Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Below you will find the rankings for all the teams who competed in FRC this year from Wisconsin.

I used the district point ranking system as outlined in section 7 of the admin manual. (Any points ties were not broken as laid out in the manual they were broken by what ever excel did internally when I sorted by Total points.)

For any team who only competed in 1 competition I just doubled their points from their 1 competition. This doesn't really give a true point value but its the easiest to do at this juncture.

If i missed any team from Wisconsin who competed this year please let me know and I will add them.

Rank Team Total
1 5903 106
2 5855 102
3 1675 101
4 2826 96
5 2194 94
6 4021 92
7 1306 90
8 6166 90
9 706 88
10 2062 80
11 5826 74
12 2202 69
13 3197 67
14 171 63
15 1732 60
16 537 59
17 930 59
18 1714 57
19 1259 55
20 3418 52
21 4054 52
22 5976 52
23 93 45
24 5586 41
25 4531 40
26 4786 40
27 2506 37
28 3596 30
29 5148 30
30 269 29
31 2077 29
32 6223 26
33 4011 24
34 2143 22
35 5096 22
36 2830 20
37 3381 20
38 5019 20
39 1091 19
40 5595 19
41 5003 18
42 1716 16
43 3692 15
44 5552 15
45 4657 14
46 1792 12
47 4804 12
48 4247 11

This is being posted to help facilitate talk of moving Wisconsin to districts. Also there has been some talk of instituting a ~35ish team state championship similar to what Minnesota does and these rankings would be used to invite teams.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

interesting that if wisconsin was on the district model 2826 would have gone to worlds (with robot)

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Hey that is my Team! :D :D :D

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Wisconsin teams who made it to Champs this year, with their district points rankings, were:
Wisconsin sent 9 teams to Champs this year, which is proportional to the number of spots that would have been allocated to a Wisconsin District ((48 WI teams / 3130 total teams) * 600 CMP spots = 9.2 spots). If that proportion stays the same, we'd get 12 spots at the St. Louis halfchamps next year.

I included a map of the current team distribution below. The Milwaukee metro has 25 teams. I think a good distribution of events could be one in Milwaukee, one in Appleton, and another in La Crosse. That would give the vast majority of teams that aren't completely isolated a "home" event within driving distance. 3 events would give a max of 120 event plays, leaving up to 24 spots open for local teams to have 3rd plays or to welcome back teams from Indiana or Michigan.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Of the 9 that went to champs this year 3 qualified outside of Wisconsin and 1 was from the waitlist.

So Wisconsin really only sent 5 teams to champs this year which is 1 less than we can currently send each year in the regional model.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Teams near MN may choose to do regionals there (Minneapolis, Duluth), and not join the WI District.

What about creating a WI/Northern IL District?

Teams near Lacross and Appleton/Greenbay could still do 2 districts (with the 2nd in Milwaukee). Teams in Milwaukee could go south for a 3rd or more districts.

What happens if Teams in One District play in another? Michigan has a District event in Escanaba. Teams from GB may want to go there.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

When regions go to a district ALL teams in that region have to play in the district.

There have been talks in the past about doing a multi state region, but the trend is moving away from that. Being a single state district makes more sense when you are talking to companies about sponsorship, all money stays in Wiscosin and you can tout being the Wiscosin State Champion.

Teams in districts are free to pay and play in other districts or regionals. Points are not accumulated for playing in another district(for now) or a traditional regional.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Shouldn't that be 120 event plays (40 * 3 = 120)? (I agree with the 24 as 120 - 48 * 2 = 24)

If Wisconsin went to districts and an Appleton area event were a different week than Escanaba and Sault Ste. Marie, 857 might consider playing there.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Yup, I just mistyped 120. Fixed.


So part of the goal of this thread is to discuss the transition to Districts. Does anyone know how much work has been done to reach that goal or if anyone from the Wisconsin Regional planning committee is on board? From one of the many Minnesota threads, the process is roughly:

1. Start a company (WI FIRST?)
2. Find people to run it
3. Get permission from FIRST
4. Raise money; buy a field; rent a building for storage
5. Start planning events

Luckily we would only be jumping from 1 official event to 4 or 5. Between all the big old teams in the state who run FLL and VEX events, RoboFest, and the Week 0 events, volunteers shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Makes it tough on teams that are on the WI side of Minneapolis and Duluth.

