Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
 

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.

Can you be honest and tell us how the Michigan District Model is working. We hear it is great. Please level with us.

What is working, what is not working, and what was completely missed?

Many thanks in advance...

Frank Larkin Director-at-Large
Mid Atlantic Robotics.

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

I am a from a Michigan team, and I was around from before the district model was used, and I would say, that it has major benefits and drawbacks. The biggest drawback is the extra cost to have to go to state and then to nationals. But the big advantage is the fact that limiting teams by a second level of competition makes for much more challenging opponents at nationals.

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

I'm actually on the same team as mobilegamer, and would have to agree with him.

The added level(s) of competition are very beneficial as you get to perfect your game as the season progresses. The added time gives you a competitive advantage once you get to nationals, but as mobilegamer said the added cost of State and *potentially* Nationals is difficult for teams to pay. Especially in Michigan.

I honestly don't see why FIRST doesn't allow FIRSTInMichigan to run our own State championship - other than they enjoy lining their pockets. Costs would significantly decrease.

Other than that, the smaller district events are more exciting and fast paced. Also they feel more "local" - everyone knows each other. This makes these events feel more competitive and friendly. It's really cool to see a new member meet new people from different communities and schools.

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

Why are you both calling the state championship an extra-cost? Isn't it the same as a regional? If anything it's cheaper because of the district model, not more expensive. I believe 2 Districts and state Championships still isn't the cost of 2 regionals. 3 events for a cheaper cost than 2 sounds like a deal to me.

My point is it's neither a drawback nor an advantage compared to the standard system elsewhere. If anything it's cheaper.

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

No, in Michigan, we have to pay the cost for 2 regional events which is the same cost as other state's district events, then if you do good enough at the regionals, then you have to pay another separate entry fee for state

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

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cost of attending 3 regionals and the Championship Event significantly more expensive than 2 districts, State Championship and then the Championship Event? If so, wouldn't that be an advantage to the district model and not a drawback?

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

Yeah, but Districts aren't $4000 each like regionals are.

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

At start of season, $4000 gets you the KOP and 2 district events in michigan, and KOP and 2 regional events outside of michigan, then in Michigan, its an extra $5,000 for states if you go to state

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

No, $5000 gets you a KOP and 1 regional outiside of Michigan...$9000 gets you 2 regionals and a KOP. Trust me, Michigan is cheaper.

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

Outside the Michigan, the $4,000 gets you the KOP and only 1 regional event. One of the biggest reasons Michigan switched to the district was to reduce costs.

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

Only if you are one of the few teams who attend 3 regionals and the Championship every year (or pretty regularly anyway). That is a pretty small percentage of all the teams out there. For the teams who only attend their home regional every year, I'd think there's a huge advantage to going to a bigger regional event that potentially draws teams from elsewhere, as opposed to a small, local district event that just shelters them. It's a lot more inspiring to go a larger regional with some different people every year than just the same old district with the same old locals, and for the teams who have just attended the same old regional for years, having never attended Champs or tried something new, some inspiration might be in order.

On the other hand, the smaller district events do give a bit more playing time (I think?), and I think I've heard that Michigan attend a minimum of 2 district events? So maybe it's a wash.

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

Okay, just looked at USFirst's website and I was wrong, I thought non-Michigan teams got 2 regionals, but in fact they only get one. So the cost of 2 regionals IS the same as 2 district events, however, registration is not the only expense, transportation, lodging and food can rack up a hefty difference between 2 and 3 events.

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

The cost of the first two districts regionals is paid for through registration.. And each additional district is $500.00

The state championship is $4,000.00

Meaning doing three events in Michigan (2 districts and States) = 9,000.00

Doing three regionals outside of Michigan is about 15,000

Plus the State Championship is almost einstien level play..

Now for my own personal opinion... Since its start in 2009, there are two things that stick out more than anything, FIRST's growth in michigan and how many robots actually make it out to the field for ever match. The districts being held in highschool gyms make the competition seem that much more exciting. i would suggust this system to others because of the level of play has risen all around our state.

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

A good place to start would be the Brandeis evaluation of FiM after the 2009 season. http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...Summary_09.pdf

There were lots of other topics covered also, all overwhelmingly favoring the district system.

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

No. You get 2 districts for and KOP for your entry (I think it's $5000). In order to do two regionals, you need to pay $5000 for the KOP and 1 regional, then another $4000 for your second. That's $9000 for 2 events. You are paying $5000. Michigan districts are cheaper.

2 districts and State champs is the cost of 2 regionals.

Edit: Nicholas beat me to it.

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

[Edit] Looks like Nicholas got it well ahead of me... [/Edit]

OK I see lots of different stuff flying around, so I'll try to put it all to rest.

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nt.aspx?id=460

Teams outside of MI pay $5000 for 1 regional and 1 KoP
Teams in MI pay $5000 for 2 districts and 1 KoP
Each additional regional is $4000
A 3rd MI district is $500 (I'm assuming you can only attend 3?)
MI State is $4000 (for MI teams only)
The World Championship is $5000

So with those numbers in front of me, the district system seems like it might be a good deal. But there are certainly a multitude of other factors to assess.

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

Wrong.

Michigan
-------------
$5000 = 2 Districts + KOP

Not Michigan
-------------------
$9000 = 2 Regionals + KOP

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

EDIT: While writing my post, a flurry of others clearing up the costs of districts appeared. Information is repetitive


Okay, so. I'm not from michigan, I can't answer the OP's questions. However, I'd like to shed some light on this particular subject.

According to usFIRST.org, costs are as follows:

Veteran Team costs (numbers change for rookies/veteran teams without the new control system):

In MI:
KOP + 2 district events: $5000
Additional district event: $500
State Champs: $4000
FIRST Championship Event: $5000

Everywhere else:
KOP + 1 regional event: $5000
Additional regional event: $4000
FIRST Championship Event: $5000

No matter where you are, the minimum to play is $5000 (to clear up any confusion).

