New District Events for 2013?

[EricH]

Where I see the national model going in the next 5 years is a gradual but steady transition over to the district system. Israel would not necessarily go to the district model; countries without enough teams to adopt a district could choose a district area to play in. 2-3 areas per year go over to district system. New England, New York (possibly split--NYC and Long Island to MAR or NE, western NY to the western PA/OH area), California, the Pacific Northwest, and the entire upper Midwest are prime early adoption candidates, with Canada hot on their tail and Texas farther out.

As more areas become district hotspots, like Michigan and MAR, the restriction on where teams within the districts play relaxes. Teams can play in any district and get points towards their home area championship. However, there will be areas where there just aren't enough teams to hold an area championship for a while. For those areas, the super regional comes into play.

Each super regional would be run just like a mid-sized regional of about 40-50 teams. It would be filled by teams from areas without their own area championship first, but other teams could opt to attend in lieu of their own area championship. Effectively, it would be the area championship, but more open to surrounding teams. Slots in area championships not filled by teams opting to attend super regionals would be filled as normal.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by EricH

Each super regional would be run just like a mid-sized regional of about 40-50 teams. It would be filled by teams from areas without their own area championship first, but other teams could opt to attend in lieu of their own area championship. Effectively, it would be the area championship, but more open to surrounding teams. Slots in area championships not filled by teams opting to attend super regionals would be filled as normal.

So I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand. So I'll craft a hypothetical situation:

Montana becomes its own region, and it has less than 64 teams. (I have no idea where to look that info up, I'm just assuming) So instead of a state championship, there is a "super regional" held. My team, in Michigan, decided to go to that instead of MSC. Is this allowed? How do the points work? Would we just apply and if we are in the top 64 (just using the same number of teams as MSC for arguments sake) of teams applying to the super regional we get to go to that one? Or is it based on if we qualify for our own state championship and just decide to go to the "super regional"?

I'm just not quite clear on the whole "super regional" concept.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by P.J.

So I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand. So I'll craft a hypothetical situation:

Montana becomes its own region, and it has less than 64 teams. (I have no idea where to look that info up, I'm just assuming) So instead of a state championship, there is a "super regional" held. My team, in Michigan, decided to go to that instead of MSC. Is this allowed? How do the points work? Would we just apply and if we are in the top 64 (just using the same number of teams as MSC for arguments sake) of teams applying to the super regional we get to go to that one? Or is it based on if we qualify for our own state championship and just decide to go to the "super regional"?

I'm just not quite clear on the whole "super regional" concept.

First, I'll just say that Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas combined couldn't put together a 24-team elimination field. You'd need to bring in Idaho or Colorado to do that--and Idaho would go PNW. So I'm going to figure an area that includes the 4 states first mentioned as one site for a super regional.

We'll figure that 910 has qualified for MSC by normal processes.

Under what I'm seeing: 910 can attend MSC, or one of 2-3 super regionals scattered around the country, one of which is Center of Nation Super Regional(CNSR) in Rapid City, SD (as a central city to the above-named states). To qualify for CNSR, teams can, in order of precedence:

1. Be in the area that CNSR would be an area championship for, if there were anywhere near enough teams. These teams would have the option to attend district events, but the CNSR would be their only chance at Championship due to lack of an area championship.
2. Qualify for their area championship, but opt to go to CNSR instead. (910's route here.)
3. Teams that qualified for an area championship award (RCA and RAS) but did not have enough points to take their robot to the area championship, can request to play here on the basis of those awards, which would be judged at CNSR. (Or other arrangements could be made--something to be worked on. Also note that this one could be moot depending on whether a district system qualifies the robots as well as the team.)
4. Point comparison of all teams that want to go. Take from the high side until you have a full field.

A field of 40-50 or so many play at the super regional. The CNSR sends up to 12 teams to the Championship, namely 3 winners, 1+ RCA, 1 EI, 1 RAS, fill out the field with the top point-getters under the standard points system--but all teams playing at CNSR start with a clean slate pointwise. You gotta play your best to move on...

Another example would be from one in the Northeast, say New York. In that area, there would be multiple areas covered that have championships. Same qualification system, with the exception of the first point not being used. Same clean slate pointwise. Same number of teams going to the Championship--but a bigger area to cover, most likely.

[P.J.]

Thanks, that explains a lot. Very well thought out, I like it.