Maybe we just have to define the district carefully to exclude the NW corner of the State.

I can see playing in another regional. You have the chance of advancing.

What's the point in playing in another district if you don't get points? I guess if that District is week 1, then you get some practice before your Districts matches that count.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Lately the trend looks like it's toward Districts being full states (Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina), or several smaller states mixed together. It would be nice to allow some teams to opt out, but based on what happened with teams in the rural Pacific Northwest and MI's Upper Peninsula, that might not be allowed. Maybe a good goal would be, if Districts come to WI for the 2018 or 2019 season, to start enough new teams out west for either a Madison or Eau Claire event.

And yeah, a big goal of attending a 3rd District event that doesn't count could be for practice. You could also give a rookie drive team a shot, give younger members more time in the pits, and get to play with different teams.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Any movement to bring an event to Madison? When I'm at school, I don't get to help out as much as I'd like. Bringing an event to Madison (Alliant Energy Center or possibly Kohl Center) would be great. It also might give those teams on the west side of the state a nicer journey for their second event.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Google Maps tells me that Appleton is about 40 minutes closer to the west side (near Minneapolis/St. Paul) than Madison is. Eau Claire->Appleton / Madison is about equal time. La Crosse to Madison is about 40 minutes less than to Appleton.

Interesting mixed bag of travel times.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I think it would be great to eventually have an event in Madison. Right now, though, it doesn't look like there are enough teams in the area to justify it. That seems crazy considering that 850,000 people live in the Madison metro and it's home to the best engineering program in the state. An event there would only realistically be day-trippable for 3 or 4 teams, though. We don't have enough teams overall to justify a 4th event, and I don't think Madison makes more sense than either La Crosse or Appleton.

If the Madison CSA had the same team density as the Milwaukee CSA, they would have 10 teams. If they had the same team density as the La Crosse metro, they would have 38!

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Speaking from the team in Madison (1306), there just doesn't seem to be that much interest in FRC. My team has members from almost every Madison area school and even schools as far as 45 minutes away from our education center and we still only have around 30 students. FLL is very popular in Madison but there needs to be more continuation from FLL to FRC, which is something we are trying to implement.

Back on topic, I feel like a Lacrosse regional would be better suited because there is a higher density of teams there and it is closer to the Twin Cities than Madison is.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I would think the La Crosse Center would make a pretty good venue for a regional. If I remember right there is some convention space right next to the arena that would make a good pit area. If you went to districts, where would you have it at? Either Central or Logan?

I'm impressed with the rookie showings in the district rankings.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

A very dedicated and driven group has formed to create a proposal and move Wisconsin to districts. It is our goal to have this happen by 2018.


When Michigan went to districts in 2009, it made ZERO sense for the UP teams as they all traveled 8 hours to get to the Wisconsin regional, districts forced them to drive 8+ hours twice to the LP to compete. Look up some of my posts from 2009 I fought it hard. But I can tell you that districts has made the teams in the UP better, and now there are 2 events in the UP.

Madison is on the list of potential sites in the future. A member of the group has just moved to Madison from Michigan and what he did in Michigan is help grow teams and track that growth. He is going to be a great asset to the Madison area and Wisconsin as a whole. I am looking forward to working with him.

Edit: I will add that the 2 venues you suggested would not be used as a district event location unless the venue was donated. The point of districts is to lower the cost of the events both for the teams as well as running the event.

With the budget of the current Wisconsin Regional we could run 3 district events and a state championship, and the quality of those events wouldn't really suffer compared to what you get at a traditional regionals.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

That 3rd district is only $500-$1000(depending on which district you play in) instead of $4000, and you get 12 qual matches. Its a much better value. And again nothing is stoping a team from going to a traditional regional as well. Many teams in districts do this.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

The topic of official inter-district play is being brought up at the district meeting this week. Hopefully this is something that can be changed.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Regarding Venue:

A lot of Districts are held in High School Field Houses. Brookfield East, Brookfield, WI, has a nice new field house, that could possibly be used.

It seems like most Districts are Friday/Saturday. I'm not sure if WI schools are ready to give up their Field Houses on a Friday when school is in session. So, Sat/Sun events with setup Friday afternoon-evening?

