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 Richard Wallace (Post 1594420)

FTFY.

Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1594423)

Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.

Thanks for the correction -- edited my post above.

My point is that in Michigan we generally have not played robots on Sunday. The only exception I know of was the 2016 Kettering Week 0 Scrimmage, which was not an official event.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARS_James (Post 1594321)

This is a really good read, a lot of the issues being discussed here actually sound similar to what we are dealing with in Florida, though on a smaller scale distance wise. Now since I am not from California nor have I ever been there some of the following may seem ignorant but humor me:

Somethings that I think may be cool for the California District to try, that may help in being applied to FRC as a whole when we have districts everywhere:

1. Don't make two unique districts, make 1 district with 2 championships based on geography, ironically exactly how FRC works right now with 2champs. By reading the proposal I couldn't tell if you were planning on doing this or not but I felt the need to bring it up. With the rise of interdistrict play, this can help keep some competitive integrity, make it so if you are a California team the first 2 California events you take place in, regardless of North or South decides your points. This will make some of the more affluent teams not just head to the other half of the state to try out their robot at an event with no repercussions to their standing in their home half of the state.

2. If the two districts will be separate, allow Teams on border lines to declare which district they wish to be in. This could result in some headaches but lets say a team pops up in Inyo County (yes I looked up the names of the counties), it is a "Northern" California Team, but depending on where in the county it is, it's to closest events may be in the "Southern" district. This may become an issue later if the area develops enough to host it's own district event but could be brought up on reevaluation.

3. Extend the Shadow Program to include offseasons. Basically have key/essential volunteer roles be shadowed or overbooked for the offseasons. Now I know that this may seem challenging but getting more volunteers can be done by informing teams ahead of time that their will be sign ups for students to learn how these roles work. Now many of these roles can not be filled by students at official events, but students don't stay students forever and getting them the basic training will help in the long run.

Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?

These are all very good points!

1. I'm not sure how that would go over with FIRST HQ, but I wouldn't be opposed to it as an option.

2. I was thinking the same thing, give teams in the middle a chance to choose when the format is established. Caveats being A. They have to stick to their choice (for planning reasons) and B. They need to be near the "middle" between the two proposed DCMPs.

3. Great idea! I know I've learned a lot running CCC, and I plan on running at least one district event when the switch is made. We also have a brand new head ref for CCC 2016!

I hope Florida can use these docs!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCA Fan (Post 1594287)

Really? I'm not sure about that. 2 venues have yet to be decided on.

CVR - Confirmed. High School
SF - Confirmed. High School
Ventura - Unconfirmed. Historically High School
IE/OCR - Unconfirmed. Historically High School

I think the above is accurate, correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I'm just hedging my bets on 4 of 8 :)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594430)

Ventura Community College isn't a high school, though there is one on campus and another across the street from one end of campus (both with FRC teams). I would guess they'll be back there again, as the support is really good.

IE had a university for one year, but has been high schools since then (and OC's home is highly supportive--three events this year, plus a pair of Fall Classics before then and a Fall Workshops). I would assume that that would only change if there was a pressing need.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMBrandon (Post 1594431)

Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?

Regionals:

Bigger tournaments
Anyone can come and compete
Winners and major award winners go to World Championship(s)

Districts:

Smaller local tournaments
Limited to teams within the district (for the most part)
Two tournaments for the price of one
After everyone plays their two district events, top ranked teams in the district go to a district championship event
Winners/major award winners/top ranked teams at the District Championship go to World Championship(s)

The main benefits are:

Removes the "win or die" system from regionals, introduces a better ranking system that rewards consistent performance over the season
More tournaments for the same amount of money

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMBrandon (Post 1594431)

Can someone in super basic terms tell me the difference between regionals and districts?

Regionals: $5K = 1 event, 40-66 teams, 8-12 matches, one shot at Championships (win, wildcard, win certain awards).
Districts: $5K = 2 events, 40 teams each, 12 matches each, points from matches, seeding, and awards determine whether you go on to the next level (District Champs, or Champs if looking after District Champs)

District teams can play in Regionals or in other Districts if they want to (and can get in after 2nd regional registration); Regionals teams can't play in Districts at all.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1594432)

Thanks a ton Eric, had no idea! I heard stories about Venture and assumed it was a high school. You know what they say about people that assume!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594436)

Thanks a ton Eric, had no idea! I heard stories about Venture and assumed it was a high school. You know what they say about people that assume!

-Mike

Assuming that thus far in the conversation High School == District sized venue, then Ventura is essentially a high school.

The point stands, 4 of the CA events next year are district sized venues.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1594418)

Can confirm, lots of MI districts run TFS in high schools with class in session during Friday.

