Chief Delphi - California District Proposal

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - California District Proposal (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149136)

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure (Post 1594902)

I count 1,494 public and private high schools in Southern CA.

Awesome list! Just a note, Design Tech High School (row 2364) has an FRC team, 5940 :)

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1594827)

I've gotten a note from someone who's looked at a lot of venues that maybe a third--at the outside--of high schools in SoCal could actually host a regional.

Except the high school would not be hosting a 60+ team regional over 4 days but rather a 40 team district with a need for 1200 seats and spots for 400 cars over 2.5 days.

The room for 1200 people in bleacher style seats and 400 parking spots is the biggest deal breaker I've seen when looking into venues. The next most common deal breaker is lack of pit space.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594904)

Note on pulling team numbers into the first sheet. Some school names are duplicated (there are three Pioneer High Schools, so it shows 668 at three different schools). Unsure how to fix that.

Most of the dupes should be fixed now.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1594883)

I know it at least one of the CHS events this year the pits were split between a cafeteria and a small gym. You can get creative with the pit locations. The more rigid requirements are the bleacher and field requirements.

Some more quick context from the two CHS events I made appearances at this season (NoVa and Central Maryland) (I'm going from memory here, mostly, so hopefully all the events I was at aren't bluring too much). Both had the field in the school's gym and the pits in some other room. That second room was cafeterias, libraries, anywhere that they could be squeezed in. IIRC, one of those had the pits spread out over multiple rooms. It was definitely a tight fit, but it worked. Here are a couple pictures I was able to find of the pit/field setup at the Central Mayland event. In the first picture, the pits are behind me, sorry I don't have a better angle (I think it shows how they could look in a cafeteria though).

EDIT:
Let me also share a picture from a smaller (district sized) regional, Tech Valley. In that picture, the pits are behind the curtain in a small auxiliary gym.

Re: California District Proposal

Rather than more words here on an ever-increasing chain, I've published a White Paper as summation of current status, and to refocus the topic. See it here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

I've no interest in producing competing white papers, or being staid in my point of view. The District Model is meritorious. We have to find a way to implement it despite our multi-varied views.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpetito (Post 1594927)

Joe,

Thank you for the well thought out white paper. I am excited to hear you see the benefits that a district model can bring to our FRC program in California, but even more excited to see many of considerations and proposals you have put forward in your post. I'd mostly be giving thumbs up if I tried to address your whole post, so I just wanted to address the proposals set out at the end, and keep the discussion moving forward.

Quote:

* Start small, prove it, expand based on success. This is not like going to space or the moon where we killed people meanwhile. But we built our capacity for spaceflight incrementally, with success propelling the next steps, and then the objective, a combined engineering/human relationship challenge. Maybe Northern Cal would be willing to be an incubator for the District model, proving it, gaining experience meanwhile to overcome our SoCal structural difficulties.

From my point of view, we have already started small. Looking at the list of California Venues, I am already seeing many HS venues that have hosted a off-season or Regional that can support 36-40 teams. This tells me that those dedicated California FRC communities that host Offseasons have already shown the viability of their venues to run a district event. Seems like we've already "started small" on venues, so now we are ready to fill out our venue repertoire at get a confident line up that meets the population needs (as you noted, 45 miles in LA could mean 2+ hour commute!)

Quote:

* It's incumbent on us to go to places where the District model is successful, observe, shadow the principal players to better grasp the macro/micro views.

I've discussed Districts with many movers and shakers at MI, NE, IN, and PNW. This includes DPC Chairs, BoD members, and some of the creators of the original District Pilot Program in MI. You are welcome to contact some of these individuals as well with your questions, just PM if you'd like, or ask me specific questions.

Quote:

* A simple, workable way must be found for teams outside the west coast Continental US to have choice of venue despite whatever District rules that others must adhere to. It's difficult enough to travel the distance to get here, and special accommodation must be provided.

This is very tricky. I feel the same angst as you, areas like South America, Mexico, China and Hawaii all have a regular presence in California. The walls put up between districts are partly self-inflicted, and partly established by FIRST HQ. I'd be very interested in seeing a way we could tweak district boundary rules to allow our distant friends to compete. Have there been ideas on how that could work?

Initial thought: An outside Regional team could register for any CA event (after CA teams get their 1st and 2nd events locked), pays 5k for FIRST HQ, 1k gets kicked back to FIRST CA, and the only bummer is this outside FRC team plays at the event like a game of Who's Line is it Anyway, where the points don't matter and they don't qual for CMP.