Where would the WI Championship be played? If at the UWM Panther Arena, wouldn't that be the same cost as a regional? 2nd venue in the Milwaukee area? Or, same as the 1st venue?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Regarding Staffing:

To run 3 events, the Distrcit will need a major step-up in volunteers, especially in key positions. I could see 3 Head Refs, and 3 Lead Robot Inspectors rotating between the 3 District Events (they would be regular refs, and regular robot inspectors when they are not the head/lead).

Other positions (Announcers, FTA, CSA, Scorekeepers, etc.) are just as important, but don't need as many per event as you need Ref's and RI's.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I'm glad to see a lot of people talking about and interested in this topic. My quest began after 2015 Wisconsin Regional and Eric has picked up where I have been unable to.

Ideally, I could see the state championship rotating between UW locations - Milwaukee has the Klotsche Center, Oshkosh has the Kolf Center Fieldhouse, and I'm sure the other UW schools have suitable locations as well. Rental rates for those two arenas aren't bad at all, and if we can get the schools on board to donate, then it is even better.

Bradley Tech in Milwaukee would be suitable for a district event as well, but parking is a bit of a problem (no main lot, all street parking).

As much as I would love to see the state split and half go with IL and half go with MN, it just isn't going to happen. It's not a perfect solution for all teams - some of those remote teams that only go to one MN event would now likely have to travel two or three times to play in other parts of WI. Teams that current travel to a second regional could see savings for 2 districts + DCMP, depending on if they need to stay overnight for the second district or the DCMP (putting a district event in Oshkosh/Appleton, Milwaukee, and La Crosse puts two districts within 60 miles of all but a few teams).

Current 2 regional team costs:
$5000 first event
$4000 second event
$3500 travel to non local event (bus for 4 days)
$3000 hotel for non local event (3 nights)
Total: $15500

Potential 2 district team costs:
$5000 for two district events
$2000 travel to non local district (bus for 3 days)
$2000 hotel for non local district (2 nights)
Total: $9000
$5000 for DCMP
$3000 travel to DCMP
$2000 travel to DCMP
Additional $10000 with far travel/lodging needed for DCMP

There are situations where the cost does go up*, but the possibility of having the district events on Saturday/Sunday makes me super happy so I actually have some vacation days left for, you know, vacation! And the kids don't have to miss so much school then. I will absolutely step up as a key volunteer for the event my team doesn't go to and will certainly help out where I can elsewhere. There are a lot of volunteers within the state that are less active than they used to be (myself included).

*Keep in mind that teams are eligible for the $5000 grant in the future, so that extra cost may be easy to overcome. I can only anticipate that growth will accelerate now because of the grant. We have over 300 FLL teams in the state right now - those kids are looking for FRC teams to join.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Idealy I'd like to do what New England does and run mostly Sat Sun events. This gets rid of students and teachers missing school and mentors having to use vacation time.

I had several talks with key individuals in several districts in St. Louis this year and they are more than willing to send people to help volunteer and train if necessary.

Also Michigan requires each team at each competition they attend to supply 2 volunteers, this is another fantastic way to build up the volunteer base. I can speak from experience that parents love to volunteer if your team isn't big enough to sacrifice 2 members.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Another plug for this, because I know it works. My team's volunteer corps has grown steadily, from one person six years ago, to twenty-three in 2016: One LRI, one CSA, one judge advisor, one game announcer, four referees, five robot inspectors, four field resetters, three pit admins, two event coordinators and one VC. No FTAs or Head Refs, yet -- but I can see that coming also.

We became a district event host team in 2013, and have no plans to stop doing that. Our volunteer presence is a little above average, but not all that unusual in Michigan. I know there are at least a dozen FiM teams with even more volunteer commitment, and more than that who will gladly arrive early and/or stay late to help with set-up and pack-up.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

This is some of the magic of districts right here.

I will continue to watch Michigan and dream about what it would be like if CA didn't have 5 RD's with little motivation to make Districts happen...

-Mike

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

It's really funny the rest of us haven't really organized yet. I know for a fact we'd be completely ready to throw a 40 team District-Event here in Berkeley with minimal effort, and I know a few other similar situations.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

These district numbers as encouraging for the lower-mid tier teams (funding) as the cost is more feasible than two regionals. FRC 4607 is a low to mid-tier team and I would welcome this.

