Re: California District Proposal
 

While there are many positives to the district system that I do not need to mention more than has already been done so in this thread, I can see a few issues arise:

The San Diego and Los Angeles regionals host a non-zero number of international teams from Chile and Mexico for whom those events are their second regionals. While the district system may help to strengthen FIRST in CA, it could very well be at the cost of weakening FIRST globally.

Second, we can't completely disregard how much that regional-level ambience matters to some people. For teams that will not make it to Champs, it's not worth it to have a regional that is all about just being a stepping stone that doesn't matter as much as later events. If these teams can't go to Champs, all they're left with is that middle of the road.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Ventura, CVR, and OC Regionals are objectively districts pretending to be Regionals, and I have a strong suspicion that Palmdale, San Fransisco, or any new regionals added are probably in the same boat.

Re: California District Proposal
 

At Champs this year, I was talking with Ken Stafford from WPI and this was the way he recommended framing it to colleges-- there are very few opportunities to get kids with the traits FIRST/VEX encourage on campus in the sheer numbers that a robotics event can. Recruitment is a huge plus for colleges, almost as much as getting on a college campus can be for the students. We have numerous tours at the Twin Cities regionals (which are held at the University of Minnesota) that I know have led to students picking the U. It's a great angle that I'd encourage areas to try.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Discussions among folks on my team focused in on 3-4 separate places: Our school (gym, plus either cafeteria or secondary gym--primary issues access for robots and parking), the one other high school in the district with a team (space concern? but plenty of parking), one of the other high schools (no team, but has parking, but...), and the main community college which would have space (two gyms, plus theater) but it's a community college...and in the middle of a years-long construction project all over campus.

Now, that being said, I can understand that "hey, we can make this work". The two biggest problems down here are the Big Vs: Venues and Volunteers. IE went through three venues in three years, and two of them were "interesting" (lack of seating at one, and distance+a swarm of minor factors at the other). And I've already mentioned about the volunteer problem of how people are doing 2, 3, 4 events and there often aren't enough--that part can be worked around, given time and people who want to step up.

Re: California District Proposal
 

A large number of NE's volunteer base does multiple events. There were even a few Vols that likely did upwards of 7-8 events. ((MAAAAAD RESPECT FOR THESE PEOPLE))

HOWEVER...

I don't remember anyone saying it was a problem

Re: California District Proposal
 

NE events are how far apart again, by time? See, out here, that's a minimum of 2 events that are a 2-hour drive away (overnight stay), and that's for someone in the middle of the four SoCal ones. In NE, I'd imagine that there's a bit more events that are closer than that, so it's a fair bit easier to do more events.

I find that folks from the East Coast tend to not be accustomed to the large amount of distance/driving time needed out here. San Diego teams are far enough away from any other regional to need hotels. Ventura, same thing if you don't like traffic (it's doable, but it'll be a long day). L.A./OC are pretty close to each other, and more northern teams could probably commute to Ventura, but beyond that, it's overnight stays required. NorCal teams have a similar issue--SVR/Sacramento/CVR are just at that edge of "overnight or not" from each other, with Sacramento in the middle of the arc.

And again, we're still in regionals. So TFS volunteering... with all associated rush hours for those that commute.

So let me rephrase that:

You've got volunteers doing 2, 3, and 4 events, with all associated driving, vacation days, and hotel stays, and there still aren't enough in key areas. Now you want to tell me that there isn't a problem?

Let me be clear: I don't have a problem doing that. I have a problem that not enough people are stepping up to do those jobs, which makes it necessary for those volunteers to do 2, 3, and 4 events as volunteers. And if CA goes district, those same volunteers will probably now be asked to do 5 or 6 or even 7 events.

Re: California District Proposal
 

If someone was exclusively volunteering at FIRST events and not double dipping into their life force to mentor and volunteer, going to multiple events should not always be considered a huge barrier. I think most people who love this stuff and don't have insurmountable life priorities keeping them at bay wouldn't hesitate at picking up at least 3 weeks of work in a 9 week season.

EDIT:

In the regional system in VA, you would need a hotel for at least 1 event if you wanted to do 2. For a lot of teams, they needed a hotel twice. Now, there are 2 that I can pretty easily do in a day's drive, plus a potential third, plus the district championship, all without needing a hotel. Without knowing exactly where venues would land, you can't confirm this, but you likely would not need overnight expenses outside of a DCMP if you are in a population that has 20 teams within an hour of a central point. If you do need overnight travel, volunteer positions outside of the FTA, CSA, RIs, and supporting roles that are filled by host teams or local teams would only need 1 night stays.

You can also argue that California, in the vacuum of a regional model in perpetuity would be better served with 1 or two more regionals in the state.

Outside of the FTA position and one or two others, the bounceback from an FSS event won't really hit you that hard unless you are volunteering on consecutive FSS events.
It's a lot easier to commit to multiple weeks in the district system (I went from 2-3 to 6 this year without much of a fuss) The discussion is inevitably going to circle back to "you will get more volunteers when you switch to districts" which is anecdotal and speculative. The district model was speculative in 2008. Dunno what else to tell you.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Possibly.