To get to champs in an earn-to-play way (winning events/chairmans/EI/rookie all star), it costs teams

in MI: $5000 (registration) + $4000 (State) + $5000 (champs)= $14,000

not in MI: $5000 (registration) + $5000 (champs)= $10,000

So, for MI teams to say its more expensive is reasonable. They have to fund-raise an extra $4000 dollars for the intermediate step that is state. YES, they have more events for the initial cost (and a third district isn't too pricey), however, they need to pay the equivalent of TWO regionals to qualify for champs. Not-in-MI teams only need to pay for one regional to qualify for champs.

Teams that could only afford a regional and champs on the old system can't do that anymore (I'm assuming earn-to-play). To "be the best" in MI means that you also have to be able to afford/budget all the extra levels of competition.

(I'm sure someone will say "Then just fundraise more," but I'm just pointing out the fact that MI teams have to pay more to earn-to-play at champs)

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

I understand that to get to Nationals it could be cheaper out of state, but Michigan team can also opt to attend a regional. If they don't like the steps in districts, they can leave the state and do what everyone else does. The Michigan team also gets 4 events in this comparison, not 2 like the other team. It may be more money, but they are also getting more.

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

To reiterate what has been said, there are many advantages and disadvantages to the Michigan model. I'll start with the advantages.

The cost has already been mentioned. It allows for teams to go to more events, which is what everybody wants, right? After two FIRST seasons, I have competed in eight events. The level of competition has already been mentioned as well. At certain districts, it may not be very competitive, but the State Championship is a blast. Watching teams nearly fill up the racks this past year made it very exciting. One of my favorite parts of FiM stems from competing at more events. I have been able to meet a lot of people from all over the state. Factoring offseason competitions and other events, I have been able to build relationships with not just other students, but alumni, volunteers, and mentors. FiM has a very friendly atmosphere and makes it very easy to build connections.

I do have a few things I don't like about FiM though. The first has to do with this year specifically. I did not like how competition winners did not get an auto-bye into the State Championship. Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and one other cultural award did not receive any qualifying points for the State Championship as well. I heard the reason behind this was the separate the cultural awards from other awards and highlight them as special. Instead, I think they should award teams with more qualifying points than regular awards. The biggest problem I see with FiM is that it does seem to isolate teams. Sure, you have teams like 217, 67, 469, etc who already have a name for themselves and everybody knows who they are, but at the saem time, there are plenty of other high caliber teams in Michigan who out of state teams have no clue who they are. In the state of Michigan, teams like 2337, 1918, 2137, 201, 1718, etc. are considered(well, I do, but I'm sure many others do as well) up there with 217, 67, 469, etc., a force to be reckoned with. I'm sure these teams find it very difficult to make a name for themselves down at the Championship, even with their performance on the field.

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

I heard once of a team that wanted to opt out of MI and just go to the WI regional. Even if they opt to do this, they still had to pay the Michigan registration fee, making their only regional $9,000.

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

While I agree with this - and love it - one of the biggest things that I miss because of FiM is meeting people from other teams across the country. I was only in FIRST/FRC for one year before the district model began, and my team only went to one out-of-state event (Pittsburgh), but I loved seeing all of the teams from places that I was unfamiliar with. In MI, you don't get to see the international teams either. It is impossible to do two districts, a regional, and the state championship without doing back-to-back events, which tends to put a strain on the students' school performance.

However, as has also been said, the districts are very fast paced and competitive. Getting two districts for the price of one regional allows rookies (and veterans, for that matter) a second chance to compete in case they run into glaring issues at their first event, without breaking the bank.

One other drawback is that the teams on the extreme borders of the area (in this case, the teams in the UP) experience higher travel costs because of their distance from the events. In New England, the events are more local to the teams there, and this wouldn't be as much as a problem. It's just a matter of where to draw the boundary lines.

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

They paid $9000 and went to the WI regional, but did they attend 2 districts as well?

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

I have no numbers to back this up, but from posts I've seen it seems like single regional teams are in the minority at champs. Furthermore, single regional teams are vastly the minority in elims at champs, and ridiculously in the minority for division/champs winners. There are some exceptions of course, but for how many teams total do a single regional, the numbers are low at champs.

So, if you want to go to champs (and do well), go to two regionals first ;)

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

This is true... and many of teams opt to do this each year...

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

Yes this is true, but it is only one way to look at how your team is spending money (ie: what you are getting for the cost of the competition).

Another way to look at it is how much playing time you are getting with your robot. In that case, the matches/dollar (or dollars/match) metric may be a viable way to see what kind of payback your getting per model.

In that case, for a Michigan team electing to go to 3 districts we could see this:
-Assuming 14 official matches/competition as an average
-14 matches/competition * 3 competitions = 42 matches
-$5500 dollars (registration fee + 1 extra district) / 42 matches = ~$131.00/match played

For a team outside Michigan to reach the same # of matches:
-$5000 registration & 1 regional + $4000 2nd regional + $4000 3rd regional = $13000
-$13000 / 42 matches = ~$309.50/match played


In your example, the team from Michigan did have to pay an additional $4000 dollars to get to Championships, but they also got approximately 50% more matches played than the team from outside of Michigan for that cost. In dollar/match terms:

-Michigan team going to championship: $14000/56 matches played = $250/match
-Outside Michigan team to championship: $10000/28 matches played = $357/match

Furthermore, if the Michigan team wanted to pay the extra $500 dollars for a 3rd district, and an outside Michigan team wanted to go to a 2nd regional you get this:

-Michigan team, 3 districts, states and championship: $14,500/70 matches played = $207.14/match
-Outside michigan team, 2 regionals, championship: $14,000/42 matches played = $333.33/match


I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to see how much bang your getting for each buck your team spends, but its an alternate way to look at the different models.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all teams also have a chance to register for an open slot at Championships, as few as they may be. Often times, teams who win a competition may not be able to go to Championship just because booking a trip in a matter of weeks can be too difficult. Its just another side of the coin to look at.