Wisconsin has a few things going for it that MN does not:
1. A large base of mature teams (93, 1714, 1716, 2202 come to mind).
2. Fewer teams to organize (52 vs 208)
3. A rather organized and robust outstate organization in the 7 rivers coalition (yes, some are in MN) that can help lead the charge.

I love our large regionals in the Midwest - but districts seems more viable to the sustainability of FRC. My greatest concern for FRC is if we face another economic dip like we had in 2007; can we continue with large regionals?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

It would also serve MN great if WI would go districts first. My greatest concern for all of this is if MN tries to go to Districts before WI - would FIRST hoist WI, ND, and IA on MN?

This is a decision above my paygrade - but I think that with WI going on their own it will then lessen the burden for MN.

Iowa is south enough that they could continue working with MO, NE, and KS so that is not a concern. However, ND only has three teams - they cannot go it alone nor expect to travel to IA (or could they?). If MN has to absorb the three ND teams, what does that do for the MSHSL Tournament? MN cannot lose the partnership with the MSHSL - not without consequences. This partnership is a major selling point with new schools/teams.

I don't like to cheer on WI, but in this case I will! Get it done Badgers!

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I think this is a huge aspect, though your team list doesn't do it justice. I did a quick look through Eric's rankings, and I counted 18 teams who (I think) have been around 10+ years. That would be 37.5% of WI teams. I'm completely guessing here, but I feel like that is a pretty high % vs other regions in FIRST.

I'm excited to see when/how the district movement comes to WI. I am a bit disappointed I moved to CA before getting to experience districts in WI.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I agree. In the moment, that is the few teams that popped in my head as I have seen them in action (I am ashamed that I left out 2826 - a team I have incredible respect for). Wisconsin is prime for Districts. When I look at WI, there are so many great teams that can aid in this. I hope that WI can get this done.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as the Upper Midwest looks at bringing in two more districts to aid WI, MN, IA, and ND. I hope LaCrosse can gain a regional in 2017. And I know that MN is looking to add another in 2018 - hopefully in St Cloud. If these two locales can get off the ground - we could see districts come to the states of WI and MN shortly.

*By the way - MORE has one of the greatest team apparel concepts. After our rookie season we looked at adopting the Navy Workshirts for 4607 - but after seeing yours and 2052's, we will continue with our plain Black tees and Wind Jackets for the foreseeable future.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Is there any talk of IL going to Districts? If so, my thoughts are:

Keep WI a Free State. Let MN and IL go to districts. Then WI teams would be free to join Districts in MI, MN, and IL, whichever is more convenient for them.

Let's say that Milwaukee teams joined IL, then we could hold an IL District event in Milwaukee.

The LaCross and Greenbay areas could decide if they want to organize with MN or MI. With Milwaukee holding an IL District event, they could hold an IL district event in LaCross or Greenbay, and be no different than a WI District.

Let's say that Greenbay Teams decided to join MI Districts, then Escanaba would be the closest, and then the issue is there enough teams for a Greenbay District event? If they held it early in the season, then I could see WI teams going for a "practice" event.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

That's not how districts work, as of now at least. Entire states have to go to districts when said state goes.

Also in all my talks in St Louis not a single person thought it was a good idea to go districts with multiple states.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

My point was for WI NOT to go to the District model. Then, with states around WI going to District, teams could choose if and which they wanted to join.

In some respects, there are advantages to having a Regional surrounded by Districts. If MN, IL, and MI all were Districts, WI would be a convenient place for teams to come for a Regional. Also, Milwaukee and Chicago get a few international teams. If IL and WI went to Districts, then we would loose those international teams.


WI particular, or in general? If general, there are already multi-state districts:
New England, Pacific North West, Chesapeake, Mid Atlantic.

Any reason for WI and IL not to form one Midwest District? Most of the IL and WI teams are near Milwaukee and Chicago. District Champs could alternate between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

If IL went to districts, and this was a possibility, (sponsor-willing) I'd drop regionals and go to IL to do districts in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, I doubt that would ever be an option afforded to us.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I fully support any plan that moves Wisconsin towards districts, as I feel that it would benefit all teams in the area and improve our impact by making FRC more financial viable to both current and new entrants. It seems at this point the most direct path to this goal is a Wisconsin District, even though in many ways it would make sense to not divide the midwest along state lines.

