Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

To get to champs in an earn-to-play way (winning events/chairmans/EI/rookie all star), it costs teams

in MI: $5000 (registration) + $4000 (State) + $5000 (champs)= $14,000

not in MI: $5000 (registration) + $5000 (champs)= $10,000

Yes this is true, but it is only one way to look at how your team is spending money (ie: what you are getting for the cost of the competition).

Another way to look at it is how much playing time you are getting with your robot. In that case, the matches/dollar (or dollars/match) metric may be a viable way to see what kind of payback your getting per model.

In that case, for a Michigan team electing to go to 3 districts we could see this:
-Assuming 14 official matches/competition as an average
-14 matches/competition * 3 competitions = 42 matches
-$5500 dollars (registration fee + 1 extra district) / 42 matches = ~$131.00/match played

For a team outside Michigan to reach the same # of matches:
-$5000 registration & 1 regional + $4000 2nd regional + $4000 3rd regional = $13000
-$13000 / 42 matches = ~$309.50/match played


In your example, the team from Michigan did have to pay an additional $4000 dollars to get to Championships, but they also got approximately 50% more matches played than the team from outside of Michigan for that cost. In dollar/match terms:

-Michigan team going to championship: $14000/56 matches played = $250/match
-Outside Michigan team to championship: $10000/28 matches played = $357/match

Furthermore, if the Michigan team wanted to pay the extra $500 dollars for a 3rd district, and an outside Michigan team wanted to go to a 2nd regional you get this:

-Michigan team, 3 districts, states and championship: $14,500/70 matches played = $207.14/match
-Outside michigan team, 2 regionals, championship: $14,000/42 matches played = $333.33/match


I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to see how much bang your getting for each buck your team spends, but its an alternate way to look at the different models.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all teams also have a chance to register for an open slot at Championships, as few as they may be. Often times, teams who win a competition may not be able to go to Championship just because booking a trip in a matter of weeks can be too difficult. Its just another side of the coin to look at.

-Brando

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Yes this is true, but it is only one way to look at how your team is spending money (ie: what you are getting for the cost of the competition).

Another way to look at it is how much playing time you are getting with your robot. In that case, the matches/dollar (or dollars/match) metric may be a viable way to see what kind of payback your getting per model.

In that case, for a Michigan team electing to go to 3 districts we could see this:
-Assuming 14 official matches/competition as an average
-14 matches/competition * 3 competitions = 42 matches
-$5500 dollars (registration fee + 1 extra district) / 42 matches = ~$131.00/match played

For a team outside Michigan to reach the same # of matches:
-$5000 registration & 1 regional + $4000 2nd regional + $4000 3rd regional = $13000
-$13000 / 42 matches = ~$309.50/match played

I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to see how much bang your getting for each buck your team spends, but its an alternate way to look at the different models.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all teams also have a chance to register for an open slot at Championships, as few as they may be. Often times, teams who win a competition may not be able to go to Championship just because booking a trip in a matter of weeks can be too difficult. Its just another side of the coin to look at.

-Brando

I do not believe most regionals average that 14 matches per event number, I would say its closer to 10 or 11

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

I do not believe most regionals average that 14 matches per event number, I would say its closer to 10 or 11

I think he is counting eliminations as well as qualifications, not just qualifications.

[the man]

Back on topic a little.
I like they way we do it in Michigan. We have a lot of events we can attend and the excitement of state and even nationals. Either way I like Michigan's ways.

[GaryVoshol]

The thing I miss most in the District system is not getting to see out of state teams. That could possibly be fixed with cross-district exchanges in the future as the district model expands. There would have to be some kind of limits put on it, but I think a workable model for traveling to other areas could be worked out.

The greatest cost benefit is for the average teams. In Michigan they get 2 events and at least 24 matches for their initial entry fee. Teams that go to a regional get one event with as few as 7 matches, although I understand they are trying to get more matches in most regionals. Still, it's a difference of ~10 matches vs. 24.

Yes, the State Championship costs $4000 extra, the same price as a second regional elsewhere. And with the point structure I don't think it is possible to qualify for the Championship event without going to State. (It might be mathematically possible, but highly unlikely.) But as pointed out above, many teams go to a second regional as is, so the total registration costs for the season are the same.

For some teams there is an additional travel expense to get to a second district event. In SE Michigan most teams are within daily driving distance of their 2 events if they choose to go to the nearest ones. But some teams elect to go to a more distant district. OK, travel to Traverse City or Niles might not be as exciting as travel to Orlando or New York, but the biggest draw to travel is going with your team, not the destination.

Also district events are only 2 days, so you only have to miss one day of school (unless you have to travel on Thursday).

So while there are a few drawbacks, the benefits far outweigh them in my estimation.

[pafwl]

Brilliant responses...

Can you comment on the competitions themselves? Did you feel they were any less exciting or less satisfying because they were not as splashy or glitzy as the pre 2009 events run by FIRST?

[pafwl]

What about the idea that you could switch one of your district events with another team. Call it a time share swap. You both register for the district event in your area, then you contact the other team and tell FIRST about the swap. They go in your place and you go in theirs.

FIRST may not like this becasue their comupter systems will have to support it but it might be a way to cheaply kill one of the complaints I am hearing be knocked down. You get to go away for 1/2 the cost of a traditional regional.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Karibou

...It's just a matter of where to draw the boundary lines.

The best solution is usually the simplest: don't draw any borders.