-Brando

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

I do not believe most regionals average that 14 matches per event number, I would say its closer to 10 or 11

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

I think they ended up just doing Districts, but what I was trying to say though is that you have to pay $5,000 even if you opt out of any districts. I think?

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

I think he is counting eliminations as well as qualifications, not just qualifications.

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

Obviously it was just an approximation. I was assuming 10 qualifiers and 4 elims as thats a typical event for my team. Feel free to tweak your numbers as you wish. I think you will find the correlation is still evident.

-Brando

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

Back on topic a little.
I like they way we do it in Michigan. We have a lot of events we can attend and the excitement of state and even nationals. Either way I like Michigan's ways.

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

I think you might want to run real numbers on this before making up such a conclusion.
I just looked and it's almost 50/50 (46% vs 54%).

Statistically speaking, people can be notoriously bad guessers. (Apartment for Peggy)

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

I stand corrected.

Do you have numbers on eliminations by chance?

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

The thing I miss most in the District system is not getting to see out of state teams. That could possibly be fixed with cross-district exchanges in the future as the district model expands. There would have to be some kind of limits put on it, but I think a workable model for traveling to other areas could be worked out.

The greatest cost benefit is for the average teams. In Michigan they get 2 events and at least 24 matches for their initial entry fee. Teams that go to a regional get one event with as few as 7 matches, although I understand they are trying to get more matches in most regionals. Still, it's a difference of ~10 matches vs. 24.

Yes, the State Championship costs $4000 extra, the same price as a second regional elsewhere. And with the point structure I don't think it is possible to qualify for the Championship event without going to State. (It might be mathematically possible, but highly unlikely.) But as pointed out above, many teams go to a second regional as is, so the total registration costs for the season are the same.

For some teams there is an additional travel expense to get to a second district event. In SE Michigan most teams are within daily driving distance of their 2 events if they choose to go to the nearest ones. But some teams elect to go to a more distant district. OK, travel to Traverse City or Niles might not be as exciting as travel to Orlando or New York, but the biggest draw to travel is going with your team, not the destination.

Also district events are only 2 days, so you only have to miss one day of school (unless you have to travel on Thursday).

So while there are a few drawbacks, the benefits far outweigh them in my estimation.

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

Pro's:
1. We pay less to play more. This has all sorts of benefits:

• Exposure to more robots and more teams
• More practice
• More time to work out the bugs on the robots during competition
• More friendships with awesome Michigan teams
• Rapid-fire turn around means the teams get very good at fixing their problems

2. For awards like Chairmans, we get far more practice (have to present multiple times)
3. Michigan sends teams to championship that have done well repeatedly. Not just 1 time.

Con's:
1. Generally speaking, the field of teams we see in Michigan is limited to Michigan. I miss going up against Wildstangs, Technokats, Beatty, and many others nearby.
2. The events are somewhat less glamorous.
3. The district events are very much 'jammed' time wise. A day is cut out of a district to save money, which means we're usually up scouting until 1 AM on Friday night. There's no reall time to go swimming, go out and get a nice meal, etc if you're planning on picking the next day. Likewise, we start earlier. It's exhausting compared to a regional. We're HAPPY to go to state championships and world championships because, frankly, it's WAY more laid back with a much longer turn-around time between matches.

All in all, the district model is superior in my mind. However, there are things I miss about the regionals events - the glamor and glitz, the laid-back atmosphere and time to have fun, etc.

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

Brilliant responses...

Can you comment on the competitions themselves? Did you feel they were any less exciting or less satisfying because they were not as splashy or glitzy as the pre 2009 events run by FIRST?

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

What about the idea that you could switch one of your district events with another team. Call it a time share swap. You both register for the district event in your area, then you contact the other team and tell FIRST about the swap. They go in your place and you go in theirs.

FIRST may not like this becasue their comupter systems will have to support it but it might be a way to cheaply kill one of the complaints I am hearing be knocked down. You get to go away for 1/2 the cost of a traditional regional.

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

Depends on your taste... If you want to awe the people around you with the venue and make it feel like a pro-sports event, you don't want to try a distrct model...

By working in the highschool gyms and such and you get more people closer to the event and want to know more...

If you put in place a good DJ, high enegry people behind the table and normal team spirit then the event could be just as exciting as a normal regional..

The easiest way to compare is to an offseason event.. Like IRI, everything done in one gym and people are right there.. I usually don't hear to many complaints about that from the IRI participates..

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

The best solution is usually the simplest: don't draw any borders.

No matter how you try to slicey dicey up geographic areas into discrete regional districts, you are always going to anger people at or near the borders, who want to belong in a different region. This would particularly be a problem for the Northeast megalopolis; it's too big to be a single "district" but too contiguous to be broken up into sub districts without the whine of a thousand banshees descending on the unfortunate person who arbitrarily put an invisible line on a map.

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

Semi on topic: If NJ and PA break into districts, and New England follows suit, we in the Capital region of NY could end up in a fun situation where we have zero nearby events because we're not included in districts.

I really don't get why districts are "locked".

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

One thing I found interesting, is in Michigan, we play in the light! What I mean by that is the field lighting is visually stunning, but makes for horrible pictures, tough scouting, tough pit conditions. I stopped in a Pittsburgh, and it felt like you were playing in a mine.

Another thing I like is that there seems to be a better spreading of awards from event to event. With the extra events, there are more awards period. This tends to recognize more teams (at least at the district level) which in my book is a really good thing.

I really like that the level of play tends to match the venue. What I mean by that is the Districts tend to have a certain level of play involved, MSC another, and World Championship an additional step up. this tends to match the venue size and the requirements to qualify to be a part of that venue.