OTOH, "insurmountable life priorities" should also include making sure that one is in good standing at work. I work in a crew--we notice when someone is missing a pile of time.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Maintaining a livelihood would be considered an insurmountable life priority. A lot of us are very stupid unfortunately and ignore that one more than we should.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thanks a ton for this valuable feedback. Yes, RC, Andrew and I are all from NorCal. Your feedback on gyms is very insightful. If I ever got some free time, I was going to start google-earth-touring around all the high schools (starting with FRC team schools and working my way from there) to start looking for venues, but you seem to have a strong grasp of the region already.

Hopefully you got to read in the proposal a bit on the venue needs for a 40 team district event (including stands for 1200 people, square footage for field and pits, etc). Maybe someone in another district could enlighten the conversation, but I am not sure that the pits need to be strictly a second gym? I've been to multiple unofficial FRC events where something like a cafeteria/MPR was used as a decent pit space. Maybe that could open up some more options in SoCal (and SD specifically).

Is something like a big tent/easy up a possibility for district event pits? I've seen this done once in the US (Sacramento Regional 2014), and the pits at the 2012 Israel regional were underneath a giant tent as well. I wonder what the cost is to rent one of those for 3 days?

Also, a note for parking. FiM will hire a bus/shuttle to move people from a remote parking lot to the event if there isn't enough parking directly at the venue. Turns out, when you are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, you can drop 1-2k to hire a shuttle bus :D

Another aspect not touched on in the proposal is doing a multi-year district roll-out. The idea here is NorCal has a few more things in it's favor to switch to districts than SoCal, at least in the short term. Next year, NorCal will have 4 Regional events (at least 2 at High Schools, still waiting on the new Sacramento location). With just over 100 teams in NorCal, 6 district events are needed. Add in a DCMP, and that is 7 events. Subjectively, the jump from 4 events to 7 events does not seem that bad. Add in that NorCal already has 40+ team off-season events and established HS venues, I have no doubt that NorCal could make the switch fairly painlessly in 2018.

I am interested in hearing peoples thoughts on rolling out districts in California over multiple seasons.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

The same is true here in MN - The U of MN is extremely generous when it comes to our events, and St. Cloud State started to get into it last year with a training event (and I've heard they want to do more as well).

Re: California District Proposal
 

Rolling out districts in NorCal first would limit so many teams from attending events. And what defines NorCal or SoCal? Where would Central Valley go? Both our regions depend on that area for another event. I understand the idea behind it, since there is a larger pull from the northern region for districts, but then we get limited down here. We already depend on Arizona and Vegas for our regionals, taking out the northern California options for us limit our interactions with the events and the teams in northern California. Especially since we are considering as 2 district champs model, that means the only time SoCal would compete with NorCal for the years NorCal has districts and SoCal is still on the regional model would be at 1/2 champs.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is coming from a fairly ignorant ole east coaster, who has a ton of cali friends, but obviously am not as intimate with the area as I am my homelands of NE and MAR...

Have you considered perhaps that potentially people aren't 'stepping up' simply because they do not know how to? This was something I've seen and still am approached about at almost any competition I attend in NE. Volunteers in a role are too shy or simply unaware of how to 'step up'.

There is also the Field of Dreams situation that I think is inherent to any region jumping into Districts - "If you build it, they will come". You may not know who or where these people are coming from, but without the open opportunity, you'll never find them.

Eric- You've been around for a long time, you know how the system works. I'm in the same boat. I find it hard to put myself back into the shoes of a new volunteer who is filled with ambition, but nervous to 'mess something up' or even ask how to take on more responsibility.

California FIRST is filled with awesome people, that I've gotten to know and interact with for a long time now. These concerns are extremely VALID, but are they insurmountable? Absolutely not, and I've seen numerous useful suggestions in this thread already to start moving the needle.

The hardest part is rallying the massive group to make it happen.

-Brando

Re: California District Proposal
 

Very fair concerns.

In a quick count, I tallied ~7 SoCal teams at CVR, out of 49. It is definitely a primarily NorCal event (confirmed by team distribution map from 2014)

I think SoCal will depend on Vegas/Arizona regardless until Districts happen. And, luckily, both of these areas appear to be strong and/or growing (I've been particularly impressed with AZ in the past few years).

Once Districts are established, the state will likely be split in half anyway, with only a few teams traveling for inter-district play. It is the natural progression to the model of a High School sport.

Why could this roll-out be beneficial to both regions? I hear so much doubt and misinformation surrounding districts in CA. It's almost like 1/2 of FRC hasn't made the switch already and disproved many of the concerns that get recycled almost daily. :rolleyes: If half the state can go to districts in 2018, then maybe that opens the door for the other half to come in as soon as the following year. Showing what is possible is part of garnering support of people that would be hesitant to embrace change otherwise.

From my perspective, it could very well be a win-win. Believe me, I am pushing for this because I want all FRC teams, particularly in CA, to be more sustainable, more successful, and more inspirational.

Maybe it is less of a "Goodbye" and more of a "See you on the other side"? ;)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

+100