District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

My team is not from Michigan, and I did not go to any of the district events or the championship. However, it seemed to me like a very good system. Teams got more events, more matches, and it seemed to really send the best teams to nationals. Has anyone heard if they will be using this model in other places? I would love to see it in the tri-state area (NY, CONN, NJ). We have 5 regionals in the area (nyc, utc, sbpli, finger lakes and nj), and it seems like it could work well. I wasn't at nationals, so I don't know if they announced anything about spreading the district system, or new regionals. Anyone know anything about this?

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

They don't hold the district events at regional sites. Think of it as FIRST done on the cheap. I was told some of the events cost as little as $10,000 to do. Regionals cost a whole lot more than that. So for the district model to work in other areas you have to think like they do and look for smaller venues to hold it in not the old regional sites.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

This strikes me as even more reason to do it. Aside from finding new smaller venues, which doesn't seem impossible, every other aspect seems positive. First spends less, teams have to pay less for registration and get more matches. This is especially good during a period of economic downturn, and it makes it easier for teams with limited funds to stay involved.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Overview of the season in Michigan

http://www.firstinmichigan.org/filemgmt/index.php?id=43

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Quick anwser: We'll have to see what FIRST does.

Long explination: What I think(and maybe Dave or Bill can fill us in on) is happening within FIRST is that they are having high level meetings to discuss the district system, and whether or not to expand it outside Mishigan or whether to do out with it all together. So FIRST will probaly make their decision in 2-4 weeks, if they haven't already, and then seek corperate sponsors for whatever they choose. As the fund raising wraps up for what they choose, they will probaly announce the regionals/districts, or they will anounce everything mid-September. Again, time will tell whether or not the districts will expand.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

When it was explained to me and what I saw at the Michigan State Championship left me hoping that they'd bring it to other states. All you lose is the big black curtain and some of the pizazz. For two events for the price of one, I'll take it any day.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I completely agree. Spending 6K for registration and possibly only getting 7 matches in is not very cost effective. The district model would let teams go to many more events at the same cost. In addition, Michigan showed us how epic a state championship in which EVERYONE needed to qualify to attend could be. It was clearly the toughest First event in history, something that I could see being put on TV. Overall I would love to see the district model spread to other areas.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Can't speak for other Michigan teams thought it was great

2009 4 events 53 matches $9500

2008 2 events 18 matches $10,000

You decide

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I dunno if I support or oppose district system basically nationwide. I know the Wisconsin - Minnesota region alone has way more than enough teams to do this, so it could potentially affect my team.

One really, really awesome thing about the regionals is that it's "not just your average everyday science fair". I mean, it is totally awesome to have a STADIUM FULL OF PEOPLE cheering with all of YOUR TEAM's hard work shown on a giant screen interacting with people around the world, and I imagine a lot of this is lost in a high school gym, where it would just seem like a glorified basketball game. I realize that regionals are expensive and decisions will have to be made but I really like the huge regional stadium format because, face it. If your team doesn't do well in two high school gyms, it's a lot less cool than your team not doing well in front of a few thousand people.

Also, I loved traveling with my team, and I'd really miss that with the district system. Driving up to Minneapolis, meeting with the Wisconsin Krew and a ton of brand new teams we'd never heard of before was really exciting and cool. It's part of what makes FIRST so special for me, that I'm not just going down the street to compete.

I guess it's kind of greedy to demand that though, considering how much dramatically cheaper the district system is. Well, it's out of our hands anyway, so we'll see and we'll deal. I hope we can still travel though.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Whether or not the district system itself goes to other areas, I for one would like to see some of the other aspects like the less expensive events and possibly the shipping go nationwide.

They tried quite a few new things, not just the districts. I still don't know about the district model itself, but the rest seem to be pretty good. (The district model is getting there. Couple of tweaks and that will probably be ready for the rest of us to take on.)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Before MSC, i was totally opposed to the District system (it honestly sounded like a glorified FLL structure to FRC...), but after MSC, i think im a little bit more neutral

In Michigan, the system works, maybe too well. but it works. I really can't see it building anywhere else, considering the amount and density of teams required to make this event work. The only other place where this idea could POSSIBLY work would be Texas... but that would be a few years from now after that 1.2 million dollar pledge for new teams is forfilled (the one that was announced during Championships).

