Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I attended 3 district events in Michigan this year. Two (Detroit and West Michigan) were held at the same sites as prior years regionals. The third, Kettering, was held in a site that is VERY similar to the Boilermaker regional at Purdue. The look and feel of these 3 events were very similar to smaller regionals such as Boilermaker.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

A word of caution about being cautious – if the people who belong at the head of that crucial organizing committee in your area sit around and wait for word from above, or the results from some survey, or for the FIRST BoD to plan the whole thing, then don’t expect many changes in your area. FiM didn’t begin with an announcement in July of ‘08; it began over well over a year before that when a couple of exceptional people saw the writing on the wall and decided to do something about it

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I was just thinking the same thing. If folks are serious about bringing the Michigan Model elsewhere, I'd suggest getting some teams together, getting a committee in place, and start lobbying FIRST to be the next.

If any of you mentors need help with that, I'm sure your kids will show you how to do it.... FIRST has been teaching them exactly that for years :D

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

With almost 250 FRC teams in CA, NV, HI and AZ, it should be easy to fill the card for 10 or more district events (if FIRST could get that many venues in the Southwest). As in Michigan, each of the teams would compete in two district events with fair number of teams playing a third event. The Long Beach Arena is big enough host a double-field Championship for the SW super-region (like 75+ teams).

Unlike Michigan, though, I hope that teams from outside the SW would be allowed participate in the SW district events.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

i just want to make a point.
There are many areas in the US and elsewhere where the team density and the economy might not be able to support the Michigan model.

I am all for getting to play more matches and for adding opportunities for extra regionals.

I do think it has to be something that is available to everyone...
I am very happy for Michigan and their ability to play in 2 regionals for the cost of 1... it is great for them. It would be great for everyone.

It is disadvantageous to everyone else.
Time on the field is a great advantage. Having a day to work/practice with/on your robot each week (and not just parts of your robot) is a great advantage...

Michigan fielded over 40 teams at CMP. This is wonderful.
But to give you an example... Washington State has about 49 FRC teams
Michigan has 132 Washington sent 6 teams to CMP.. we had one regional to qualify .. Now part of that might be because Michigan teams can actually drive to Atlanta in a reasonable amount of time. 3000 miles is abit much to drive for us.

West Coast teams have had this issue since FIRST began. Not to mention Hawaiian teams and Israeli teams...

i am all for the success that Michigan has had... I just want everyone to have the same kind of chance...

It is impossible to have everything equal for everyone. But if we use this regional model it should be available for everyone to use... not just certain areas... Perhaps this system should be set up the same way that regular regionals are set up...

By this I mean that you have open registration... not just within a state.
Indiana or Ontario teams could be in the "Michigan" system...
Divide the whole country up into these regions and have teams sign up through standard registration...first come first served...everyone gets to sign up for two of these within their region.

It was a grand experiment and the Michigan teams performed very well in Atlanta. They probably would have anyway.

If its good for some it should be good for all...
or we wait until it CAN be good for all...

my 2cents this time...

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

If I had to gerrymander my district, I'd include Western PA, Ohio, and Indiana (and annex northern Illinois :p). Perhaps add in northern WV teams that typically attend the Pittsburgh Regional.

I do not know how many teams that would encompass, but that is the minimum "diversity" of teams I would require in order to not have to bang my head against the wall in frustration over facing the same teams over and over and over and over again. ::ouch::

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Michigan had 3 regional last year so we had 6x3=18 teams qualify for CMP. The rest went (primarily) just by signing up and paying the $5,000 fee. Nothing unfair about that, this opportunity was open to everybody.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I was not indicating that anything was unfair.

But since you mentioned it...
Michigan was given the opportunity to send 18 teams...
If teams had signed up early, or decided they could not go for whatever reason... they just kept going down the list to fill the 18 teams through the use of the the regional points system.

Everywhere else... if the team was already going ( our team for instance) and they qualified (which we did..) that spot just went back into the larger FIRST pool of teams .. so teams on the wait list could go...... the regional could not pick another team to go to CMP based on their own system of who deserved it. Only teams that were regional winners/CA winners/EI winners/Rookie All Stars could go...So if you had any double winners or teams that could not go the CMP for some other reason (usually money) ... that just meant your regional lost the opportunity to send the full number of qualifiers...

Now I am not saying this was unfair... it was the rule...
So it was completely fair.

My only comment is that this needs to be fixed... so that every regional needs to be able to send their 6 teams... so we should set up some other points system to allow 6 representatives at CMP.

Washington had six teams go... but one team had signed up early.... just as you mentioned... if they had not... we would have only had 5 teams going. This team had just decided to go... and that was great .... but no spots were held open until the end for teams in Washington... to be filled by anyone other than the aforementioned qualifying criteria.

There are many other issues concerng why Michigan consistently has more teams at CMP than Washington or any other west coast team...

FIRST they have many old and established and premier FIRST teams... they plan on going every year...and they should go
I can't even imagine a CMP without 217 or 67 or 469 or 68 or many other Michigan teams...
SECOND It is a heck of a lot closer .... and cheaper to get there...
....

