Bill's Blog
 

http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/

Good Afternoon Teams,

Believe it or not, life at HQ is busy during the off season. I apologize for neglecting to blog last week and for blogging late this week, but I want to assure you, it’s not for lack of activity here in Manchester.

The GDC met on site this past weekend. Conceptually the 2012 game is a lock and the 2012 Game Manual is 90% complete (and on track to be shorter than previous years). Now, in addition to following up on the 2011 season and making all the repairs/changes/upgrades that were pushed off until after Championship, the staff can get started on all the logistical and administrative tasks that go into turning a game concept into a successful competition. We need to finalize the designs, order game pieces, prepare fields, redesign field road cases, update the field management system, schedule events and chase down all the hundreds of other details that go into hosting a successful season. Meanwhile, the GDC needs to finalize the scoring and turn our attention to the 2013 game.

You’d think the GDC would want rest on our laurels for a moment having designed a game in record time, but we are still far from our goal of getting a season ahead. The GDC has monthly onsite meetings scheduled through the fall and will be holding conference calls at least weekly in order to get everything done. One of the many reasons I enjoy working with this team has to do with the game selection process that Linda did a good job of describing in her guest blog. As a group we tweek game ideas that didn’t make it in prior years and we modify game ideas that evolved during game development but were left behind in the final cut, while at the same time members propose radical new game ideas. In the end we often take a piece from each of these categories to construct something completely different .

So, what else is happening at HQ this week?
• FIRST as a whole is reviewing and updating our strategic plan. We’re trying to define the ultimate goals of the organization, describe what success looks like, and map out the steps necessary to get there in 5 – 10 years. This is not as easy as it sounds.
• FRC is developing a Qualification Event Structure based on what we learned during District Event pilot. We’re currently in negotiations with RDs and Regional Planning Committees from areas that are interested in participating. I’ll let you know the minute we have dates and venues locked in.
• Kate, Collin, Carla and assorted staff members are preparing for the annual Supplier’s Summit and Dean’s List Summit which will include dinner at Dean’s house this August.
• IT is completely redesigning the Volunteer Information Management System (VIMS) and making upgrades to TIMS and STIMS in preparation for FRC registration this fall.
• The engineering staff is developing the 2012 control system which will incorporate the new 4-slot FRC cRIO II. They’re going to need Beta Test teams again this year. Watch this space, I’ll let you know the second they’re ready to take applications.
• We’ve reviewed the initial applications submitted by candidates for the new FRC Engineer position and we’re initiating the interview process. If you are interested in (and qualified for) the position and haven’t yet submitted an application, consider this last call.
191 days until the 2012 kickoff
See you then!

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Just to be a goof:
NEW FIELD! Star Shaped! Circle Shaped! FIRST Logo Shaped!

(Let the game hint-hunting games begin!)(Ahh, they probably already began)

Re: Bill's Blog
 

A shorter manual? that could be good or bad. More concise sounds good, less precise would be bad. I kinda nervous now.::rtm::

Re: Bill's Blog
 

As long as FIRST doesn't have a lockout, I'm fine :p
Student Robotics Labor Union, we want paid for our hard work!!! :cool:

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Agreed; I'd hate to see something like the cylinder-size debate again (the metric v standard discrepancy).

Re: Bill's Blog
 

The entire OCCRA (local robotics competition) manual is only about 10 pages long. Including a full-page field diagram, a full-page vex field diagram, and all of the game/vex/robot rules. It's simple and includes exactly what is needed, and nothing more.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

More likely it means that they will have to take out all of the insides of the cases that were designed to fit the racks, and replace them with what ever the new field will have on it. It does say that the field will be more then a 27 by 54 foot field of just carpet.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

The field will not change in size. It will remain 27'x54' like it always. What they mean is just getting rid of the scoring rack and lane dividers. FIRST is not made of money so they have to use the same field every year.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

While it is efficient to use the same field size every year, FIRST definitely has the resources to change the field size if they want to.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Yes. But if they are using a 27'x54' playing field, why spend the money to build a new field for prototyping when they could just breakdown the Logomotion field?

