Re: California District Proposal
 

One additional point I haven't seen brought up that I think is worth mentioning--districts definitely promote having an 'identity' for the region. From my experience, teams and event staff have been generally more invested in both the competitive success and event experience of all teams at the event, maybe because we play each other much more frequently or we are labeled as being from a particular region.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I'm really not concerned about the production quality of whatever the CA state champ(s) would be.

With the amount of ego mixed with talent out here, I'm certain our state champ(s) will be quite a spectacle compared to all current CA regionals and current District Champs events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ego and talent are awesome, but if your 501c(3) decides to invest money in areas other than production/venue selection, it's a moot point. Unless you're purely talking about the on-field robot performance creating the spectacle?

Re: California District Proposal
 

The ego and talent I'm mentioning wouldn't stand for the 501c(3) to not allocate sufficient budget to make it the show they'd want. I'm certain they will be involved from the get go in the transition to districts, and will shape decisions in that direction.

Re: California District Proposal
 

+1. Personally, I'd much rather have the opportunity to play more matches, save money, and go to several smaller events than attend one "flashy" regional where smaller teams might get lost in the shuffle.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not only that, but also much more of a community. You become a lot closer with other teams when you see them 3 times a year versus once.

Re: California District Proposal
 

As far as I am aware, the reason you have and will likely continue to see higher quality production at the NE, PNW, and Chesapeake championships are because it is something that the powers that be can prioritize without having to make a trade-off they would deem unfavorable. As long as Lehigh is free and not other comparable or better venue is free in MAR, MAR will continue to get the CMP it gets. FiM won't tell you this themselves but if it wasn't considered a safety hazard, the FTAs would probably be transporting the fields across the state via a series of rickshaws just to save money. The switch to districts in Michigan and the Mid-Atlantic were not ones made primarily out of a desire to evolve and grow the region, but an imperative to keep the regions financially solvent in the short and long term. NE, PNW, and Chesapeake did not have an evolve or die mandate that MAR and FiM had.

PCH, NC, and Indiana each historically had one regional to their name (the 1 year stopgaps of the Crossroads Regional and the other Georgia event excluded). The model those three operate on for all intents and purposes are taking the money the old RPC could raise and are putting it across 5ish events of the same quality while trying to get favorable deals with venues and figure out parts of their states where they can get more investment into the program locally and in turn, statewide. In all seriousness, there are merits to an argument that small single-state districts are in the short term a very tenuous deal for teams and will require a lot of right moves on the chessboards to get bigger payoffs. An observation worth noting is that ISC had a very small chance to not actually award any points-based slots this year outside of the finalist captain and first pick. I think they got 1 more.

NE, PNW, and Chesapeake all are folding in 3+ very long standing and large regionals into one system (for NE, it was what, 5?) so it is probably fair to compare a potential California district system to these systems. While it is definitely true to say this for regionals, not all district systems are created equal either, it just so happens that environmental factors (venue availability, available funding sources) have a smaller impact when you have already torn down the barriers of massive financial overheads and limited roster spots at events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

You only see the other teams in your area at season events? My team sees them at off-seasons, various community out-reach events, training events, organized social events... a dozen times or so each year, and we aren't in districts!

Re: California District Proposal
 

All of the events you list have 40+ teams consistently?

Re: California District Proposal
 

Mike, just to be blunt here: when is the last time you were down this way, other than IE 2014?

Yes, there are many HS in CA. There have to be, because of all the people (and all the HS students). But, the biggest question is this:

Of all those HS, how many are able to fit a 40-team FRC event? I would argue that maybe half of them would have the capability just on the "covered open space" requirement--enough space within reasonable proximity for fields and pits. Then you can rule out a few more on the seating requirements--witness said IE 2014 (seating was extremely tight, from what I could see--and so was everything else; they needed more space). Call it a third of the HS's in SoCal would be workable with some minor tweaking and/or major schmoozing with the districts. Still quite a lot, but not as many as you might think.