There are things that can be improved apon for the district system... I have two such sugesstions

1. Instead of having scored the first two events that a team attended, score the team on their two BEST events.

2. Instead of charging Michigan teams the normal $4000 to attend a regional outside of their state (2nd regional cost...) make the cost $3000 considering $1000 is usually for the shipping, Because Michigan teams have to bag their robots, the can transport it themselves to other regionals. This would allow some MI teams to travel again to regionals held outside their state (Milwaukee, Midwest, BMR, Buckeye etc.)

We all have to remember the system was in a pilot program, so we don't even know if it's here to stay.

(I personally can't see this going nationwide, the team density just simply isn't there)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

(note im leaving my team in beautiful sunny Florida next year to join team 190 in the frigid north)

I can't really see this style working in Florida. The teams are simply too spread out. However I would love to see a system like this adopted wherever possible. I think nationals showed us how big of an advantage this system gives. You cant really expect to have a strategic advantage over a team who going into nationals has played over 60 matches, when you have only played 15 or so.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

This year the West Michigan District Event was in the field house @ Grand Valley State University, the same place the West Michigan Regional has been held for several years.

For me, it was not much of a change at all. There were fewer teams, but the event was executed flawlessly.

I am 100% in favor of expanding the FiM model to other areas. I hope the changes begin next season.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

As of 2 blog entries ago, Bill Miller, director of FRC said that the district system is still being evaluated in the BoD. I do hope that this is the case, since team forums haven't even occurred yet, the widely spoken of "Brandeis evaluation" has not been distributed (to the best of my knowledge), aka, they haven't heard any feedback. Seems like that would be a necessity to evaluate a program.

So, there is no for sure that it will return in Michigan next year, and no for sure that it will spread across the rest of the competition. I do hope that people keep in mind that FiM was a pilot program, and as such, must be evaluated for its effectiveness and its fate will be decided. Bill made it clear in his blog: the success/failure verdict on FiM is still out. Let's not presume that FIRST will declare it a success to be continued and spread until FIRST says so.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

very well said. we will see what happens soon

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

If it does expand I'd like to see it come to California. If it did so though, they may need to have more district events. Michigan had 3 events in 2008, and California had 4. Michigan also has about 122+ teams. California has around 160+ teams. (approximation)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

8 sounds good. And yeah i figure my team, a lot of the powerhouses, and some other strong California teams would want to do 3 districts, just off the top of my head:
100
254
330
115
701

No doubt there are many other teams that could afford to and would love to attend 3 districts.

Additionally, you kinda need 8-9 districts to accommodate any new team growth in the region.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Or, as I suggested in another thread, allow "outside" teams a chance to take those spots--not for points--before opening the events up to 3rd-district teams.

Thinking about it, that could result in some really interesting events. Let's say, for now, that CA gets up to 155 teams, at 2 events apiece. There are 320 spots in an 8-district grouping, and 310 are taken. You now have 10 open slots, spread over 5-6 weeks and hundreds of miles. (If the number of teams goes over 160, you'll need a ninth event, or somebody only goes to one and goes out of state. Like that'll happen, but anyway...)

What to do with 10 open slots? They won't be counting for points, because any teams taking them will already have 2 events to get points in. So you may as well cross-pollinate--give outside teams a week's head start in registration for those 10 spots. You'd have to work out a price that's between "third district" and "second regional", but you could easily do that. Then after that week, have "open" registration, anyone can sign up. Price depends on in-state or out-of-state status. Now you get the benefits of the regional and the district system...

I'm with Beth: We'll have to wait. And as I said earlier, some aspects could easily be implemented before going to full district style.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I'm not sure where you've heard this, but it's not accurate from what I understand.