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I didn't say it was easy to change the field, nor that it was an effective means of creating a game. You alluded to the fact that FIRST doesn't have a lot of money ("FIRST is not made of money"). I was simply saying that FIRST has plenty of money to make a new playing field if they so desire.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I am shocked this bullet hasn't gotten more attention:

•FRC is developing a Qualification Event Structure based on what we learned during District Event pilot. We’re currently in negotiations with RDs and Regional Planning Committees from areas that are interested in participating. I’ll let you know the minute we have dates and venues locked in.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I do not doubt what you are saying. FIRST defiantly has enough money to purchase a new field.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

WOW!!! how did I miss this? With this news it is most likely that PA is going to the District setup like you guys have in Michigan.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

But the teams that participate don't necessarily have bottomless coffers. There has been an overt shift toward creating some of the major components of the field consistent (overall dimensions, placement of alliance stations) so teams don't have to recreate the entire field year after year for their practice areas.
I believe something was stated by FIRST in 2008 or 2009 to that effect, but I don't recall exactly where.

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?

Re: Bill's Blog
 

True. But a lot of people/ teams don't want to always attend a 30-35 team regional. People in the New England area like their regionals to be in the 50s and 60s.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

But I bet alot of New Englanders would love to go to twice as many regionals for half the price too.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Yeah, we are hopefully looking at going to the US next year anyways. The schoolboard has always been a hassle about it, but they are much nicer now that we have blue banner.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Just an FYI, Eric...inside word has it that Fresno will have a regional next year with main sponsor and venue lined up already...

Re: Bill's Blog
 

A Fresno regional? That sounds exciting!

Re: Bill's Blog
 

5 regionals in one state? sounds like the perfect set-up for a district system to me!

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Geography comes into play. If MI had most of their teams in either Detroit or [insert largest MI city near the MN border here], the district system would have been a little trickier to deal with. That's the situation CA is kind of in--their teams are spread out, there's about a 4-5 hour drive between their concentrations (or the 2-hour drive from L.A. to San Diego), and they're about 50-50 between the areas.

Now that Fresno's coming into the mix, that shortens those times a bit, but you still have to deal with the multiple support groups teaming up.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Just from reading this thread I notice a trend. Though everyone can agree that the District system has definite benefits, they also agree that it should spread elsewhere and not in their home playing field. At least for now that seems to be a pretty common sentiment. I'd be willing to bet I could name every state and everyone would come up with a reason for it not to be there. I'd hate to be in FIRST's shoes for this decision.

Jason

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Well its not just for each state. The only state that can, as of now, be off on their own is Michigan. Now in the future if Calif. and Texas can get the support they need to hold weekly district events they could become a Michigan District System. Texas, though, might have to pull in a few more states though. But I do also think that Canada is ready now to move into the District System.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Personally, as great as this all seems, I'd rather not have California introduced to the District System. Now while I'm sure it has its benefits, it kind of makes it more difficult for most teams to make it to the championships, since most may be eliminated in the 1st round. If you want to compete more, than do more regionals. Team 256 will be attending both the Silicon Valley Regional and the Sacramento Regional next year! (Sacramento, you'd better watch out, 'cause we're coming in at ramming speed!), and we're hoping that this district system doesn't come to Cali.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

That mindset is kind of what I was talking about. If you asked Michigan if they could do it before they did, I imagine alot of them would say they wasn't ready yet.
From what I have read, that is one of the benefits of the district system for FIRST. Less people make it to championship which makes it easier to manage. I'm not saying this is good for teams but it is understandable from FIRST's standpoint.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I want districts in California.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

It sounds like FIRST is shifting from its stance of permitting the model to be applied through regional boards to something like "We want you to devise a plan to switch over to this mode within the next 5-10 years.

