|
#106
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
Along the lines of Sean's comments about keeping independent variables untangled, I personally wouldn't think that reducing costs also mandates switching to a district competition ladder similar to Michigan's; but I can see how the two changes can be linked. Blake 
|
|
#107
22-07-2011, 07:39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
The students that I work with have for the most part "grown up" in the district system, but many of the mentors and teachers remember the regional system in Michigan. The district model makes it difficult to coordinate several trips downstate with multiple teams. We are tackling this issue by trying to all attend the same district events, but that is not always possible when spaces fill up so quickly for the "hot" districts. Having all three teams at one district can also pose its problems, because the match turnaround. Many of our mentors "float" during the build season to help address specific needs that cater to their talents, and they can be stretched pretty thin during a district where all of their teams are present. I am always hopeful that a district event will crop up in the U.P., but it's doubtful. Although many people express that they love traveling to far away places for competitions, the U.P. is probably not on their list of glamorous locales. We have about seven teams in the U.P., which means that we'd have to get at least 30 teams to travel to a new location, which would probably be around the Mackinac or Sioux region, which is still about 5 hours away for those of us in the Western U.P. Overall, it would be much easier for us if we went to Wisconsin, but we all love the way that FiM is set up, and it gets much more "play" time for our students. I just wish we could have a district a little closer to home to help save on travel costs. Last edited by prettycolors91 : 22-07-2011 at 14:39. Reason: Typos
|
|
#108
22-07-2011, 08:44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
The external borders of Michigan aren't magical lines-of-death. I have a hunch that the presence or absence of a robotics team is usually correlated with the presence or absence of mentors, sponsors and/or faculty who get the urge to form one, and not with a state boundary. Even when a team's existence is correlated with a state program of some sort, I have a further hunch that the state program(s) usually wouldn't object to the team competing in sane nearby locations. Surely we/FRC have the ability to form (and evolve) districts that are based on where teams actually exist rather than on 200-300 year old state boundaries that exist for a zillion reasons other than efficient/effective STEM inspiration. State boundaries often become a crutch rather than an aid in this sort of situation. I hope that doesn't become the case throughout FRC. Blake
|
|
#109
22-07-2011, 09:41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
UP teams could pay the $5K, and then pay $4K to attend Wisconsin ($9K for 1 event) or they could pay $5K and attend one district and pay $4k and attend Wisconsin ($9k for 2 events). This would be most similar to other 2 event teams (cost/travel), but the District would not allow for a birth to championship like regionals do so they still wouldn't be getting quite as much value for the money (though they would likely get more matches). All this being said, it is tough for many teams that are fairly isolated from events. Team that are remote relative to Regionals still have to travel large distances (and have for many many years), but they do get more options of where they want to travel to. If the goal for the 3 UP teams would be to be at the same districts in order to decrease logistical burdens, I would write a polite letter to the board of FiM stating your case. The board may be able to work with the person that finalizes the schedule to make a special case for them. If the goal of the UP teams was to opt out of the District System, they would likely have to go to FIRST HQ to get approval. That being said if I remember right, even Wisconsin still was 5+ hours and required out of state logistics (many schools have special policies for taking minors across state boarders). UP teams are in a tough spot, but they are also pretty tough people. If the District style model spreads, this will hopefully take care of itself. I see in the future a system with around 30-35 Regional Championships and around 100-200 district events (100 Districts = 2000 teams 200 districts = 4000 teams). Each regional championship will likely have 10 or so championship slots. My guess would be that this would be about 5 years out for a conversion. 2009 Michigan District System Pilot 2010-District Model approved, but only Michigan 8% of teams 1 state Championship 2011 District Model approved, but only Michigan 8% of teams 1 state Championship 2012 Michigan and 1 or 2 other regions 16-24% of teams 1 MSC 1or2 "Regional Champsionships" 2013 3-7 more new regions 40-50% of teams 6-10 Regional Championships (some of the big regions may split). 2014 5-10 more regions with probably 75% of teams a district system with 10-20 Regional Championships and hopefully no longer having "boarder restrictions".
|
|
#110
22-07-2011, 19:14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Ike, I agree that if the district system spreads, then this problem will eventually work itself out. Until then, there isn't a fantastically affordable option for northern MI teams. Part of the problem is that there really aren't that many people in the UP! We seem to be clustered into isolated areas, but maybe that will change in the future.
Another reason for staying in MI besides cost is that many of us have strong relationships with our home town teams and sponsors. Advice and collaboration from old teams helps with networking, and we can all help each other out in a pinch. For example, HOT let our rookie team 3771 borrow a tool chest for a district where we couldn't transport sufficient tools and spare parts (due to driving in mini vans). I am always blown away by how helpful FIRSTers can be, even after 10 years of participation. Everybody is always willing to lend a hand, and we lend one whenever we can.
|
|
#111
22-07-2011, 23:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
There will come a day when the district model is so widespread that teams won't have an issue, since the model seems to facilitate speedy growth. Problem is, a lack of existing team concentration is a roadblock to instituting the model. It's a weird game of tug-of war the models play.
Is there some place to read up on what MAR is doing? I'm interested in the discussions and ideas people have tossed around.
|
|
#112
24-07-2011, 13:28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
i heard a rumor about a midwest district ohio indiana illinois that would be a pretty cool district
|
|
#113
24-07-2011, 14:33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#114
24-07-2011, 14:37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#115
24-07-2011, 14:42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#116
24-07-2011, 14:45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#117
24-07-2011, 14:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#118
24-07-2011, 16:03
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Quote:
|
|
#119
24-07-2011, 16:37
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
Actually what has been discussed is an Indiana / Illinois combo, with the option of Ohio and Wisconsin if those states / teams wanted to become a part of a district type of system.
However, right now, there are not enough events to support a "pay once / play twice" scenario for the number of teams involved. And, this is all just being discussed. Nothing agreed, Nothing set in place.
|
|
#120
24-07-2011, 22:53
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan, be honest, how is the district model?
[quote=Chris Fultz;1070281]However, right now, there are not enough events to support a "pay once / play twice" scenario for the number of teams involved.
[quote] From 2008 to 2009 we went from 3 events in Michigan to 8 events (7 districts and a Championship). It is not easy, but it can be done.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Linear Mode
