Chief Delphi - Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Michigan, be honest, how is the district model? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95905)

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag (Post 1067252)

So, does it work? Yes it does.
- Team growth has been very good.
- Team Retention has been very good.
- Community awareness and media exposure has been exceptional.

Jim (or anyone else) - is there any data that compares MI to RoW (Rest of World) for team growth and retention?

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1067254)

Jim (or anyone else) - is there any data that compares MI to RoW (Rest of World) for team growth and retention?

This post by Mark McLeod in the Registration 2011 thread makes some notes to that point, but a more thorough analysis is necessary to make any significant conclusions.

Quoted for ease of reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 986397)

Teams that played last year but haven't returned this year (by area).
MI and CA are equivalent in size, but MI had twice the attrition rate.

Loss as a % in the largest areas, Minnesota wins:
(Note: reworked these using last seasons total teams)

Minnesota (105) ---- 1.0%
Texas (104) -------- 3.8%
New York (119) ----- 6.7%
California (153) ---- 7.2%
Michigan (140) ---- 14.3%

Missing in action:

MI ---------- 20
CA ---------- 11
OK ---------- 8
NY ---------- 8
Israel ------- 8
IL ----------- 7
OH ---------- 6
WA ---------- 5
FL ----------- 5
CO ---------- 5
CANADA-ON - 5
VA ---------- 4
TX ---------- 4
NJ ---------- 4
MA ---------- 4
IN ---------- 4
AZ ---------- 4
UT ---------- 3
PA ---------- 3
OR ---------- 3
MO ---------- 3
GA ----------- 3
CT ----------- 3
WI ----------- 2
TN ----------- 2
SC ----------- 2
NC ----------- 2
MS ----------- 2
LA ----------- 2
KS ----------- 2
HI ----------- 2
DC ----------- 2
AL ----------- 2
Turkey ------ 1
PR ----------- 1
NV ----------- 1
NM ----------- 1
Netherlands - 1
MT ----------- 1
MN ----------- 1
ME ----------- 1
MD ----------- 1
CANADA-QC - 1
CANADA-BC - 1
AK ------------ 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on the positive side, here are the teams, by area, that are playing.
Twelve countries are represented.

Area ----- Registered
CA ---------- 175
MI ---------- 171
TX ---------- 145
MN ---------- 130
NY ---------- 127
WA ----------- 82
VA ----------- 68
CANADA-ON - 65
NJ ----------- 64
FL ----------- 61
MA ---------- 53
MO ---------- 52
Israel ------- 48
OH ---------- 48
OK ---------- 48
PA ---------- 48
IL ---------- 44
CT ---------- 42
AZ ---------- 40
GA ---------- 38
NC ---------- 36
CO ---------- 35
IN ---------- 35
OR ---------- 35
MD ---------- 34
NH ---------- 33
WI ---------- 32
HI ---------- 26
SC ---------- 25
LA ---------- 24
KS ---------- 19
UT ---------- 18
TN ---------- 16
CANADA-QC - 14
DC ---------- 14
KY ---------- 14
ID ---------- 13
Mexico ----- 12
AL ---------- 11
MS ---------- 11
NV ---------- 11
ME ----------- 8
MT ----------- 7
Brazil -------- 5
RI ----------- 5
WV ---------- 5
AR ----------- 4
Turkey ------ 4
IA ----------- 3
ND ----------- 3
VT ----------- 3
WY ---------- 3
AK ---------- 2
DE ---------- 2
NM ---------- 2
PR ---------- 2
UNITED KINGDOM - 2
Australia ----------- 1
CANADA-AB -------- 1
Chile ---------------- 1
Germany ----------- 1
Herzegovina -------- 1
Spain --------------- 1

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

I'm going to make the same earnest plea I made a couple years ago when talking about the FiM district model. Please, try and isolate the variables.

I realize this is tough with only a couple years worth of district data to work from (and none of that is pure, since there are so many variables involved). For example, looking at retention rate. The economic crisis absolutely ravaged Michigan. It's expected that they would have higher than normal loss rates of teams. It's tough to figure out what role, if any, the district system played in that. Similarly, the amount of Michigan teams that reached the elimination rounds in St. Louis is likewise a combination of many factors (see my previous thread for a similar evaluation).

