California District Proposal
 

Hello CD Community,

I've prepared a proposal for bringing the District Model to California.

Here is the California Districts Proposal document.

Here is a "Districts 101/Q&A" document

Here are some finance estimates.

Unfortunately, many people on the Golden Coast do not understand districts, or have heard vastly exaggerated information regarding the resources required. These documents aim to educate on what Districts are, and what it could mean for California.

Please let me know what you think, what information needs to be updated, and, if you feel like it, please share these documents with your friends/teams.

Thanks for your time.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

I would very much like to say thanks to you and everyone else who helped work on these documents. I could definitely see it being a great guide for other regional areas to model future proposals. I'm sure this will be a great guide and resource for California teams as well. Will definitely be studying the documents and data very thoroughly!

Re: California District Proposal
 

Are PODS really a viable storage and field transportation method in California? I believe there's only one event where MAR PODS have to travel in excess of an hour from their usual storage locations*. Can PODS scale to a much larger geographic area for California without too much additional cost? Delivery rates for PODS are based on mileage. That concern is compounded further by any field specifics/FMS equipment shipped to/from Manchester each year.


*Some event-to-event trips may be longer, depending on schedule

Re: California District Proposal
 

Sean,

You bring up a very good point.

FIRST California currently moves our field in PODS to offseason events. If I remember correctly, the entire 2015 field was packed into one POD. Unfortunately, I am not privy to what we currently pay for that service. I was going off estimates I could get from other districts.

Very good point. Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

Great resource. A good read. I will make sure we go over this document when the Orange County teams meets next.

California District Proposal
 

I echo everyone else's comments about how well written and prepared the documents are. Great job with them! I really hope this is what gets the ball rolling on districts in CA.

Re: California District Proposal
 

My understanding is CA FIRST has a deal negotiated with PODS where they pay a very reasonable flat fee for delivery and pickup of the pod.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is my understanding as well.

Based on last year's experience, the PODS worked extremely well for both storage of the field(s) as well as transportation of them. I hope FIRST CA can continue our relationship with PODS. They have really made the process of moving the field from event to event a non issue.

Re: California District Proposal
 

If I can point something out here:

The folks who prepared this document are all from NorCal. And, in my experience, FIRST California tends to be more focused on NorCal.

Were any SoCal folks involved? Because, I'm going to say this once, there is significant opposition in high places down here. You're preaching to the choir for a fair number of SoCal teams, but the higher-ups do. not. like. the idea of districts.


Not a criticism, just a question and a statement of fact.

Re: California District Proposal
 

None of the higher-ups in FIRST CA like districts, which I'm guessing is why California doesn't have them. When I first started learning about this program I was told by some regional directors that districts were a surefire way to ruin everything that we've worked so hard for. Now after spending some time learning about them myself, especially with the help of these documents, I believe the FIRST CA higher-ups have their own agenda they're trying to push that isn't necessarily in the best interest of California teams.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Eric,

Thanks for the feedback. I understand there will be people in favor/opposed to the district model.

I hope this proposal will educated people on the district model. I have heard certain Key Volunteers in CA say things like "Districts will cost 3 million dollars the first two years" and California needs "35 Districts". And I have heard a California RD back those numbers up!

The purpose with a plan is to fact check the guesstimates and make an educated proposal for Districts.

If you don't mind, please share this with the SoCal teams you know! Education is a great start.

-Mike

Edit: To answer your question, I've had some help from a few SoCal folks, including the great folks at Code Orange!

+1, couldn't have said it better.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Eric,
In fact, I'm working with this document as we speak adding some so cal venues I have hosted events at. I will also be adding my personal experiences with aiding the planning of a first year regional in So Cal. It would be fantastic to add some more so cal people into this! I've only been at this for 7 years, would love some more people to spread this around.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Do you have proposed cities/venues for District Championships or would those not be identified until the district event planning process?

Re: California District Proposal
 

Is there a copy of the $3 million/2 years numbers somewhere? It would be interesting to compare it to your numbers and to what other districts cost.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Amazing work to everyone involved creating these materials - they're incredibly thorough and well written. This is a great resource for other regions looking to make the transition as well (hello, New York :rolleyes:)

PODS are a pretty great way to transport a field, assuming they aren't cost-prohibitive. The biggest advantage is that your venue doesn't need a loading dock, which opens up the list of possibilities greatly (loading a field into a truck with only a lift gate/forklift is not fun, especially with the really heavy side boarder cases on an AndyMark field).

