Multiple Event Winners

[dodar]

Originally Posted by BJC

I say the we get rid of buying one's way in and switch to a Michigan point style system for the whole world. Top teams go.

..and if First still wanted rookies to attend (think Rookie All-star) then they could give a much bigger bonus to that award to greatly boost good rookie's points as opposed to a by. This would go a long way in making Worlds more competitive. Like MSC x4.

I would love for it to be like that but it is hard to do that for all of FIRST because most teams do not get more than 1 or 2 events, so this would make for alot of teams tied with points. Maybe the points would be something like half of your total match score for every match you compete in added together.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Jeffy

I like the idea of finalists having a shot at qualifying!
However, say: at a week 2 regional team A is captain of the #2 alliance and loses to teams B, C, and D in the finals. This is B, C and D's first regional and now they qualify for the Championship. In week 4, Team B wins another regional. Does the finalist from the week two regional or the week four regional qualify for Championships?

Every year, there are always a few great teams that don't qualify for the Championship, and its too bad. Maybe a ranking system of sorts to allow the top 10 ranked non-qualified teams to qualify would work.

The Finalists from the week 4 event would get the spot, as that is where Team B qualified for the second time.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You'd make all of Canada a single region? That's going to force some teams to travel far in order to get their two district-level competitions. The distance and density factors are extremely important inputs to a district model.

I would indeed. There's a handful of Quebec teams (mostly spawned in 2010/2011 as part of Youth-Fusion-Jeunesse, a program driven by Bombardier and Bell Canada) that make the trek down for one or both of our Canadian regionals currently (WAT/GTR), and 1 or 2 teams from Western Canada (1482, GTREast Champions, from Calgary, AB and the now-defunct 1346, from Vancouver, BC). All other Canadian teams originate from within 4-6 hours drive of Toronto. The outliers being teams like 781 in Kincardine, ON, 1305 in North Bay, ON, and 1535 in Sault Ste Marie, ON.

In light of this, I think giving them a QC/Atlantic Canada District held in the Montreal area, and expecting them to travel to the GTA for their 2nd district as they already do is reasonable. Making concessions for a single existing team in western Canada seems silly, so allow 1482 the choice of competing in 2 districts in Ontario, or allow them to instead go south to Wisconsin, or Washington or Oregon. I think a Western Canada district is a bit presumptuous, at least until more teams form there. Since 1305, 781, and 1535 all already attend both Waterloo and GTR, I see no issues with them competing in districts in the GTA.

[Racer26]

Also, does anyone have data on the geographical distribution of rookies in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons, as compared to 2007 and 2008?

I would hazard a guess that the district model in MI has spawned a disproportionately large number of teams there, because of the reduced cost. I know MI already has a disproportionately high density of FRC teams, what with the US Automakers all being based there.

EDIT: I also worry about the caliber of teams we're creating. FIRST has seen huge growth in the last 4 years. I've only noticed a handful of teams with numbers over 2500 (roughly 2009-era rookies) that have been notably strong on the field. This is that quantity over quality argument everyone keeps making.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, does anyone have data on the geographical distribution of rookies in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons, as compared to 2007 and 2008?

That's pretty commonly available information if you need me to point you at an existing spreadsheet so you can pick your buckets and do your sorting.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You'd make all of Canada a single region? That's going to force some teams to travel far in order to get their two district-level competitions. The distance and density factors are extremely important inputs to a district model.

If you wanted to make Canada East and Canada West, that sounds reasonable. The district system is weird in the way that while I think it can easily create more teams by having more events and more exposure, you need high team density to do it, or willingness to travel.

This is really terrible math-logic concept of approaching the district model, but in the last year FiM ran regionals, they had 3 regionals. By my logical reasoning, Texas and California can easily transition from regionals to districts.

However, between DC, VA, and MD, there were 3 regionals. This means that these areas would combine into the already delineated "Capital Region" where instead of a State Championship, you have a "regional" functioning like an existing state championship.

So Canada supports 1 super-regional=2 regionals. Therefore, it would need to be categorized with another existing regional to switch over to the district system.

Conclusion: Canada doesn't have the team density to go to a msc-style qualification yet, unless they tag in with Lake Superior or another Northern Regional.

What I'm trying to say is this: the district/state system ensures that the best teams move on, and only move on once (or twice with an RASA/EIA/RCA), it's just not feasible.

The system is fractured, and know one knows the answers. I'm confident that if they did, FIRST would have implemented them by now.

[GaryVoshol]

BC should be in a Pacific Northwest Conference with WA and OR.

[J_Miles]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I'd like to see everywhere adopting the Michigan model. District events, leading to a regional championship, which then awards seats at CMP proportional to the region's pre-district model size (although to be fair, Michigan should be sending more than 9 teams on merit, given the team-density. Michigan could easily support 4 or 5 regionals now, despite having only 3 when the district model started.)

