New District Events for 2013?

[Jacob Paikoff]

Originally Posted by Wing

I see the midwest and California getting districts soon. Texas isn't able to do so yet because they don't have the volunteers for it.

I personally would like to see the Southeast US be a district encompassing Tenessee, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Peachtree this year had 60 teams, and that's with 18 rookie teams. That growth alone would make it so we need another regional in Georgia. South Carolina is experiencing a lot of growth as well, and so are Alabama and Tenessee. But that's a far way off, because there are other regions with more teams than us.

I think Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee(at least the eastern half) would be a good district while North and South Carolina would fit in between that and the Capital District. Right now theres about 75 teams in the Carolina meaning we're about 10-15 teams from having enough for a small district system.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

I'd love to see a district model that would still allow say two "non-district" teams per event to come play, maybe at a reduced cost. We love having teams like Wildstang come up here and show us different ideas and ways of doing things, that's the one thing I would hate to lose with the district model.

Again, I am aware (as are a lot of other people) there is ongoing discussion regarding additional regional(s), but I don't know anything more than that. Sorry that this got longer than I intended when I started typing.

With a number of regions moving towards districts I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about an open districts system. My idea is that everyone would get two district events, one would have to be in there region but the other one could be at any district event in the country that has room. This would fix the problem for low density areas or remote areas like Hawaii and allow them to have a district system without having as many teams as a larger area like New England. They would only need to have one event and then the teams could travel anywhere they want for the second one.

[Samwaldo]

Apparently the Boston FIRST director said that a new england district is going to be starting very soon, but the only thing is that the regionals in existence are GREAT, and many don't want to ruin that.

A problem I have with the district setup is that although we can compete more it means more travel!

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Samwaldo

Apparently the Boston FIRST director said that a new england district is going to be starting very soon, but the only thing is that the regionals in existence are GREAT, and many don't want to ruin that.

A problem I have with the district setup is that although we can compete more it means more travel!

FiNE:
MA: 57
CT: 41
NH: 30
ME: 10
RI: 5
VT: 3
Total: 146 Teams
Area: 72,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00203 Teams/sq. mi.

FiM:
MI: 190
Area: 97,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00196

Although I expected the densities of teams in New England (NE) and in Michigan to be similar, I wasn't expecting New England to be (negligibly) more dense, particularly given how sparse teams in Vermont and Maine are!

Regardless, I'd been expecting that New England would adopt a district system sooner than this... I think many in the nation expected they'd be next; however, I think the primary reason is what was posted above... the existing regionals are all established, well-loved, and well-funded!

The Connecticut Regional (I still think of it as the UTC Regional) has been around for a long time and has been popular and competitive. UTC has taken care of the bulk of the funding for many years (since its beginning?).

The Granite State Regional has been around since 2003 and has also been both popular and competitive. BAE Systems handles the majority of the funding.

I still think of the Boston Regional as being young, but its now celebrated its 7th year! Hosted at Boston University, it has a very nice venue that can be used due to BU's own generosity.

To me Harrington Auditorium will always be the home of BattleCry rather than the WPI Regional, but that event just finished its 3rd year!

Really, I think that New England would support a district system very well... allowing teams from Maine a closer district (Portland area?), for example. It'd free up dollars that BAE Systems has had to put towards the regional to be used directly on the teams.

Given that there'd be about 8 districts (146 teams * 2 events/team / 40 teams/event), I would see there being one in SoMaine (Portland <-> Portsmouth), one in "NoNH" (Lebanon <-> Concord), one in SoNH (Nashua <-> Manchester), one in the Boston area, one in the Worcester area, one in the Springfield area, one in the Hartford area, and one in the Bridgeport area. I'm guessing the FiNE championship would host about 50 teams in the Boston <-> Worcester area.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

FiNE:
MA: 57
CT: 41
NH: 30
ME: 10
RI: 5
VT: 3
Total: 146 Teams
Area: 72,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00203 Teams/sq. mi.

FiM:
MI: 190
Area: 97,000 sq. mi.
Density: .00196

Just for comparison (and because I was interested to know):

Capital Region
VA: 67 Teams
MD: 36 Teams
DC: 15 Teams
Total Teams: 118
Area: 55,250 sq. mi.
Density: 0.0021 teams/sq. mi.

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by Jacob Paikoff

With a number of regions moving towards districts I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about an open districts system. My idea is that everyone would get two district events, one would have to be in there region but the other one could be at any district event in the country that has room. This would fix the problem for low density areas or remote areas like Hawaii and allow them to have a district system without having as many teams as a larger area like New England. They would only need to have one event and then the teams could travel anywhere they want for the second one.

