota to be 209/3131 = ~6.67% of FRC, earning 0.0667*600 = 40.05 slots to the world championship. AFAIK, this is the model Frank said HQ uses to determine championship spot allocation for districts.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

If the Minnesota RPC is already moving towards implementing districts and getting volunteers from teams is one of the biggest needs, it sounds like getting the teams pumped for districts is a very important task. Shouldn't the RPC be thanking Rahul for getting it started? Every team that comes to the RPC asking for districts is a team that can be reasonably asked for volunteers.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Folks,

Set aside your pitchforks for a moment.

I did a slower read of the flyer looking for things my English teachers would have corrected (I lost a letter grade each time Ms Austin used her red pen). I didn't take notes, so this post isn't details. Instead it's just a word to the wise.

IMO there is at least one grammar mistake, and a borderline sentence/phrase or two.

The mistake I remember is that "Qualification ... are ...", should change to "Qualification ... is ...".

I'll repeat that a quick once over by someone with serious editing chops wouldn't hurt. They can help make it better.

Blake
PS: transitioning ;)

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

The people who need to buy into implementing the district system are the people who will be implementing it. Artificially pumping up demand for it will not increase the speed at which it can be adopted.

If you want to make districts happen in an area you aren't actually helping to run, it doesn't seem productive to just start cheerleading without coordinating your message with the existing efforts and without taking into account what is actually possible given current and potential levels of support.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I've read the vast majority of the posts in this thread and perused the more long-winded ones and they cause some concern. My concern isn't over whether or not Minnesota or it's neighbors should move to a district model, rather it is the approach that is being taken.

Conversations regarding districts in Wisconsin have been going on for years among a variety of key stakeholders from both within and beyond our borders. There are benefits and drawbacks to both regional and district models and anyone can make a compelling argument for which side of the fence they fall on. Which is better will always remain a matter of opinion.

For those who are promoting districts, i ask you these simple questions: Is the approach you are taking the best way to accomplish your objectives? Would you be better served by speaking to FIRST leadership within your state and making your case there first? Are you fully aware of the inner workings of FIRST in your state and, if so, are you aware of conversations going on regarding this topic? Do you understand ALL of the structural and organizational differences between a regional model and a district model?

Yes, after school robotics programs just received a huge financial shot in the arm in Wisconsin but don't assume that all that funding is going solely to FRC teams. The law actually reads that the funds can be used for any type of robotics team. FIRST, VEX, Botball, BEST, and others are all programs schools can engage in and be eligible for matching funds. Even within the realm of FIRST, both FRC and FTC teams are eligible for funding. Please don't assume that $250,000 / $5,000 per team = 50 new teams.

Beyond these details, there is a plan of action being implemented by the Wisconsin FIRST EAB to expand participation in FIRST programs in the state. Lessons have been learned from the rapid expansion in Minnesota and we are working on a system that will mitigate some of the issues associated with those types of growing pains. Districts have been and will continue to be part of the discussion.

Conversations should continue but they must be with the appropriate parties and need to be civil and constructive. There are a lot of moving parts here. Trying to force the issue because someone thinks it's the best thing to do isn't the appropriate way to go about it.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills, but the "intent behind the flyer" seems perfectly clear to me and, actually, no one has really stated it yet. It looks like the intent is to

"Educate those familiar with FRC on the benefits to them in the District model in order to drum up grassroots support for a move to Districts."

That last part seems to be what people are overlooking (and perhaps forgetting to say in their anger?). I am guessing that the writers are looking to use an attractive flying to hook more people into the conversation about districts. They won't enter that conversation fully informed because the writers of the flyer know that that is now how people enter into public forums. I would love it if people entered all public forums fully informed of the nuances of issues, but that is unfortunately a very rare thing.
Their intent is to draw more people into the conversation. A flyer that details the arguments and counterarguments of either side isn't going to hold the attention of the masses like the one they created has.

Let's imagine someone reads the full flyer and believes it all as presented, assuming there are no downsides (similar to what people have suggested here). What is the last thing that the flyer asks them to do? To join the discussion! I am unfamiliar with how far "the discussion" has gotten in MN, but contacting the RPC about it seems like a good first step if that discussion hasn't started yet. And if it really hasn't started yet (not agreeing to transition, but earnestly discussing what it would take / pros and cons), then contacting the RPC may be the best way to start it.