FedEx donates your shipping for two events (and home from Championships). If you use those two up, you pay for your own shipping.

Word on the street is CA might be next, in 2010.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I'm also pro-district for next year. This whole time I just haven't been able to figure out with regions would be designated as part of certain district competitions. NYC, UTC, SBPLI,FLR, and NJ might be too large of an area, but it would be AWESOME to see this happen.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Any way Nevada can get thrown in with CA on this?

-Keaton

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I was calculating a bit, and if CA went to a district system, it might be advantageous to grab NV and/or AZ in the process. More districts, more fun, right? And neither state can really support a district system on its own.

Then again, that's a HUGE area--6 regionals that are bigger than districts. I'd figure 10-12 districts, and then try to figure out where to hold the zone championship.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I think it would be really cool to do this, but we would probably lose the "Vegas Regional" because the venue is only open week 5, unless the championship was week 6. It COULD be a place for the championship if they opened up the Cox Pavilion for the pits and had the Thomas and Mack for the Fields. That would be really cool, and some what of a central location for the championship :)

-Keaton

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Looking at the map, the NJ/NY area looks more appropriate for expanding the district idea, but I'm not FIRST

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

There is one critical element that has been overlooked here: FiM was a volunteer-driven organization. So unfortunately, pointing at a map and saying "district here" won't cut it. In order to spread the system, the region needs to be established, and have enough volunteers to step up above the team level to manage the region, otherwise, FIRST will still need to spend money on professionals to run that area.

Anyways, for a good divide-and-conquer evaluation, see Paul's post here .

-Alex

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

That's goes for any FIRST event. Except maybe the off season where they are on their own when it comes to getting a paid professional.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

All this district talk is making me excited! 24 qualification matches instead of 7? For $1000 less? Sign me up! Cory, I hope you're right and CA is being considered for the district model next year. Its seems like an efficient and sustainable method to keep FIRST growing at a decent rate. With a few more years of growth, the district model may start looking just like local high school sports leagues. Now thats a thought!

Who knows, if FIRST saves enough money on the district model, maybe we can all get a cRio in the KoP next year ;)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I would love to see it happen in NY. NY is a lot different then any other state though. The City has tons of teams and the rest has a few handful teams. This would cause some issues with the whole district setup. I am thinking that Canada will be the next to get districts.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Teams did travel outside the state. They had to ship the bagged robot to the event, and then ship it back home, again bagged. They could use the donated FedEx shipping for at least one leg of this. They also had to crate up to ship to Atlanta.

FIRST doesn't save that money. It's the regional committees that save it. Except in cases where a region can't attract enough sponsorship to support the event, and FIRST steps in. So districts won't have any effect on whether or not you get a new cRIO.

When thinking of new areas to expand the district model, remember the 3 key things needed:

1. Density of teams
2. Density of volunteers (including key positions like FTA, field supervisor, lead que, head ref)
3. An organizing committee

That last item is the most crucial. Just because you have enough teams to support district/champ structure, doesn't mean you have enough expertise to organize and run the structure, all year long.

In MI, 3 existing regionals were replaced with 7 district events and 1 championship. The model has identified 16 geographical areas which might or might not eventually get their own district event.

The Michigan pilot was announced on July 30, 2008. I'd expect any new district/champ models, or any changes to the MI version, to be announced sometime this summer.

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

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Anyone interested in doing some hypothetical FIRST gerrymandering? :]

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

PA NYC and NJ? Too big?

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Well...

For now, leave out NZ, Israel, Europe, and Central/South America. (low team density).

Canada gets 1 area, which excludes BC.
The Pacific Northwest gets another, with BC, Washington, Oregon, Idaho.
CA gets its own, with NV and AZ.
The upper/mid Rockies get one with Montana, CO, Utah, Wyoming, and the western part of Nebraska and the Dakotas.
NM, TX, LA, AR, and OK get one.
MI's Lower Peninsula stays as is; it's dangerous enough already.
The upper Midwest gets one or two.
MN, WI, the UP of MI, and the eastern part of the Dakotas and Nebraska go into one.
New England gets one highly defensive one.
The Mid-Atlantic gets one.
The Southeast gets one.