This is my FIRST year back in FIRST since high school and I'm still trying to figure out this whole district stuff. But I like this idea a lot because a few of us engineering mentors on my team have been talking about doing the team 69 model where they compete in a local regional and then go somewhere far away. Our team has mentors who are from CT, Pittsburgh, Rochester, & Philly so we'd obviously like to take our team out there (our philosophy is since the championship seems impossible to get into why not just travel somewhere further away to compete against different teams). I just hope they leave enough opportunities to travel if teams choose to.

I saw a few posts about Texas too --I hope they hold off a little bit on switching to districts. I think there are a lot of resource/mentor constrained teams here in DFW and I won't be surprised if we see a lot of teams merge in the next few seasons . I think we might see a reverse new england/midwest model where a lot of veteran teams started with 2/3/4 high schools and as individual schools got more involved they split off. Just my $0.02.

[EricH]

Something I remember from way back long ago, as I was going to a preship back in 1999 (the second year I was hanging around, but my first competition). What I remember was that I was told that FIRST higherups wanted to go to more and smaller events. 10 years before the district system started. 10. YEARS. That's a long time, and it takes planning.

I think what'll probably happen in 2013 is that no new areas go district (maybe MN and WI). But in 2014, there will be an explosion of areas going district--New England and California being the most likely, with the Pacific Northwest being right behind.



For all you including all of Montana in a PNW district system: Make sure you also include Wyoming and Colorado. Otherwise the eastern Montana teams won't have a close competition to go to. Western Montana is a stretch as it is unless competitions are added to Idaho. The same goes for western South Dakota in a Minnesota district system--Denver's closer at this point in time than the Twin Cities.

[Mark Sheridan]

Eventually as districts grow, we will have teams that are stuck between two districts. A lot of the international teams will have a similar problem. We should give these teams the option to chose a district they want to be part of. To draw an example from high school athletics; there are two nevada high schools that compete in California leagues because they are closer.

This may not be convenient at all for international teams. In cross country, track field and most distant running races have all-comer meets. these events have people of all ages compete. Often there will be professionals looking for training or make a qualifing time for a professional event.

If most of FIRST goes district, we could have a week 6 lull where all-comer events could take place. These open events enabling the regional spirit to continue. Teams could continue the tradition of traveling far to a new event. It would enable some teams to bypass district qualifing adding some redundancy in qualifying for champs. Hopefully by being week 6, these all-comer events would be a lot of fun since most teams have should have fixed all their bugs.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

Eventually as districts grow, we will have teams that are stuck between two districts. A lot of the international teams will have a similar problem. We should give these teams the option to chose a district they want to be part of. To draw an example from high school athletics; there are two nevada high schools that compete in California leagues because they are closer.

This may not be convenient at all for international teams. In cross country, track field and most distant running races have all-comer meets. these events have people of all ages compete. Often there will be professionals looking for training or make a qualifing time for a professional event.

If most of FIRST goes district, we could have a week 6 lull where all-comer events could take place. These open events enabling the regional spirit to continue. Teams could continue the tradition of traveling far to a new event. It would enable some teams to bypass district qualifing adding some redundancy in qualifying for champs. Hopefully by being week 6, these all-comer events would be a lot of fun since most teams have should have fixed all their bugs.

I could easily see a point a few years out where the hard lines between districts fizzle out.

As much as I dislike the idea of walling off enclaves, the borders are necessary to get the district style events up and running, to get the volunteers and support infrastructure in place. But...

Once enough areas move into district formats (especially when there are neighboring districts), there doesn't have to be hard boundaries between districts to prevent cross-pollination of teams. Both areas have the events and support infrastructure in place, and both allocated enough open spots at their districts for all teams.

Assuming the teams who want to "travel" is roughly equal between the districts, there's no reason to prevent non home-district teams from attending those events. If ten teams want to compete elsewhere in Week 2, there are now ten slots available to all teams. Registration could also work with the first two districts being guaranteed to local (home district) teams, while third district registration is first come, first served for everyone.

At that point, the only real need for borders is to determine which district championship your award/performance points accrue toward.

[JimWright949]

Originally Posted by EricH

I think what'll probably happen in 2013 is that no new areas go district (maybe MN and WI). But in 2014, there will be an explosion of areas going district--New England and California being the most likely, with the Pacific Northwest being right behind.