With that said, please forgive my ignorance as I ask a few questions that have been running through my head over the course of build season:

1. Where does the mandate that entire regions (states?) move to the district model come from? Is it from FIRST HQ?

2. Is there something preventing a team from "opting in" to a district (or opting out for that matter)? While I believe that districts would be a benefit on the whole, there may be specific teams within the region that may be hurt by the district model. I'll give some hypothetical examples below, mostly as a thought experiment.

A Milwaukee area team is working on their financial plans. After doing the analysis, they find it would be more beneficial (for whatever reason) for them to go to 2 travel districts (assuming Indiana in this case - as they are currently the closest district), rather than the Wisconsin regional plus another travel regional. Is there any way for this team to join the district?

A Chicago area team is located over the Indiana border. They are a bit resource limited, and typically only attend a travel event once every 2-3 years. Before Indiana became a district they attended the Midwest Regional every year, with no travel costs incurred. Now their registration now funds them for 2 district events, but they can only attend 1 most years. Is there a way to opt out of their district in preference of attending just the Midwest Regional?

Again, note that these examples are purely hypothetical to serve as both thought experiments as well as playing a bit of devil's advocate both for and against the district model.

The crux of my question is, why are we tied to the fate of our region? Why can't a team decide what would be best of them, with the opportunities and challenges afforded to them?

I'm fully of the belief that the district model will be the model of FRC moving into the future. It almost seem inevitable, given the rapid growth in the number of teams over the past few years. Until that time however, it seems that teams should be able to make their own decisions, rather than decisions being made for them.

This rambled on a little longer than I intended. Eric, thanks for pulling all of this information together and getting (or keeping -- depending on your view) the conversation going.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

The blind leading the blind here: Its a lot easier to keep things within state lines. I think this has to do with funding and things like State-specific grants/sponsorship (i.e if UW had a large grant for STEM programs but can only be used in WI... the grant might be too big for a team to win, but a prime candidate for whatever FIRST in WI group is running districts. If we were the WI-IL districts, then FIRST in WIIL wouldn't be eligible).

I'm guessing the biggest problem is [see above]. For a Chicago team that is practically in Indiana, lets say they joined Indiana Districts... if Indiana FIRST received Indiana Grant Money that can only be used in Indiana, how does Indiana FIRST make sure they aren't violating that grant and using the money to benefit Chicago-Border Team?

I could be totally wrong here, but this is what I have gathered is the biggest problem for multi-state districts.

Edit: Removed false information

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Ernst - The process you outline is very accurate.
Yes, the Wisconsin Regional Planning Committee is actively discussing and planning an eventual transition to the district model. We have been working closely with FIRST HQ as well as leaders from the Minnesota and Illinois programs.

Eric - Let's put this group in front of the Regional Planning Committee, so we can work together toward a common goal of growth and sustainability of FIRST programs in Wisconsin. Grass roots efforts are great, as is the passion of the FIRST community here, but multiple groups operating in a vacuum might prove counter-productive.

Invitations for the post-season RPC Town Hall meeting will be coming out soon - that would be a great venue to get everyone together!

Jeff Fenstermaker
Co-Chair - WI FRC Regional Planning Committee

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

It actually has been a mandate that when a state goes to districts the entire state goes, no opting out.

Also the discussion about single state vs multi state is a sense of identity and ease of finding sponsorship. With a single state district you can go to companies in that state and tout how their money is staying in the state and that they are sponsoring the STATE championship. When state lines are crossed things get muddled. Also multi state districts communication and agreement on how things are run get exponentially more difficult.

Another thing is the difficulty of a multi state district especially with IL is that instead of only needed 4-5 total events the 1st year moving to districts we would need 10-12. That's a much bigger undertaking and a really hard sell.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Right now HQ is preventing teams from opting in/out of other districts, I'm sure there is some push back from the districts themselves but i don't think it is as big as HQ.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I found this in the District Planning Guide

Only teams in the geographic area can participate in the District, and a team in a District can go to a Regional only after registering for two events in their District.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

The "mandate" to do districts within some sort of regional border is logistical. When placing an event (whether it's a district or a regional), you need to ensure its properly located close to teams, that it serve the teams properly. Allowing teams to "opt in" or "opt out" makes doing that a whole lot harder, especially in the border areas. You end up with a chicken/egg scenario - you need to know which teams are in before you plan events, but teams want to know where events are going to be before they decide if they want in or not. So, you have to draw some border ahead of time. Having teams from relatively far away truck in creates even more problems, as you need to ensure two plays for everyone in your district, and you often don't have many extra plays to go around.