The district model doesn't have to be limited to a state like Michigan. In fact, the wording is ambiguous enough to make me think that they want the whole world to switch over to the model, and fit it in some global way, like I described in a thread 3 months ago.

Like, they could phase it into the East Coast, where we could have upwards of 60-80 district events and 6-8 regional championships. A team in a certain area would be put into the program, picks two districts and the regional they want to qualify for. The points go to that regional. You can pick a third event, out of the regional qualifications, which will not be scored. Think about it, with such high team densities from Maine to Florida, it almost has to be happening soon.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

One opportunity for us in spending time considering the district models is learning some geography for states and regions!

I had some fun looking at the grouping of FLR (Rochester, NY) with the other "northeast" regionals. Just as we need to realize that it is 4-5 hours between the northern and southern California concentrations, some of you may be surprised to learn that it is almost 340 miles and 5 1/2 hours from Rochester to the closest of those regionals (Hartford, CT). Our closest current regional is Toronto. While it is only 3 1/2 hours there is a border between.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

And this in a nutshell is why New York will never, ever, ever go district. We have a huge state with three major pockets of teams (FLR area, Capital region, and NYC / Long Island). All several hours away from each other, none geographically convenient enough to slice into nearby districts.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Sounds like eventually they will have to.

I don't see how dispersed teams and a District model conflict.

In CA for example, there are two norcal, and two socal events. 90% of CA teams are pretty darn close to one or both regionals. If these pairs of regionals turned into 3-4 districts, and then a state champs that rotated year to year, who would complain?

Is it unreasonable to expect teams to travel for the State Champs?

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Dispersed teams don't conflict with a District model only if they normally compete within that district's borders.

The Capital region teams, for the most part, do not go to events in New York. The WPI and CT regionals are the closest, followed by BAE and Montreal.

The NY regional layout as of now is located at the extreme ends of the state. It seems unlikely that the manpower to produce two new District events for the Capital teams will arise out of thin air.

Since districts seem to be fixated on state borders, it seems unlikely New York will be included in any of the nearby districts. The Mid-Atlantic district map doesn't include us, a New England map wouldn't include us, so we'd be the odd state out here, where each of the three rough "sections" of the state really should be incorporated in a District model with nearby geographic regions.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Having just made the Trip from Hartford to Rochester this morning to come look at RIT, I can say that it is a long, somewhat boring trip!

While The Northeast is a great place to implement the district system, it will have to be cut up into a couple regions, and I can guarantee they won't be completely along state lines, and there going to be issues with the distrcting.

See this is where the districts will make or break us. Districts will have to be drawn not based on state lines if they are going to succeed.

For a minute lets look at Regional to Districts in terms of event amounts. One could say in Michigan the districts replaced 3 Regionals (2 existing and to allow expansion in place of adding a 3rd Regional) with their currently being 9 districts. So one could say for every 1 existing regional in your area, you could get 2-3 districts in place.

So New England would end up having 8-12 Districts in the region.

If the Capital Region of New York was to be included in the New England Region, there would be enough districts to be able to put at least one in the capital region.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

New York is already broken up into NY State FIRST and NYC/NJ FIRST.

Couldn't upstate slot in with Canada or New England and let everyone in NYC/NJ FIRST build a region with Pennsylvania and Delaware?

But then what happens in the Mid-Atlantic? Do you take MD, DC, VA with maybe NC and WV? How would WV affect a possible Smokey Mountain Super-Region with Tennessee and Kentucky? Where does Ohio fit in all of this? How would a proposed Southeastern Super-Region with Palmetto, Peachtree, and the Florida regionals? WOuld teams in the panhandle work better in a Bayou super-regional?