Re: California District Proposal
 

I believe the documents indicated SVR and LA as possible options. I could see either of those two, or possibly San Diego, at the regional venues, fairly easily. Not quite sure how an outdoor DCMP would go over, but it's an option.

Off and on there's been discussion of "If an event was held in our general area, where would it be held?" among some of the Torbot mentors. That said, we never really liked the answers for one reason or another.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Michigan owns their trailers that house the fields and other equipment. I believe they were donated. They borrow a heavy duty truck from a sponsor to move the field and store the trailer at another sponsor's facility. Zero costs. The trailer has ramp door so it is easy to roll things on and off. No need for docks or liftgates. It is good to have a different mindset when running districts. Some Regional directors are used to writing big checks to get things done because they got enough funding from sponsors and they were budgeted. Running a district event is different because each district event is not expected to raise money from sponsors to cover all costs.

Let's not jump to conclusions. I am sure they have good reasons. May be they believe sponsors prefer flashy regionals, or they get better press coverages when they are not at a crowded high school gym. Who knows. It is best to sit down and talk about it and hope the leaders will do what is best for most CA teams. It will never make everybody happy. Good leaders will do what is best for majority of current teams and the future of the program.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I've heard one or two of the reasons. Here's a sample:

When MI went district, a then 2nd-year team got kicked out of the only event they'd called home (GLR). They landed in L.A. that year--it would NOT repeat NOT be the same without them now. Particularly since they've started bringing friends with them, every year. With the rapidly decreasing numbers of regionals available to attend (and the rapidly decreasing available capacity of those regionals due to everybody wanting to go there), where are those teams going to go for their home event if CA goes district? There are no regionals on their entire continent!

Short version: We like visitors!

Counter-argument: With the lack of space in current regionals, it won't be long before there won't be any visitors anyway!


And I've heard the "they like the big events" and the "they like the show" arguments too, but from different people. "They" referring not to the sponsors, but to the teams. To which the only appropriate response is to figure out how many teams actually want to go district...

Re: California District Proposal
 

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.

I have an increasingly hard time buying the "big event" and "big show" argument, considering 1/2 of 2017 California events will already be in district venues.

Eric, if you and the TorBots want to host a District Event, let me know. We will find you a venue ;)

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

That is a valid point, but is that FIRST CA's responsibility or is it FIRST headquarter? Unless FIRST headquarter told FIRST CA not to go to district until there are more Asian teams to have their own regional in Asia, I think it is a wrong argument against going to districts. More and more areas will be going to districts in the near future, then you will see more international teams because they will have nowhere else to go. It is very noble for FIRST CA to raise money from sponsors so they can add regional events to accommodate international teams and other areas who have not gone districts.
If you like visitors, inter-district play is one answer.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Not entirely accurate, in Michigan at least, FiM seems to fund districts only "as needed" and strongly encourages district planning committees to find funding sources themselves. Our local district was almost entirely funded from our local sponsors (Though FiM does cover the costs associated with the field, such as carpet, tape, and transportation).

Re: California District Proposal
 

You are correct. I have edited my post. Thanks. My point was MI district events try to save money because they don't have a big budget to spend.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Just saying what I've heard. I don't buy it on the "big event" myself, per se. "Big show", maybe. On the other hand, as someone who does some "show" stuff (see below), it isn't about the "show" aspect as much as using the "show" to enhance what's really going on.

Let me put it this way: We're more than capable of finding venues, thank you very much. Several of us can come up with 3-4 possibilities without stretching, including items that could easily disqualify them or render them particularly suitable--like parking, access for robots, or (lack of) cheapness.



Just so you guys are aware, you're sounding like you're inviting me to join the planning. I've got a three-part answer: There aren't enough refs as it is (and refs who are planning group members tend to disappear from the zebra herd quickly), I'm not the type to do event planning if I don't absolutely have to, and I don't have the free time between work and stuff outside of FIRST. (Why, yes, I do have a life outside of FRC, thanks for asking! ;))


[Edit] Ed, I wasn't talking about the Asian teams. I'm talking about Chilean teams--L.A. is their home event for all intents and purposes right now. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure that the folks using that line of reasoning are aware of inter-district play. Also unfortunately, "interdistrict play" is more likely to be PNW-NorCal or NorCal-SoCal due to distances involved. From SoCal to the nearest events outside CA is a full day's drive--nearest district is at least two!