So, you draw a line and say "everyone on this side is in this district" and go from there. Often, it's easiest to draw the line at the state border, but that isn't a strict rule. I can picture a geographic situation that would encourage a state to split in half - for example, if there are two distinct clusters of teams a long way apart, or if there is a single large cluster with only a few outliers near the border of another state with a nearby large city.

The other benefit to going by state boundaries is support - many locations (like Michigan) receive support specific to their state. It would be difficult to include outside teams with the same level of support from the local FIRST organization if things like money or state competitions had to stop at the state line due to external reasons.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Not any different from WI doing 3, and IL doing 7.

Maybe WI can go to district, and when IL is ready, there can be a discussion about whether to expand the WI District to a WI/IL District, or keep them separate.

Regarding State Specific Grants: Maybe the combined WI and IL Districts can be made up of two sub organizations: the FirstWI, and FirstIL. The sub-organizations are tasked with arranging District events in their state. So State specific grants can go to the sub-organization.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Regarding this assumption.

Could you follow this process for an opt-out:

1) Draw the District boarder
2) Teams within boarder default to opt-in
3) Teams can choose to opt-out by certain date in mid-late summer
4) All teams that remain opt-in have district events planned around their location

I think this could work marginally well.

I do see your point though. If a district region has 100 teams near each other, and then 20 teams in a single removed location, this method could definitely break down quick. Imagine 19 of those 20 teams opt-out, leaving 1 team a part of the district structure, but geographically removed from the other 100 district participants. That is a real bummer for that 1 team, since they will have to travel to attend both district events. If, on the other hand, no team could opt out, that 1 team would likely have at least one district event local to them, given the 20 teams in their region that all participate in their district.

Just some thoughts.

-Mike

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Planning committees need a longer lead-time than that in order to secure locations.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I think allowing teams to buy into a district would be interesting. This could possibly allow some teams that border a district area and even international teams to participate in a district for a year. This would obviously need to be done well before registrations so the DPCs have the number requirements they need.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I don't think "need" is the word you are looking for.

"Like" would be more appropriate, in my opinion.

When booking high school gyms, you don't need a full calendar year. 8-9 months is workable.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. My experiences booking high school gyms for weekends is 8-9 months is plenty of time to book venues.

Didn't Michigan move to districts in the summer before 2009? They seemed to be able to find 7 venues.

Where there is a will...

-Mike

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

This. I don't know the typical lead time for districts, but at least for regionals discussions have already started with venues. I know of at least 1 regional date that was already known before champs (although contracts hadn't been signed yet, so it could change).

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I have no real involvement with how NEFIRST (or PNW, or MAR, or CHS) acquires funding, but this is the first time I've heard state-based grants as a reason to avoid districts across state lines. I'm not saying this isn't a real problem, I'd just like to hear from the folks in New England, PNW, MAR, and the Chesapeake Region who have faced roadblocks.

The small districts really don't seem ideal to me... smaller regions are more likely to have multiple weeks where their field isn't in use (same field cost split across fewer teams / smaller region), don't have as much variety of team lists at their events to introduce more changing dynamics throughout the season, have much bigger 'jumps' to make when the region grows (or shrinks) and an event needs to be added or removed, and most significantly (for now, at least) it often forces teams near the borders of the districts to travel further... this map actually shows very well all the teams that currently travel far because of being close to district borders... note it seems to hurt teams more who are on the regional side of a regional/district border (western SC, northern Ohio, northern Idaho, northern Florida) than the teams on the district side. Also note, some of the worst situations have yet to come, such as if MN and WI are not in the same district, teams in northwestern WI are cut off from MN or if IL and MO are not in the same district, teams in Greater St Louis on the IL side would suddenly have much further to go. Really, it'd be nice to have people with some varied experience in large and small districts to compare...