Each area has at least one event that is open for teams from outside the area to compete in. HI has a standard regional or joins CA. Zones left out continue with the regional model until they get more teams.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I've seen a significant amount of people complimenting the MI district structure on here and only about 1/4 of them actually experienced it...It's easy to say "yes districts would be great here," but it's not nearly that simple to implement and not everything about districts were positive. (Edit: Looking back this seems quite negative and wanted to clarify, I'm only pointing out the flaws because most of the thread has focused on the positives already.)

Yes having 4 events this year was nice (Kettering, Lansing, MSC, ATL), and getting a 2 for 1 deal on the districts was cool, but what does downsizing do to the quality of the event.

I've always liked "quality over quantity" and MSC was a perfect example of quality, but the fact that MI was dominated by 2 teams who won every event they attended in MI is slightly dissapointing to me. The pool of 40 teams does not provide a deep enough selection to hope to challenge such an alliance, and there 3rd pick could have been anyone (no offense to any teams who were there I'm sure you contributed). MI alone is strong in teams, but the midwest is amazing, and cutting out teams like 71 and 111 who are always welcome at WMR is somewhat saddening. I saw the same number of robots in the 2 districts and MSC that I would have at two regionals because teams that select the closest district just play their neighbors over again.

The event size was dissapointing, and space (especially at Kettering) was limited. There was not nearly the amount of excitement from teams that I'm used to at FIRST competitions, not to say it wasn't high, but 40 teams can't compare to 60...

Thursday RIP. You will be missed.

Increased event count also means extra school/work missed. Yes you gain back your Thursday, but the 8 hour bagtime from Sunday-Thursday sucks up the time you would have spent studying anyway. Overall it is better for adults, and about even per competition for students, but it is still an extra competition. I know spring break really messed me up this year. Thursday, Friday before break - MSC, 1 week break, come back on a Tuesday in time to get my homework, then Tuesday night get on a bus and miss 3 more days of school...I'm finally caught up as of today.


Overall I have to give FiM credit, they put together a great, different, but successful structure and the extra matches were well worth the exact same cost :D

As far as districts expanding (I figured I should cover the topic of the thread too), it has basically been said by all those who aren't in MI. If you want districts let someone know. FIRST is exceptional in feedback and helping students get out of the experience exactly what they want. The determinant of who the next victims will be is going to be based on numerous things that have already been mentioned. Team density, volunteer supply, enthusiam of both of the forementioned (without that the willingness to experiment you won't be the next target), venue availability (shouldn't be a problem), people willing to put it all together (thank God for them).

Good luck to whoever is next (if anyone), we'll just have to wait and see...

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I was refering to the post above yours sorry.:o

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

It looks like Virginia will have a district system for FTC for fall '09. Maybe the FRC will follow suit soon.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I would like to see events at less known Engineering Universities. I wish I had the stat mentioned at Kettering, but a huge percentage of students there come from first. I know a lot fo our kids consider and go to Grand Valley because of West Michigan.
Regionals are way too expensive for a university to pick up on their own tab (I commend Purdue's organizers for finding funds), but Districts are cheaper than sending out brochures to 100,000 students.

If FIRST wants a less painful way of rolling out the system, then loaning fields to Universities and High Schools to do off season events is a smart plan. Give them a chance to get a taste for an event.

If districts were prevalent, I hope they would be able to tear down borders and let teams go to whatever district or Regional Championship they choose.

::ouch:: Sorry, I just really like this one and don't get to use it often enough.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

[soapbox]

No offense, but it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for Virginia to have a district system. There is simply no need.