[fuzzy1718]

Why is everyone dead set on the two tier system?
Once points come into play across the entire country they can just be used to determine who qualifies for St. Louis or where ever it may be... This would remove the whole build season depending on only a few hours at a regional championship. The only real reason that the country needs to be broken into regions is for the planning of events and to coordinate volunteers, funding for events, etc. Even then it is only needed because locals understand what works and what doesn't in their area.

As for the whole teams signing up for St. Louis early, the points system would still enable that. It actually makes it easier, because if a team is ranked high, but is already signed up for champs then their spot that was earned by points would simply go to the next on the list. Keeping the level of play high, while still enabling teams to attend every few years if they have not qualified.

The main issue with the country going to a district system is going to be volunteers and the way championships is structured. Both will either have to expand or the way of life in FIRST that we all want will not survive the explosive growth.

[EricH]

fuzzy, I think the #1 biggest problem with the elimination of the area championships and just going by points is not an easy one to deal with.

How on earth do you figure out how many events the points count from, and which events?

You could do first event. Covers every team out there, but quite often those teams aren't at top form. (Or you get the rushes to Week 1 and Week N (the last week) events.)

You could do first two events. Now you need to deal with the fact that at least half the teams don't do two right now. Part of that will be offset by using a 2-district-event model similar to MI and MAR. Some of it won't. Even in MI and MAR, some teams will only go to one event due to travel distance, time, or cost, or something else comes up, or, or... Some teams that would undoubtedly be well-qualified for Championship won't have the point total to qualify--and there isn't a good way to make up the difference.

You could do average. There's a discussion on the teams that didn't qualify but should really be there--"The Rest of the Best" or something like that, where I lay out my objection to the average method. Short version, it heavily favors the single-event teams (and someone else came up with it favoring multi-event teams).

It's not an easy problem to solve by any means. That's why we're stuck with a 2-tier system until someone comes up with a system that deals with the varying numbers of events, the "good enough to go but didn't qualify" (though that'll be helped by a point-based system), and the current auto-qualifying regional awards. (Championship auto-qualifiers should stay as-is--HoF, defending champs, original and sustaining teams.) Again, not an easy problem. A 2-tier system buys time, and hopefully generates discussion on how to solve the problem in the optimal way.

[PayneTrain]

^^I'm confused. How does moving to a system with less blue banner bids necessitate a larger CMP?

Here are some facts. At CMP 10 years ago, it was a free for all. A decade ago, there were 17 competitions in an entire season. Now there are more than 17 before we even leave Week 2.

Putting on a regional is like setting up a high-tech state fair, except there must be money and infrastructure in place to run every single one of them. In a tumultuous economy, the district system was born as a low-cost, high-volume alternative/more bang for your buck/higher efficiency.

Michigan engineered a competition structure that will be able to weather the future. We are running out of available venues, blowing incredible corporate sponsorships on these venues that could be funneled into teams, and the program is populating itself without restraint, leaving the unprepared to wander off and die 1 or 2 years after they are brought into the world.

Another fact: In a state where we had 5 new rookies, we lost 6 teams. No offense to any rookie teams or VAFIRST, but that is by no stretch or morphing of reality, an improvement.

The regional system has rookies dumping six thousand dollars to get trounced by these well-established powerhouses without any preparation. I'm not saying that preparation is building a robot as strong as these powerhouses, but mentors and students that do not quickly understand the values of FIRST. They won't take the concept of getting steamrolled after throwing all the money and work they could into their robot.

Enter the district system. It's more than just another way to play into CMP. It's a natural support system. People forget that while FiM has these "district competitions" these are not the "districts." Districts are the geographic divisions that are based on team concentration and location and encourage targeted growth and development of new teams while supporting fledgling teams. That'sthe district system.

I'm in favor of forming into geographic conferences (The Monongahela/Ohio River Valley Conference (upper WV, western PA, Ohio) The Capital Regional Conference (MD-DC-VA) FiNE, Southern Atlantic Coast Conference (NC/SC/GA) Gulf Coast, yadda yadda) and opt-in destination regionals (Hawaii, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Israel, DC) that have double field play (HI/IS excluded) outside of districts that teams who don't go to CMP can play in.

TLDR: Districts are fun.

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

In a tumultuous economy, the district system was born as a low-cost, high-volume alternative/more bang for your buck/higher efficiency.

This is why i think districts are great. You get more matches and more chances to show off that robot which you worked so hard on. And by going to 2 districts, you get more opportunities to interact and learn from other teams, vs. a rookie going to 1 regional competition and not being able to apply what you learned until next year.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

In fact, some were calling out towns where the events would be held in addition to the Capital Championship ending at VCU (how can it NOT?)