Allowing teams to opt into or out of districts would certainly be good for minimizing the difficulties of border teams, but as being discussed, that path isn't without its problems.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

i doubt Michigan just woke up in the middle of the summer and said "hmm, I think it's time to change our competition structure" and made a district announcement the same day. There was significant planning that took place before the announcement, and I would assume that included items like identifying venues to use.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

According to my talks with Gail in St Louis this year, they decided to go to districts in July of 2008. And everything fell into place after. Im sure there were venues in mind but I do not believe that they were reserved.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

CHS is currently in the process of naming some possible venues. I know the venues were not locked down until mid to late summer last year.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I don't believe everything just fell into place. "Districts" were not even a concept before 2008. They had to be invented.

From an old thread just before the start of the 2008 season, the exchange below is a faint glimpse into the thoughts that motivated FiM. I was not in Michigan at that time, but moved here a year later.

---------

*Sorry the old links don't work any more -- FIRST's new site.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Yes I understand that everything didn't JUST fall into place. But the decision to go to districts was made in July/August of 2008. 3 people were the driving force behind it and the ones who did the bulk of the work to make the move.

The fact that 3 people were able to do it shows that its actually easier than people think. I also believe that the smaller the region the easier it is to make the move and grow with the teams over time instead of having 300 teams and making the plunge. I do not envy Minnesota, California, or Texas.

I don't agree with this but Gail believes that if there are 40 teams in an area that want to go to districts they should has that's really all you need to go to districts.

Also a district championship is not a requirement it is the option of the district to hold one or have team qualify only by their district event performance.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I doubt that they did that too. That would be quite the eventful day.

Could potential district identify 2-3 "extra" venues, begin the process of booking them all well in advance, and then drop a few when they identify their team geographic break-down mid-summer?

On that note, how do districts plan venue location while considering rookie registration continues all the way through December?

-Mike

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

If they're anything like how we run things in MN, they have a pretty good idea ahead of time where their rookies are going to be. There are always some surprises, but I can tell you our RD already has a good idea of the number of rookies we'll have in the state next year, and I assume he only knows that number by having a list of schools somewhere that he eexpects to take the plunge.

What gets difficult is needing to hold back spots for those rookies as they try to find funding, knowing that there are teams on the waitlist you have to defer informing almost until kickoff!

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Cross your fingers and hope you built in enough extra room to accommodate all of the rookies. I've heard of instances where last minute venues were added to add more room. This is another reason official inter-district play would be nice, if you run out of some room and the neighboring district has some open spots extra teams can be placed easier.

I know CHS is looking to add an additional event next year because of growth but if official play can be opened with NC that event might not be needed.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I can't comment on the situation in WI, but as a general rule, anything that moves an area to districts as soon as possible is most likely a good idea. Having "opt-in" teams is an interesting idea though, and here's something that makes sense to me.

Late December, Year (-1): Teams declare an interest in joining a district from another district or a regional area for year (1). If a team is geographically zoned for a district, that team cannot leave for a regional area.

Kickoff, Year (0): "Opt-in/Opt-out" window for year (1) closes.

Competition Season, Year (0): Events play out, Planning Committees get feedback on events

Booking Season, Year (0): Planning Committees book events, with an accurate team count from December, plus expected rookies.

Competition Season, Year (1): Teams that have opted in/opted out now compete in their desired location

This makes teams compete in the district/regional area they would rather prefer not to for a year, but after that they can move to their desired district.

Thoughts?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Jon,

I know RD's work hard to identify and register new teams every year.

However, every RD already has a "good idea of the number of rookies" they will have next year. It's called their FIRST mandated growth figures. And it's their job (literally) to meet or surpass that figure.

Maybe your RD is way more prepared than ours (seems likely, since MN has experienced amazing growth over the past decade!), but our RD's are still talking to many schools all the way through the fall. Seems like nothing is set in stone until that team makes an account in TIMS and registers.

Matt,

I know MI has added some last-minute districts occasionally in the last few years.


Regardless, back to venues, when you increase your search scope to gymnasiums, a lot of flexibility opens up (more venues, less high-profile demand to compete for weekends, motivation for schools to host STEM activities, etc). I think 8-9 months is plenty of time to commit venues that adequately meet a schedule/location criteria set up by a District Organizer.

Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. I think there are much, much bigger challenges to districts than booking venues only 8 months in advance.