In 2009, the state of Virginia had 59 teams registered for FRC. The NASA/VCU regional alone has hosted as many as 66 teams. That's not even counting the Washington DC and Chesapeake regionals (which can also host >60 teams), both of which are within very easy traveling distance for the largest portion of VA teams (Northern VA). Most NoVa teams don't even need hotels for the DC regional (just like RVA teams don't need hotels for VCU).
The logical choice for venue to host the state Championship is the Siegel Center (current venue for the VCU regional). The max capacity of the venue is greater than number of teams in Virginia, so literally EVERY team would qualify. The districts are then nothing more than practice events and qualifiers for the Chairman's award. The actual robot competitions would be completely meaningless.
With ~60 teams, you only need 3 districts (assuming 40 teams per) to get the 120 needed competition slots. If you hit the 61+ mark, you're bumped up to four (but have a very large number of "open slots" for 3+ district teams).
Where do you put the districts? Two are probably in NoVa. One is in/around Richmond. And one is somewhere in Southwest VA (Roanoke, Lynchburg, etc). Travel costs are ultimately not cut for anyone, as the NoVa teams already have the DC regional and the Richmond and Southwest VA teams now have to travel to their second district.
You might be able to fudge around with it a bit and move the Richmond district to Charlottesville and one of the NoVa districts to Southeast (Norfolk/Va Beach) Virginia. But then the Richmond teams suddenly have an even larger travel bill to foot (and they currently don't have any at all if they don't goto a 2nd event).
Beyond that, a number of NoVa teams routinely travel to the Chesapeake Regional (and now the DC regional), often skipping VCU entirely. This now makes it much more expensive for them to do that, as they essentially committed to a Virginia event (and likely the State Championship at VCU as well). And what about the North Carolina teams?

You could make a slightly more persuasive argument if you say include Maryland, DC, and North Carolina as well. You then jump from 59 teams to 111 teams in the region. The Championship event, regardless of which of the three venues, will then hold approximately 55-60% of the capacity, a much more reasonable number.
You then have 222 needed competition slots, or 6 districts (with 18 slots left over for 3rd events, assuming no more than 9 new teams are formed in this area). Placement then becomes even more tricky, with too few North Carolina teams (11) to truly mandate a district in NC (raising their travel costs) and almost all of the team density focused around the Washington DC area.
More importantly, this would "close off" three regionals that have traditionally had a good deal of out-of-state support, and flourished because of it.
Chesapeake had 26 teams, or 47% of it's attendees, from outside this proposed area (mostly from NJ, MA, NY, and NH).
DC had 17 teams, or 26% of it's attendees, from outside this area. Even more importantly are WHICH teams those were. 45, 234, 365, 118, 538, 1279 and others were instrumental in making DC the high quality regional it was. Five of those teams were in the finals, and 234 won the Chairman's Award. These were among the most gracious and outgoing teams at the event (especially 234 and 365), and helped many in "rookie row" make it out onto the field.
Even VCU, which has a smaller portion of out of state teams, has very significant impacts from those who do come from out of state. What would the regional be without appearances from teams like 383 (Brazil), 843 (Canada), 359 (Hawai'i), etc?
Beyond that, I honestly feel that VCU is the best regional out there, and is certainly the best I've been to (VCU, DC, Philadelphia, Chesapeake, New Jersey, Colorado, New York). There's a reason why some of these teams make return ventures (this was the 4th time 843 has ventured down from Ontario if memory serves). It's a terrific event, and I wouldn't want to do anything that could possibly harm it.

Too Long, Didn't Read:
Bottom line, it doesn't make sense to implement the district system in Virginia currently. The team distribution just isn't right, nor is their the appropriate quantity. Even if combined with Md, NC, and DC it still would be very flawed. There are some very definite advantages to it, but those don't automatically require the district system as a whole.

Please read, consider, and discuss individual features of the district system here. You might be surprised to see that some of them might not need entire overhauls.

[/soapbox]

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Assume FRC has ~1500 teams in 2010. The Michigan model would suggest regions of 100-150 teams. I looked at every 2009 event and grouped them geographically, and the result actually makes a lot of logistical sense (regions are fairly compact and roughly equal in team distribution). Obviously, anywhere there is a border you're going to make somebody unhappy. Then again, who says each team can't just pick which "region" it would like to be a member of each season?