I can only imagine how they are dealing with this. It has to be a drag trying to turn teams and towns into puzzle pieces.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I think that would drastically solve the problem at championships with conferences like NCAAF, but we first need to grow enough in the states now. Like for instance Florida, are we honestly saying that we should only have ONE Florida regional? We should have atleast 2 in the state.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

To add to the mess of sorting things out, the borders between "state" championships must be reasonable to explain to non-FIRSTers. It would be easy for them to understand district/state/nationals because that is the model sports uses. Admittedly, it is unreasonable to stick to state borders for this program until it becomes much more common and the large gaps between team concentrations are filled. The problem with arbitrarily drawing lines though is that it makes it harder to further the goals of FIRST. It makes it harder to explain quickly why making it to the "state" level is a big deal. I know this shouldn't be their primary consideration, but it certainly should be something in the back of their mind. If we went to the district setup nation wide and were to divide along non-state borders, what would you call the "state" competition? It would definitely need to have both the easiness to understand as "state" while being more precise.

Jason

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Regionals?

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Once again the problem comes down to the traveling Distances. Montreal I could see being attatched to New England, as for Teams in Ontario, and the Rochester/Finger Lakes areas, there just a big traveling Distance.

As for NYC/NJ going with PA and Deleware, I'm sure something along those line smay happen, however I'm not really up to snuff on the facts about that merger happening.


------

One thing I forgot to throw in my last post is in terms of the borders, I think once there set, they need to be some what fluid. In terms of setting where the events are placed they need to be followed, however if a team is on or near a border between two regions, I think they should be given the option to pick which region they go and compete in.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

The regional model is a very strange thing. A regional can have 32 teams, 64 teams, or be a 120-team double regional.

That's why the district model needs to be phased in. If you have 20 teams within an hour drive of a central location, there is a district. You can bring in 10 more from outside, and it's like a mini-regional. In terms of my state, we could have four or five regionals: One in Richmond (Central VA), one in Charlottesville (Western VA), one in Hampton Roads (Eastern VA), and one or two in NoVA. Then one regional is in DC, and two are in Maryland. That's your Capital Super Regional Competition area. Problem is, the guys closer to a Southeast, Smokey Mtn, or Mid Atlantic Super Regional are in big money trouble.

Maybe instead of lines, you pick a venue, and then teams within an x-mile radius are eligible for that super-regional and all of the districts that feed into it. That keeps the teams out in a place like Southwest VA sending 20 kids and a robot on a 7 hour trip to D.C. for a super-regional.

All of these hypotheticals make my head hurt.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Guys .... I'm sure FIRST has looked at all of the different outcomes and they will choose what is best for the future growth of the program. I definitely applaud the GDC on finishing the game early and they seem to be on track. I definitely like the idea of a shorter manual! ::rtm::

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Just to clarify this a little. NJ is no longer part of NYC/NJ FIRST.
NYC FIRST is it's own entity, and NJ is now aligned with Delaware and Eastern PA.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

If we are to move to a District model we have to take into consideration situations where we have double regionals. In Washington we presently have one double regional... This could not really be broken into 2 district events because it would not be possible to participate in 2 events when they are held at the same time. There is discussion of adding another event in Spokane and we do have the Portland regional which is in close proximity to the state.

Having several small regionals in a state takes a considerable amount of planning and volunteer effort. i would think that these district events would appear on the surface to take less effort but in reality I would think that they would take about the same time and effort to set up and man as a normal regional. I know that it is one less day for volunteers... but the planning and set up/takedown would be virtually the same.

I know that the points system in Michigan now allows the same number of teams to go to Championships. It also has resulted in different teams going because the points systems rewards accomplishments that are not rewarded in the present Regional System (Only the winning team and the RCA and EI award winners presently get the ticket... for regionals...) I like this system actually... but I am not sure exactly how it has worked out for Michigan...

In a regional where there are a well defined set of strong teams you will (for good reason) see those teams qualify for CMP in either scenario. It might be better to reward teams for consistent performance over several district events (the present district model in Michigan .. I believe.)

I am not sure how this has worked out when it comes to the RCA or EI in Michigan... Is (Are) there a team(s) out there that can shed some light on their experiences with qualifying for CMP under the District model?

I am not really sure how it works...
thanks!