I think the PNW is closer to the District System than 2014. My bet in talking to our leadership it's probably next year, some people have been thinking about it for a year or so now.

Originally Posted by EricH

For all you including all of Montana in a PNW district system: Make sure you also include Wyoming and Colorado. Otherwise the eastern Montana teams won't have a close competition to go to. Western Montana is a stretch as it is unless competitions are added to Idaho. The same goes for western South Dakota in a Minnesota district system--Denver's closer at this point in time than the Twin Cities.

You may have missed my post earlier that put three districts around Boise, one of them could be in Butte, Helena, or Great Falls.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JimWright949

You may have missed my post earlier that put three districts around Boise, one of them could be in Butte, Helena, or Great Falls.

You're right, I did. But that still doesn't solve the problem of the mountains and the long drive over them to an event.


My point is this: When you're drawing the region boundaries for districts, look at where the teams are going currently. 9 times out of 10, teams will go to their closest event or closest 2 events. If you have a team that is going to Utah and Colorado but not Spokane, then you should probably ask them if they're interested in being in a district that includes events in Great Falls, Helena, or Butte.

To take the South Dakota example, which I'm a bit more familiar with: Most of the (now non-existent) teams would have gone to Kansas City--this was before Colorado existed, let alone Minnesota or Utah (the regionals, not the states!), and I have that from one of the mentors at that time. But, with the current regional setup, teams in eastern SD would tend to go to Minneapolis for either 10K Lakes or North Star--it's only a few hours away. For the teams in the western half of the state, that's a full day's drive and possibly then some (5 hours to Sioux Falls, not counting the time change, then the few-hour drive). For those teams, Denver makes more sense, as it's only most of a day driving (or a short flight for a team who had a few frequent-flyer miles lying around)--if Utah was considered, it would be a second option along with Minnesota. So if MN decides unilaterally that the Dakotas are part of their district, the western half of the state will be in the same boat that Michigan's UP is in currently--their closest event is not in the district system. (Note that this whole example is currently a moot point--SD has no FRC teams.)

See where I'm going? I know you can't please everybody, but at least making the attempt is better than just saying "You are in our area". That's what MAR did by only including certain parts of Pennsylvania this year.

And, as a corollary: When forming a district, asking teams that go to only events in that area, regardless of where they are physically located, if they would like to stay in the district or not would be a really good idea. (Ask the Chilean team--one year at Great Lakes and then MSC formed, so they've been at Los Angeles ever since.)

[Lil' Lavery]

I find some of the objections to district events a little strange given what MAR has done this season. Particularly states/regions claiming they need more regionals before they move to a district system. MAR only has 99 teams and the area only encompassed two existing regionals (Philadelphia and New Jersey). Granted, both events are very old and the volunteers and teams in the region have had a long time to get acclimated from FIRST. But the region certainly doesn't have the team or volunteer population of many of the other areas, and relied heavily on volunteer crossover between events and drawing volunteers from other nearby regionals (New York, Chesapeake, DC, etc.).

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Although it seems to be against what others are saying on this thread, I for one don't really want a district system for California. It seems to me like it would just make it a lot harder to get to Championships, and make us miss a lot more days of school (two/three district events, district champs, and then real Championships).

Personally, I really like they way things are now.

Dawgma missed a grand total of two days of school to attend three MAR events this season. Each district is only two days long, and some of them are Saturday/Sunday. We lucked out by having day 1 of Hatboro fall over an in-service (no school) day, so we didn't miss any school until Thursday and Friday of this week for MAR Championship.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

I'm not sure if Ontario would go to a District model just yet, seeing that FIRST Canada is pretty set on expanding FIRST across Canada right now. Montreal is going to be a BIG regional next year (their growth has been phenomenal), and I think the focus should be to develop FIRST in Western Canada (one day I could see Calgary as a powerhouse region for FIRST).

I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

District Championship would rotate between Manchester, Hartford and Worcester or just be in Worcester based on it's central location.

It would be semi-ironic to have Dean Guceri's "new" university (WPI) host the New England region championship when his departure from Drexel was one of the big impetus for the creation of MAR (due to the additional cost of the Philadelphia regional once Drexel was no longer an option).

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

MAR district events are all Saturday-Sunday so kids miss no school here...

Edit: Sorry for the double post, guys!

Only the New Jersey events were Saturday-Sunday. Hatboro-Horsham and Chestnut Hill were Friday-Saturday.