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.