View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-08-2008, 10:09
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,151
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New FIRST competition structure in Michigan

Gary is coming up with very similar numbers to what I am.

I have been doing a little analysis the last couple of days with team distribution and district model. I will post something up when it is a little more refined, but as some initial numbers to think about.
First off, driving to a local event only makes since for Mainland teams. Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and other countries may not see any easy benefit from this. They have always been special cases anyway, and would require a special solution.
1350-1500 Mainland teams would require 2700 to 3000 district slots to have 2 plays. With an average district event hosting 40 teams this would reuire 68-75 district events. Depending on goals of proximity/availability of Regional Championships there will need to be 12 to 24 Regional Championships (Similar to Michigan's State Championship). 12 would be if 50% of teams would have slots to compete, 24 would be if nearly 100% would get to compete (assuming 60 team events).
Michigan is trying the 50% of teams will get to compete in the State Championship model. Since this would correlate to 12 regional Championships, this could then turn 25 regionals into district events and would free up funding for the addition 40-50 district events require for that model. This would mean with no additional funding (and assuming funding can be dispersed) district events would need to cost 1/3 a regional event.
If nearly 100% of teams are to get to play at a regional Championship, then that will require 24 Regionals and 12 regionals will turn to district events and would require an additional 55-60 district events to be created. This will require a 1/5 regional cost for a district event.
Either model would require either a lot of new venues or, repeat events at key venues.

If FIRST (and these are all hypothetical) wants to go with 100% availability to regional championships, then it would probably be more reasonable to do 25 traditional regionals and 25 district events. If 12 regionals were turned into 25 districts, this would require districts to be 1/2 cost of a regional. It would also only require 12-15 new venues. The districts would be warm-ups, and maybe only the winners of it qualify for the Championship. At the Regionals would be the traditional 6 slots (winners, chairmans, Rookie Allstar, Engineering Inspiration?). This would then lend itself to further expansion of district events. I personally like doing 3 events and then the Championship, but this could be a reasonable 2010 interlude to gaining enough district events. With this model there are 225 qualifying positions for the Championship as opposed to 222 (6x37). This might be the way for the smoothest national transition for a district model. This model would also be more scalable for the non-North American teams that have a regional since then they could do a second district event possibly at the same venue.

Looking at the map (use http://www.usfirst.org/whatsgoingon.aspx), teams are created near events, and additional events seem to be created near teams (exceptions would be Minnesota and Oklahoma where this seems to be a simultaneous effort). Not a big surprise.

Keys to success for this kind of expansion would seem to be:
Cost structure: Is 1/5 and/or 1/3 and/or 1/2 even reasonable (from the number I have heard, I think 1/3 is reasonable and 1/5 may be doable).
Venues: I think that smaller universities with engineering programs benefit from this. If they can donate gym space, this could work. I know that Wayne State, Eastern Michigan, Kettering, and Grand Valley get a lot of attention from our students. I have found several engineering schools that have great programs but don't get the coverage that some of the big schools do.
Location, location, location: If these venues can align with strategic locations between current venues, other areas of the country may see growth like the upper Midwest and East/West coast have seen. Part of why there are so many teams in Michigan (esp. SE Michigan) is that you don't need to stay overnight to go to every regional. Having at least 1 event that is a reasonable drive from home is a huge benefit from a cost structure. New Englanders know this, CA knows this.

We may need to return to Dean's previous assignment and instead of creating teams at Colleges and Universities, Bring in the Dean's of Engineering and say, how would you like 600 motivated interested local students visit your University every spring right before they apply for College's. Would that be worh a weekend at your Co-Rec or fieldhouse?

$0.02 more cents for the pot.
Reply With Quote