Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
The Districts are put on at a much lower cost. They are 2 day events (FR/SA). They typically are in high school gyms rather than in stadiums. There typically is no extra lighting and the audio/video system sometimes would not meet FIRST's standards. For all this, I don't know that many FIRST teams actually notice the corners that are cut.
Importantly, the schedule is such that teams still get 10+ matches in the FR/SA format.
Also reducing costs is the "bag and tag" system which saves on shipping costs. Essentially a team puts its robot in a bag and has someone with a certain gravitas sign off that the bag was sealed when it should have been. Teams bring the robot to the competition in the bag themselves with the seal still intact. If all the paperwork is in order, the inspectors unseal the robots and that is that. No crates to deal with.
Due to the cost reductions, the teams can participate at 2 Districts and the Michigan State Championship (if they qualify) at a cost roughly of a single FIRST Regional.
|
The teams get two district events for the same cost as one regional. Going to the championship costs $4000, the same as adding an additional regional. When space permits, teams can elect to schedule a third district for $500.
But Dr Joe missed one other cost savings - lower cost travel. The majority of teams can, if they wish, attend both district events without staying overnight. Those that do stay overnight have one less night lodging to pay for. (I'll address the minority of teams that have to travel to both.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.
CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.
|
Which was exactly the case in MI before we went with FiM. There were two regionals only 50 miles apart in SE MI, and one in W MI. Nothing mid-state, nothing Up North. I appreciate that CA is larger than MI, but not all that much larger. Teams from the western UP are farther from the MSC site than teams from Philadelphia would be. We hoped to put one district in the UP, but there are only 4 teams (in an area 20% larger than Maryland and Delaware combined). Still, having a district in Traverse City cuts the travel time in half for one event. Far-flung teams have a disadvantage in both district and regional systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waialua359
I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.
|
Hawaii does not yet have enough teams to fill one district; you need 30-40 (which you might fill with mainland teams as the regional does today). The HI teams would all have to travel somewhere else for the second event, and then again for a championship. Plus some teams would still have the inter-island travel for an in-state district event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwood359
Are the MI competitions less expensive to produce?
Can two MI events be produced for the cost of one "standard" regional?
|
Far less cost. I don't recall the exact figures, but the most expensive district is only a fraction of the cost of the least expensive regional. All 7 districts are produced at a cost less than that of one regional.
Future district models would NOT be based on single-state boundaries, with the possible exception of CA and TX. Instead what you would be looking for is a concentration of teams and existing regionals. You replace 3-4 regionals with 7-10 districts and a championship event. You also need at least 90-100 teams in the area the championship covers. For example, the Boilermaker, Midwest and St Louis regionals could be replaced with district events in or around Chicago, Springfield/Peoria/Champaign, St Louis, Rolla/Columbia, Hammond/Gary, Indianapolis, Ft Wayne, Bloomington. (I have no idea if those locations are centralized for teams; I only picked cities that are distributed across the map.) Buckeye, Pittsburgh and Finger Lakes could also be replaced by a district model; in that case eventual district sites could be set up in KY or WV as well as in OH and western PA and NY. Three or 4championship sites could be established along the eastern seaboard from New England to VA/NC. The two Minnesota events plus Wisconsin could create a district area.
The southeast isn't quite at the concentration of teams needed yet. And it is very difficult to figure out what to do about large areas of the West that have few teams, and international teams. Something will have to be done in the Pacific Northwest; Seattle barely has enough room for the WA teams now and any expansion of teams would swamp them. But how do you combine Arizona, Las Vegas, Utah and Colorado? How do you accomodate the teams in MT, ID, WY, ND and SD, let alone AK? Another concern is that if many areas adopt the district/championship model, the remaining areas will have less options of traditional regionals to choose from.
Hopefully a cross-championship-border scheme can be accomodated, particularly in the far-flung areas. For example, teams in the western UP would be closer to events in Duluth or Green Bay than they are to the ones in Michigan, should MN and WI create a championship. For that matter, they'd also be closer to a championship in Milwaukee or Minneapolis. I'd also like to see ways to allow cross-border visits, even if only for a third event that doesn't count toward your championship points. We really miss seeing our friends from Toledo, Canada and other areas who frequented MI events in the past.
Someone mentioned the lack of volunteers for key positions in MN, and that is critical to the success of districts. Last year MI imported one district head ref and the FTA for the MSC, as I recall. This year we had all home-grown volunteers. That works in MI because of the depth and experience we have. With a state like MN with one 5-year team, thirteen 4-year teams, and the other 91 teams being younger (an incredible average of 30 rookie teams per year!), the experience level is just not there yet. Yet something has to be done; expansion of another 30 teams in MN next year will require yet another expensive regional. As Dean mentioned while speaking at the Troy District event, FRC started in a high school gym in NH 20 years ago, and the only way we can afford to expand the availability of FRC to all schools in the country is to return to those lower-cost roots for events.
There are problems with the district organization that have yet to be solved. One of them is getting the required two volunteers per team per event; some teams do not step up to fulfill their commitment and other teams have to take up the slack. Local committees can over-estimate their importance, making suggestions or even demands that go beyond or against FRC rules and policies. (That could theoretically happen at traditional regionals as well, but with key positions such as the FTA and LRI being appointed, there is less chance.)
If other areas adopt the district model, I am confident that we here in MI will support them with the experience we have gained these last two years. I believe that districts are the way to go, the only way to give FRC sustainable growth for the future.