Quote:
Originally Posted by maxnz
I have a feeling that Minnesota or the upper Midwest (MN, WI, IA, ND and/or SD) will become the next district within the next few years. We already have four regionals, two in Duluth and two in the twin cities, plus a regional in Iowa.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr V
I think that 8 qualification matches is too few, no question about it.
Fact is that MN should have joined the district system years ago. Every year that passes it gets far harder to implement.
I've heard the cries that you don't have enough volunteers but that will never get better unless the move is made to the district system sooner rather than later.
At this point it is still possible to make it work with 2 events per weekend. Once you cross that 240 team count then it will require 3 matches on at least one weekend and then it does almost become impossible to implement the district system.
Yes MI has more than 2 events per weekend, however they did not start out that way, they had time to build up the resources, whether we are talking about volunteers, funding or equipment.
At this rate I fear that the teams in MN will be the last to benefit from all of the advantages of the District System, and I fear it is going to take a mandate from FIRST which I don't think that will turn out all that well.
|
Based on what I heard during my stint on Hopper field last year, the main issue with MN going to districts is the lack of a 503c organization to oversee it. Districts require such an organization; we in Indiana found out last year that part of the reduced costs are the result off Manchester doing less and offloading more of the responsibilities on the district. It's both good and bad, I'll get to that in a bit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDad
Apart from a pile of disjointed small events in high school gyms and marginally more matches per team, what are "All the advantages" of moving to a district system?
|
It's a better experince for everybody, in general. Teams get more matches per season, as they get two district events for the price of one regional. The event costs are lower as it's done in such Gyms and often w/o a pro AV crew. It's a more efficient system.
Smaller events for some (dare I say most) teams is a plus. It's a lot more personal, as with a smaller field of competing teams you get to know other teams better. The smaller venues tend to get louder too, which really adds to the feel of the event during match play. It's a different feel that IMHO is superior to the feel of a regional.
Then there is the community aspect of it. Districts only work if the volunteer base is very strong. This is why Indiana survived last year, because of a volunteer family that works thier butts off for the sake of FIRST and the teams. No need for a pro AV crew, we have volunteers who have worked AV for offseason events for years. In fact, district events are more akin to two-day offseason events, only with offical awards. In that regard IRI was the first district event ever, in a way.
Finally, in a bizarre way, districts are better for volunteers. Yes, we have to work harder, but it's also a good thing. It builds the local FIRST family, as you get to see and work with each other more. You also get more events to build your volunteer skills. Last year was my first year scorekeeping. By the start of championship I had FOUR official events under my belt. Due to that, I was allowed to scorekeep at championship despite being a rookie. If you want to try different positions, while offseason events are good as well, districts allow one to have variety in their volunteer work if they want. As a volunteer, I've preferred districts for these reasons.
If you don't believe me, I suggest attending (or even volunteering) at a district event some time, if you can. You might just change your mind.