[mwmac]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

While this may not apply to Ontario, it does apply to Minnesota. It seems unfair to complain about the Michigan, MAR, PNW, and NE areas benefiting from a district system and "excluding" everyone else, when they have put in a lot of work to get where they are. If Minnesota (or any other area) wants a district system, they need to work to get the volunteer base, the venues, the funding, and the infrastructure to do it. Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

Fairness is raised in these discussions all too often in my opinion. FIRST has created a two-tiered system within a competition that does benefit teams from districts by providing additional plays per $ as well as more opportunities to qualify for Champs. Pointing out a dichotomy should not be characterized as "unfair" discourse. I posted the following in the Frank Answers... about Championship qualifications and believe it is still valid.

"Some geographic regions lack the population density to transition to district play for the foreseeable future. Teams from these areas currently can choose to participate in regional events as their travel budgets allow but are not allowed to compete in district events. As the transition to district models proceeds as envisioned by FIRST (think California for example), the playing opportunities for these non-travel averse teams will diminish as will their chances for taking part in Champs in St. Louis.

Currently district participants can benefit from additional plays per $ but find they may no longer compete with historic rivals should those rivals become part of another district. This realization has generated calls for inter-district play to be included as a planning priority as well as the development of a uniform qualification methodology for districts.

FIRST appears to believe that the district model represents its goal for the future. If this is the case, I propose the creation of a world-wide district with a single unified qualification methodology. Geographically isolated teams could continue to travel for competitions or be incentivized to stage a local event (Hawaii x2 anyone?). Historic rivalries could continue. There also would be no complaints about district teams taking qualification slots by winning Regional events. I doubt that this is the best proposal and I welcome constructive criticism but I believe that the continuation of the current development path with districts vs regionals with its arbitrary setting of boundaries (waiting to see how FIRST handles California/Nevada given the recent PNW/Idaho precedent), reduction of qualification opportunities for non-district teams, and interference with historic team rivalries is worse."

Concerns have also been raised about a perceived need to lengthen the season to provide time for individual district championships while leaving time for travel/accommodation arrangements. I suggest that if FIRST implements a unified qualification methodology within a global district model, that week of competition could be eliminated as the top 600 teams ranked globally advance to Champs....