We send 18 total (9 on merit alone, 9 from awards), which is equal to 6 from three regionals. I'm not sure if I think it should change, considering the open registration periods get a lot of additional Michigan teams there.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Take an MI team, 2337 for example:
They attended 3 districts, MSC, and Championship in 2011 Total Cost: $5000+$500+$4000+$5000 = $14500.

An extra $500-1500 cost, to attend 5 events instead of 3? Yes, please! Even more so, when you consider the caliber of MSC and CMP.

We certainly like the opportunity to play in such a number of events, too. It's not only great practice, but, as you said, the calibre of teams coming out of Michigan means that every competition is just as good as the last. Plus, keeping the Districts of uniform size (roughly 40 teams) helps to ensure you aren't qualifying a disproportionate number of teams from different districts.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I could certainly see it working for Canada: Niagara District, York/Durham District, Waterloo District, Toronto District, Quebec/Eastern Canada District, and Western Canada District lead to a Canadian National Championship, replacing GTR.

I don't think everywhere has the density to support the model on a state-by-state basis, but MI, TX, NY, and CA surely do. I expect you could glom together a few states in the northwest to come up with a big enough pool of teams.

It's an intriguing idea...the FIRST in Michigan folks have done a good job of planning in such a way as to keep costs down, and I'm sure that it could be done as you suggest: give CA, NY, TX, and Canada their own regions, and then give less dense groups of states divisions, as well. I personally like the District System, and wouldn't have it any other way; however, there are drawbacks to the system. The venues that MI District Competitions are held in are not as high-capacity as regionals (most being in High Schools), which might take away from some students' experience. At the same time, every MI team has the opportunity to go to AT LEAST two competitions each year, which is more than teams outside of Michigan, who, with less sponsorship, might only have the money to go to one Regional and then have their season end.

If we can succeed in making FIRST and FRC as widespread as Dean (and I, and probably anyone else involved with the program) would like it to be, I think the District system would have real potential. As it is, it works well for Michigan right now, and could probably be implemented elsewhere if the initiative was there.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

EDIT: I also worry about the caliber of teams we're creating. FIRST has seen huge growth in the last 4 years. I've only noticed a handful of teams with numbers over 2500 (roughly 2009-era rookies) that have been notably strong on the field. This is that quantity over quality argument everyone keeps making.

I beg to differ, sir. From what I’ve seen from Michigan rookies this year, I have, on more than one occasion, remarked to certain mentors and students on our team: "This is the year of the rookie." I have seen numerous VERY strong rookies this season, teams that have produced robots more successful than even many veteran teams. I like to think that this is a sign of success of the culture change that FIRST is trying to bring about: teams are willing to mentor other start-up teams, purely out of the joy of seeing FIRST expand elsewhere. FIRST in Michigan even runs Rookie Conference Calls, a campaign spearheaded by Kyle Hughes of Team 27, RUSH, I believe, and worked on tirelessly by members of my own team. Our head mentors speak on the calls regularly, and student members of our team, including myself, have participated in the calls as well. Of the roughly fifty new rookie teams in Michigan this year, our team spoke with nearly 30 of them through the FiM Conference calls. Michigan is a breeding ground for lots of STRONG new rookie teams, and I warn you not to take them lightly.

/Whew, long post. Sorry, I had it all ready and queued up earlier, then CD went down. When I came back, I added to it. I apologize for the length =D

[Basel A]

Remember that regionals and districts do all of their own fund raising, and most registration fees go to FIRST, largely for KoP and other costs.

The district model is about cutting the cost of putting on an event, so you can have more events. With more events than Michigan teams can fill going to two events, one might as well allow teams to go to three. Indeed, there's incentive: more competition. Should make it cheap because (a) they can and (b) teams would already have added travel costs.

If regionals were cheaper to put on, then there would likely be more regionals. If there were more regionals, FIRST would have reason to decrease registration fees, because many teams would then be going to more than one regional, meaning inflow of money to FIRST HQ doesn't change (much).

tl;dr If there's more regionals, the cost of registration should go down. Do this by making regionals cheaper to run, like districts.

[J_Miles]

Originally Posted by Basel A

If there's more regionals, the cost of registration should go down. Do this by making regionals cheaper to run, like districts.

Location, location, location. Regionals are held in venues that have generally more restrictive scheduling and a much higher cost. There is little that can be done about that. The only way to significantly cut costs is a change in scenery. It seems like all-or-nothing: go the district route and compete at high schools, or maintain the status quo.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Location, location, location. Regionals are held in venues that have generally more restrictive scheduling and a much higher cost. There is little that can be done about that. The only way to significantly cut costs is a change in scenery. It seems like all-or-nothing: go the district route and compete at high schools, or maintain the status quo.

You can have district-style regionals. They'd just be smaller, cheaper, and held in high schools. There's no need for the state structure that exists in Michigan. There's already plenty of regionals that are <40 teams.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Wow that's a lot of teams! Just putting my $00.02 in, I think it can be unfair for any one team to be allowed win more than one regional. They're already going to the championships, so why not give another alliance the chance to make it to St. Luis? Just my opinion here.