Re: California District Proposal
 

Any plans to send the proposal and the assorted documents to FIRST CA?

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is the worst kept secret in the FIRST community.

I think it's something like 47% of the 2016 FRC population will be operating under the district system in 2017. Were California to also be in the district system we're talking over 55% of FRC teams in the district model.

The rules put in place back in 2008 before the inaugural season of FiM pilot were ones that were negotiated by Michigan and Manchester. Some of those rules were meant to intentionally wall off the laboratory the movers and shakers in Michigan wanted to build; people did NOT like the idea of districts when they started.

There are existing rules put into place that do not necessarily have to be followed (the district model ideally could scale that you could have zero steps between district events and championship events, or 1, or 2!) The locks on inter-district play are being fiddled with in this offseason and I would not be surprised to see some of the newer and smaller district systems open themselves up more to fill out their rosters.

If representation of 55% of FRC teams went to Manchester to petition modifications of district rules, could something happen? California does have an opportunity to lead FRC through sea changes, but they need to actually pick up their anchor and go. Trying to tweak the district model so it can be the path forward for 100% of FRC teams (yes, 100%) is the proverbial gorilla in the room. If the powers-that-be in California want districts, they will help drive that change. If they don't, the rest of the community will be held hostage until smaller confederacies that dot the midwest form up into the model. Then the leadership of FIRST California will likely need to adapt or die.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In SoCal, the big elephant in here with is is the Volunteer issue. The higher up you go on the event food chain (as far as skill and experience is concerned) the more you see the same faces repeatedly. Judges, Refs, Volunteer Coordinators, FTC's, the like. And these faces are doing ten other things: FLL, VEX, FTC, Academic Decathlon, etc., and some holding down a real job in public education, which has become a seventy hour-a-week thing.

Money: Just today our kids and team 294 brought this year's machines to a North/Grumm gig for show and tell, and to thank them for funding us. The bigger geopolitical picture in SoCal shows the firms most in need of the product we produce (technically educated kids), are repeatedly hit up for money by a hundred outstretched hands. Squeezing out more in this environment is becoming harder-- established teams with good organizations will always do well; those reinventing the wheel every year have no history to build on, no institutional memory of how to get funded, and struggle, and become the drop-out percentages. This could be an argument for Going District, but maybe not.

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.

As for the NorCal/SoCal "rivalry" thing-- let's put it aside. We both have structural hurdles to overcome in our specific locales in order to promote this kind of education. Keep hashing the ideas, not the people. Thanks all for your generous allocation of time on this, for your devotion to preparing the next generation when we've left the playing field.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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

Re: California District Proposal
 

This is at least a three headed issue in most areas, but it can be easy to cut off these two (and they won't grow back, I promise)

Shifting from WTRS to FSS events frees up more people to volunteer. A lot of people who love FIRST but need to work to live or be able to "afford volunteering" can't when they need to take 2-2.5 days off of work.

Shift small jobs to teams and get people to train up where there is interest. I know some positions can seem perpetually understaffed. In some regions, you lose the potential for repeat volunteers when the volunteers themselves are not properly engaged or subjected to volunteer cliques where a potential future KV may be shunned from learning from or training for their role. "But it doesn't happen to me!" It's happened to me and other people I know. It's anecdotal. I'd love to have data on it, but I know it has happened more than once, which is too much for something that is preventable.

What's your point here? A team's individual ability to raise money does not really directly affected by the regional model or district model. I would say that through smaller events and the ability for iterations, the district model can directly lead to more quantifiable success for teams than the regional model and then indirectly can lead to a better buy in of team cultural and a development of an institutional memory.

Re: California District Proposal
 

As for the volunteer issue, it's addressed very clearly in this document.
For the 2017 season every role should have an understudy so that individual could fulfill the role as needed as we move to districts.
I know first hand what it's like to try to find volunteers, or for that matter find qualified volunteers.

But this is the thing, so many people want to volunteer for the "cool" positions and one's that seem to matter but they are told they are not qualified enough. Not many people want to volunteer at an event to pass out safety glasses. Thus, making them either not show up or just not volunteering for the position. Having someone be an understudy to let's say a Judge Adviser, a CSA, or an FTA would really help CA grow in the volunteer pool. I've heard from so many people that they wish they could do the higher roles but the older volunteer crowd seems to have it covered. Having them understudy these roles will also grow their want to continue helping out at events since many of these roles have a direct impact with teams and the event itself.