For ready-to-go regional HS venues (that aren't already hosting), with local team(s) to get a quick manpower boost, I can think of maybe 1-3 offhand, depending on how split you want the pits, all of which have hosted a small-ish offseason. (Adding in a CC or two, that means that I can count 'em on one hand if barely.) For various compromises (lack of local teams, more separation of the pits/field, shorting the seating, or adjusting access), you can get a lot more, maybe up to 2/3 of the HS venues can make it work. The question becomes, how big of a compromise can you actually take before it's unworkable, and people let you know after the season?



Now, that being said, I think it's time to get creative--has anybody, anybody at all, ever tried to host an FRC event in a theater? As in, like, theater where plays are put on? I betcha that a gym-theater combo could do the trick--if they were close enough together and the stage was big enough. And I can think of a couple of those down here that might just barely be workable... Seating, comfy; all seats have good view; plenty of room backstage for queuing... Just need a covered walkway or bagged robots if it's a bit rainy.

And for some reason, folks down here seem to be starting to emphasize the arts a little bit...

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not enough seats. My high school built a 31,000 square foot theater recently but the seating capacity is only 492 people.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I've seen FLL in a small lecture hall. One off-season in Duluth, MN, (GGGT) had a bit of practice space on a theater stage in 2014.

My university has an 80,000 sq ft theater with 1067 seats and a stage that might be just barely big enough. And I'm not even sure where pits could go.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Granite State actually put their practice field on the stage in their auditorium. I think an auditorium might be useful for some of those things that aren't too large, but you just can't squeeze in elsewhere. Ex: Practice field, volunteer lounge, table displays, FLL demos. If it has large stage and is close enough, it might even be a decent place to put some pits.

Also, if you are looking for space/tools for a machine shop in a school that doesn't have a team, the drama club is a good place to check. A lot of schools (at least near me) have pretty decent shops that they use to build sets.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Speak for yourself. If I have to see 1086 or 2363 at another event I'll probably burn my eyebrows.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I was only thinking in-season when I wrote that. However, while there are plenty of teams that we do see at all sorts of events, there are also quite a few that we only get to see in season. There are teams from several hours away in NH, RI, and ME that we have formed relationships with due to districts. If we were still in regionals, we probably would have never even met most of those teams because they had other regionals closer to them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hey Eric!
Have you taken a look at the list of so cal venues that were all layed out to be able to fit at least 40+ teams. And thats just schools we know as of now, there is room to grow.

Many of these schools were even looked at for possible OCR and beach blitz locations. When you get rid of the show ready trusses, you actually gain a lot of locations that have the space for great events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hm... but do you get to see how vastly those teams improved? Get to compete against a team that changed strategy, added features, and more for a chance to be the best?
Do you get to be inspired by designs to add to your next competitions?
You don't if you only see them once, maybe twice, a year at a large event. No one iterates for outreach events, no one gets inspired in the technical sense from a robot that hasn't seen a match in months.
You do if you get to compete at more events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I have looked. Great, OC and northern San Diego is covered, and there's a couple possibilities in L.A.

Question: What percentage of "looked at" school locations is that? And, has anybody been looking in L.A. (and any other "holes") at other former offseason-event locations? (Might be worth contacting 599--they hosted the Classic for a while, but I can't speak for whether they'd be up for hosting an event these days.)


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.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Eric,

Step by step logic here would be really helpful. I'll take it question by question:

1. Do we agree that Northern California has proven to have a sufficient number of already-tested high school venues to support 6 district events in NorCal?

2. Does SoCal needs 9 to 10 district events, assuming 175 teams?

3. How many district events could be covered from the current list, and how many more options do you think we need in SoCal to be "relatively confident" (whatever that means to you)?

4. How many High Schools are in SoCal?

5. Divide that number by 3 (the magic number from your source), how many potential venues to host a district does that leave us with?

6. Does this seem like enough options?

Just like Mark Leon always said, "Do the Math, Save the World!"

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

You're the NorCal expert. I'm not going to make any statement here.

Assuming 175 teams, 9. Assuming that no rookies crop up, which would probably put the count to 10.

That's actually rather dependent. There's at least one glaring hole in that list where there's maybe two spots that are going to be difficult (the colleges--trust me, I've got friends that go to one of 'em, getting a college gym is difficult--the exception would be spring break if someone doesn't beat FIRST to it). There's large areas--northwest LA county for one--that aren't covered.

No idea.


