View Single Post
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-06-2016, 12:20
Michael Corsetto's Avatar
Michael Corsetto Michael Corsetto is offline
Breathe in... Breathe out...
FRC #1678 (Citrus Circuits)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 1,130
Michael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Corsetto has a reputation beyond repute
Re: California District Proposal

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARS_James View Post
This is a really good read, a lot of the issues being discussed here actually sound similar to what we are dealing with in Florida, though on a smaller scale distance wise. Now since I am not from California nor have I ever been there some of the following may seem ignorant but humor me:

Somethings that I think may be cool for the California District to try, that may help in being applied to FRC as a whole when we have districts everywhere:

1. Don't make two unique districts, make 1 district with 2 championships based on geography, ironically exactly how FRC works right now with 2champs. By reading the proposal I couldn't tell if you were planning on doing this or not but I felt the need to bring it up. With the rise of interdistrict play, this can help keep some competitive integrity, make it so if you are a California team the first 2 California events you take place in, regardless of North or South decides your points. This will make some of the more affluent teams not just head to the other half of the state to try out their robot at an event with no repercussions to their standing in their home half of the state.

2. If the two districts will be separate, allow Teams on border lines to declare which district they wish to be in. This could result in some headaches but lets say a team pops up in Inyo County (yes I looked up the names of the counties), it is a "Northern" California Team, but depending on where in the county it is, it's to closest events may be in the "Southern" district. This may become an issue later if the area develops enough to host it's own district event but could be brought up on reevaluation.

3. Extend the Shadow Program to include offseasons. Basically have key/essential volunteer roles be shadowed or overbooked for the offseasons. Now I know that this may seem challenging but getting more volunteers can be done by informing teams ahead of time that their will be sign ups for students to learn how these roles work. Now many of these roles can not be filled by students at official events, but students don't stay students forever and getting them the basic training will help in the long run.


Now I have a question about the district proposal: Why are you planning on Friday/Saturday for your events as opposed to Saturday/Sunday?
These are all very good points!

1. I'm not sure how that would go over with FIRST HQ, but I wouldn't be opposed to it as an option.

2. I was thinking the same thing, give teams in the middle a chance to choose when the format is established. Caveats being A. They have to stick to their choice (for planning reasons) and B. They need to be near the "middle" between the two proposed DCMPs.

3. Great idea! I know I've learned a lot running CCC, and I plan on running at least one district event when the switch is made. We also have a brand new head ref for CCC 2016!

I hope Florida can use these docs!

-Mike
__________________
Team 1678: Citrus Circuits - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach **Like Us On Facebook!**
Reply With Quote