So here is how my take on regions breaks down, with the respective 2009 regionals in parentheses. Each regional would be split into 2+ district events. Or, some could double fields/throughput and be a "double district" event. This is one of many, many ways the FiM model could be applied...

MICHIGAN (Essentially 3 regionals from 2008 and prior)

MID ATLANTIC (Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York City)

CAPITAL (Chesapeake, DC, VCU)

NEW ENGLAND (New Hampshire, Boston, UTC, Long Island)

GREAT LAKES (Waterloo, GTR, Finger Lakes)

RUST BELT (Buckeye, Pittsburgh, Boilermaker)

MIDWEST (Midwest, Wisconsin, North Star, 10000 Lakes)

GREAT PLAINS (St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Kansas City)

TEXAS (Dallas, Lone Star)

PACIFIC NORTHWEST (Oregon, Washington)

SOUTHWEST (San Diego, Las Vegas, Arizona, LA)

WEST COAST (Hawaii, SVR, Sacramento)

SOUTHEAST (New Orleans, Florida, Palmetto, Peachtree)


The next two really don't fit with anyone else...

Denver
Israel

(Disclaimer: The reason I post this is not because I necessarily think the FiM model is the best fit for all of FRC right now. But I do believe that some of its aspects make it a *good* fit for much of FIRST, especially as new rookie teams start to fill in the gaps. So I might as well fulfill my Friday night boredom.)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I agree that somewhere in the Northeast would be very conducive to the district system- it's not too geographically large but there are a lot of teams and events which would be able to support the district system. New England or the tri-state area would both be a good place to expand to if FIRST decides that the 2009 pilot was effective and is worth spreading.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I think we can come up with a more respectful designation than that.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

THE Rust Belt.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Steel is so 1970's. If we want to be current in depressing descriptions of where I live, how about the Bankrupt Automotive Industry Belt? :rolleyes:

I'd prefer NORTH COAST (Pittsburgh, Buckeye, Boilermaker)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I looked at what I was calling IKIO (Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio). I don't have all of the data with me at the moment, but something like 80-85% of the teams at Buckeye, Midwest, and Purdue came from these four states.

Implementing six districts in these areas (2 in IL, IN, and OH), seems fairly realistic.

Work would definitely need to be done and it is probably a two-year project...but I think it can happen.

The planning resources/team support/FIRST experience is definitely there.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Don't you dare take our "North" name and disgrace it... Maybe the Rust bucket car in the front yard region? :p

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Old Steel Belt?

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

That would be the general concept. You could decide to throw in DE as well. I'm not sure how you figure this would be a detriment to the NC teams, though. They could choose to go to one event with the same travel costs as they have today (likely less, one less night lodging), and play more games. And it would be a great incentive to increase the number of teams in NC, a state which is very underrepresented at present. They should be able to field not just one district, but 2 or 3 based on population.

And that's the biggest detriment to any district system. If cross-border trades could be arranged it would help tremendously. That wasn't a part of the MI Pilot, but could be added to the district model later. It becomes more important when we consider this possible Capitol area is immediately adjacent to Philadelphia. Other areas that would require cross-border team trades would be around St Louis and Kansas City, both of which sit on the edge of MO. (Presumably KC would be in the middle of some South-Central area, but there are IL teams that would be cut off from St. Louis.) Michigan lost contact with teams in the Toledo area who traditionally came to GLR and/or Detroit because they were the closest regionals.

Once we figure out what the future will be, we need to figure out a name for these things. District/Area? District/Sectional? State Championship worked for MI, but won't work for multi-state areas.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Just for that, Rochester gets lumped in with Ontario. We'll call it the "Poutine and Snow" region. Getcha passports ready! :-)

Clevelanders use the term "North Coast" to describe the region near the Lake Erie coastline all the time. The area around the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is called "North Coast Harbor". I've always thought it was a cool term.

I'd support this region. It would even have its own chant:

I-K.................I-O!!!!