??

[PayneTrain]

I've heard of Roanoke and VA Beach in Virginia...

Or maybe I daydreamed in the stands...

But I'm pretty sure I've heard it.

I know it's in its infantile stages and it was just "talks."

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I've heard of Roanoke and VA Beach in Virginia...

Or maybe I daydreamed in the stands...

But I'm pretty sure I've heard it.

I know it's in its infantile stages and it was just "talks."

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

If that wasn't the answer you were looking for then perhaps you clarify your "??"... We may build robots but we're not psychic.

I'm guessing you were questioning Thomas's hopes for a championship at VCU. Do you expect anything less than team members from VA who think a possible Capital Region championship event should be held in VA? It makes sense considering VA would be providing over 50% of the teams in the region.

Since I too have interest in this, I'll throw my ideas out there. Assuming DC/MD/VA do in fact form a Capital Region, I would think there would be six district competitions. MAR has 5 districts with 99 teams total, I think DC/MD/VA could pull off 6 districts with the current ~118 teams. So where would those six events be held? Since VA is by far the largest in area and number of teams, I would have 4 events in VA, 1 in DC, and 1 in MD. The 4 events in VA would probably be best spread out like the current FTC events are: North (Manassas/Chantilly/Alexandria), East (Norfolk/VA Beach), Central (Richmond), and West (Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Roanoke).

[fuzzy1718]

PayneTrain -
While you are correct that MI is broken into physical land divisions, these are more about models of potential growth than a support system... From the perspective of the teams I have been around. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of FiM, so I cannot say how the district boundaries affect their decision making.

The average student in MI doesn't know that physical boundaries even exists, let alone what they are. Many mentors don't know what they are other than lines in one picture. They really have no affect on anything in the mindset of many in MI. They do determine one of the district events that teams must attend. (teams are required to go to one of the closest events, and then can sign up for any event of their choosing in the state. This is to prevent local teams from being forced to travel a long distance to both their events.)

As far as support systems go I will use the example of my former team from HS. While they are from northern Macomb county, they share a closer bond with teams in their immediate area, including those who are over the county line in another district, than those to their south who reside in the Macomb district. They also share a closer bond with those in a completely different district to the west.

Eric -
There is a simple solution, make everyone go to the same number of events...
If teams can attend as many events as they desire, I would assume that the current rules regarding what districts count towards points would remain the same as in MAR and FiM, being the first two count. Quite frankly I am not in support of any team going to more events than others, especially when points are on the line for some, but not for others. However, seeing as people will fight tooth and nail against this, the current rules do a nice job of sorting out the mess.

However I do not understand where the notion that there would be a rush for week one and the last week events comes from. How is this any different than under the regional structure? Do we see a rush to register for those events now?

Also, one of the benefits of going to the district model is more localized events. Travel is meant to be lessened and thus should not be a factor; The costs of going to the number of events required for points should be rolled into one lump sum rather than paying per event, this would eliminate the bigger budget advantage; also by adding a regional championship wouldn't there be an additional entrance fee to the teams, driving the cost to attend World's higher; and time is solved by the changing the schedule to a two day format as the district competitions are now.

(ignore the grammar of the last statement. I have reorganized 5 times and can't seem to get it as it should be.)

It is clear that there is no ideal solution for the "rest of the best" as you put it. There never will be as long as FIRST continues to support the policies that it currently does, in my opinion. However this is a discussion that has the tendency to start flame wars; so why ruin a nice thread such as this.

Ultimately the second tier leads to the same result as a regional does now, under the current rules of FiM... I relate to what I know best. Save for those who qualify for World's by being ranked.

Also this entire discussion is about the best way to win, it is not about any of the ideals of FIRST... the things that actually matter. I wonder how our ideas of the ideal system would change if they were the main things guiding this discussion. I shall have to re-evaluate the scenario from a different perspective now.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Eric -
There is a simple solution, make everyone go to the same number of events...

You're not going to force them to. You can only incentivize them to. If I have a team that can barely get the funding to go to one event, even if they've paid for two with registration, they're not going to go to a second one, period. (You can also insert "school clearance" for "funding".)

If teams can attend as many events as they desire, I would assume that the current rules regarding what districts count towards points would remain the same as in MAR and FiM, being the first two count.