Another note on volunteering. FiM's approach to how they got over the volunteer hurdle when they were changing was to ask for volunteers from teams. This could cover our smaller roles. How many people do you see in the stands at our events just on their phones? Or sitting there bored out of their mind? I bet if teams required two people to volunteer those people would feel more apart of the event.

On Code Orange, this year at LA, the event needed more field re setters and I had a couple students who weren't going to be doing much at the event and we sent them over. Guess what? They loved it. They felt important to the event, could get a great view of the matches, and they wanted to continue volunteering in those roles for our next events and future events.

The volunteer issue is a definite one, but to be honest, I'm very tired of hearing it as an excuse and want to see people execute getting more key volunteers.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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?

Re: California District Proposal
 

If interdistrict play starts counting for points (and based on what Frank said on FUN, it likely will soon), 2 separate district systems can essentially function how you're describing.

Re: California District Proposal
 

If they are planning on mostly high school events, there will probably not be that many Friday/Saturday events. To my knowledge, there has never been a NE event during school at a high school (I might be wrong). Even disregarding the logistical issues, the security issue of having several thousand strangers in the building during school hours is a nonstarter for many schools.

Re: California District Proposal
 

They've seen it.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I agree strongly on this one; it's one of the biggest disadvantages of district borders. I can think of at least one team that would need to make that decision, as they're on the northern/southern border for practical purposes. (They typically go south, BTW--hard to break old ties.)

Working on it, and I think I can say that it works if you can do that. On another note, anybody want to ref or shadow a ref at Fall Classic?

I can't answer that one for sure, but there's only been one FSS event in this area, and they went to TFS last year. (Not counting offseasons.)

I don't agree with the statement that "FSS means less vacation time taken for volunteers/mentors". Personally, and I'm not speaking for anybody else, if I have an event that has me there on Sundays, I take Monday off to recover and recalibrate for the work week ahead! While I can see how it can work, it certainly isn't true for all volunteers. Also, as some folks in NE found out last year, some teams have a hard time doing Sunday events. (That's also a variation by team, but it is something to be aware of.)

Re: California District Proposal
 

A lot of the people who would want to shadow reffing in so cal will be attending chezy champs that weekend, I assume you will also be at Battle at the Border and can extend that offer there as well.

Re: California District Proposal
 

The problem with assumptions is that, well, they're often wrong. I have no plans to volunteer at any events that aren't Fall Classic or the SCRRF Workshops this fall. (It should be noted that I had no plans to attend San Diego Regional until shortly after practice matches started there. When you get a message passed both directly and indirectly... you kinda figure you need to show up.)

Re: California District Proposal
 

Understood. Still stands that many will be at Chezy Champs. Maybe you can help connect people with the refs at BATB so people can connect that way, I'm sure you know at least one ref working that event since you've been reffing for a while.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I've only been reffing for 3 years... Not sure which BatB ref(s) I might know.

Incidentally, at least 50% of the referees at SoCal FRC events were rookie refs. Most of the ones that I know were experienced were on one crew. Two refs worked every SoCal regional... and another two had had Fall Classic experience.


What I'll probably do is hold the offer open for the Scrimmage as well. Gets lonely when you're the only one...;)

Re: California District Proposal
 

It should also be noted that there is never a 'Need' associated with Volunteering.

At the end of the day, under any circumstance, we Volunteer out of the goodness of our hearts, out of respect for the program, and because (at least some of us) enjoy it.


You have to be a rookie somewhere! Sounds like a good start to getting more trained referees in the region.

Re: California District Proposal
 

EricH, I'll referee at FC and BatB.

Danielle has committed to be trained as an FTA when she returns to CA in July.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Sisk family coming in clutch! Thanks a ton!

Re: California District Proposal
 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like some FiM district events at High Schools run TFS?

Good point though, and something to be aware of.

Personally, I like districts having a good mix of TFS and FSS, but I don't think that has to be a hard line at all. Districts have shown that both can work.

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

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

Re: California District Proposal
 

FTFY.

Re: California District Proposal
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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:

I'll come back to that later.

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.

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
 

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.

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

Re: California District Proposal
 

Off the top of my head, MAR Mt. Olive uses the cafeteria for the pits.