No one believes that a bunch of people wanting Districts will just make it happen, but if enough people join the conversation, progress could be made.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

This is a bit of a side-note, but FIRST should really take what you just said to heart.

Having a team at every high school is great and all, but I've been told by several Regional Directors that out of the 6000+ teams in FRC, only 3000+ have been sustainable and persistently re-registering with the program. Most of the other 3000 un-registered teams are rookies who flopped because of little support past their first season.

At the current rate of growth in teams, both Regionals and Districts will be most likely screwed since both types of events cannot accomodate the influx of teams. There has to be some sort of fix or alternate "third" competition/event system where the issues of both districts and regionals (i.e. too many teams, too much money, etc) are resolved, right?

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, that's understandable, but it shouldn't have. That's a wrong assumption.

Certainly any region's FRC teams will want to be educated consumers of, participants in , and/or contributors to their region's overall FRC program; but from what I hear, neither actual or hydroponic grassroots urging is needed to get this ball rolling. It's already rolling.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I promised myself I wouldn't get heated in here again, but I want to be clear: the majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling, but the fact is, as far as most people from MN are concerned, you're just some guy in Virginia making unsubstantiated claims about the state of districts here (which directly conflict with their experience). The people who most need convincing are the people who are least likely to believe you.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I'm repeating what I have been told, because I believe it is true; and because I hope that anyone in MN who is interested will check to see if I'm right.

Checking to see if I'm right should be an easy thing to do, if people are willing to communicate with each other.

Blake
PS: Any of those folks you are referring to, who wants to ask me any question, is welcome to send me a PM.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Jon,
It is easy to lump teams together into one group but the reasons behind teams that are no longer in FRC is varied. One of the biggest is the reduction of money for anything but essential programs in school districts that are strapped for money. I can point to Chief Delphi and Huskie Brigade as one of those examples. Several Chicago Public School teams have disbanded as staff were reduced and schools closed. In many of these schools/school districts programs like band and orchestra have been eliminated as well. In smaller schools, getting a faculty member to take the team is also an issue as administrators are required to make decisions regarding what programs benefit the greatest number of students. Some schools that had multiple teams went down to just one. Some schools closed.
Money is also a factor, but considering the economic times we have weathered, I am actually surprised at the retention. The downturn in 2009 really hurt but we still kept a surprising number of teams.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.

I agree Al. Slide six of this presentation has a breakdown of major reasons why the 10 teams in Indiana that did not reregister in 2014-2015 left the program: http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/...esentation.pdf

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

OK - For many reasons that's understandable.

Getting confusion like that sorted out is good for everyone involved.

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Thanks for posting that. I'd like to point out page 8 of that presentation and the costs.

Under the Regional System they spent $245,000 producing 2 Regionals. Presumably all of that money was raised locally and FIRST did not have to step in to cover any short fall, but I do not know that for certain.

Under their first year in the District System they spent $90,000 producing 3 District events and the DCMP. They did also spend $23,000 on capitol expenditures and $40,000 on administrative costs for a grand total of $154,000 but $49,000 of that came from FIRST via their $1000 per team that the district serves.

So for this season it looks as though they only had to raise aprox $100,000 to cover the cost of the events and the administrative costs. Now some of that was likely due to the fact that the great people of AndyMark provided the use of a field perimeter and their facility for the shipping and recieving of the field elements, game pieces, awards, FMS, spare parts ect. I'm guessing that they also acted as the storage point for between events and in the off season, however they typically stored a field or two complete with the FMS so that those that want to have an off season event have a closer place to ship it from and back too.

So to recap even with the capitol expenditures in their first year they reduced their costs to ~43% of what was spent in the Regional system. Most of those capitol items will last for many seasons, some maybe in excess of 10 years. Yes there will be some replacements along the way but however you cut it in the long run it will be much cheaper than all the rental equipment that would have been required and of course were a part of the Regional budget.