Throw stones :)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594934)

Initial thought: An outside Regional team could register for any CA event (after CA teams get their 1st and 2nd events locked), pays 5k for FIRST HQ, 1k gets kicked back to FIRST CA, and the only bummer is this outside FRC team plays at the event like a game of Who's Line is it Anyway, where the points don't matter and they don't qual for CMP.

What if regional teams get to treat the district event as a regional? So if they win the district and they get to move on to world champs, and the distinct points are just "loss." Simply the better team won.

No sure about how this would affect slots for champs. I guess it depends on how many open slots there are versus district slots.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan (Post 1594937)

Considering South champs will have a lot of wait list teams as it is, I think this would be a *valid solution.

*By valid I mean the math would work out fine for South champ slots but maybe the international teams wouldn't be the happiest with their only event being a small district event. That being said, California and the rest of the southwest can't just be held hostage from going to districts forever so this is inevitable. This would likely put pressure to have more events overseas.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1594944)

Emphasis mine.

Many of CA regional events are already held in high school and community college gyms. If CA needs to not only be open to international teams, but also provide a 200k regional for them, I suppose our hands are tied :rolleyes:

I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594946)

I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.

"Applying pressure" on overseas programs probably equates to killing them... I'd also be reluctant to travel to a mini-CVR/Ventura type event and probably end up switching to Vex. Running a domestic team is hard enough.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1594944)

Out of curiosity, what is the main barrier to overseas teams traveling to other regions? As more and more areas go to districts, can FIRST provide ways for non-USA teams to visit districts instead of going to out-of-the-way regionals?

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594946)

I also agree, the pressure needs to be on international groups to serve their populous with more events closer to teams.

-Mike

I disagree with you there. I get that this is a FIRST HQ problem, not a California problem, but for an international team in a new country, the barrier of entry to FRC can't be starting 50 teams and 3 events (a district region). There must be a way to participate in FRC short of that, whether it's attending a district or regional. They should have a roughly equal opportunity to qualify for a Championship as well.

Having said all that, it's totally acceptable for the leaders of FRC California to mostly or completely ignore the needs of international teams. It's a FIRST HQ problem.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn (Post 1594842)

Then why don't you stop complaining about every possible detail and actually try helping for once, Eric? If I have to read another comment about how you "want districts" but don't even try because you think they're not feasible, I'm going to puke. Stop putting down other's ideas because you're so pessimistic about this whole situation. The only thing Michael is doing is pushing for awareness of districts, nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't want to support awareness for districts in California, that's fine, but stop throwing your dirty laundry all over this thread. You're not helping any.

If you want to misread my posts, that's your problem.

I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick (Post 1594909)

That's still a pretty good amount of space. One of the sites on the list that's been posted I'm skeptical of--I know it can be done, but having been there it'll be a tight fit. (Not that small venues aren't.)

Mike and Pauline--check your PMs in a couple of minutes.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1594958)

I agree with you that international teams should not be expected to set up a district event, that seems crazy!

I assume international teams are represented in FIRST HQ? Does Israel, Australia or China have an RD or the like? These individuals (if they exist!) should be doing the work to ensure their programs can be sustained outside of California events.

If there is no representation for international teams currently at HQ, that leadership should be established soon, because their available event pool is shrinking every year. CA moving to districts is just one part of that.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

This is a consideration that has been discussed many times in the various New York district threads, as well.

There are a ton of possibilities...

International Teams Join the District
1. The team can attend 2 events like other teams and have to qualify for DCMP -> CMP
2. The team can attend one event, but get double points towards qualifying for DCMP -> CMP
3. The team attends X events, but with a larger points multiplier (4x for one event, 2x for 2 events, maybe) that lets them qualify straight for CMP alongside the rest of the district teams, but not be required to atttend DCMP, thus reducing the travel burden.
4. The district could set aside X slots at their DCMP for international teams (who attend as their only event), who earn points at some larger multiplier (4x?) towards qualifying for CMP
International Teams Don't Join the District
1. Teams can register for district events in the 3rd play window, and can qualify for CMP with one of the 6 slots the same way they do at regionals
2. The district could set aside X slots at DCMP for international teams, who could qualify for CMP via one of the 6 slots, like regionals
3. noop: international teams still can't compete in districts, they'll have to travel elsewhere.

Overall, I agree with Basal that this is primarily an HQ problem (although I personally like option 1c)