Here's where the fun starts, though. Yes, there are enough high schools. (We'll assume that that's the case, because I don't have those numbers. I assume that you have made some effort to get them, or you wouldn't be asking.) The question is: At what cost? One of the possible places that the Torbot mentors were tossing around actually managed to nix an FLL Championship event being held there, simply by deciding that "hey, this robotics group has lots of money, let's charge them"--after said event had been held there previously. We should be out of CIF season, so that's less of an issue (Spring Scrimmage got bumped by a CIF basketball game). You've also got the "skeptical administrator" and the "Sure, pay us an arm and a leg" and the "Sorry, booked up by X, Y, and Z" to deal with. Those can be worked around... but it's going to take a lot more time.

Math doesn't lie: There is the possibility. But you've got to have people on the ground looking. What you've got down here is, largely, one team looking in their area. You need more people looking in more places. Central Coast? Lancaster/Palmdale/Antelope Valley? South Bay/Beach Cities? San Fernando Valley? I've seen people commenting in the thread from those areas. I can't say any of them have put venues in the list. I know I'm not in a position to put down a venue as "yes, this one can most likely host". (If I could, I would.) I know several venues that would probably be disqualified on one or more "obvious" grounds, so if one of those shows up I can put down a note that says "Hey, X is going to make life difficult".

Let me put it this way: I'm not opposed to districts, in the proper time. But when someone who is outside my area, with relatively limited visibility into my area, simply says, "This is the way we want to do it over your area, and with *handwaving here* it'll happen"--I'm really sorry, but I'm going to call you on that. You need more people down here, to get more visibility into the situation down here. They should have been there from the beginning. And the people that are down here are telling you that there are problems--problems that you are blowing off as "That can be fixed, just use some imagination and creativity". Problems that we know can be fixed, but we don't know how much time and effort it'll take over and above what we're already putting into this program just to find a solution, let alone execute it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I believe the entire point of this thread and the documents shared is to bring awareness of districts to all of California. The documents and posts don't seem like they are trying to force anything onto us nor are minimizing the amount of work involved in making this transition.

Sure it will cost money and will be hard trying to find venues and volunteers, but if other regions can do it, why can't we? If there is a better way of doing things, we need to change. The District model offers more than our conventional regional model and we should do everything we can to switch, no matter the time and effort.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Re: California District Proposal
 

Re: California District Proposal
 

Before this thread devolves into a slew of gifs, lets try to get back on track here :)

Eric,

I've tried my best to pull together resources from other areas to inform our path forward. I've spoken with many people from other districts in person and on the phone to gather information (special thanks to Jim and Gail at FiM). I've even learned a lot since posting this, and am planning revisions to the proposal to reflect new information.

I currently have friends on FRC Teams 4, 399, and 3476 looking at venues. Dave from 399 has actually been helping for almost a year scouting out venues, but he is out on summer vacation right now.

If it wasn't already clear, I am relying on the community to rally around this proposal and make Districts in California a reality. Our community has been told for years that we can't, but as this proposal evolves, it is becoming increasingly clear that we can! I have been very encouraged by the community response so far.

Please, California, keep it coming. A friend from San Diego posted on this thread a few days ago about venues down there (so much knowledge in that post!), I am hoping he can respond further knowing that cafeterias/MPRs are also options for pits at venues.

If anyone is looking to help and is not sure how, shoot me a PM. It could take as little as a smartphone, tape measure, and spare hour of time ;)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Sowwy :(

Re: California District Proposal
 

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.

I know in Virginia there are high schools in certain regions of the state that have much larger gym areas specifically designated for tournaments. I believe there are 4 of them in the state here. Luckily one of them has an FRC team. I don't know if this is also the case for CA but it might be a good thing to look into.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks for the feedback from CHS!

How large are these "tournament gyms", and how does that compare with a typical HS gym?

With "tournament gyms", do you fit all the pits in the same gym as the field?

Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

4,000 seats compared to the usual 2,000 that you'd find at our school. This allowed for only one side of the seating to be used and the remaining area behind and to the sides of the field to be used for the pits.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I assume that means all teams fit in those pits? 40 teams?

Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

You'd be correct, with room to spare.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I wanted to post why I am pulling for districts in CA. This year, my team attended the Silicon Valley Regional. As you may know, the teams that are at SVR come from very diverse backgrounds. There are powerhouse teams, rookies, and low-resource teams that really struggle to sustain their program every year. That last category is what really impacted me and made me want to go to districts. It hurt me to watch teams that have struggles finding space, raising money, etc. pay $5,000 and throw it away on 8 matches where they could be getting significantly more for thier money in the district system. With districts, these teams get to play in two events by default. They have unbag time to practice and iterate. It is my belief that students who have the opportunity to experience more FIRST are more inspired and get more out of the program. I believe that districts can be a game changer for teams like that. Will there be challenges? Of course, but I believe wholeheartedly that together we can overcome them.

- Nick

Re: California District Proposal
 

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

Re: California District Proposal
 

Because the contract regionals have that make us use the show ready truss systems cut a lot of the high schools out of the equation. Once we move to districts we could use any lighting/av system we want and not hang trusses that weigh more than schools can handle.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is beautiful. Cannot thank you enough.

-Mike

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.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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

Re: California District Proposal
 

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
 

Most of the dupes should be fixed now.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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
 

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.

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!)

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.

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

"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
 

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
 

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
 

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.

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
 

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
 

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...

1. 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
2. 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)

Re: California District Proposal
 

If CA goes to a district model, I know of one regional for sure that will be able to handle many of the international teams that attend CA Regionals.:D Many of the CA teams that attend our regional would likely not continue to do so, leaving many new spots open to join the numerous international teams we already serve. International flights to Las Vegas are in many cases less costly that those to California and other regions across the country and reasonably priced hotels are in abundance here.

Other Regionals that serve smaller/distant/low density FRC populations will likely be relied upon to also serve a growing international community as well...at least for the years to come. Our friends in China have formally submitted a bid for a Regional there next year and await a decision by FIRST HQ. Special thanks to 525 for getting things started with CUYRA there almost 3 years ago:D Teams like 3132, 4613 and other Australian teams have done a great job helping to establish an event there that serves that region of the globe and Israel has established a strong event. Expect more of these success stories as time goes on. As I have said before, I think FIRST realizes an assortment of event models will be needed to serve the mission of FIRST
and FIRST FRC resulting in a combination of Districts and Regionals around the globe.

Edit: Mia culpa...I forgot to mention the important role the Mexico Regional serves as well. ;)

Re: California District Proposal
 

According to my scan of this page, there are regional directors in Australia, Israel, and Mexico (outside of US + Canada)

Re: California District Proposal
 

Joe,

This is great to hear!

By my math, that puts non continental US/Canada Regionals at:

Hawaii
Mexico City
Australia
Israel
China (Hopefully!)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Why couldn't CA district champs reserve spots for international teams, for that "high-wattage" effect?

In general, I'm glad this conversation is happening. We NEED cost-out to grow the program and inspire more students, without compromising on the physical scale of the sport.

(Also, I can think of 2 venues in the East (SF) Bay that could host District events; a full Regional would be much harder.)

Re: California District Proposal
 

On the flip side why should CA FIRST deny spots to their constituents in favor of outside teams?

I don't know which answer is right and it would be unfortunate to lose international (or even out of state) teams at CA events but you gotta look out for your own before you can look out for anyone else.

Re: California District Proposal
 

True that.
Though - I think *we* get a lot of benefit from the out of state teams as well. I wouldn't want to discount that before it's thrown away.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Just as a random thought: What about teams whose "home" event happens to land in CA but aren't from CA, or who are on the border, have the option to join?

Example: Chilean teams like the L.A. regional--combined, I think there's three of them that have two events elsewhere (one regional). I don't think anybody'd be opposed to offering them the chance, at least down here. Or, see the Alaska team in the PNW this last season.

If they don't want to come, then they had the choice and declined. If they do want to come, then they get to spend the savings from the second-event registration on travel costs instead--or maybe on the robot... Interesting dilemma for them.

Naturally, if that team's "home area" also went to districts, they'd have to join their home district area--leaving open interdistrict play.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I wouldn't be too sure about that list - neither my school nor my team are there.

Re: California District Proposal
 

The more, the merrier!