Again, you have to deal with the fact that some teams cannot attend more than one event due to factors that may be beyond their control, like school policies or lack of funding coming through. Or even entirely unrelated factors. Long story short, you've got to figure out an equalizer. The best equalizer, of course, is for everyone to attend two events. But you've got to have two events they can actually attend first. (Second best might be to just double the points from the first event. But there are problems with that... and averaging... and last event... and highest event... and lowest event... You get the point.)

However I do not understand where the notion that there would be a rush for week one and the last week events comes from. How is this any different than under the regional structure? Do we see a rush to register for those events now?

It's human nature. Week 1 and Week 6 events are theoretically the "easiest", with Week 1 being the first time most teams have played the game and Week 6 combined with the withholding allowance giving teams time to react to perceived weaknesses. This effect would only be noticed if you had a single event counting for points. That's why you don't see any real rushes now (except in the crowded New England area--BAE GSR, traditionally Week 1, fills up very quickly).

Also, one of the benefits of going to the district model is more localized events. Travel is meant to be lessened and thus should not be a factor; The costs of going to the number of events required for points should be rolled into one lump sum rather than paying per event, this would eliminate the bigger budget advantage; also by adding a regional championship wouldn't there be an additional entrance fee to the teams, driving the cost to attend World's higher; and time is solved by the changing the schedule to a two day format as the district competitions are now.

See the UP teams before districts really started moving up north. If they'd been allowed to, they'd probably have opted out and gone to Wisconsin (and Duluth's opening would probably have been moved up a year or two). Also see "international team travel cost".

Yes, you could roll the required event numbers into one cost. Yes, you can change the schedule to a two-day format to save time. If you add a regional championship, or super regional--well, how much does it cost to attend MSC or MAR? IIRC, it's not as much as a traditional regional. It's the Championship cost that's the big factor, and the travel cost.

Ultimately the second tier leads to the same result as a regional does now, under the current rules of FiM...

That's the POINT, doggone it! While you're in transition to districts, and while you have the areas with vastly lower density than Michigan, you have to have places for teams who are isolated from district events for whatever reason to play and have a chance at qualifying in a one-shot attempt. South America--maybe half a dozen teams combined. The Pacific Ocean areas outside the U.S., two teams. Turkey, half a dozen. Europe, half a dozen. Where are those districts going to be?

When you apply the district system with two events to get points in, and fail to account for those teams having to travel to the U.S., compete, stay a minimum of one week (or go home and come back), compete again, and then have to go home and wait just to have a chance to go to the World Championship by points, then get their travel arrangements in a matter of a week or two, you fail to create a low-cost model for those teams. Don't ever forget to account for those teams showing up. You need to either get them local districts, or give them a one-shot chance to get there. The inclusion of teams who want to use the one-shot event as their area championship ticket, if those were to exist at the time, is to fill out the field to workable as an FRC event. Think of it as a wild-card event, if you will. You could even have it after the qualification cutoff and only open it to teams who aren't qualified yet.

Although, because you relate to what you know best, you might not have considered that. Michigan's been playing under districts for 4 years now--that means no international teams in all that time. Or even teams from Hawaii or Alaska. I've seen those teams occasionally comment on how long they have to wait for their kits, or how much they have to raise to come play.

Also this entire discussion is about the best way to win, it is not about any of the ideals of FIRST... the things that actually matter. I wonder how our ideas of the ideal system would change if they were the main things guiding this discussion. I shall have to re-evaluate the scenario from a different perspective now.

Let's see: Is it not gracious to give everyone the same shot at giving their best chance at making it to the next level of competition? Is it not professional to also try to lower their costs? This is not about the best way to win. It's the best way to have a reasonably fair qualification method to get to the Championships for teams unable to qualify under a point-based system due to lack of events. (If you want to discuss ideals of FIRST, I'd like to suggest looking at some threads from around the time FiM was released, commenting on this very theme and what effect FiM had on said ideals. I think we can agree that there was negligible effect in the long run, no?)


When you think about things from one perspective, you miss other things that can have a huge impact. In this case, I think you're missing the impact of the teams who would be excluded by travel time and cost combined from ever qualifying for the Championship due to lack of district events attended. Those teams need to have some way to qualify in one go. That's why I'm advocating a 2-tier system until somebody actually figures out a workable solution to single-event teams in a points-only system. Forcing teams to attend a second event to have a chance at the Championship isn't going to be any fun for anyone concerned.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

My ?? was not in response to the first half of your sentence.

Eastern Michigan isn't central to the state, but to the concentration of teams, and VCU is a few water bottle rules away from being my favorite venue.

Isn't the DC venue crazy expensive to rent out?