Re: California District Proposal
 

In NE:

North Shore and Rhode Island were held in field houses where everything fit in the one space. Granite State had pits in a cafeteria. I am not familiar with any of the other high school venues. While not a high school, WPI has pits in some weird room that I don't what to call, but is a great example of creative pit layouts. They really crammed pits in every corner they could find for DCMP in 2015.

One other thing to consider for pits is if the school has any large halls or lobbies that they would allow pits in. Even if there isn't enough room for 40 pits, you may have just enough room that you can squeeze the rest in the main gym.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Aloha from Maui, I'm the lead mentor for team 3882 the Lunas out of Lahainaluna HS on Maui. We have been to San Diego in 2016 and Los Angeles in 2015 and really enjoyed ourselves at both regionals. Thank you to the event crews and volunteers. We will be sad if California goes to districts, but I understand the reasons. We have figured out that playing in 2 regionals is definitely a plus for improving our program, so I see the rational behind districts allowing more matches. Unfortunately for us travel is our biggest challenge $$, even our home regional is on another island, Oahu, and we need to fly there, hotel cost etc.. California is our closest regional opportunity other than Oahu.

Re: California District Proposal
 

While I agree historically CVR is more NoCal teams, if I remember CVR was on the same weekend as the Long Beach Regional this year, and I think the week before in 2015. So you may have missed out on a lot of potential So.Cal teams these year just due to scheduling issues. Typically on my team we are not a fan of back to back events as its a burden on iteration plus it is hard for our students to take consecutive weeks off.


294 attended CVR in 2013 as it was on an advantageous weekend. We found that its really was not a hard drive or trip. The venue we thought was great and we would most definitely be willing to go back. In our regional trade space CVR is always in there just as long as we have enough separation from our "home" event of Los Angeles.

Without speaking for all the rest of them mentors on my team. I can see lots of pros/cons for Districts. We regularly compete in Long Beach so seeing 60+ teams is very normal to us. Holding the event in the arena can be a very special memory for most students on not only our team but also teams that have never gone to Champs. Keeping the regionals to have a "larger" feel can not only have tremendous inspirational effects but it also puts on a "great show" for our local sponsors. Often times when we invite our sponsors having them see an arena filled up usually gets them realizing the scope of the program that I am afraid may not be seen at the district event level.

I am not saying the district event cannot have the same effect, its just one of the things having regionals has going for it.

For me, Districts has to be the way to go for the future. We are already playing half of our Regionals in High school Gyms. From Inland Empire, to OC to CVR our 2nd regional is essentially a district event. So not only do we get limited to 8 matches at a 60+ regional but we also are paying a regional fee for essentially a district event. Man the worst $/match out there!

The crews who have put on I.E. OC and the other smaller regionals have all done a fantastic job and we have always enjoyed playing at those venues. The Orange county regional this year was a smashing success and we really look forward to coming back. Its just just a bummer to be spending the same amount for essentially what the rest of FRC would call a district event.

I have only quickly scanned the document but is very well written. I did notice that the South Bay (LA) area is an ideal location as well for a district. It looks like EricH mentioned that his team had looked at the venues. At 294 some of the mentors have talked(mainly whispered) that there has to be a school around here that has a chance. We would need to explore the requirements more carefully so thanks for helping us outline what is needed. But most important would be getting school buy-in and understanding how the gyms get booked. Our schools are so sports dominated that typically the gyms are constantly being used from girls volleyball to deep CIF boys/girls basketball championship runs.

Re: California District Proposal
 

FIM Escanaba uses part of the cafeteria for approx 10 pits and a small practice gym for approx 30 pits and the practice field. FIM LSSU used the hockey arena for pits and the basketball arena for the field.

Many people mention using two gyms because many schools have two gyms separated by a hallway which makes for a convenient arrangement. But, it is not an absolute rule by any means.

Re: California District Proposal
 

That sounds great. What's wrong with a community college?

Re: California District Proposal
 

That threw me off as well.

The Ventura regional is held in their community college.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Well we wouldn't want kids thinking that community college is an acceptable route to go...

Re: California District Proposal
 

Thank you for all of your feedback regarding CVR, and please do investigate possible venues! As some other posters have noted, it looks like we can be flexible with Pit locations if need be, so two gyms right next to each other likely is not a "hard" requirement, just like parking spots are not a hard requirement. I think 1200 spectator seating, and some of the other points in criteria, would be "hard" requirements though.