Under the District System they spent

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I 100% agree with this. If we could make the process public, then people would know what to do to help get to the goal. Not trying to say that the RPC and MNFIRST are doing a bad job or anything, but it would be nice if it was more like how Frank has made FIRST.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I strongly disagree. Getting those that benefit from the switch to realize the benefits and create the demand will help speed things along.

One of the things that people keep bringing up as the reason why it can't happen in MN now is the lack of volunteers, and I've been hearing that excuse for at least 3 years now. So educating the teams and letting them know that if they want it they need to step up and volunteer can go a long way to putting that excuse out to pasture.

Another excuse that is given is that they need to find the proper venues. The bulk of the venues should and will most likely be the schools that have teams currently. So again letting the teams know the benefits and the need for the locations can get teams to explore if their facility is suitable. IF the leadership would say we need X,Y,Z in a location do you have that? Then I'm certain if the teams knew the benefits a number of them would get out their tape measures, talk to their administration and see if they are a place that the MN leadership should consider.

Fact is that FIRST has almost certainly been putting pressure on MN to make the switch. I know that they approached what became the PNW district way back in 2012 with hopes of us making the switch for the 2013 season. We did say we needed more time, since there was less info on making the switch with less preexisting areas, and nothing had been done to start the process of qualifying locations as suitable and a whole host of other ways that we felt unprepared to make the switch that quickly.

So assuming FIRST has been pushing things that way already, top down hasn't got too far. So might as well start putting pressure on from the bottom as well as making sure that the bottom is prepared to be part of the solution.

Fact is that FIRST sees the District system as the future and that is where they are going. So those that keep resisting need to ask themselves am I going to be a part of the future of FIRST?

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

[Edit]Mr V. When I created the quote below (from your earlier post), I wasn't trying to accuse you of making excuses, or otherwise substituting my words/thoughts for what you wrote. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was. I was instead noticing that you wrote that you believe other folks are making excuses, and that you said you were making a couple of assumptions. I hope that clarifies that I was trying to be accurate, not put words into your mouth.

And... Now it's time to obey both the spirit, and the letter, of Jessica's wise advice.[/Edit]

Hmmm.

You do know that you can contact the folks who currently are doing their best to guide MN FRC into an improved future, right? They can tell you what is underway, etc. What you wrote seems to convey that you haven't spoken to them yet about these topics.

After a conversation, you probably won't have to characterize any official statements as excuses (you might disagree with their conclusions, but that is different from labeling something an "excuse"); and you probably won't have guess about their relationship with FIRST HQ; and you can probably get answers to replace assumptions.

Doesn't that sound like a useful thing to do?

Blake

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Yes I think it would be extremely useful for those that can benefit from going to the district system in MN to pressure the leadership into giving them some answers as to what is going on.

No I have not contacted the MN leadership and have zero intention of doing so. That is for the people who will benefit to do on their own behalf.

From what I've heard from those in the know that are in MN or who have moved from MN the leadership keeps giving them excuses as to why they can't do districts, with the most popular being lack of volunteers. I have not heard anything regarding what they are doing to make it happen. In fact the few things I've heard indicate that they are more interested in adding more Regionals than making the switch.

I've also heard from people in MN who have told me they have been told to stop talking about the District system on CD and other social media, and I know and trust those people as giving me the truth.

So it doesn't sound like the leadership is working to move MN to the future at all and it certainly doesn't sound like they are willing to give honest answers as to what they are doing to make the switch or any plans to make the switch.

I'm already in the District system and I'm one of the people who worked to make the transition as smooth as possible. That includes stepping up to be a LRI and field supervisor, being the person that helps load the trucks at the warehouse, unload and reload them at the venue, and then repeat for the next weeks event. It also includes uncounted hours building the road cases to carry everything, figuring out a system to store it all, and how to pack the trucks efficiently.

Why did I do those things? Because presented with the full knowledge of what the District System is, I saw the benefits and was willing to be part of the solution instead of coming up with excuses as to why it wouldn't work. Of course I'm not the only one who saw the benefits and stepped up to make it happen. For much of the early road case building we had people from a number of teams give up their weekend, including a large portion of a team that made a 4+hr drive to come to the Fieldhouse to do whatever was required.