Re: California District Proposal
 

According to the FRC Wikipedia page, the non-US or Canada teams are:

Israel (62)
Mexico (53)
Australia (39)
China (36)
Turkey (20)
Brazil (6)
Netherlands (3)
Taiwan (3)
United Kingdom (3)
Chile (2)
Dominican Republic (2)
Japan (2)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1)
Colombia (1)
Czech Republic (1)
Denmark (1)
Ecuador (1)
France (1)
Germany (1)
India (1)
Poland (1)
Singapore (1)
United Arab Emirates (1)

So lets pretend all of the US and Canada went to districts suddenly (so I don't have to account for team growth).
Completely ignoring the political/economical/many other factors and just focusing on geography and assuming teams from countries with Regionals go to that regional:

South American and Caribbean teams can go to Mexico
Taiwan, Japan, India, and Singapore can go to China
Israel goes to Districts (Based on geographical size and # of teams alone this seem feasible within a few years)
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the UAE attend a new regional in Turkey along with maybe Poland and the Czech Republic

This would leave 9-11 teams (depending on where Poland and Czech Republic go) all in Europe who don't have a regional. They could go to Turkey or that regional could go to somewhere in Europe that is more central to all of the teams. If Israel still holds a regional, then it probably makes sense to have the new regional in Europe. There could also just be 2 new regionals on the assumption that a lot of American teams would want to go to a European regional. Other than Europe, I think every international team is either as close or nearly as close to a regional as they are right now. It wouldn't be great and I have no idea how the international community will be able to adapt to growth and the potential transition of the large team population centers to Districts, but I think it is possible, at least right now, for the international teams to sustain their own events.

However, I do think it FIRST should come up with a way for teams in low density areas to at least compete in district events, if not qualify for Champs through them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Cool. That's because Francis Parker comes up as an Elementary School in CA DOE's database.

Re: California District Proposal
 

A district team will get 5 events worth of points throughout the season (1xdistrict1 + 1xdistrict2 + 3xDCMP), so if a system like this were to be implemented, the multiplier should be 5/# of events attended.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Because, apparently a data set of high school gym square footages in the united states would be TOO FREAKING CONVENIENT...

Let's use school size as an analog for it. Kinda assume that high schools have a gym (last study I found said 81% percent did, but it was an old facilities survey from 05, the updated version lacked this data) A gym can probably sit a significant portion of the school population. So, based on this - https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...LeyzbhbxgjjZms Here is a map of every public HS (offers grade 12 per NCES dataset) compared with the 2013 Team locations for the state of California with school population. [1]




[1] I actually have this data for everywhere, but Google Map Maker doesn't let me upload data sets with more than 2k records and my public schools data set is 90k or so


EDIT: The quoted post was totally NOT the one I thought I quoted... now i'm confused. Either way.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Texas is going to a regional model this year, which shall probably open up a number of slots at Bayou and other regionals surrounding Texas for teams in other states, and international teams. I fully expect Bayou to be a regional for at least the next 4-8 years, and the western half of the US to have regional competitions for a couple of decades at least.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hartford Regional at the Meadows Music Theater 1999-2001. Teams that did not fit in the lobby were put in tents. It kept the snow off the robots. RAGE (FRC173) did a mean tailgate breakfast in the parking lot.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi JB987-

Pleasure to work with you guys/gals this last season.

Astute observations on prospective shifts in regional participation. What "offshore" team would not want to go to Vegas? And the airfare is not that much more than flying into LAX. District model would probably pull in the eastern Cal teams more so than present, even though the distances are almost equivalent.

Another bone to throw in the soup.

Joe.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi s-neff--

Like your ideas on reservations for offshore teams to have reserved spots at the larger events.

For them to come all this way, pay the fees, the airfare, the hotel and transport and meals and junk, a gym with 44 teams and pits in hallways is something of a let-down.

For those of you who are "offshore," please comment on your preferences, especially if your habit is to play in West Coast events. Our "little" discussion here will affect you tremendously.

Joe.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

Re: California District Proposal
 

Yikes!
What with the geopolitical events of the last couple of years (and just this week!), assuming teams from various countries would or could go to another is a large assumption on our part. We go outside the continental US we've got to consider much, much bigger issues, having nothing to do with FRC.