Having a qualified Championship event like MSC is so neat. It sets a good bar for middle ground and new teams to strive for. You have to be roughly top 1/3 in the state to qualify for it. While 20-30 teams are pretty predictable, the other 40-30 slots have potential for turn-over which is a motivator/reward to a lot of middle teams. Playing qualifying matches with teams that have 2 events under their belts is awesome. Teams have had time to develop a skill set and can play an active role in the match. The mix is exciting as usually allianes are good enough to not be completely ruled out. At MSC there was 1 0pt. alliance during the entire event. Even a competitive regional like Midwest had 10 0pt. alliances in the first 20 matches. Newton had 4 0pt. alliances in the first 20 matches. 4!!! at the "World Championship" in 20 matches!!!! is 10% of alliances in what was arguably the deepest talent depth division at the championship.

Its not perfect, but I really really like this system, and with a few tweaks (most controlled by FIRST HQ), it would be really close to ideal.

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

A few notes no one has picked up yet, I think:

-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.

-While there is less interaction with outside teams, that results in more interaction with inside teams. When you see the same team at 2-4 events (even 5, possibly) in a season, there's more camaraderie. The end result is greater cooperation and fewer failing teams.

-The group of teams headed to the Championship is more well-rounded and chosen more fairly. The point system will often send deserving finalist-captains to the CMP, who are completely left out in a regional system.

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

Minnesota, being I believe 2nd or 3rd for most FRC teams (MI is of course at the top, Texas in there somewhere, and California???) may also break into districts soon, depending on how FIRST assesses the success of the pilot and where Mark Lawrence and co. want to take Minnesota FIRST. So it's kind of interesting to think how things would be different.

First off, it does seem silly that the districts should be locked. Teams within a state (or region, I guess would probably be the case on the East Coast), should have the freedom to pick and choose districts. This helps relieve the monotony you get from seeing the same people over and over, and it probably wouldn't create any imbalance in competition (in fact, it would probably relieve that, too, with some of the better teams perhaps looking around for easier events, more average teams looking around for more competitive events, or vice versa, probably an even distribution).

If teams are left out of a state/region, for example in 2791's case, or for the few teams in the Dakotas, or wherever, there should be a straightforward process of applying to that state/region's tournament and participating as any other member (plus commute). And I say straightforward because it musn't discourage the formation or continuation of teams in such areas. The tricky part would be determining how remote a team must be to do such a thing (or maybe you don't care? as long as each team is in only one tournament, plus as many regionals as they want...)

Well that's a lot of unorganized thought on the subject...

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

Personally I love it, (but I will openly admit to a little bias :) ).

Why do we participate in FIRST?
Some of the posters in this thread seem to indicate that the primary goal is to get to the Champsionship via the easiest and cheapest path possible. Wrong. The only teams who should be at any championship are the ones who legitimately have some chance at being a champion, regardless of the sport. Anything other than this is just promotion of false hope.

The “Scalable District System” (this is the actual original name) was designed to increase participation, sustainability and growth in the FRC through several means:
1. Reduce the price of entry: This is more than just enrollment costs. More events and more teams means lower travel costs and more support.
2. Increase Return on Investment: Every team in our system plays 2 to 3 times more than teams do elsewhere under the traditional system for the same price and the same lost time from work/school.
3. Remove Barriers: We work hard to remove things that waste time, waste money, add needless complexity, or generate frustration. We still have much work to do here.
4. Create an Environment which promotes success: We want all teams to strive to be successful, and we provide measureables which allow them all to gauge their own success.
5. Provide Local Infrastructure: Our FIRST Community is here, not in New Hampshire. As with everything, the best help and support always come from a local level.
6. Bring more attention to the FRC: We have a great group who work together to promote all 10 of our events, not just one regional. The 2011 MSC special is just the beginning.

Many of the “fixed points” are set by New Hampshire and are not under local control:
1. Would we allow teams from other states to come here if we could?: Yes
2. Would we give points for the “Culture Changing Awards” if we could?: Yes
3. Would we reduce the initial registration fees if we could?: Yes
4. Would we reduce the cost for enrolling the State Championship?: Yes
If other regions chose to go a similar route as we have, maybe together we can make such changes. Thus far we have been unable to affect these items at all.

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

Backing up to some points made earlier in this thread:
Fact: teams who play more get better. This is not just an opinion, it’s a fact.
Let’s look at some data. (Remember kids, without data, you are just another person with an opinion).

At the 2011 St Louis Event, we had the following breakdown of prior experience.
Teams at 2011 Championship - 352
Teams with 1 prior event - 163 - 46.3%
Teams with 2 prior events - 153 - 43.5%
Teams with 3 prior events - 29 - 8.2%
Teams with 4 prior events - 6 - 1.7%
Teams with 5 prior events - 1 - 0.3%
So there was a roughly 50/50 split of teams with 1 prior and teams with more.

So how did everyone do when they got there?
Teams in STL Elimination Rounds - 96
Teams with 1 prior event - 13 - 13.5% - 13/163 = 8.0%
Teams with 2 prior events - 56 - 58.3% - 56/153 = 36.6%
Teams with 3 prior events - 29 - 24.0% - 23/29 = 79.3%
Teams with 4 prior events - 4 - 4.2% - 4/6 = 66.7%
Teams with 5 prior events - 0 - 0%

So basically, even though almost half the field were in the “one prior event” group, only 8% of these teams advanced. The other, more experienced group, were 44% successful overall.
Every member of our Michigan top 20 ranked teams was in St Louis this year. 19 out of 20 (95%) of these teams advance to the Elims. No other group of any kind had a similar level of success.

We have studied the population trends in the FRC for over a decade. Team capability grows very consistently with experience through the first three events and then begins to level off. Only the very best teams begin their season at near full capability; the other 97% of the league see definitive growth with increased experience.