I wasn't really familiar with what other districts did. From a quick look at TBA:

TFS events at high schools 2016 (Not overall)
Chesapeake, Indiana, NE - only 1 TFS event (It was Good Friday)
Georgia - No high school events at all
MAR and NC - all FSS
PNW and MI - quite a few TFS

I didn't look at DCMPs and I did it quickly so I might have missed a few events, but it looks like only PNW and MI had events while classes were going on. I don't know if having/not having events during school is due to the schools in those regions, the decisions of the districts, or something else, but I am interested to see how it will turn out in California.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1594423)

Aren't there a few that run in universities? Kettering, for example. Irrelevant to the main point though, the large majority are in high schools.

To my knowledge Kettering University and Grand Valley State University are the only two Universities hosting Districts, and it's mostly because both had hosted events (in-season and/or off-season) prior to the switch to districts and still wanted to be involved in the program. Ironically, Kettering is actually one of the more crowded events (when at full capacity) that I've been to, because the pits, "cafeteria", field, and seating (which they have to bring in because the site doesn't have any built-in) all have to fit in one moderately-sized gym.

FiM doesn't really pursue a lot of events on College/University campuses because such venues usually charge a fee to rent the space, where as most High Schools do not, or if they do it's substantially lower.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbale2000 (Post 1594444)

FiM doesn't really pursue a lot of events on College/University campuses because such venues usually charge a fee to rent the space, where as most High Schools do not, or if they do it's substantially lower.

I actually have heard that some colleges are willing to offer the venue for either a significant discount or free because they can still make their money from their $4 water and other concessions whereas high schools typically only receive income from the rent itself. At least in NE, high school event concessions are typically run by the host team, not the school.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1594240)

If I can point something out here:

The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal.

It shows. It's not an issue of bias, but of awareness. This proposal is great work, but there's a serious problem to resolve before this can fly. Key quote from the "District 101" document:

Quote:

With {...} the excess of potential venues all over the state of California

I'll come back to that later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto (Post 1594267)

This parts isn't highlighted in the proposal, but worth mentioning:

In 2017, 4 of 8 California Regionals will be held on High School campuses.

Three of which are in NorCal. You will have problems finding SoCal venues. Look again at that wonderful by-county map. The three numbers that should jump out are 71, 19, and 37. You have to put them somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpetito (Post 1594286)

It's not the venues, it's the parking. Silly statement, but true. In the LA South Bay we've got lots of venues, good ones for forty-plus teams and pits, but they're already booked on weekends for paying 'customers' like AYSO, language schools, a hundred other events. School districts need this income and school site admin are leery of the liability incurred with what look to them like piles of rolling junk.

I don't think the schools will worry about liability. They're familiar with their own teams.

Parking *is* part of venues. We'll be competing with those other events to line up venues. Many schools may let go of higher revenue in favor of supporting their own academic programs (that's us,) but many are under too much financial pressure to let that kind of money walk. This is not a trivial issue.

Remember that bit about an "excess of venues"? It isn't valid in San Diego. Call it a consequence of us having better weather than the rest of you, but we have little history of building large or multiple gyms. We really don't have venues to offer.

Of 116 schools in San Diego and Imperial Counties, only 7 have two gyms. Three (Carlsbad, Fallbrook, Escondido) are at schools with no team. Grossmont (4919) and Mar Vista (no team, but same district as 2543, 3704, 4616, 5627) have a long distance between them. That leaves Ramona (2029) and Sweetwater (3704). (And Ramona's a bit off the beaten path.)

Can we fit pits into Mission Hills' (5137) or Canyon Crest's (3128) gyms? (Same design, a large spectator gym with an 84'x50' practice court stubbed off to the side.) Can 5137 get us the huge gym at San Marcos HS? (Large enough for three side-by-side courts, large-capacity bleachers cover one, bleachers closed on the third for pit space. Is that even large enough?) Can 1972 get neighboring Southwest HS in El Centro? (Similar config to San Marcos. And of course, that means driving two hours to El Centro.)

The junior colleges and private 4-year schools lack facilities, and the ongoing budget crisis has forced the state universities to treat outside rentals as revenue sources. (SDSU and UCSD won't give us any breaks.) If we can't be assured of three (maybe two) district events close enough to drive/bus to daily, I don't expect much support for a proposal which would eliminate our present home event.

Re: California District Proposal

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASD20 (Post 1594447)

In Ontario the universities and colleges that host regional/district events are often very willing to offer a significant discount or even completely donate the venue. They do this because they see the event as a significant recruiting opportunity; what better way to attract a group of incredibly bright and motivated students to visit your campus than by hosting a robotics event.