It is encouraging to see so much community engagement into the proposal. I'm planning a few revisions to update some numbers and make some other misc. corrections. Let me know if you see anything else worth updating/adding!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

This has been one of the biggest barriers to me being more involved in California. I used to do at least three events per season in New England, even before we switched to districts there. I could usually drive to 2-3 events from my house, my parents' house, or a friend's house, meaning I wouldn't need a hotel.

Now in California the closest event is over 90 miles (over 2 hours) from where I live, which means I need to pay for several nights at a hotel in an expensive area and take even more time off from work. In 2015, I took a lot of time off from work and paid a lot out of pocket to volunteer at three events in California and Nevada. In 2016, between some major deadlines at work and dealing with a family emergency, I couldn't even make it to a single FRC regional in California.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Hi Liam Fay of W.A.R. Lords- Your point two that the "…regional level ambience…" is the high point of a kid's FRC career is germane-- the consistently winning teams do see the points gathering thing as a stepping stone. The teams working out of the janitor's closet on the cafeteria benches in January want to go to something Big, Big, to make all their sacrifices and unplesantnesses worthwhile. What with our fabulous weather, Jan/Feb on the cafe benches still means you're working your robot in mittens and ushankas. Sponsors walk into 5k people at a Regional, shouting and screaming, get impressed and write checks.

EricH- Add to the volunteer conundrum another, which may be a Left Coast mentality: Some school site admin are totally bought into understanding what this kind of education means, and give their sites to teams for only janitorial fees. The majority (anecdotal, but research nonetheless) look at the rolling junk on the playing floor and only see rolling junk; they've an inability to break out of intellectual tunnel they've made for themselves to grasp what's going on. * They are happy to have a kid cite FRC on the college app, but care little for the day to day wrenching and welding and bandaids. Thus kids and mentors delegated to working out of janitor's closets or having to lease space in the community (at market rates).

Hi Michael C- thanks for putting your time in on this- it's a set of thoughtful pieces. On GoogleEarth, take a look at Torrance South High School- we've a great gym, a second Vball gym maybe for pits, but the access is up stairs and through narrow passageways, seeing as how the place was built in the early 60's (and despite rebuilds to make us Section 504 compatible). The California architects expect kids to play outside most of the year and give no thought to fieldhouse size venues and secondary gyms.

------

Pits have a dynamic that gets fragmented if you put four teams here, eight over there, a couple next to the playing field, some in some other building. We want teams to rub shoulders and be Graciously Professional while so doing, with veterans pulling up the newbies.

Perspective at the doer level is all. The teacher/mentor/parent/volunteer pool is devoted. I/we want kids to get out of school and be a success at whatever. I'd invite District proponents to play a season with us to get a grasp of the perspective (great perspective smurfgirl!), and fit your good ideas into our socioeconomic/cultural/geographic template--good minds solve big problems--I admit to a crushed viewpoint and tunnel vision as much as the next guy/gal, and like critiques from our vision point.

Joe Petito
LA Robotics

* See the discussion on Quality by Persig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Re: California District Proposal
 

Gonna be honest here, if a team is working out of a closet, I don't think a big flashy venue is gonna matter to them more than getting the robot they worked on for 6 weeks functioning, and it doesn't take a genius to know that more opportunities to play is gonna help you improve more than big event ambiance will. Do you really care about the experience of the teams that don't have much to work with? Give them more chances to get better and make something of their season. Big flashy lights don't help when you're 0-10 at your only event and your season just finished. That's why some teams go home early, and why others don't come back next year.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Having spent hard time on one such previously hole-in-the-wall team, I wholeheartedly agree. The flash of the regional provides very little motivation--none to me as a student--especially given how short-lived it is. When we worked in a barn, anywhere was up in terms of location. The great part is getting play time with other teams and, eventually, hopefully succeeding at something that lasts (a record of playing Saturday or winning an award). This is much more likely at smaller districts events with more play time and smaller competitive fields. Having now played in districts, we've also found that those titles, e.g. "Innovation Award Winner" or "quarterfinalist", etc, are far more interesting to sponsors (and recruits, and us) than the flash of any event "we played" at. People don't probe about the size of the field when you show them a trophy. Moreover, having more events via districts has helped more potential funders and other outsiders show up at one.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Sponsors love hearing about districts especially when their $5k = more matches = more time on the field = more time for iteration = more success.