Making the switch to the district system requires a lot of work and making sure those that will benefit know the benefits and recruiting some of them to help is required for a successful switch.

I can not for an instant believe that there are not enough people on teams willing to step up to the plate and make it happen, IF they know how much it will benefit them.

So I believe that someone needs to make sure that every single team in the state knows ALL the details about the district system, makes their own decisions based on FULL knowledge. Then if they feel it is in their best interest let the leadership know that is what they want and that at least some of them are willing to be a part of the solution.

You made a lot of implications that I'm giving excuses but it seems like you are the one that keeps giving excuses as why informing teams is non-productive at the best and you seem to imply that it might actually be counter productive.

Again I agree that the teams of MN should do their best, no demand, a true open dialog as to the future on FIRST in their state, with a large focus on the District system.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

It does not include that assumption. I was trying to describe the intent of the flyer makers. As I am in the NC District, I fully understand that grassroots support is not needed (it was nearly sprung on most of us in the 2015 build season). I do, however, think that it could be useful. Especially if there is a sizable group who oppose Districts in MN, or if no public discussion is happening there. If the state as a whole is already well underway discussing if and how it could be done, the people in this thread have hid that fact pretty well.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

What she said.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Hhm? Seems like a productive discussion at the moment.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

No one from Minnesota is arguing against the fact that districts offer teams more plays. 24 instead of 8 is quite the increase in overall plays. What teams sacrifice over regionals is the consistency between all events and the scale in which the event is put on. Having your season end after two district events in school gymnasiums compared to having gone to a full event with 60+ teams, I would rather choose the latter.

Its not the volunteers, its the key volunteers. Head refs, Refs, FTAs, GAs, MCs, Scorers, ect. People that have to be trained prior to an event kicking off. Having done game announcing in Minnesota for 5 years, I will tell you that we are getting there, but we are not there yet. To my knowledge, we have 4 approved game announcers that if push came to shove, they could do an event solo. We have 2 in training. We have 3 MCs. We have 3-4 Head refs. We have 3 FTAs and 2 FTAAs. You can see my point. To do Minnesota correctly (using Michigan as the analog) we would need ~13 district events to service the 208 Minnesota teams (roughly half of what Michigan has). You would be asking these some of the Key volunteers to 4 or more events. Until that number can be dropped to something more reasonable (which we are working on) we cannot reliably do a district setup.

Locations are not the issue. What others have mentioned, that you might be misconstruing as lack of locations, is the quality of the event. To go from Marrucci arena or the DECC to two high school gyms while still having to pay a $5,000 entry fee kinda makes teams and event planners squirm.

Forcing people into a decision that a majority of those involved do not support is bad news. You are correct in that FIRST would like Minnesota to move towards districts. You are wrong in assuming that FIRST has been putting on pressure. While I think the kids would love to see Woodie Flowers game announce at one of our district events, until we have enough Key volunteers with overlap Minnesota will not change. We have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If I am scheduled for an event right now and I cant make it because of a family emergency, we have enough game announcers to cover my absence. If we were in districts right now, that might not be the case.

You are correct, but we are not resisting. To assume we are resisting FIRST like some sort of rebellious group is just pure ignorance.


Mr. V I dont know who you are but you seem to really like district events. What you have to keep in mind is Minnesota must be doing something right to have as many teams as we do. I would leave the planning to those who have really been crushing it in terms of growth. To go from 2 teams in 2006 to 208 teams in 2016 is nothing short of extraordinary. We have more FIRST teams than varsity hockey teams in the state of hockey!

RED = edit based on me learning something

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

What is with this sentiment here? Just because two people disagree is not a reason to close an entire topic. This is a discussion forum, people are having a discussion. Nothing has gone even close to flaming, etc.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I would agree, point and counter point is the basis of discussion.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

All districts (including Minnesota if/when that happens) get two district events for the price of one regional.

I think this shows how important these discussions and grass-roots efforts are in making sure everyone (including key event volunteers) understands the basics of districts and are on the same page.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

That might be true if you are counting all FIRST teams in Minnesota (FLL+FTC+FRC), but if you meant just the FRC teams then you'll need to be more specific....Minnesota's girls play varsity hockey too. ;)

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Honest mistake.