If this region ever formed, I'd argue strongly for a team's ability to attend events in another region, primarily for the sake of the Pittsburgh Regional, which draws many of its participants from Ohio.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

122 current teams. Plan for growth, plan for 7 districts like MI had with 132 teams this year. And I agree, this area probably has the support to run it. Look at one of Jack Jones' posts though - if there isn't planning going on NOW, you're late for 2010. Maybe not too late; you can piggyback some on what MI learned. But it has to get going.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I don't think anyone expects (or wants?) this to happen that quickly. But if it were to happen, I think the IKIO region would be the most preferable arrangement.

As for the 2nd OH district - I'd think somewhere in Columbus on the Ohio State campus would work nicely.

And how about Lawrence North High School in Indianapolis for a 2nd Indiana district? I'm fairly certain that venue could work. :p Just cancel school Friday and have all the students volunteer. ;)

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Seriously, most people in the so called "rust belt" area find that term pretty offensive. Every time I see it in the media I cringe and fire off a nasty e-mail to the journalist.

Steel Belt, Manufacturing Belt, Large Industry Belt - these imply correctly that this area is responsible for creating much of the large heavy machinery that makes everyone's lives better.

Rust Belt implies decay, mechanical death, and junk piles. I don't really appreciate my chosen area to live being compared to a junk pile.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

It certainly wasn't "just like any other regional" when it came to signing up. Teams had to qualify to attend.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I ment in the way it was run. Yeah the level of play was higher, but it was run just like any other year's GLR. with all day thursday and the professional sound crew and everything. when compared to the 2 day districts, that is what I ment, it sounded like some people were thinking it was run like a district.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Sorry Chris. I honestly had never heard the term before and did not know it was that offensive much less deeply offensive. Please accept my apology for the joke I contributed.
--
As we know, many of these areas are just not ready for any type of districting format. It is fun to see how folks would carve things up though. As we move further out west, it becomes clear to me that the states covered are large in size and could be harder to district. For example - Colorado could be put with Texas but my goodness, the distance involved. I'm also keeping in mind that Texas, in my opinion, is no where near ready for districting in FRC, and I don't know that it would be welcomed immediately. Again, an opinion.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

Delaware only has two teams right now (1370 and 365). While both teams attended the Washington DC regional this year, both also consider the Philadelphia regional their "home event." I don't think either would like to be locked into one "region" but if they had to chose, I bet they'd select whichever one Philadelphia was in.

With the current TEAM population/density, North Carolina wouldn't warrant a single district. Instead of paying the travel costs once (as the current system), they'll have to do it twice (three times for those who qualify for VSC). This is especially tough for the NC teams that typically select Peachtree and Palmetto (1533, 2655, etc) instead of VCU.
While you cut the Thursday out of the travel costs (aside of the state championship), you easily make that up by adding a whole second trip. Similar statements can be said for Southeastern and Southwestern Va teams.
Eventually NC might mandate their own districts, which would be terrific, but eventually isn't now. Right now, a district system doesn't make sense for this area. Too few teams would see any real travel cost reduction (I can't find any, given the high density areas already have regionals).

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

I honestly had no idea that the term Rust Belt had so many negative connotations. Chalk one up to ignorance. Sorry!

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

No problem - It's obvious from its rampant use on TV and in the newspaper that no one really gets it.

It has become more sensitive because the term has recently come back into vogue in the media and that coincides with the auto industry on life support (and that about 50% of Americans say "good riddance"). Having a phrase with a negative connotation thrown around doesn't help to sway anyone's opinion of the area and the industry that supports it.

Re: District System in Other Regions in 2010?
 

As a team member of 2054 from michigan i see that making the rest of FRC having the option of running a District type of compititon would be better than just the one regional event you would compete at. i have seen both types of systems and i wish that Michigan did the switch sooner. At the first district you will see the flaws in yours and others robots and at the next district you will see those flaws have been fixed so at every level the competition gets tougher and tougher. Competition brings out the best results.