Joe

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

Re: California District Proposal
 

Joe,

Thanks for the important reminder. It is very clear that there are plenty of High School venues in California to cover 16 (or more) district events, as you have stated. These are venues that can support 36-40 teams, have stands, pits, etc. This is a good baseline to establish, and one that we are working towards with the growing list of venues that many individuals are beginning to contribute towards. To everyone continuing to hunt for venues, THANK YOU!

Second, Joe, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this assumption:

Venues that currently host FRC events (Regional or Off-Season), and to a lesser extent venues that used to host FRC events, are likely to have the people problem mostly solved. I know this goes for DHS, PGHS and COHS (three CCC sites). These administrations WANT us at their school and let us book only 6 months out to get the weekend we want. I'm going to bet that many of the other venues currently in use have decent or better relationships with the school administration as well.

Do you agree with my assumption?

If you agree, I think we are getting close to solving the people portion of our venue equation. Just like many other districts have done across the country. Unless you think that, statistically, California administrators are prone to be hell-bent against FRC events :p

Thanks for the feedback,

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Re: California District Proposal
 

Why would anyone contribute helpful or constructive advice if we're being told we can never understand the area or problems unique to that area?

That type of response is doing the exact opposite of inviting useful feedback which is why I pointed it out.

I'm not pushing anyone, anywhere. I've put a ton of effort into helping my region make a leap - and a lot of people are in a similar situation I was a few years ago. Many of them have reached out for my advice and I'm simply stating it.

-Brando

Re: California District Proposal
 

As someone involved heavily in Southern California frc, I really do appreciate all the helpful advice from everyone. They in fact have dealt with the same issues and making SoCal open to that advice is something we need to do. And you know what, saying we don't have the venues, volunteers, ect are just excuses that others are trying to help us overcome. We will never be ready as a state if we don't push each other.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

Re: California District Proposal
 

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not a single outside person in this thread has said that California NEEDS to go to districts or has said that California should rush into it. Everyone has been providing reasons why California should want to go to distracts and has been working towards finding solutions to the problems with the transition, so California CAN go to Districts when they are ready. This thread is called California District PROPOSAL and thats what this thread has been: proposals, suggestions, and advice.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Joe, I agree with you that boots on the ground is what's going to find venues. I'm over here in NH and have no skin in the game. What I do have, however, is a willingness to dig through boring government reports and munge data into something that others can use without wanting to tear their hair out.

How to get buy in? Honestly, simplest approach is just ask. I assume each venue is going to have its own concerns and challenges.

Re: California District Proposal
 

1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.

We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!

Re: California District Proposal
 

From what I understand it isn't really much different than it is for a regional. There were spots reserved at each of the CHS events for late registering/rookie teams. I know some teams were asked to register for a different event if possible if the wait list seemed like it was too long or they were trying to get more people to another event.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ya, I'm pretty sure its basically the same. I think NE only opens up 32?/36? out of 40 spots in each event initially, I presume to save some slots for the late registering teams and also to balance the # of teams at each event a little.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Here is the MAR waitlist policy. Not sure if it is handled by the Board of Directors or somebody appointed by them.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In the regional model, the waitlist is controlled by the regional director assigned to that specific regional, so what "role" would have access to the waitlist in a district model? In FiM I'm pretty sure it's FiM's president, but I am not 100%

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I am fairly certain that MI is the only district with home events. I think the NE waitlist is first come first serve just like for regionals, but I'm not entirely sure.

Edit: Never mind. This is wrong.

Re: California District Proposal
 

We still have RDs in District - so they still have access to this.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Wait lists are not first come first serve.

Re: California District Proposal
 

agreed, not entirely first come first serve. The RD's will "jump the line" with teams, based on certain criteria - rookies, local teams still looking for a first play, teams that bring a lot of volunteers or specific key volunteers that are needed for the event. They have to look at the bigger picture to do what they can to ensure a successful event and season for every team.

Re: California District Proposal
 

A lot of the problems Eric has with southern California have already been looked into by someone who is already posting here, as she is a contact for half a dozen potential venues in southern California. She's also an RPC member! It's inspiring to see what a 20 year old can do for her region beyond the bounds of a safety glasses table.

Re: California District Proposal
 

But the advice doesn't line up with his preconceived notions, so it must not be helpful or constructive...