So my team would get 2 gymnasiums for the price of 1 arena.

Then why are we comparing 12 matches to 8 matches? Shouldn't we be talking about 24 matches vs 8 matches? And my totals would be wrong for the events, we would need at least 13 (which is what someone said on the first page) not 11.

So while were still talking about how awesome playing a full district event is, my point on the key volunteers is still valid.

Edit: I edited my post to reflect what I learned today. :)

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

This.

Losing the flash of a regional is a reason I've heard being cited very often in the MN district discussion. As someone who grew up in the district system and has only attended two regional events (Crossroads 2014, 10k/North Star 2016), I don't feel like I've experienced enough of both sides to comment well on the differences. While I intellectually know some of the production differences between the two types of events, can someone with more experience with both comment on how different the two types of events "feel"?

I can also say, when talking to each team at both regionals this year, I specifically mentioned the smaller event size in high school gyms. This only seemed to concern 1-2 teams. In retrospect, I wish I had recorded the responses I got to add some interesting data into this discussion.

Currently Minnesota has 208 teams. 208 teams * 2 plays per team / 40 teams per event = 11 events as an absolute minimum, not counting growth or 3rd plays.

Yes, the 24 vs 8 match difference is highlighted in the cost per match chart on the flyer (which actually assumed 9 qualification matches for the regional not 8).

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

The key stakeholders are the teams. They are the customer and all decisions affect them. So I would have to argue that Wisconsin has not been in discussions for a number of years with key stakeholders because the teams have not been notified of said discussions.

If any region is seriously considering moving to districts, and I believe all should, the teams need to be notified and kept abreast of the situation. And when those in charge feel road blocks or issues arise the teams need to know about them, especially if it is something as trivial as "need more volunteers". Each team has mentors on it from all different professional backgrounds and have knowledge and experience that needs to be taken advantage of to move FIRST into a better future.

I believe that this flyer is a great resource to do that. Does it have all the information from both sides? Of course not, no one would read it and it would be to jumbled a mess. But it does get the conversation started, and gets the word out about what districts can mean for low income teams. If it motivates people to contact their RPC and get more involved or start volunteering than this flyer and other like it are a huge success.

Semi secret meetings about the future of FIRST in regions benefits no one and especially those that you feel you are helping, the CUSTOMER.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Well you have to standardize, if you used both that wouldn't be a fair comparison because FIRST robotics is co-ed sport. :)

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Back in 2012, lead mentors go this email from FIRST CA RD's

I attended this meeting near Sacramento in October 2012.

Not a lot has happened since then (that I'm aware of), and even less has been communicated to teams regarding future plans.

No one has told me we need more volunteers, more venues, or more funding for anything on the horizon in CA FIRST's plans.

If CA switches, we'll host an event. I already offered to our RD's to host the Sac Regional in 2017 since we're leaving UC Davis (to expensive!), but haven't heard back. We hosted CCC 2015 at our school fairly easily this past fall. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to host an event.

Personally, I don't want to fight for districts in CA with RD's who might loose their jobs if/when we make the switch. I'll let someone else wade into that mire.

Until CA FIRST says "here's what we are planning, here's what we need, who can help?", I'll continue to put my time and energy towards helping people who are receptive to my input. 1678 and our 24 new FLL teams in Davis (soon to transition to Vex IQ!) is not a bad place to start.

The sad part is, I want districts for every other team in CA, not my own. We have all our competition fee's covered by one sponsor, so three events in NorCal for $13,000 isn't too bad for us. It's the rest of the teams we play with that suffer under this outdated system, where hundreds of thousands of dollars that should go to STEM get burned on Union A/V crews and expensive venues.

Wake up sheeple!

-Mike

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

^ Was there no announcement about districts at SVR this year? I left early...

There have been vague announcements a couple times in the past. My joke was that this year was the 5th annual 2nd-to-last SVR ever.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

Not that I heard, nothing said during any of the major ceremonies, although I may be wrong.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

I didn't hear anything either.

I think Jim floated plans for a "state championship", "North vs. South" style at one of the 2015 offseason events. Was it at Chezy Champs?

Hard to remember these things when you get old!

Nothing about a potential state championship has been communicated to teams via email.