Secondly, not all of the FiM district "features" have to be in a full-on district system. Ideas like eliminating Thursday practice days, increasing the total matches per event, increasing the quantity of events, reducing the cost of events, bag and tag, geographical segmentation, and two-tiered competitions should each be evaluated individually, rather than as a single package. It's entirely possible to implement some of those without going to a district model, and it's possible to go to a district model without implementing all of those.

Frank, I look forward to meeting with you and the rest of MAR at the July 9th meeting. I hope to have more solid evaluations prepared by then.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Just a bit of extra info.. Thursday is not a complete loss in Michigan, most events have a 4 hour window for teams to come in.. Also I have been to many districts where you did have time on practice on thursday night.. and practice rounds on friday morning...

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi (Post 1067253)

Who or what, may I ask, has been responsible for this lack of change? Are these restrictions directly from NH or are the costs dictated by financial needs to run the events? Meaning- how much does it actually take to run the state championship?

For the most part, the details of the financials are not really a topic for public discussion.

FRC has a standard participation pricing model, with the district "double registration" being the only real exception. In the case of the MI State Championship, as with all FRC events, the registration fees team pay to go to the event do not go to fund the event itself. The event itself is funded by the event sponsors like GM, BAE, etc. The registration fees have little to nothing to do with the costs of running the event.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1067256)

Secondly, not all of the FiM district "features" have to be in a full-on district system. Ideas like eliminating Thursday practice days, increasing the total matches per event, increasing the quantity of events, reducing the cost of events, bag and tag, geographical segmentation, and two-tiered competitions should each be evaluated individually, rather than as a single package. It's entirely possible to implement some of those without going to a district model, and it's possible to go to a district model without implementing all of those.

It is good to hear someone else re-state this again. The system we use in Michigan is a collection of the features that we decided would work for us, given our team population, geographic distribution, volunteer base, and financial situation. Our way is one of many possible solutions. We explored many ideas thoroughly before settling on what we have. There are certainly lots of other ways this could be done using only certain pieces of our system, or by adding great new ideas. This is still a young sport, and it will continue to evlove as it matures. Each region needs to set its own goals and proceed accordingly.

I will say that if people want to remove "border restrictions" in the future, the closer our individual systems are to one another, the more likely we will be able to find ways to allow more flexibility in this regard.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1067248)

-It's more tiring on volunteers. From 2008 to 2009, Michigan went from 3 events to 6. Roughly double the volunteer-events needed. Even if districts don't do full-day thursdays, it's an increase and more spread out.

I'm not sure how many people outside of MI know this, but each team is required to provide two volunteers for both days of each event that they attend. I'm sure that we all understand why this is required, but my team struggled to find two people to volunteer for our away event this year (West MI/GVSU), and I'm sure we weren't the only ones. Having two districts each week (with the exception of Week 2 - Waterford) also tended to spread out the experienced volunteers between events.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

I hear alot of talk of people from mi complaining about the lack of out of area at their regional, but I would be curious to hear from the people who attend the New Jersey Regional and New York City Regional about how much diversity they see at their regional now. When our team went to peachtree regional we saw mostly the same teams every year, so much so you thought of them as neighbors.
My suspicion, these regional are already in high enough demand locally that the teams don't see many outside teams there now, but I don't know(the only regionals I go to are in places where iced tea only comes sweet).
If this is the case, limiting competition to the districts wouldn't bring earth shattering change to your competitors.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

I may not be from Michigan but I DO remember the pre district era.

my biggest beef is it makes those not in Michigan locked out of Michigan. I remember going to great lakes rgional on 1747, and All i have to say it was one of my favorite regionals I've ever been to.

in my current position, if we went to states only, being in Kentucky in Louisville means that if there ever was a team on the Indiana side (one of my 5 year goals), we would be locked out of a district in Louisville. Which is imho, DUMB. We would have to go to at least Columbus, IN for the closest major Indiana City, which is about 1 hour away when there is a much larger city 10 min away across a bridge.