I want the Michigan teams there... but without this "at large" ability.... some great teams from the West Coast don't have the same opportunity...
Case in point would be the Beach Bots.... they had to win their way in to come...
I don't wish to speak for them but I believe they had decided early that they had to win in order to go.
They were a great team and would have enhanced CMP... but they didn't get one of the qualifying spots this year..
If they could have been an "At Large" qualifier they might have been there...
I would imagine that if you totaled their points on the field in their two regionals and compared them to many Michigan teams that qualified by points that if they had been in Michigan they would have gone or at least been invited.

It was a great CMP this year ... but it would have been better with them there... or 968...and probably many other teams.

So I have nothing against what Michigan and FIRST did for Michigan teams.... I think its great...
I just think that FIRST needs to discuss this... and see if these kinds of opportunities can be made available for all regionals

thanks

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

One reason I support the district system for NJ/NY area teams is because of the number of matches teams can play for a lower cost and also just the amount of experience they gain.

In many of these teams' normal seasons, they go to one regional hoping to get selected, many have fallen short of this dream in most of their years of existence. They go home after this one regional and wait for the next season. With districts, more competitions for a lower price will allow teams to improve at the next event like most teams fortunate enough to attend more than one regional do in the current system. The affordability factor in this sense raises the competitive level of not only the top tier teams, but also those teams who usually only compete at one regional and don't get a chance to make a new iteration of their design for the next competition.

I know for a fact that attending more than one regional certainly helps us improve greatly and its evident that it helps almost all teams gain experience when they attend more events. So not only will upper-crust teams in our area improve at each event and send the best of the best to the state championship (like 67 did in MI) but it was also help underprivileged teams finally be able to step up and realize their full potential.

+$0.02

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

If you look at the old system, what you are discribing is how most michigan regionals went. It was nearly impossible for any team that wasn't a powerhouse to even qualify before. On top of that many of those same teams would win the ATL qualifing awards. With the powerhouse team density that there is in michigan you almost need the new system to give everyone else a shot at ATL. My views may be biased, and I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but how many other regions (except california;) ) have more than a handful of teams in the region that are powerhouses? They are the reason in my opinion that the new system works in Michigan so well are, there is enough of them to evenly distribute amongst the districts and not see the level of play decrease. Without the new structure the smaller teams are at a bigger disadvantage, the same is probably true in many other areas. I personally would love to see the district model extened to other parts of the country, but for michigan to return to the regional structure would break my heart. If they were to do away with it, I hope they keep the point system.
Just a note since some have referenced this, the MSC was run just like any other regional, not a district. (or did you mean that and I misinterpted)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

The only intent of my post was to point out this will help teams improve. For most, I don't care if they win the regional or go to Atlanta. If there's anything I've learned this year, its that improvement and the achievement of goals is all that matters. I don't care at this point about inner city NYC teams winning a regional or going to the world championship. I just want them to gain experience and improve. In now way do I care about these teams putting up a fight against the "powerhouses" or having a "fair chance" if you get what I mean. Think for a moment not about teams vs teams. Think of it as the team vs. themselves and hurdles in their path. Are they winning against those odds? Are they challenging themselves? And most of all are they realizing their true potential and comparing their past performance and setting new goals. It has nothing to do with team vs. team for me, its about the team vs themselves. The point of your post is quite different.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I am not sure what you mean by returning to the old system of regionals in Michigan.
If you had 18 powerhouse teams wouldn't they be the ones that would qualify under both systems?
I think the difference may be in that the Michigan system this year excluded the other powerhouse teams from the Midwest and elsewhere from having a shot at those regional qualifications...so 71, 111, 1114, 2056 etc didn't take up any of the 18 slots...

I do think that many regoinal area have these concentrations...
I wouldn't leave out the Northeast area...
121, 190, 25, 40, 11.....many more

Or even the Indiana/Illinois area..
111, 45, 234, 71, 1024..many more...

Florida has its share.... Texas....
more areas than that...

Powerhouse teams really are all over...

As someone has already pointed out... ANY team can sign up to go to Atlanta during the open sign up.
Teams that haven't gone for awhile are given priority...

I do think the more important thing is that more teams get to play more and that is a very good thing.
Getting to play at 2 regionals is a big thing... that is your biggest advantage...
when I was in Indiana ... we would have years when we could only attend 1 regional...
I am sure that is the same for many Michigan teams...so this is really good for those teams.
They then have a chance of winning their way into the Michigan championship... and for a relatively modest entry fee they can then compete again... This is the best part of the new system...

I have always said.... paying $10,000 for a team and then getting 7-8 matches to play in one regional is tough to swallow.
Better to play more... no matter how we can achieve that...

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Although I don't consider us a powerhouse there are a TON of teams in the Northeast I consider powerhouses that can easily be spread out to keep the level of competition equal in districts. Some others: 341, 365, 103, 272, 1124, 237, 173, 175 ,176 etc. etc all the UTC teams lol

Its a crazy world up here in the NE.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

In terms of championship eligibility, what do Michigan teams have over any other team across the nation. Yes they are closer than Washington or California, but the championship registration policy and eligibility is the same, and consistent nationwide. Michigan still only sent 16 teams this year that qualified at the state championship, the rest of the teams were pre-qualified/pre-registered. So i guess what im getting at is i think im missing something, what do Michigan teams have over other teams across the nation other than the per match count? The system this year was GREAT i hope all of you can experience the match play count that Michigan teams got to experience this year!

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

This is the difference... see below..

I am not saying this is a bad thing... just that this system needs to be applied equally for all regionals.states...

that's all