-Mike

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

But hasn't the MNFIRST group(s) already been working on this for years? What difference is the next year or two going to make? MN has had 4 regionals every year since 2013 and based on your numbers some key volunteers still have to double up events. Unless the number of volunteers you trust for key positions doubles, next year, you may never be ready at this rate.

Re: pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer
 

If MN went to Districts this season, then they would have only needed 11 events assuming that all 11 events were capable of holding the maximum of 40 teams. Of course if not all of the events are capable of that then more may be needed. 208*2/40=10.4 Which is why I keep saying that it is best if it is done now. Making the leap in when there are more than 240 teams so that there will be a need for more than 2 events in a weekend seems like a very bad idea to me. In fact for the 1st season in the PNW we specifically choose to do a single week 1 event so that we could all learn together (and many key volunteers were doubled or tripled up) in hopes of making the rest of the events as smooth as possible. Event to event consistency is a top priority for the PNW District and I'm sure that it is for other current Districts as well. Personally I'd take 2 district events in HS gyms with only 8 matches and 40 teams per event over a single 64 team event with 12, 14 or even 16 matches if such a thing were possible.

Yes I am guilty of lumping all volunteers together and there certainly are differences between the level of involvement and traning required for the different positions. A person could walk in off the street and work the check in desk with a 10 minute training while a FTA should have been a FTAA for a while and will have to go to HQ for the full training as well as attend the calls and keep up on the forum ect. However many of those people who for example are currently a ref, RI or FTAA may be ready and willing to move to the key position. Yes I agree that just because you fill one of those roles and are good at it does not mean that you would be good at the key role or that you may even want that key role. My point is that unless you ask for the volunteers they won't appear out of thin air. For the switch to the District System getting out ahead of the volunteer needs greatly increases the chances of success and minimizes the number of events a particular key volunteer needs to work. It could also provide more back ups in case someone can't make it for what ever reason. This is one area that I feel we in the PNW could have handled better. (Which is why I've been preaching that MN needs to start training people NOW). Do you think that there are not enough people willing and able to step up to make it happen?

Regarding the venues count me in as one who before participating in the District system was very leery about loosing the flash of an event in a large commercial venue. It is very cool to walk into the seating area and see the field under lights as if it was a professional sporting event. After the first season I didn't miss it at all, though of course I have attended all of the DCMPs so I still see that there. To be honest it doesn't impress me as much as it once did, but that may be because of how long I've been doing it.


That is not what I get from the people who have posted on CD and contacted me through other channels. From what I hear the leadership is planning on adding 2 or 3 more Regionals in the not so distant future. If you can't staff 25 days worth of events for a district system how can you staff 21 days worth of events that need more volunteers per event? Let alone the huge jump in cost.

To me the fact that they are reportedly considering adding more Regionals seems like pretty strong resistance.


If you look up to the left you will see that I am the FIRST Senior Mentor for Washington state. (which of course invokes me to say that everything that I post on CD is my own opinion and not the official word of FIRST) I have participated in FRC for 8 seasons now, 5 in the Regional System and 3 in the District System. 6 of those were on a strong, well funded team that did attend two events, iterated between events and managed to qualify for and attend CMP a number of times. The last two years have been on a team that started up last season who I'd say is in the middle of the road as far as funding. We made it to DCMP both seasons. Note in both instances we only qualified because of teams declining. In our rookie season we wouldn't have qualified if it were not for the rookie points bonus (10 the 1st season, 5 second season) and the fact that RAS is an 8pt award rather than the 5pts most awards earn.

Being a FSM does mean that I am supposed to be an advocate for teams and their experience, among other things. Because of this I spent a fair amount of time at the events in our first District season asking them about their feelings on making the switch. I can tell you that the students that I have talked to overwhelmingly prefer being in a District. The majority, but certainly not all of Mentors and Coaches that I talked to feel the same way. Of course it would have been impossible to talk to each and every participant so the information I have is based on a sample and does in no way represent everyone in the PNW's feelings on the switch.

Do not think for an instant that I do not believe that the people in charge of MN have not done a good job. The team growth speaks volumes about the work they have done and the dedication that such an endeavor requires.