Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Question (for both you and Andrew): Do the MN teams think that the current solution is actually causing problems, or is it the DISTRICT folks that have the problem with it?
Look, I understand you guys mean well, and want to make sure every team gets as many plays as they can possibly cram in. But there are a lot of other factors that come into play, and when you appear to be deliberately ignoring them, you really make people annoyed. Heck, I'm not in districts (though I'd really like to be), but I can understand why certain people don't want 'em, or can't go for 'em. Districts are not the end-all solution for "we aren't getting the value", necessarily. It depends on what your definition of value is--one of the Chilean teams spoke up a in another thread and pointed out that if CA went district, they'd lose their home regional, and that's not the first time that happened. That's not good for them, because they'd be traveling out here for two weeks--imagine doing THAT plus DCMP and maybe CMP! (For that matter, I'd love to hear from the AK team playing in PNW this year, as they've got a similar problem.)
BTW, L.A. could host a 72-team event. They've got the space for another 6 pits. That'd give each team... 7 plays. Guess what, they cap at 66 to try to help with the plays, and by teams/minute were the fastest regional to fill this year (third fastest by time). If they capped at 40 and there wasn't another regional around, you'd hear the complaining clear from the East Coast.
|
I'll field this one Wil.
To me this isn't a District/NonDistrict question. Districts don't work everywhere, for those of you who know me, you'll know the Novaks are... well practically family to me. Arkansas will never have the infrastructure to support districts and if everywhere goes to districts they are screwed. I don't think Districts are the final solution to FRC's scaling issue. I do think that for some regions they are an effective stop gap.
Now, for the reasons folks have stated (mostly volunteers and lack of nonprofit group) Districts aren't currently in the cards for MN[1]
My big objection is that two fold - 8 matches given our ranking systems = screwed up rankings. More matches give more time to equalize for a crappy schedule. I want teams that put in effort to be rewarded with high ranking. It's incredibly frustrating to build a great robot and be at the mercy of the draft because of a bad schedule. More matches helps.
My other claim is that, I don't think ANYONE would argue that less matches are better for teams. I'm already on the warpath about one aspect of customer service in FRC, I'd love to see someone else take up this aspect.
I admit, I mostly come at this from a team experience perspective - I want to see every team in FRC have an experience that makes them think "wow these folks are awesome and I want to come back" The vibe I've gotten is that the lack of plays is a serious pain point for schools, it makes the costs seem really hard to swallow when VEX and FTC offer most of the same experience for a fraction of the cost.
[1] I'd like to see a plan of attack on this, publicly.