Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

[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.

[Mark McLeod]

I think you might want to run real numbers on this before making up such a conclusion.
I just looked and it's almost 50/50 (46% vs 54%).

Statistically speaking, people can be notoriously bad guessers. (Apartment for Peggy)

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I have no numbers to back this up, but from posts I've seen it seems like single regional teams are in the minority at champs. Furthermore, single regional teams are vastly the minority in elims at champs, and ridiculously in the minority for division/champs winners. There are some exceptions of course, but for how many teams total do a single regional, the numbers are low at champs.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

I think you might want to run real numbers on this before making up such a conclusion.
I just looked and it's almost 50/50 (46% vs 54%).

I stand corrected.

Do you have numbers on eliminations by chance?

[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.

[Tom Line]

Pro's:
1. We pay less to play more. This has all sorts of benefits:

• Exposure to more robots and more teams
• More practice
• More time to work out the bugs on the robots during competition
• More friendships with awesome Michigan teams
• Rapid-fire turn around means the teams get very good at fixing their problems

2. For awards like Chairmans, we get far more practice (have to present multiple times)
3. Michigan sends teams to championship that have done well repeatedly. Not just 1 time.

Con's:
1. Generally speaking, the field of teams we see in Michigan is limited to Michigan. I miss going up against Wildstangs, Technokats, Beatty, and many others nearby.
2. The events are somewhat less glamorous.
3. The district events are very much 'jammed' time wise. A day is cut out of a district to save money, which means we're usually up scouting until 1 AM on Friday night. There's no reall time to go swimming, go out and get a nice meal, etc if you're planning on picking the next day. Likewise, we start earlier. It's exhausting compared to a regional. We're HAPPY to go to state championships and world championships because, frankly, it's WAY more laid back with a much longer turn-around time between matches.

All in all, the district model is superior in my mind. However, there are things I miss about the regionals events - the glamor and glitz, the laid-back atmosphere and time to have fun, etc.

[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.

[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..

[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".

[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.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Minnesota, being I believe 2nd or 3rd for most FRC teams (MI is of course at the top, Texas in there somewhere, and California???) may also break into districts soon, depending on how FIRST assesses the success of the pilot and where Mark Lawrence and co. want to take Minnesota FIRST. So it's kind of interesting to think how things would be different.

First off, it does seem silly that the districts should be locked. Teams within a state (or region, I guess would probably be the case on the East Coast), should have the freedom to pick and choose districts. This helps relieve the monotony you get from seeing the same people over and over, and it probably wouldn't create any imbalance in competition (in fact, it would probably relieve that, too, with some of the better teams perhaps looking around for easier events, more average teams looking around for more competitive events, or vice versa, probably an even distribution).

If teams are left out of a state/region, for example in 2791's case, or for the few teams in the Dakotas, or wherever, there should be a straightforward process of applying to that state/region's tournament and participating as any other member (plus commute). And I say straightforward because it musn't discourage the formation or continuation of teams in such areas. The tricky part would be determining how remote a team must be to do such a thing (or maybe you don't care? as long as each team is in only one tournament, plus as many regionals as they want...)

Well that's a lot of unorganized thought on the subject...

[Jim Zondag]

Personally I love it, (but I will openly admit to a little bias ).

Why do we participate in FIRST?
Some of the posters in this thread seem to indicate that the primary goal is to get to the Champsionship via the easiest and cheapest path possible. Wrong. The only teams who should be at any championship are the ones who legitimately have some chance at being a champion, regardless of the sport. Anything other than this is just promotion of false hope.

The “Scalable District System” (this is the actual original name) was designed to increase participation, sustainability and growth in the FRC through several means:
1. Reduce the price of entry: This is more than just enrollment costs. More events and more teams means lower travel costs and more support.
2. Increase Return on Investment: Every team in our system plays 2 to 3 times more than teams do elsewhere under the traditional system for the same price and the same lost time from work/school.
3. Remove Barriers: We work hard to remove things that waste time, waste money, add needless complexity, or generate frustration. We still have much work to do here.
4. Create an Environment which promotes success: We want all teams to strive to be successful, and we provide measureables which allow them all to gauge their own success.
5. Provide Local Infrastructure: Our FIRST Community is here, not in New Hampshire. As with everything, the best help and support always come from a local level.
6. Bring more attention to the FRC: We have a great group who work together to promote all 10 of our events, not just one regional. The 2011 MSC special is just the beginning.

Many of the “fixed points” are set by New Hampshire and are not under local control:
1. Would we allow teams from other states to come here if we could?: Yes
2. Would we give points for the “Culture Changing Awards” if we could?: Yes
3. Would we reduce the initial registration fees if we could?: Yes
4. Would we reduce the cost for enrolling the State Championship?: Yes
If other regions chose to go a similar route as we have, maybe together we can make such changes. Thus far we have been unable to affect these items at all.

So, does it work? Yes it does.
- Team growth has been very good.
- Team Retention has been very good.
- Team Satisfaction has been very good.
- Team competitive success has been very good.
- Community awareness and media exposure has been exceptional.

Backing up to some points made earlier in this thread:
Fact: teams who play more get better. This is not just an opinion, it’s a fact.
Let’s look at some data. (Remember kids, without data, you are just another person with an opinion).

At the 2011 St Louis Event, we had the following breakdown of prior experience.
Teams at 2011 Championship - 352
Teams with 1 prior event - 163 - 46.3%
Teams with 2 prior events - 153 - 43.5%
Teams with 3 prior events - 29 - 8.2%
Teams with 4 prior events - 6 - 1.7%
Teams with 5 prior events - 1 - 0.3%
So there was a roughly 50/50 split of teams with 1 prior and teams with more.

So how did everyone do when they got there?
Teams in STL Elimination Rounds - 96
Teams with 1 prior event - 13 - 13.5% - 13/163 = 8.0%
Teams with 2 prior events - 56 - 58.3% - 56/153 = 36.6%
Teams with 3 prior events - 29 - 24.0% - 23/29 = 79.3%
Teams with 4 prior events - 4 - 4.2% - 4/6 = 66.7%
Teams with 5 prior events - 0 - 0%

So basically, even though almost half the field were in the “one prior event” group, only 8% of these teams advanced. The other, more experienced group, were 44% successful overall.
Every member of our Michigan top 20 ranked teams was in St Louis this year. 19 out of 20 (95%) of these teams advance to the Elims. No other group of any kind had a similar level of success.

We have studied the population trends in the FRC for over a decade. Team capability grows very consistently with experience through the first three events and then begins to level off. Only the very best teams begin their season at near full capability; the other 97% of the league see definitive growth with increased experience.

If you want to improve FRC in your region, you have to get the robots on the field. It is as simple as that.

"Hope is not a Strategy" - Rick Page

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Thus far we have been unable to affect these items at all.

Who or what, may I ask, has been responsible for this lack of change? Are these restrictions directly from NH or are the costs dictated by financial needs to run the events? Meaning- how much does it actually take to run the state championship?