If you want to improve FRC in your region, you have to get the robots on the field. It is as simple as that.

"Hope is not a Strategy" - Rick Page

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

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?

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

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?
 

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

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

From their FAQ document:

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

For 12 years, we have been doing exactly this in Oakland County Michigan with our OCCRA Fall Robotics League.
It really is pretty awesome that we can run a full robot tournament on a Wednesday evening: start setting up at 3:30, be packed and out by 9:30pm.
http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Default.aspx?tabid=535
We used a lot of the lessons we have learned on OCCRA over the past decade when we designed the FiM structure.

Absolutely, teams build robots so they can use them.

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

I have a couple of questions/concerns about the district model and its possible implementation across non-Michigan regions of the U.S...

1. When a Michigan team pays its $5000 registration fee, does all $5000 go to New Hampshire, or does a portion go to help pay for district events/local infrastructure/the state championship? On the surface, the district model seems to be a way for teams to keep paying FIRST the same amount of money while receiving less (in that the same volunteers who run teams now are responsible for coordinating and running on-season competitions).

2. Presently, a small, dedicated cadre of volunteers support many of the on- and off-season events in the Northeast (with similar patterns elsewhere). With the added time and effort of potentially twice as many field set ups/teardowns, inspections, etc., how big of an issue has volunteer burn-out been in Michigan? Do we think it would be even worse elsewhere, where there is a smaller pool of volunteer "regulars"?

3. With smaller district events, it seems like the average turnaround between matches for a team can be very short. On one hand this is great, as it allows for more plays. But on the other hand, a single malfunction or repair could conceivably affect the outcomes of more than one qualification match. How big of an issue is this in Michigan? Do we think it would be even bigger elsewhere, where there are fewer "elite" robot-building teams?

4. Certainly, some of the Michigan district events are loaded with former World Champions and annual powerhouses. These events yield great entertainment. But what of some of the lower profile district events? Is the quality of the on-field event compromised by the smaller field of teams in these cases?

5. Lastly, my understanding of some of the top-level goals of the district pilot in Michigan is as follows:

* The regional events were running out of room for rookie expansion
* Many teams in the region only attended one event each season for financial reasons, and more play time was a goal
* Local sponsorship for the three Michigan regional events was becoming harder and harder to get

How many rookies in your region are there annually? Is the pace of rookie growth non-sustainable for your current events? What percentage of your regional's attendees already attend more than one official event per season? Are there ways to make Regional Competitions more affordable without requiring a qualification structure? (I already know the answers to these questions for my region)

My point is, the success of the District Pilot in Michigan against these goals and the ones that Jim laid out earlier in the thread is well documented. In my mind, there is no doubt that Michigan *had* to switch to a different competition structure in 2009 for sustainability reasons. The model would have benefits elsewhere, but would also be riskier because, let's face it, Michigan represents a pretty unique concentration of dedicated and experienced FIRST volunteers and teams. Moreover, in my region at least, I haven't been convinced that the transition is a strict necessity from a sustainability standpoint.

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

This was my first year volunteering, so I can't accurately comment on how big the issue of burn-out has become based on experience. All I know is that positions did get filled, because otherwise it would have been noticeable. However, I do believe that it would be worse elsewhere if the pool was smaller. We have a great volunteer base in MI, but in my opinion, I don't think that we could have gotten away with it with too many fewer key volunteers. "Key" in this case being the field supervisors, FTAs, refs, and other positions that require specific knowledge/training. Roles such as crowd control and safety glasses table workers are mostly filled by the required two volunteers per team per event.

Match turnaround sometimes IS incredibly short. The match schedule is random, though, so you can have a two-hour gap followed by a 3-match gap. Malfunction/repair effect on matches depends on the size of the problem and the capability of the team members in the pit, so it really isn't possible to judge how big of a problem it would be in a given area, and it isn't always based on how experienced a team is. Having "elite" teams at an event is very helpful if a team comes to the event with a problem and doesn't know quite how to fix it. For repairs that are a result of gameplay, it is easier for those familiar with the robot to do the work, but teams with high amounts of experience will oftentimes have some extra, vital supplies and replacement parts.

From experience, small repairs can usually be done easily even if there is a short turnaround time, and the distance from the pits to the queue usually isn't too far (and - apologies to the queuers for saying this - cutting it close in getting to the match on time is possible if the need is absolutely necessary). Large problems, however, can be devastating. We had an axle slip out of place at West MI, and it took us hours to get it fixed due to the need for machining and the distance to the machine shop. We missed several matches, and didn't get to our last match until the teams for that match were already loading onto the field. Had we been at a regional competition, I don't think that we would have missed as many matches, if any.

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

Well put. Let me point out something regarding the growth of FIRST that the district model definitely DID help with. Michigan has a centralized 'authority' in First-in-Michigan (FiM). Because they could act as a single group, they managed to pull in some big-name sponsors. Because they were able to cut-costs, we're being given the same opportunity that we were given last year: new Michigan Rookie teams are having their entry fee paid for.

There's a lot to be said for the district model. Economies of scale are huge, as any engineer can tell you.

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

Another great question. There is no silver bullet. For the 95% of the teams in the state that this system helps with double the play time, it's definitely tough on teams that are far from the epi-center in southern Michigan. FiM has made an effort to get competitions north. The problem in the past has been that there simply weren't enough teams up there to support it.

We have the Traverse City regional. It's 4.5 hours from Detroit, but 8.5 hours from worse-case Ironwood in the UP. It ends up being a travel-event for all the UP teams anyway. However, the flip side is that pretty much any other event is going to be a travel event for them.

The downside to that is that if they want to earn their way in to States, they MUST attend 2 districts. Of course, their odds of getting in through a single normal regional event and winning to move on would be extremely small as well. 6 of one, half dozen of another.