Also, I liked getting an excuse to go long distances by going to a far away, exotic regional. It was an added perk that in the past was something that attracted new members on the borderline of joining.

maybe have districts without the state championship and getting any award at the district with a trophy would get you to St. Louis (or wherever it is that year). anybody could go to any district competition, with a limit on how many per year (say 4 or so). that way, there would be less of a borders issue so Canadian teams on the border could go to US districts, Kentucky teams to Indiana districts, etc.

just my $0.02 on the issue.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

I'm curious about how teams from the Upper Peninsula feel about the district system these days and how it has evolved.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mesamb1 (Post 1067270)

... I would be curious to hear from the people who attend the New Jersey Regional and New York City Regional about how much diversity they see at their regional now.

We ran those numbers (it was a group effort) after registration closed that gave the % of away teams at each Regional.
About a third at both NJ and NYC were teams that had other "home" Regionals. You can check the preceding posts in that thread to follow the discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean that the same teams aren't always showing up.

The last column gives an idea of the turnover rate (or team freshness?) experienced by each Regional year-to-year, that includes rookies.
That's probably your best measure of the amount of new & different teams mixing each Regional up.

Those numbers aren't final because a few teams were still being moved around between events, but that's the bulk of them.
Also the criteria of what an away team is, is talked about inside the spreadsheet attached to that post.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1067292)

We ran those numbers (it was a group effort) after registration closed that gave the % of away teams at each Regional.
About a third at both NJ and NYC were teams that had other "home" Regionals.

That is a lot of diversity that would be lost, much more then I would have thought. Thank you for taking the time to run those numbers

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pafwl (Post 1067167)

I am part of Mid Atlantic Robotics a new 501 c3 non profit recently created to look into the district model in NJ, DE and Eastern PA. I know folks are working very hard on this.

It seems that a group of people went through a lot of trouble just to look into the district model. Can you explain the intent and purpose of creating the non-profit?

Jane

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag (Post 1067252)

Fact: teams who play more get better. This is not just an opinion, it’s a fact.

Which is why we should be doing everything we can to get more playing time for the teams.

As a Field Supervisor I see many teams play their 9 or 10 matches and then they are done for the year. The teams learn by competing, and 22 minutes of playing time isn't much of a return on 6.5 weeks of investment.

Everyone seems to be dancing around the cost of the regionals. $4000 or roughly $400 for 2 minutes and 15 seconds of playing time is not cost effective. We need a lower entry fee.

My dream would be a semi trailer that would pull up, unfold into a playing field in minutes, minimal number of volunteers needed for scoring, queuing, being refs, and playing for several hours. That would enable competitions among school conference teams, or school regionals, or county competitions.

We have a huge built in infrastructure for sports in this country. Most schools have football stadiums, baseball diamonds, basketball courts, ready for playing at any time. We aren't there yet with robotics fields all over, and probably won't be any time soon.

Maybe FRC needs to consider other field surfaces (turf, tennis courts, hardwood, asphalt) for games.

My fundamental point is we need to give the teams more and cheaper playing time.

Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneYoung (Post 1067304)

It seems that a group of people went through a lot of trouble just to look into the district model. Can you explain the intent and purpose of creating the non-profit?

Jane

From their FAQ document:

Quote:

MAR is a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation with IRS 501(c)(3) exemption as a charitable organization. It was created in October 2010 with the encouragement of US FIRST, Manchester, NH. Our mission is to promote and implement FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) programs for the benefit of all FRC teams in our region, which spans all of Delaware and New Jersey and counties in Pennsylvania from Harrisburg eastward.

Quote:

MAR will negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with US FIRST that will define its relationship with US FIRST. This arrangement is not new: FRC is run by independent US FIRST affiliates in Long Island, Michigan, and other parts of the US. Like these organizations, MAR will raise funds from donors in the region, recruit and offer assistance to new teams, and plan and conduct regional events.