(Obvious full disclosure: I'm exceptionally fortunate to be on one of those two-time-champion teams.)

I think you're missing one of the big things about the alliance that won Palmetto--at the time, neither SPAM nor Triple Helix was qualified to attend Championship. I don't think (though I can't really confirm) that either were even registered. Do we just tell SPAM and Triple Helix "Hey, you've got a regional winner on your alliance, so we're stopping you at semifinals. Good game."?

If I'm under this policy, and the Petunia Regional is our first event but the Magnolia Regional later in the season carries more cachet, am I really contemplating giving less than 100% at Petunia just to give ourselves a chance at Magnolia gold?

If I'm us this year, at our home event (Palmetto), with parents and sponsors in the audience, do we shrug off our qualification rounds because we know we won't have a shot at a second title and can more or less pack up before lunch ends?

(I won't even go into the implications for Hall of Fame and original and sustaining teams, who are qualified automatically.)

Heck no! Some guy in denim keeps saying a society gets the best of what it celebrates. I certainly don't want to celebrate a system where teams are coming to an event prepared to go off half-cocked because of a well-intentioned but constraining let's-give-everyone-a-chance policy.

Currently, the waitlist does an adequate job of handling these extra spots. Eventually, FIRST will grow to the point that they can book Championship up entirely on qualifying teams (and even then with some anticipated fudge factor based on double-qualifying teams). After they grow beyond that threshold, who knows? But for now, I can't find fault in their system.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by J_Miles

Location, location, location. Regionals are held in venues that have generally more restrictive scheduling and a much higher cost. There is little that can be done about that. The only way to significantly cut costs is a change in scenery. It seems like all-or-nothing: go the district route and compete at high schools, or maintain the status quo.

Of the 9 districts, at least 3 of them are held at college campuses. Two of those were formerly regionals (Detroit actually got bigger as a district than it was as a regional).

As far as the numbers go, you really should have a 50-54 team group in order to do the district model. This would then involve 3 districts of around 36 teams, and 1 Championship. Realistically, all teams could be invited to that Championship. This keeps most of the core of the District Model of plenty of teams at the event for the 24 teams in elims to have some options. All teams could have 12 matches per district and each team would get 2 districts. Yes there would be a lot of overlap, but it is what it is. As more teams join in, there would be a split-point around 60 teams. Every time you get another 20 teams, you really need to add an event. Eventually (again around 60-ish) it is difficult to increase the number of teams allowed into a Championship. At some point you have to make a cut. The cut is healthy as it gives teams an intermediate goal to shoot for. It is very painful for any team that is on the wrong side of such a cut. It is especially tough when teams are very close to the cut. From what I have seen, this has inspired teams to try harder the following year.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Texas and California can easily transition from regionals to districts.

However, between DC, VA, and MD, there were 3 regionals. This means that these areas would combine into the already delineated "Capital Region" where instead of a State Championship, you have a "regional" functioning like an existing state championship.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

So Canada supports 1 super-regional=2 regionals. Therefore, it would need to be categorized with another existing regional to switch over to the district system.

Conclusion: Canada doesn't have the team density to go to a msc-style qualification yet, unless they tag in with Lake Superior or another Northern Regional.

Canada currently supports:
Waterloo Regional (29 teams, event code WAT)
Greater Toronto East Regional (36 teams, event code ON)
Greater Toronto West Regional (36 teams, event code ON2)

In addition, Canadians also represented:
6 of the 44 teams at Finger Lakes Regional (event code ROC)
2 of the 58 teams at Buckeye Regional (event code OH)
4 of the 39 teams at Pittsburgh Regional (event code PIT)
1 of the 61 teams at New Jersey (event code NJ)
1 of the 66 teams at New York City (event code NY)
1 of the 64 teams at Virginia Regional (event code VA)
1 of the 51 teams at Wisconsin Regional (event code WI)
1 of the 53 teams at Boston Regional (event code MA)

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

BC should be in a Pacific Northwest Conference with WA and OR.

Concur, BC and Western Canada should be 'region-ized' with the Pacific Northwest part of the US. Its significantly closer than Ontario.

EDIT: There are currently 80 Canadian teams registered for the 2011 FRC season, of a total 2065 teams, or 3.87%
By comparison, MI has 171 teams registered for the 2011 FRC season, or 8.28%

[PayneTrain]

I don't want to make this another "let's go to the district model" thread (but maybe there should be an official one), but teams get to win multiple events without necessarily spoiling the fun of other teams. You have two-six opportunities to win a blue banner (districts 1-3, states, division, nationals) and you can't whine that some powerhouse came in to wreck your region: they are in your region. Top teams still get points that go towards the big events, great teams get to take home the well-deserved spoils, ad the little guys get twice as many opportunities to run the robot.