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

Jim,

That's an interesting opinion, and I'm aware that you are quite passionate on the subject; but in a point-counterpoint use of this space, I would like to simply say that other valid opinions, assertions and raisons d'être exist, and are held equally passionately.

I personally like to find room for multiple reasons for STEM teams to attend and benefit from competing in the STEM World Championships; and I like to try to find a middle road through discussions about the subject.

In the broader picture, FiM seems to have found a process that works well for FRC in Michigan. Other folks can learn much from it. Congrats to all the hard workers in Michigan for all its successes.

Blake

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

Amen - Concentrations of teams do not respect state boundaries. Perhaps in a rather distant future enough teams will exist in enough locations to make this largely irrelevant, but that day isn't today.

Blake

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

Tell me about it. There is 2 parts of the area- Louisville and "not Louisville". the latter is the half in Indiana. You can guess where most of the wealth and resources are that could be used for FIRST.

I am the first and as it looks, the only Student living on the Indiana side of the Louisville to ever be involved in FIRST, let alone FRC.

The only reason I was involved (and knew about FIRST) was my 3 years prior on 1747 HBR In West Lafayette, IN. There, you could say i was umm, very devoted. Heck, my devotion earned me a 2010 Dean's list semi-finalist pin. You could say I was addicted to FIRST. As luck would have it, there was a team across the river who was happy to have a Veteran from another team become part of their family. It may have involved 45 minutes driving each way, but I was determined to have FRC as part of my Senior year in High school. And believe me, my devotion didn't lessen.

Had I not been exposed back at my old high school, I would have never known FIRST existed, let alone have the motivation to become part of it.

due to this, if Kentucky ever went to a district setup, my dream of bringing FIRST to the Indiana side of the river city, would be much more difficult. As it is, the nearest regional is back in my former home in West Lafayette at Purdue's Boilermaker regional, where my current team, 2783, has gone for the last 3 years. making districts state restricted would make it worse as many would see it as too dumb as to do anything you have to go 3 hours north on I65 instead of 15 minutes south.

I know that was a bit off topic, but that's my thoughts on turning FIRST into a state restricted sport.

Either way, GO FIRST! it must be good if i am willing to burn 1.5hr travel every day of build season for it (plus the same for the 8 weeks following for withholding/practice bot duties).

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

You do not need to do a State/Regional Championship in order to benefit from the district model...by that I mean if you don't have a high enough concentration of teams for a state or regional championship then don't. However, teams could still benefit from playing more smaller competitions for less.

Say there's only 40 teams in a particular region; would you rather play one regional for $4-5k and get around 8-10 matches and maybe eliminations; or would you want to play two events against the same teams for the same amount of money and get 24 matches (12 per event) plus any elimination matches? Maybe you've got 60 teams in a particular area; then you could put on three 40 team competitions where all the teams register for any 2 of them. I'm sure there are many other ways to organize something around this idea.

The whole idea is more matches for less money. More time competing with the robot you spent 6+ weeks working on. If FIRST is going to continue to grow, it has to become more affordable for teams with more ROI. I'll admit that I was a little bit skeptical when the FiM system was initially introduced, but I can't see ever going back. Our first 3 years as a team (2006-2008) we averaged between 12 and 13 matches per season from our initial investment. In our past 3 years (2009-2011) we averaged between 33 and 34 matches per season from our initial investment (which, I believe, was less than the initial registration cost for the first 3 years). If you take out eliminations since those aren't guaranteed matches; then we averaged around 9 matches per season for the first 3 years for our initial registration vs a guaranteed 24 matches per season now from our initial registration. Even if there were no State Championship, I would still prefer this model because it gets you more playing time for less money.

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

If the area doesnt have enough teams to hold the "state" or "regional" championship, they could always use a similar point system to what is used in Michigan. And then adjust it for the number of people they send to championships.

Hypothetically,If the region gets 10 bids and has 4 districts, the 4 chairmen award winners get in and the 6 highest scoring teams, based on that similar point based achievement system.

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

Remember, it isn't the notion of a "District model" that is the root of this situation. The root cause is that so many folks have a knee jerk tendency toward drawing district boundaries along state borders.

Force them to realize that being in one state or another (or one county/city or another) has nothing to do with being on a robotics team, and tell them to tell local and state officials that you think both they and the robotic programs simply don't need or want to create artificial boundaries at state borders.

When the old canard about state/local funds only being used to pay for folks inside of a boundary gets raised, simply tell them to go right ahead and do it; but to not confuse that support with saying that tournaments or other activities can only include those supported teams. They will find a compromise fast enough if folks like yourself stick to your guns. "Rules" like those get broken constantly.

Sure, in-state teams might get funding or other support from their state; but! that doesn't mean that the only way to draw a district boundary is to create one that excludes contact with or sharing costs with other teams and jurisdictions.

There is a huge difference between deciding to support a group of teams and deciding to exclude a group of teams. Folks often make the jump from one decision to the next for absolutely no good reason.

Blake

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

who said we even need borders?

I have an idea:

districts and world championship. thats all.

It would work where you would have district competitions all over the areas where FRC can be found.

Any team can go to any district they want. if they like being local, great. if they want to travel, fine.

Any trophy award gets a team the world championship. championship fields would be drawn from the list of those who got in and have paid their fees.

Essentially like 2008 only with smaller and more numerous competitions

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

Unless I missed something you just described regionals. Maybe smaller cheaper regionals, but nothing that could be reasonably described as districts.

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

I am very impressed with the responses. You all get it. Now a few points...

Q: Why have a geographic "district" in the first place?
A: Management. FIRSTs computer system cannot take many combinations so they want to keep all the district rules the same across the country. I suggest we have a lot of smart folks that can solve that problem.