I remember when one of our core sponsors a few years back asked "What are districts and how do we get in them?"

Re: California District Proposal
 

Sponsors can walk into a lot of people at District Championship events, see them shouting and screaming, get impressed, and write checks. They can also go to at least twice as many events as previously offered in the area if the shouting and screaming isn't for them.

This is a pretty good argument for districts.

Now I have heard it all, I think. This was an existing problem at a regional in southern California.

That sounds like a great offer! I'd love to take 422 to San Diego or Anaheim. Unfortunately the regionals in California are packed with teams from the state so much already that it is really hard to get out there and play a season with you. SoCal teams are occasionally shipped off to Nevada or Arizona for a second play; I imagine district model teams will not fare much better.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Can Confirm-

A short-lived attempt to get 125 into San Diego this year was met with a response along the lines of "we don't even have enough space for California teams..."

We, too, "got shipped" to Arizona (Which was a great event, don't get me wrong. We just wanted to play with robots outside...)

Re: California District Proposal
 

Are you sure? L.A. hasn't had that, ever. Ventura is all in one room (albeit, with some spread for "peripheral" parts of the pit). OC is practically all one room (slight overflow to odd corners of said room); IE same thing the last couple years it existed. Not quite sure about San Diego but in the venue this year it was one area. A couple of times offseasons have dealt with that particular problem, but not often.


With respect to the "community college" statement: This particular community college tends to be extremely busy (except when not in session). I'm also not quite sure on the layout of where the key venues might end up; they're (generally) on the same path, but cover is spotty. (You know, it does rain down here on occasion...typically in February and March.) Though if something WAS hosted there, something breaks and the machine shop is under a hundred yards away, fully equipped, and at least one of those instructors "GETS IT" with FRC.

Re: California District Proposal
 

And it happened in Northern California, at least at SVR. All teams with a number higher than around 45xx (IIRC) were put in a separate room than the rest of the pits. I found no issue with the separation, and veteran teams like 1678 were coming through and talking with all of us. If I wanted to go to see the other teams, it was just a short walk away. In my opinion, it's really not important, and none of my teammates felt "less inspired" or "a lack of GP" from being in a separate room.

Re: California District Proposal
 

The last year IE existed (2015) we had to run a tent for teams to transport their robots from the pits the the arena because the gyms were farther apart.
While the pits were in one location, I think Wil's comment pertained to that layout.
The tents were not in the plan, no one really expected there to be rain, but mad credit to the IE committee for having a back up plan.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Good points all John. Much to be said for that.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I don't think there is too much I can add here that was not already covered.

1) 40 teams in a high school gym can be as loud if not louder than in a big arena with 60 teams.

2) I like how close the bleachers in a high school gym are to the playing field. You are close to the action from most seats.

3) My experience is there are a lot of different types of sponsors. I have not run across any sponsors that support teams to write a check because they were impressed with the venue. There are sponsors who cared that your robot does reasonably well because their name is on it. There are sponsors who cared that your team is involved in the community. There are quite a few sponsors who cared that the students learned something that they wouldn't have learned if not for FIRST Robotics. When they hear that the program mimics real world engineering with opportunities to iterate and improve and ultimately succeed, that's when they open their checkbook. That is what district model gives students. 8-10 matches and out for the season is not inspiring no matter how great the venue is.

4) District championship is the same experience as regionals except the robots are more competitive in general so the matches are usually more exciting.

5) I like district events in a high school because you always feel welcome. Most of the time, the high school principal or even school district superintendent is there. They are proud of their school and they want you to have a good experience. Some schools have their cheerleading squad kick things off. Some have their band or singing group for national anthem. They go out of their way to inconvenient their students on Friday to give you the cafeteria, parking and other space. You can bring in your own food or order in food that is much better and more economical than at the regionals that I have attended. Most of what I said here is true for Kettering and other district events at college campus in Michigan also.

Re: California District Proposal
 

Joe,

Thanks for all of your feedback. A few of my observations to your points:

1. Sponsors want flashy events: I do not know of these proposed "see us waste 5k on 8 matches in an oversized venue and write a check" sponsors you seem to speak of. We have a 150k budget, and all of our corporate sponsorships are developed and finalized outside of competitions. The only sponsor that visited our team at competition last year was NVIDIA, but they are pretty deep in FRC already. Also, I agree with everything Ed Law said.