No matter how you try to slicey dicey up geographic areas into discrete regional districts, you are always going to anger people at or near the borders, who want to belong in a different region. This would particularly be a problem for the Northeast megalopolis; it's too big to be a single "district" but too contiguous to be broken up into sub districts without the whine of a thousand banshees descending on the unfortunate person who arbitrarily put an invisible line on a map.

[Chris is me]

Semi on topic: If NJ and PA break into districts, and New England follows suit, we in the Capital region of NY could end up in a fun situation where we have zero nearby events because we're not included in districts.

I really don't get why districts are "locked".

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by pafwl

Brilliant responses...

Can you comment on the competitions themselves? Did you feel they were any less exciting or less satisfying because they were not as splashy or glitzy as the pre 2009 events run by FIRST?

Depends on your taste... If you want to awe the people around you with the venue and make it feel like a pro-sports event, you don't want to try a distrct model...

By working in the highschool gyms and such and you get more people closer to the event and want to know more...

If you put in place a good DJ, high enegry people behind the table and normal team spirit then the event could be just as exciting as a normal regional..

The easiest way to compare is to an offseason event.. Like IRI, everything done in one gym and people are right there.. I usually don't hear to many complaints about that from the IRI participates..

[IKE]

Originally Posted by pafwl

Brilliant responses...

Can you comment on the competitions themselves? Did you feel they were any less exciting or less satisfying because they were not as splashy or glitzy as the pre 2009 events run by FIRST?

One thing I found interesting, is in Michigan, we play in the light! What I mean by that is the field lighting is visually stunning, but makes for horrible pictures, tough scouting, tough pit conditions. I stopped in a Pittsburgh, and it felt like you were playing in a mine.

Another thing I like is that there seems to be a better spreading of awards from event to event. With the extra events, there are more awards period. This tends to recognize more teams (at least at the district level) which in my book is a really good thing.

I really like that the level of play tends to match the venue. What I mean by that is the Districts tend to have a certain level of play involved, MSC another, and World Championship an additional step up. this tends to match the venue size and the requirements to qualify to be a part of that venue.

Having a qualified Championship event like MSC is so neat. It sets a good bar for middle ground and new teams to strive for. You have to be roughly top 1/3 in the state to qualify for it. While 20-30 teams are pretty predictable, the other 40-30 slots have potential for turn-over which is a motivator/reward to a lot of middle teams. Playing qualifying matches with teams that have 2 events under their belts is awesome. Teams have had time to develop a skill set and can play an active role in the match. The mix is exciting as usually allianes are good enough to not be completely ruled out. At MSC there was 1 0pt. alliance during the entire event. Even a competitive regional like Midwest had 10 0pt. alliances in the first 20 matches. Newton had 4 0pt. alliances in the first 20 matches. 4!!! at the "World Championship" in 20 matches!!!! is 10% of alliances in what was arguably the deepest talent depth division at the championship.

Its not perfect, but I really really like this system, and with a few tweaks (most controlled by FIRST HQ), it would be really close to ideal.

[Basel A]

A few notes no one has picked up yet, I think:

-It's more tiring on volunteers. From 2008 to 2009, Michigan went from 3 events to 6. Roughly double the volunteer-events needed. Even if districts don't do full-day thursdays, it's an increase and more spread out.

-While there is less interaction with outside teams, that results in more interaction with inside teams. When you see the same team at 2-4 events (even 5, possibly) in a season, there's more camaraderie. The end result is greater cooperation and fewer failing teams.

-The group of teams headed to the Championship is more well-rounded and chosen more fairly. The point system will often send deserving finalist-captains to the CMP, who are completely left out in a regional system.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Basel A

-It's more tiring on volunteers. From 2008 to 2009, Michigan went from 3 events to 6. Roughly double the volunteer-events needed. Even if districts don't do full-day thursdays, it's an increase and more spread out.

I'm not sure how many people outside of MI know this, but each team is required to provide two volunteers for both days of each event that they attend. I'm sure that we all understand why this is required, but my team struggled to find two people to volunteer for our away event this year (West MI/GVSU), and I'm sure we weren't the only ones. Having two districts each week (with the exception of Week 2 - Waterford) also tended to spread out the experienced volunteers between events.

[mesamb1]

I hear alot of talk of people from mi complaining about the lack of out of area at their regional, but I would be curious to hear from the people who attend the New Jersey Regional and New York City Regional about how much diversity they see at their regional now. When our team went to peachtree regional we saw mostly the same teams every year, so much so you thought of them as neighbors.
My suspicion, these regional are already in high enough demand locally that the teams don't see many outside teams there now, but I don't know(the only regionals I go to are in places where iced tea only comes sweet).
If this is the case, limiting competition to the districts wouldn't bring earth shattering change to your competitors.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by mesamb1

... I would be curious to hear from the people who attend the New Jersey Regional and New York City Regional about how much diversity they see at their regional now.

We ran those numbers (it was a group effort) after registration closed that gave the % of away teams at each Regional.
About a third at both NJ and NYC were teams that had other "home" Regionals. You can check the preceding posts in that thread to follow the discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean that the same teams aren't always showing up.

The last column gives an idea of the turnover rate (or team freshness?) experienced by each Regional year-to-year, that includes rookies.
That's probably your best measure of the amount of new & different teams mixing each Regional up.

Those numbers aren't final because a few teams were still being moved around between events, but that's the bulk of them.
Also the criteria of what an away team is, is talked about inside the spreadsheet attached to that post.