Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

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

Jim (or anyone else) - is there any data that compares MI to RoW (Rest of World) for team growth and retention?

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Jim (or anyone else) - is there any data that compares MI to RoW (Rest of World) for team growth and retention?

This post by Mark McLeod in the Registration 2011 thread makes some notes to that point, but a more thorough analysis is necessary to make any significant conclusions.

Quoted for ease of reference

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Teams that played last year but haven't returned this year (by area).
MI and CA are equivalent in size, but MI had twice the attrition rate.

Loss as a % in the largest areas, Minnesota wins:
(Note: reworked these using last seasons total teams)

• Minnesota (105) ---- 1.0%
• Texas (104) -------- 3.8%
• New York (119) ----- 6.7%
• California (153) ---- 7.2%
• Michigan (140) ---- 14.3%

Missing in action:

MI ---------- 20
CA ---------- 11
OK ---------- 8
NY ---------- 8
Israel ------- 8
IL ----------- 7
OH ---------- 6
WA ---------- 5
FL ----------- 5
CO ---------- 5
CANADA-ON - 5
VA ---------- 4
TX ---------- 4
NJ ---------- 4
MA ---------- 4
IN ---------- 4
AZ ---------- 4
UT ---------- 3
PA ---------- 3
OR ---------- 3
MO ---------- 3
GA ----------- 3
CT ----------- 3
WI ----------- 2
TN ----------- 2
SC ----------- 2
NC ----------- 2
MS ----------- 2
LA ----------- 2
KS ----------- 2
HI ----------- 2
DC ----------- 2
AL ----------- 2
Turkey ------ 1
PR ----------- 1
NV ----------- 1
NM ----------- 1
Netherlands - 1
MT ----------- 1
MN ----------- 1
ME ----------- 1
MD ----------- 1
CANADA-QC - 1
CANADA-BC - 1
AK ------------ 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on the positive side, here are the teams, by area, that are playing.
Twelve countries are represented.

Area ----- Registered
CA ---------- 175
MI ---------- 171
TX ---------- 145
MN ---------- 130
NY ---------- 127
WA ----------- 82
VA ----------- 68
CANADA-ON - 65
NJ ----------- 64
FL ----------- 61
MA ---------- 53
MO ---------- 52
Israel ------- 48
OH ---------- 48
OK ---------- 48
PA ---------- 48
IL ---------- 44
CT ---------- 42
AZ ---------- 40
GA ---------- 38
NC ---------- 36
CO ---------- 35
IN ---------- 35
OR ---------- 35
MD ---------- 34
NH ---------- 33
WI ---------- 32
HI ---------- 26
SC ---------- 25
LA ---------- 24
KS ---------- 19
UT ---------- 18
TN ---------- 16
CANADA-QC - 14
DC ---------- 14
KY ---------- 14
ID ---------- 13
Mexico ----- 12
AL ---------- 11
MS ---------- 11
NV ---------- 11
ME ----------- 8
MT ----------- 7
Brazil -------- 5
RI ----------- 5
WV ---------- 5
AR ----------- 4
Turkey ------ 4
IA ----------- 3
ND ----------- 3
VT ----------- 3
WY ---------- 3
AK ---------- 2
DE ---------- 2
NM ---------- 2
PR ---------- 2
UNITED KINGDOM - 2
Australia ----------- 1
CANADA-AB -------- 1
Chile ---------------- 1
Germany ----------- 1
Herzegovina -------- 1
Spain --------------- 1

[Lil' Lavery]

I'm going to make the same earnest plea I made a couple years ago when talking about the FiM district model. Please, try and isolate the variables.

I realize this is tough with only a couple years worth of district data to work from (and none of that is pure, since there are so many variables involved). For example, looking at retention rate. The economic crisis absolutely ravaged Michigan. It's expected that they would have higher than normal loss rates of teams. It's tough to figure out what role, if any, the district system played in that. Similarly, the amount of Michigan teams that reached the elimination rounds in St. Louis is likewise a combination of many factors (see my previous thread for a similar evaluation).

Secondly, not all of the FiM district "features" have to be in a full-on district system. Ideas like eliminating Thursday practice days, increasing the total matches per event, increasing the quantity of events, reducing the cost of events, bag and tag, geographical segmentation, and two-tiered competitions should each be evaluated individually, rather than as a single package. It's entirely possible to implement some of those without going to a district model, and it's possible to go to a district model without implementing all of those.

Frank, I look forward to meeting with you and the rest of MAR at the July 9th meeting. I hope to have more solid evaluations prepared by then.

[nikeairmancurry]

Just a bit of extra info.. Thursday is not a complete loss in Michigan, most events have a 4 hour window for teams to come in.. Also I have been to many districts where you did have time on practice on thursday night.. and practice rounds on friday morning...

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Secondly, not all of the FiM district "features" have to be in a full-on district system. Ideas like eliminating Thursday practice days, increasing the total matches per event, increasing the quantity of events, reducing the cost of events, bag and tag, geographical segmentation, and two-tiered competitions should each be evaluated individually, rather than as a single package. It's entirely possible to implement some of those without going to a district model, and it's possible to go to a district model without implementing all of those.

It is good to hear someone else re-state this again. The system we use in Michigan is a collection of the features that we decided would work for us, given our team population, geographic distribution, volunteer base, and financial situation. Our way is one of many possible solutions. We explored many ideas thoroughly before settling on what we have. There are certainly lots of other ways this could be done using only certain pieces of our system, or by adding great new ideas. This is still a young sport, and it will continue to evlove as it matures. Each region needs to set its own goals and proceed accordingly.

I will say that if people want to remove "border restrictions" in the future, the closer our individual systems are to one another, the more likely we will be able to find ways to allow more flexibility in this regard.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm going to make the same earnest plea I made a couple years ago when talking about the FiM district model. Please, try and isolate the variables.

I realize this is tough with only a couple years worth of district data to work from (and none of that is pure, since there are so many variables involved). For example, looking at retention rate. The economic crisis absolutely ravaged Michigan. It's expected that they would have higher than normal loss rates of teams. It's tough to figure out what role, if any, the district system played in that. Similarly, the amount of Michigan teams that reached the elimination rounds in St. Louis is likewise a combination of many factors (see my previous thread for a similar evaluation).

Secondly, not all of the FiM district "features" have to be in a full-on district system. Ideas like eliminating Thursday practice days, increasing the total matches per event, increasing the quantity of events, reducing the cost of events, bag and tag, geographical segmentation, and two-tiered competitions should each be evaluated individually, rather than as a single package. It's entirely possible to implement some of those without going to a district model, and it's possible to go to a district model without implementing all of those.

Frank, I look forward to meeting with you and the rest of MAR at the July 9th meeting. I hope to have more solid evaluations prepared by then.

Well put. Let me point out something regarding the growth of FIRST that the district model definitely DID help with. Michigan has a centralized 'authority' in First-in-Michigan (FiM). Because they could act as a single group, they managed to pull in some big-name sponsors. Because they were able to cut-costs, we're being given the same opportunity that we were given last year: new Michigan Rookie teams are having their entry fee paid for.

There's a lot to be said for the district model. Economies of scale are huge, as any engineer can tell you.