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Why bother breaking into regions at all, how about this?:
Each team gets 2 district events with their registration, and an optional third for a small fee; they can use these registrations to enter any distric event they want. You score points for your placement and awards at each district (with 3 district teams getting their total points multiplied by 2/3). There are about 12 regional championships, the winning alliance and chairmans from each district automatically get births at a regional championship the rest of the spots are filled based on district score. The winning alliance and chairmans from each regional championship advance to the championship, with the rest of the spots filled based on a combination of the team's score from districts, regionals and the currrent lottery factors. The core of the system is that you aren't physically restricted, if you make it into tier 2 then you can go to whichever regional championship you want.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I would take sports as an inspiration for explanation. SEC(south east conference) groups all of the big schools of the same area. it has its own conference championship, and the teams in the conference can play games in any other conference they want as well as compete for the national championship. Though it is not one on one like Football, I think the district model is much closer to how football is already does its groupings, which will make it pretty easy to explain to any one not in FIRST

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Districts definitely should not be drawn on state lines, it may even be better to allow teams to select what region the compete in (but limit them to one region per year). For example some teams from the Albany area may prefer to head to NYC while others may prefer to head to New England. WPI is ~2 hrs from Albany, NYC is ~2.5, Boston is 3-3.5 and Rochester is 4, Syracuse (there isn't anything there now but if the district model allowed the program to grow it would be a logical place for development is ~2.5.

Assuming 6-8 New england districts you would expect Hartford, Boston, and Manchester to keep their competitions, if you kept it to major cities Springfield would be a decent choice and is only ~1.25Hr from Albany (less than an hour from Hudson where another Capital District team is located). Or possibly Vermont which features multiple suitible cities within 2-3 hrs of Albany.

I think that the District model is very feasible in the North East, infact other than Michigan it may be the area where it would work the best.

I agree 100 percent. As for what to call the Championships, if the system of districts was used nation wide why not call the Championships "Regionals", it is after all a regional competition.

To further the sports explanation and support my point of teams going out of state. Rugby is set up by Territories, NYS does not have its own Territory for Division 1 Rugby. There are DIV 1 teams in NYC, Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo (the same areas with FRC Teams) The Albany team competes in New England, NYC teams compete in their own Territory along with Long Island and NJ, and the western NY teams compete in the Midwest

Re: Bill's Blog
 

To clarify, there are the same number of spots open as there were in 2008, when there were three regionals, but there are many more teams. So, less teams manage to qualify for Worlds.

Our route to St. Louis started with two district competitions, plus an additional third which did not count for state ranking points. You get state ranking points for winning matches, which alliance you land on and when, where you end up in eliminations, and awards (except for Chairman's, which gives zero points but is an automatic bid to the State Championship). The awards have various point totals from zero to ten. The top sixty or so teams are qualified for the state championship (out of over one hundred and fifty teams). There are NO teams qualified for the World Championship straight out of districts.

At the State Championship, the winning alliance qualify to Worlds. Then, three of the Chairman's teams (out of nine this year) also qualify. Then, two Engineering Inspiration teams (out of the nine districts again) qualify for Worlds, and one team for the Website Award. That leaves nine qualification spots, which are given to the nine teams with the most state ranking points who are not already qualified or have not already signed up (open registration, pre-qualifiers, etc.), and how 2337 got in. That is how most of the very competitive Michigan teams get in, who did not manage to win (and may not have a strong awards program).

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I believe the 9th reserved spot is for State Rookie All Star award winner, not Website.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

Can someone post what the point values are for the Michigan district sytem rankings?

Re: Bill's Blog
 

I do believe you're right, actually. I was counting up the spots, and I wasn't sure about that last one.

You can find them on firstinmichigan.org, by looking at any district's data. All the state ranking points are posted online.

Re: Bill's Blog
 

What he's after is what each award is worth, not necessarily who has how many points. For that, the MI Rules Supplement (found under the FRC Events--2011 Season tab) is best. See section 5 of said rules supplement.