Re: California District Proposal
 

Same or adjacent weekends...Last year:
Week 3 UT
Week 4 CO; SAC
Week 5 ID; LV
Week 5* WCan
These events are the closest candidates for second events for teams in the intermountain west area.

Re: California District Proposal
 

To add to a few points...

This is one of the key things FiM has sought to address with districts in Michigan, by moving to High School venues, most if not all of the venue rental costs are eliminated (as many school do not charge for the use of the facilities), typically leaving only maintenance and staffing costs for custodial and security services. While these costs do also vary by venue, they are still, for the most part, orders of magnitude lower than the costs for a traditional regional venue.

Also not entirely true, FiM encourages districts to find local sponsorship for their events and will simply fill in any gaps in funding on an as-needed basis. Most events are geographically far enough away that they avoids overlap in requests for sponsorship, and because the costs are less, it makes more sense to seek out smaller sponsorships from smaller local businesses. Also by placing some of the burden of finding sponsors on the events, it causes district event planing committees to be more frugal with their money, further reducing costs (after all, what incentive do you have to cut costs if you know you're getting a blank check).

In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.

Re: California District Proposal
 

FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.

We also have some very awesome people who like to drive big trucks around the state :) But some good scheduling can limit that. Multiple weekends in a row with west coast events, or northern Michigan events, etc.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Out of curiosity, where do we have this problem? I dare say MN has some of the closest regionals around (the two in Duluth are in the same building, the two in Minneapolis are across the street from each other!, and those pairs are only a 2 hour drive apart), but we've never had those sorts of problems. Everyone involved is dedicated to making all 4 events work.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Well I was close, anyways. :rolleyes:

I work with some of the guys who put together the electrical boxes and breakers that come on the FiM trucks, and they had mentioned at one point that FiM had been interested in having a 5th set made, so we may have assumed there would soon be a 5th field.


On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.

Re: California District Proposal
 

+1

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't like the regional loophole to begin with, but if FIRST isn't going to change that, then I guess allowing the same with inter-district play at least sort of lowers the barrier for entry for it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "

"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.

...Another military truism is that successful planners must clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions. All real-world plans will require some assumptions, as information will never be perfect. However, a successful planner will then try to verify or falsify his assumptions, continuing to do so until successful--either proving the assumption true, making it into a fact, or proving it false. 3"

From chapter Educator Bias, in Ditching Shop Class; How Educators Feed the Achievement Gap

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Joe,

I suppose I don't understand what the above quote contributes to the discussion? Are you cautioning one person, a sub-set, or the group about making assumptions?

I've made a lot of assumptions in the California Districts Proposal, but I've also been fortunate to have many talented and generous individuals help me get data to verify or falsify those assumptions.

On that point...

I am hoping to release a Rev 2 of the California Districts Proposal this weekend! Updated budget figures, and other structural changes to make the proposal more friendly/compatible with FIRST HQ's goals for FIRST.

**NEEDED** If you are familiar with FRC team data sets and willing to help process some region/district-specific growth/retention rates over the past 10 years, or have analysis about district/regional growth/retention rates, please PM me! I'd like to have some additional figures/numbers to back up some additional theories being added to Proposal Rev 2.

Also, did Joe Ross calculate California District Points for 2016? I remember he calculated CA district points in past years.

Thanks everyone!

-Mike

Awesome! Really looking forward to seeing it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Michael-

Look forward to rev. 2. And again many thanks for the reflection on hard topics.

The thing on assumptions is for us to make plain what the difficulties are and how to solve them by getting as empirical as we can. As with the Walker spy case, many wished things to be so, assumed they were so, and got burned terribly. Don't mean to do the aspersion thing…

Others with more experience than I, who I respect greatly, with more hands on effort putting together FRC events are extremely leery of getting into a massive mess because some make assumptions about how easy it will be.

Joe
Slack Cutter

PS- The us above is all of us, me too!

Re: California District Proposal
 

It's hard to imagine that anyone involved in process is thinking "boy I hope I never have to double check our methods and assumption with the other people involved in California FRC".

Re: California District Proposal
 

I think the point is more:

We need to remove assumptions as much as possible. We need more data. But where assumptions are necessary, we need to act on those as soon as possible as far as finding out if they're right or wrong.

What looks really good on paper may or may not actually look really good in practice, and what works in practice is rather more likely to actually work on paper, though maybe not as well in theory as what looks good on paper. Remember that ideal physics problems take place in frictionless vacuums, while real physics has to deal with too much (or too little) friction with all contacting surfaces.

One of the best "rookie" events that I've heard about (or attended) was the O.C. Regional. Kind of helped that they'd eliminated a lot of the assumptions the previous fall at an offseason event, by testing the regional layout--and that test had learned from the same event the previous fall. Sure, there were some new elements to work around--but at the same time, dealing with 5 assumptions can generally beat dealing with 10, 20, or 50!

Re: California District Proposal
 

I wanted to give an update on this. I got some additional info from someone with FiM who is heavily involved with venue coordination:

Of all the events, I have been informed that only 3 had some actual form of floor damage, and only one did not return (of which floor damage was not the only reason).

I do know it has been a concern and a point of discussion at a few events. For instance, at one event we had a team cart that would tear slits in the tarps when turning/maneuvering. This was a stressful item for a few hours while trying to find the "root cause", but ended up not being a big deal by the time the event ended. Overall though, floor damage has not been substantive reason for venues not returning.

I was given various reasons for venues not coming back with many tied to change in support level of those championing the event. Champions could be a school administrator or a FRC leader.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ike,

Thanks for the feedback on this. All of this experience sharing has really helped the conversation move forward.

All,

I apologize for not posting the Rev 2 of the CA Districts proposal this weekend. I am working to post the updated proposal on Wednesday.

I will say, I owe a huge thank you to many FRC community members from across the continent for their help in collecting and analyzing data for Rev 2. I am humbled and indebted by your support.

Again, apologies for the delay.

Best,

-Mike