Q: Why can't everyone who wins a "district" event go to Nationals.
(assuming they can afford this)
A: That would create too many slots. Very soon Nationals will only be avavilable only to teams that score high with awards or win a regional. Read Bills Blog he is already hinting to this. We in Mid Atlantic Robotics may end up with only 1 Regtional. If that happens then the number of teams from our area going to nationals is cut from 12 to 6.

Q: What about a point system. Get rid of the Regionals and only hold districts. Highest points (awards + scores) go to Nationals.
A1: Problem1: You might win a district but not get to qualify for nationals.
A2: Problem2: FIRST wants that money from the second regional. FIRST only puts up money for a regional if it will be short. Donations make up the rest. So they do not want to get rid of teams going to second regional. That is gravy for them.

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

If I'm interpreting that correctly...
Any trophy award? From Chairman's to Coopertition? I usually try to not immediately shut down an idea in a thread of serious discussion, but that one simply doesn't work logistically. That would be 25 teams per event at max, assuming that no team gets two trophies (e.g. no team were to win a judged award and be a finalist/winner, and the highest rookie seed was not a finalist/winner and did not win a judged award). There are currently 49 regionals (which includes MSC), 58 if all of the MI districts were to count in addition to MSC. Multiplied by the 25 awards, that would be a possible championship of 1225 or 1450 teams, respectively*.

Now, if it were to be specific trophy awards, and the championship was enlarged, it might work. However, you open up a giant can of worms when deciding which awards make the cut. Just engineering awards? Just non-engineering ones? Mix of engineering and non-engineering? Which ones do you choose? (and that's not a rhetorical question)


*if any of those numbers are wrong, please correct me. I scrolled down pages and counted, so they may be off by a bit.

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

At that point there would need to be overlap 1450 is greater than the number of teams currently in FRC :P

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

2011 FRC at a Glance has the number of teams at 2075 teams.
http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob..._AtAGlance.pdf

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

personally i love the district system. although that's all I've known while on an FRC team, i think it aids FIRST's goal to make FRC a full-blown high school sport and get an FRC team in every high school. it allows the game to be played in a high school gym which is a huge help to spreading FIRST. it makes FRC more available to high schools in general.
i think a big point being missed here is that the districts don't need to be drawn at state lines. Michigan worked out that way because of the high concentration of teams in the state and the system could be modified to accompany multiple states or just certain regions for convenience

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

Well, of course there would be overlap anyways, what with teams such as 1114, 2056, 359, & co. consistently performing top-notch :P And, as usual, there will be teams who decide not to attend due to financial or travel reasons. The numbers that I gave were purely theoretical and should not be considered realistic :o

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

Kara's numbers do raise a point. The Championships have been running out of room. If new events are added as regionals with guaranteed entry slots, we will someday have too many winners from regionals to invite to Championships, and that day may not be far off. If we ever near the goal of having FRC available in every high school in the country, there will be no way that every regional can advance 6 teams to the Championships. There will need to be a dual-tier championship qualifying scheme. Perhaps this is what Bill's Blog is contemplating, not for 2012 necessarily, but sometime in our near future. FRC will look more like FLL, where most teams can only aspire to qualifying for the first level of championships, equivalent to the MSC.

The biggest hassle in all of this is making travel plans. If you don't know you're going to the Championship until 2 weeks before it happens, you certainly can't get good fares.

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

Are there any hidden down-sides to districts? Is it awful to have to win a regional twice to go to champs? How exactly are robots picked for champs? (I understand 3 state champs, 3 chairman's, 3 EI's, and 3 RAS... but aren't they supposed to send 18 teams because they replaced 3 regionals? Who are the other six then? How are they picked?)

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

First, it's not 3 IE's and 3 RAS's - it's 2 of 1 and 1 of the other, and I forget which is which right now.

That leaves 9 teams that still go. They are based on the point totals earned during the season - the 2 districts weighted 1/3, and the MSC rated 2/3.

What this does is give deserving teams - for example, a team that was a Finalist in MSC - a chance to qualify for the Championship.

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

I don't speak for my team here, just for myself.

The ONLY significant drawback to the district system is this lack of diversity. I highly cherish meeting teams from Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Turkey and several near and distant states. I see the kids getting a lot from it as well*. And as the world continues to get smaller in the professional world, understanding and accepting this diversity becomes more important at this stage.

All the other drawbacks are surmountable IMHO.

@Basel A: interesting take on camaraderie and reducing failing teams, that is something that had not occurred to me. Thanks for that.
Yes, and so Mid-Atlantic Robotics does not use state lines as boundaries.

*Like teaching Brazilian kids how to play Extreme Duck-Duck-Goose, even with a steep language barrier. Or hearing how schools work in Mexico. Or just seeing that people are essentially the same, no matter where they're from.

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

Here's a thought on the "closed" nature of the district system.

It wouldn't really make sense to open district events up to teams from non-district regions. The qualification systems are completely different, and an outside team couldn't qualify for championship from the district. Additionally, it would arguably deny teams from the district region another chance to gain points.

But is there any reason that teams from a district region couldn't travel to outside regionals (as some already do), and earn points for it? At a regional, they play the same game, and earn the same awards. The events are usually as big, or bigger. The opposing teams are usually just as good. A team that can do this should be able to work closer to a state/region championship event.

Taking this further, once multiple district regions are setup, cross-registration could occur. Michigan teams could compete in Mid-atlantic districts, and vice versa, earning points towards their home region. And as more regions add the district system, FRC comes closer to letting anyone compete anywhere they want.

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

but what separates this from the current regional system? i feel like that would be the same system taking place now (aside from Michigan) with just the addition of a local State Championship. i think the point of the district system would be to grow teams in a local environment so that teams could grow and thrive and increase the competitive nature of FIRST

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

-An additional tier to go through for qualifying for championships, which in turn helps fine-tune the number of teams that qualify, allowing FIRST to keep championships at a reasonable size.

-Lower cost, district style events, giving teams more play time for the same price.

-More events, allowing teams to keep travel costs down if they wish to.