Re: California District Proposal
 

One item I have struggled with is aligning LRIs to events by the timeframe FIRST HQ would like. Most of the LRIs in Michigan are affiliated with teams. Some prefer to do events their team I at. Others prefer to do events there team is not at. Almost all prefer to sign up for volunteering after they know what events their team will be attending...

It would be a good topic to have on whether or not teams should get preferential treatment on the waitlist via volunteer (key/critical....) support. Right now, I don't think we do that in Michigan (at least not explicitly to my knowledge), but it is an item I think we should discuss due to other scheduling hassles.

Additionally, on occasion, we have added an event after travel for Key volunteer training is booked, and this caused an added challenge to filling key roles.

On most of these occasions, all involved knew they would be a challenge, and some of us complained, but ultimately we found ways to work through the issues.

Re: California District Proposal
 

What you didn't see is that little note I put a few of my posts back, to check PMs. Discussion doesn't have to happen in public.

Obviously, that note didn't fit with your preconceived notions, so it didn't happen.

If you'd like to continue that discussion, read the rest of the post before you do.


BTW, Jon Stratis hit the nail on the head. If you think back to the MN discussion a couple months back, it's a case of "'outsiders' trying to force something that isn't ready in this area", on the surface (in this case at any rate)--when all the listed input is in one area, it's a natural question to ask if the other area(s) and affected folks had any input (See also: MI District initial discussions, ChampionSplit initial discussions). If you dig a little deeper, it's not--but that wasn't readily apparent. Naturally, the initial response is, "You really don't know the situation around here". That being said, once it's a lot clearer that that is NOT the case, and that there's a decent shot that maybe they do know something, then support can be given a lot more easily. Again, if you read that note, you may want to consider that public discussion doesn't always have to happen to move something along.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.


/S

Re: California District Proposal
 

Didn't you know that Southern California is Baja California?

It sucks how everybody forgets about Baja California.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Congrats Pauline! There's a chance, that maybe, you know something

Re: California District Proposal
 

You'll notice that my comment wasn't directed at her, at all. It was directed at the non-productive comments designed simply to belittle individuals who were presenting issues. People saying others are acting closed-minded, or should just stop complaining... those are not productive, helpful posts.

And nice passive-agressive comment about safety glasses. Has anyone on here said a 20 year old was limited only to the safety glasses table and not capable of doing more?

Re: California District Proposal
 

OK, guys.

THAT'S ENOUGH.

Basel, I wasn't referring to Pauline, but the group in general. And in a very general way. In an explanation of why I was saying what I was saying. OK? Do I have to go to Thing Explainer?

If you guys are going to snip at every little thing I say, then it's really, really starting to feel like I'm being harassed/bullied. Last I checked, that sort of thing was frowned on around here.

Again, THAT'S ENOUGH.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I really do wish this thread was the productive discussion it was earlier.
It's really unfortunate that so many people put such hard work into creating the document, finding venues, and more to just be shot down or argued with for reasons that are not valid.

This thread could have been something where California could really figure out how to make our region the best, and how to transition the easiest way we could.

Thank you to everyone in here who has offered constructive advice. From other districts to people from California offering venues. The advice has really helped me shape what I think our region should become. Thank you so much, can't wait for you guys to push us even farther in our journey into districts!

-Pauline

Re: California District Proposal
 

It was a reference to the alleged issues some other parts of the country are having with engaging young alumni in their communities and not primarily a direct attempt to be passive-aggressive, despite multiple claims. The comment wasn't even directed at you, but to Jon.

Private messaging is a great conduit to transmit information to people who want it and is a channel I have and will continue to use (mostly outside of this website). It offers an opportunity to exchange experiences and share advice from scenarios that may be analogous or parallel to those of another party.

It definitely is a time to remember 3 things before someone wakes up a moderator and enacts a mercy killing of the thread:

-Perception is reality.
-The exchanges of ideas are a two way street.
-Be conscious of your intended actions and even more conscious of unintended consequences of those actions (Believe it or not, I am very conscious of these things, which probably constitutes a personal health hazard).

Thanks to Michael Corsetto and everyone who has exchanged ideas on the topic whether it be critical, supportive, or statistical.