2. School Admins: For the past three years, CCC (NorCal Offseason) has moved to three different HS here in the Sac area. Not because that is all we could find each year, but because all three schools want to host the event, and we are spreading the event out to benefit more communities. Your anecdotal evidence is fine, but does not 100% line up with the majority of areas already in districts that seem to be able to get high schools to host events.

3. Venues: There are many HS in California. I know we can get creative and make it work. Its a matter of intelligence over convenience.

As an FYI, both Sacramento and SVR already have split pits. Both events have 12-16 teams in a secondary area in order to support the massive 60+ team rosters. So going down to a 40 team event with the same pit split up seems entirely reasonable. No one is advocating for the pits to be in 4+ different places, I'd rather not tolerate that sort of hyperbole in this discussion.

All,

Currently, California is spending over $1 Million Dollars on 7 regional events. We can run 18 events for almost half the price in our first year of switching, with additional savings in subsequent years. I am not proud of the amount of money in California that goes to unnecessary venue, A/V, union and catering charges. I want us to do better, to use our event sponsor's money more effectively to support the STEM revolution we are all a part of.

Joe, we have a ton of amazing minds in California, I totally agree with you. I'd like to put that brain power into solving the problems of "how do we make this happen?"

Keep the conversation going everyone.

Request: Could someone forward me contact info for Volunteer Coordinators for the various RPC's in CA?

I currently just have CVR and Sac contacts.

Thanks!

-Mike

Re: California District Proposal
 

I just want to add one quick note to this discussion, having participated in regionals for 7 years and then districts for 1 year now. People talk about the quality of district events versus regionals as if you have to give up the regional feel to do districts. That really isn't true. For one thing, the District Championships tend to have either the same or better production value compared to a regional. So you still have that 60 team event with thousands of screaming kids in a stadium to change lives and invite sponsors to and stuff. That doesn't go away.

And some district events feel basically identical to small regionals anyway. District events at colleges or community colleges are pretty much the same as a regional event at a college or community college. If you walked into the Rhode Island District Event and the Tech Valley Regional, the only immediately noticeable difference is that Tech Valley has the Show Ready lighting.

Even at the high school gym level, sponsors are impressed by district events. The company I work for sends some volunteers to the local district competitions regularly, and they certainly aren't turned off by the high school feel. They see kids and engineers working side by side on machines and playing matches with robots. That's cool no matter how you dress it up.

Districts are worth it. You can make the events as snazzy and fancy as you want to - no one's forcing you to give anything up in the District system - but I also think you're overstating the necessity of every event being a 60+ team event in a big stadium with fancy lights. You're also ignoring the current reality that many regionals are already run "like districts", and those kids aren't walking away any less inspired.

Re: California District Proposal
 

I do, too.

I have not lived in California for the last thirty years, but I do still have family there. It is important to me that FIRST continues growing in all states, and especially in California, with its nation-size economy and enormous stake in future STEM-based careers.

To reinforce a point others have made: large corporate donors are generally smart enough to understand that they are buying into a culture changing program, not backing a show, when their money goes to FIRST. Here is an example from my neck of the woods.

The video was made by Whirlpool Corporation, with help from several of the teams they sponsor. Most of the footage is from the St. Joseph District, which they also sponsor. Whirlpool leaders have attended MSC and CMP, but it is their local teams and event that inspire their continued engagement. This is what an FRC partnership of business, schools, and community looks like to me. If we can do this in Southwest Michigan, it can be done in California.

Re: California District Proposal
 

This definitely has not been the case in MAR since 2013. In 2012, Show Ready was still involved in the MAR DCMP (which was then hosted at a former Philadelphia regional location). From 2013 onwards, the venue was shifted to a more affordable venue and the production value was dropped significantly. The first year there weren't even drapes separating the field and pit areas, which gave it a distinctly "off-season/district event" feel. In subsequent years, low canopy drapes were added (providing separation at field level, but not from the stands), but house lighting and projection remained wanting.

While MAR has very valid motivations for the cost savings in terms of DCMP venue selection and production costs, it still leaves a lot to be desired from a production value standpoint. MAR is not necessarily representative of how a California district championship event(s) would be run, but it does show the possibility for reduced production quality even at a DCMP event.

(edit, I now see that this thread has individuals expressing similar concerns with the FiM and PCH DCMP events' production values)