The fact is, most FIRST teams do not travel longer distances than they need to in order to compete, and stick to relatively local regionals, because its cheaper and easier. This wouldn't change, under a looser district system. The vast majority of Michigan teams would stick to Michigan, and the vast majority of mid-Atlantic teams would stay in the mid-Atlantic region. If a team wishes to, they can go outside their region and meet teams from far away, addressing the main complaint about the current system in this thread. I just don't think enough teams would leap up and run away from home to break the sense of community the district system creates.

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

the awards that win a trophy would be reduced... to maybe 10-5 or so

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

I don't know about reducing the trophy awards. So, I'll propose this system:

Blue Banner awards go on--RCA, Event Winner. No points are assigned.

Other awards get points based on perceived value: RAS, EI, RI get something about 30 points, the "engineering" awards get something like 20, other awards get 10 or so. Making eliminations is worth 10 points by itself; 20 for the finalists. (Someone else can do the exact numbers; MI does this as part of their points values, but do different points values. FIRST also used to do something like this, back before 2004, but I don't recall the details.)

Then, you take the points earners and either cut the field in half or take anybody above a certain value (or average value, or other similar item), and those teams get the Championship bids.

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

that would also work... sounds complex but then again it is a complex problem.

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

Matches per event has almost nothing to do with the district system. Basically every strategy to increase matches per event that FiM used can be applied to a traditional regional without changing to a district system. FiM districts just end up running a much tighter and longer schedule (for more total matches) than any equivalent sized (or smaller) regional. The matches per event can, and in my opinion should, be increased under the traditional regional method.

The argument for more events at the same cost is valid, though.

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

I like the idea. I would have suggested the very same policy. It seems to me that no matter where a team competes, it should be able to accumulate points towards its own regional championship. This way, teams would compete against the best of the best teams in their own region to qualify for championship, but would also have the opportunity to compete against whoever they wish during the regular season events, traveling if they so chose or staying local if that was their preference.

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

I'd be wary equating one district system to another at this point. They could have very different rules and structures.

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

...and goals.

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

FIRST has already said they want the same rules to apply to all districts. Otherwise how can they manage the computer system for registration.

To some extent I agree with this position but we can't run a competition at the bare minimum of what the computer programmer in FIRST can accomplish. As I have said a few times we have a lot of smart folks working with us who can write a system that can cover everything we want to do. We just have to get FIRST to listen.

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

I wasn't so much talking about matches per event (although under the current FIRST Regional format, teams are unable to get 12 qualification matches in - I agree that could/should be changed), but rather number of matches per initial investment. Initial investment outside MI gets you 1 Regional with only 8-10 matches guaranteed. Initial registration in MI gets you 2 District events with 24 matches guaranteed.

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

Frank,

I don't visit here a lot these days, but I did send an email along to my former team - 1712 - with some of my thoughts on the matter. In brief, here are my thoughts:

1. Michigan has worked very hard to put a system in place that works well by a good number of metrics in their home region.
2. It's a shame some folks don't hear, very clearly, what both Jim and Sean are saying in this thread about doing what works for your region, and treating/addressing variables individually.
3. MI is pretty clear that increased FRC events per team and higher levels of on field play are primary goals of their organization. I like these goals, but they can have other unintended, and negative, consequences.
4. Local "control" is certainly a positive in many ways, but I really wonder about the effect on local volunteers, their schedules, their lives, what it means for everything else they already do (off seasons, FTC, VEX, FLL, JrFLL, Seaperch, BEST, etc) in the MAR region (and other regions without similar makeup to Michigan).
5. I've seen a lot of statistics in relationship to FiM model in the past few years. Is there any usable data on graduates of district vs "traditional" FRC model? Maybe from before districts and after districts in MI? Does a district type model inspire more students toward socially conscious futures in STEM than traditional model? Does it help increase the participation of students in STEM activities? Shouldn't we be more concerned about these metrics than who's more able to win a state/regional/world championship? Again, as Jim and others say, it comes down to purposes and goals.

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

Some things to take into consideration with the district model in the Mid-Atlantic Region:

- If the district model does get implemented for this upcoming season, everyone in the region needs to know exactly what they are getting for their registration fee. This includes number of events with entry fee, time frame of those events, and whether the format of the events will be changing or not. People want to know what they are getting for their money and providing this information in advance will be appreciated by all teams.

- I believe there has been discussion of running these events on a Saturday, Sunday schedule instead of a Friday, Saturday schedule as Michigan does. While I understand the difficulty of securing venues to host events (especially within High Schools, as securing a gym on a Thursday evening and Friday during the school year is incredibly difficult), I do not think a Saturday & Sunday structure would work well. You'd have people attending religious activities in the morning, thus attendance would drop significantly, and some teams might even have a hard time fielding a drive team Sunday morning.

One question I have to Michigan teams - are any district events hosted in high schools, and if so, how did you go about reserving an entire gym & pit area on a Friday school day?

Ultimately, I think a district event model would benefit this region with the proximity of teams in the area. However, it needs to be properly thought out and many aspects need to be planned and communicated before being implemented.

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

Most of the events are in High Schools:
Traverse - HS
Kettering - Univ.
Waterford - HS
W Mich - Univ.
Detroit (Wayne) - Univ.
Niles - HS
Ann Arbor - HS
Livonia - HS
Troy - HS

I'm not sure what is done to get the needed space (big gym for field, nearby aux gym or similar for pits). I do know most of the HS personnel are glad to host the events. They like the exposure and publicity.

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

I am, to be honest, surprised that all of FRC competitions don't do Saturday & Sunday for 2 Days, and Friday, Saturday, Sunday like NYC did this year for 3 days.

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

I really wish we'd go to Saturday/Sunday in Michigan. I killed a week and a half of vacation to attend our team's FIRST events this year. I really don't think I can do that again next year.