-Mike

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

+1

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Depending on the makeup of your communities in the district system, you likely have a vast supply of venues to choose from. This helps the district system have more leverage at the table than the in the regional system. For example, I would be surprised if there are many places able to support the double-double regional structure in MN besides the two places they already exist.

The district system top to bottom is far more fluid by design. I expect Chesapeake to shift to the WashingtonFIRST/PNW agreement with Manchester for the 2017 or 2018 season. The model there is effectively WAFIRST paying a franchise fee to HQ and the franchisee gets to run their operation however they want within the set rules. RPCs from my understanding always operated on a spectrum of influence and support from Manchester where newer or struggling events get more support than older events, but District systems are mostly left to their own devices for the better.

You shift from planning these monolithic events in the old 60+ team regionals with costs going over 100k for venue rental down to a very nimble schedule. You are not locked into venues that have to support the power consumption, seating, food and drink, janitorial and security, and etc for 60+ teams at a 3.5 day event. Rather, the district system is motivated intrinsically to pat down the budget ask for favors and make concessions they wouldn't be allowed to under the regional system, while simultaneously having more control of their own destiny that can lead them to buy certain equipment in a capital outlay plan. Why keep renting pipe and drape and AV equipment when you can find the money and buy and store it yourself? I mean, you already have fields in a warehouse somewhere; this stuff can probably squeeze into one of our trucks!

So I mean, you get this upside of freedom to control your own destiny as a geographic region or state-oriented program. You likely have more avenues to fundraise because of your new/newly more important 501c3 status and a much simpler model to follow than the regional model. However much like a young adult leaving the nest after she lands her first real job, it comes with it certain challenges. Budget for your own insurance, your own fields and associated equipment. You have to figure out whether or not to buy the really nice scissors to cut things now or buy the really cheap ones at the event site and where and how you would store one vs the other (That one was oddly specific for a reason; I know that's come up before in meetings). Maybe you want to buy your own A/V equipment? Not Manchester's problem anymore.

I haven't even said the "v" word yet. That's a train I think a lot of district systems will always be at least a little behind on, and every time a VC chooses the wrong fork in the road in terms of recruiting vs retention or reassignment vs termination, they run the risk of going in circles and ending up further behind than what is acceptable or tenable. That's not an envious task.

Back on topic; fun experiment! I would love to see more areas transition to the district model so areas can send more teams deeper into competitions and provide a real sense of seasonal progression outside of the "win or die" model.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Personally, I have never understood the "state money" argument for transitioning to districts since most of those same sponsors probably already sponsor the local regional event that is bringing in many out of state teams...

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Even so, Superior WI to Carbondale IL (about the furthest span) is 11h20m according to Google Maps. By comparison, Calumet MI to Temperance MI is only about 10h. If the WI-IL district had a team density like Michigan, that would be rather a far distance. And geographically, the LP of Michigan is the vast majority of teams, and is a land area comparable to Wisconsin or Illinois individually.

PS: The only time I know of so far where there has been a change to a district border happened (in 2016?) with PNW where the one Alaska team wanted to be part of the district, and so PNW is now WA, OR, and AK.

PPS: Woo! 1,000 posts!

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Essentially - the further west you go, it makes more sense for individual states to go their own way. At least as long as there are enough teams to do so viably. My concern is always with ND and the partnership that MN has with our State High School League (MSHSL).

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

I think it's more targeted towards recieving government grants/funding directly to the local district organization.

You've just described Pennsylvania which is partially in MAR.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Most people prefer to think of Philly as part of Jersey and not part of Pennsylvania. Because, well, it's Philly...

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

The Pennsylvania portion of MAR isn't just Philadelphia. It extends all the way to Harrisburg, which encompasses the entire eastern third or so of the state.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Discussion on districts for Wisconsin is on the agenda for the June 1st town hall meeting. If your team hasn't rsvpd for this event do so soon.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Where?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

An email was sent out to all teams main contacts with information on the meeting. To RSVP for the meeting I would email Jeff Fenstermaker, you can find his email on the Wisconsin regional website.

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Will this event be streamed or will a video of the discussion be posted at a later date?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Is this event open to all stakeholders or just teams?

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

Email that was sent to teams

Re: Wisconsin District Rankings
 

The line is pretty fuzzy going North-South somewhere around Harrisburg. 4266 (when they were still around) was given the option to join MAR, and they opted not to.