Re: Bill's Blog
 

Makes sense; didn't think of it that way.

On another note, I'm curious to see if/where districts will pop up this year. Right now FIRST is getting to the point where it can barely fit all of the teams that qualify for championships; districts leading to states leading to champs could cut this number down.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Guys, I was joking about the field. More interesting news:
More district models! Where are other heavily-FRC populated areas? I'm hearing PA and east coast. Maybe Minnesota? They have some intense FRC growth going on there (although I don't think their state champs would be as intense as MI)(no offense, MN).

Re: Bill's Blog
 

also California and Texas have a large number of teams so they could be getting a district system too

Re: Bill's Blog
 

California for sure. With ~175 and four regionals, we are packed.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Its not just specific states that could be getting these. It could be regions, like the Northeast or the West Coast, or Canadia.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I'm always talking about fast growth without the infrastructure to support it so this comment won't be anything new. In my opinion, Texas will grow and develop in this area but that time hasn't yet arrived. For many years, people in other regions have understood the value and importance of volunteering at events and the regions have benefited from the depth of experience in the volunteer pool. I don't think we have that here in Texas. Yes, we can state that every team must provide 2 volunteers but what experience do the majority of those volunteers bring to the table? When you have a majority of young teams with a majority of new or relatively new volunteers and a small group of experienced volunteers - then that adds more stress to the implementation of the district model. In a few years, I think we'll have strengthened our resources in all areas through experience and development but we aren't there yet. This is an opinion and nothing more. If we go district anytime soon, it will be a huge stretch, a huge learning curve, and it will be pretty intense in the growing pains department.

Jane

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I think the Northeast would be a pretty good candidate for the model, considering many more experienced teams are within this region and it is also where it all began.

Not to mention the fact that if you include New England, New York, and New Jersey, the area combined is still less than that of California's, yet have 8 regionals (Granite State, WPI, UTC, Boston, FLR, NYC, SBPLI, and NJ) and 335 teams combined.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

And that applies to many areas that have experienced fast growth. Others have mentioned MN, but as I recall most of their teams have been formed in the last 3 years.

Beside general volunteers that are needed to keep events running, there are specialized roles that must be filled for each event to even get off the ground. In MI we have some FTA's that work every weekend. Most refs do multiple events; one worked every weekend this year. Scorekeepers and field supervisors do multiple duty as well.

If any area is regularly bringing in outside help for their key volunteers, it's time to start training their own home-grown ones before considering a district system.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

That's easier said than done for a variety of reasons. Also, you can have key volunteers in place but if the other volunteers needed to fill positions for the competition don't understand the importance of commitment and abandon ship before or during the competition, it gets tricky. Growing new teams in new areas with new competitions/venues and developing all of those into strong robust communities of support is not for the weak. Volunteers and leaders who understand the program and the competition are vital to the success of the development.

We're talking about FRC here but I apply this line of thinking to the other fast-growing robotics competitions as well.

Jane

Re: Bill's Blog
 

MN is one of the densest FRC areas, the 10,000 Lakes/NorthStar double regional is the largest event outside of Champs, and all teams have made huge steps forward.

I heard somewhere that the only thing keeping MN from beginning a district model is experience of teams, and that sounds believable.

However, MN is the only state whose high school sports governing body endorses FIRST. They may have a state championship with points scored just like Mich. Districts in the off season. (Source is from emails sent to MN teams)

Re: Bill's Blog
 

but they could change the shape while still using the existing alliance stations and field border segments simply by adding new corner segments and using additional carpet segments held onto the first with gaffers tape if needed. It is not out of the question at all.

Also, this thread kind of already reveled the fact that the district system is being considered elsewhere

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I'm surprised that you're surprised. We spoke about Mid-Atlantic Robotics on the bleachers at CMP this year. No doubt about it, those in the MAR region should expect a District model this winter.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Canada adopt a district type system either. We already have the administrative part in place (FIRST Robotics Canada), and all but one Canadian team is within a 6 hour drive of Toronto. The distant Ontario teams (1305 [NNSRI], 1535 [The Knights of Alloy], and the cluster of Quebec teams) have already been travelling to the two Canadian Regionals, so I can't see that being a big barrier to it. The only Canadian team that would be left out to pasture, pardon the pun, would be 1482, from Calgary, AB (Though they ARE reigning GTREast Champions). They could easily be incorporated to US regionals much closer to home for them.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I don't see the need in the Northeast. As you stated, there are 8 regionals in the northeast for 335 teams. Since the WPI regional will be a 60 team regional in the next year or two there is no need for a district model. California is the next area that needs to adopt the district model before the northeast.

Just my $0.02

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I don't see the need in CA yet--or, more to the point, the organization.

CA has 4 events, one of which could probably go to a double event if really needed, in 2 main areas: north and south. Or, more specifically, there are 2 in the north (SVR, Sacramento) and 2 in the south (L.A. and San Diego). There are no fewer than 3 separate "support groups" in the state of CA: WRRF, SCRRF, and Team San Diego (and I think there are another couple groups around somewhere). You'd want all 3 on the same page, or close to it.

And there's a big hole in the middle of the state (southern end of the Central Valley, desert--the central coast has teams but no regionals), and another in the northern end. CA has somewhere around 150-175 teams, and one or more urban areas without an event so far (Bakersfield and Fresno come to mind). CA is really sort of fragmented in terms of team concentration.

The Northeast may claim that they don't need it, but in reality, they seem to already have that capability (8 regionals in 6 weeks, plus about an equal number of offseasons over the following 6 months), so the switch there would be relatively painless aside from volunteer burnout and that sort of thing. 8 regionals, 335 teams. That's 2x the CA regionals for 2x the teams, in a similar area. Think about that for a minute: that's a team/event density of 2x, and the area is similar. Guess who's better suited for the next district area?