New District Events for 2013?

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

Attending MSC or MAR requires the same registration fee as attending an additional regional outside a district structure: $4,000. (Note this is not the same cost as attending a 3rd district event in either area: $500 in FIM, $1,000 in MAR.)

This is a major and sometimes incapacitating cost to teams, despite grant opportunities provided by MAR (and I believe FiM). For teams that attended only one regional before the district model, it drastically raises the cost of the season and being able to compete at Worlds. Of course, I'm not saying we don't get something out of it (something I quite like), but financially it's true. Teams that attended two regionals before the model switch have not seen a rise in cost.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

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?

apologies. I forgot I was in the rumor mill thread.

I think there is a lot of hard work and communication ahead for all the invested parties as the landscape shifts. But it will get figured out to benefit all the mentors, students, volunteers, educators, sponsors and champions in the area.

[DonRotolo]

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.

Sure there has, just not in this thread. Once there are several districts, teams can earn points in any district they like. MAR took the FiM points structure absolutely whole just for that (potential) reason. So long as all districts have the same system, they're compatible and comparable.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

Figure 225-250 teams across the 5 state area (WI, MN, ND, SD, IA).

I think that's twice the size of a good district. Can you cut it into two? That allows for growth and manageability.

Originally Posted by P.J.

I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams.

The number of teams a District sends to CMP is determined by the number of regionals that are replaced. So FiM had 3 regionals, MAR had two, and the relative number of teams sent are in that ratio (18 to 12). If California replaced 5 regionals, I would expect them to have 30 slots, right?

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

1676 has gone to 4 events and will go to a fifth this competition season assuming they go to CMP). Both districts were Saturday/Sunday, NYC was Friday-Sunday, MAR was Thursday-Saturday, and CMP is Wednesday-Sunday (travel).
They missed 6 days over 5 events. Meanwhile, a two or three regional team is going to be missing more days if they go to CMP..

This is HUGE. I work for a living, and I am loath to burn all my vacation time to attend regionals. So far, I've missed 2 days of work (didn't go to NYC on practice day), which is a much better deal for me.

Originally Posted by EricH

You could do first two events.

First 2 events is fair, since the learning curve allows for great improvements in later events. First event is too small a sample, average is NG because of the improvement over time favors wealthy teams, first and last the same. Most every team should be able to make 2 events, especially if they are Sat-Sun (no school lost) and closer to home...and the cost is the same (or less) than the previous single Regional.

MAR is superior to the regional model in almost every way. The only negative so far is that "outside" teams can't play (love those Brazilians!)...but once there are more Districts, and we can intermingle again, we're back to where we started, but with another tier between district and CMP.

As for CMP: Just find a larger venue. Ever seen Cobo Hall? McCormick Place? There are several that size.

Imagine that: CMP too big for a single dome.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

The number of teams a District sends to CMP is determined by the number of regionals that are replaced. So FiM had 3 regionals, MAR had two, and the relative number of teams sent are in that ratio (18 to 12). If California replaced 5 regionals, I would expect them to have 30 slots, right?

I'm not arguing with that logic, I was saying that since MI has been in the district system for a few years now, we have experienced a growth in teams since we switched. But the number of teams we send to Champs hasn't increased proportionally. So if CA and MI are both in a district system, and have virtually the same number of teams, we should be sending the same number of teams to Champs. That's what I meant by fair.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by P.J.

I'm not arguing with that logic, I was saying that since MI has been in the district system for a few years now, we have experienced a growth in teams since we switched. But the number of teams we send to Champs hasn't increased proportionally. So if CA and MI are both in a district system, and have virtually the same number of teams, we should be sending the same number of teams to Champs. That's what I meant by fair.

Michigan could have close to 5 events if it so wished.

[rsisk]

Considering all the discussion of disticts in this thread, you may want to go back to the EWCPCast on the district model:

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-98466/TS-569023.mp3

[DevinW]

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

[xSAWxBLADEx]

Originally Posted by DevinW

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

I miss seeing non-michigan team in Detriot. I remember Team 2283 Panteras competiting with 469, 217, 47 (now 51), etc. It was great and a real powerhouse regional. I just wished they allowed maybe 5 slots in michigan districts for non-michigan team and the non-michigan teams just competited like they were at a regional and everyone else played for points. I just miss the non-michigan teams.

For example, This is Great Lakes in 2007. Super Powerhouse Regional!
http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2007gl

[jyh947]

Originally Posted by DevinW

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

[DevinW]

Originally Posted by jyh947

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by DevinW

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring.

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.

In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.

Actually, you could use the exact same argument to support turning L.A. into a district zone. Most years, it's only CA teams (and often only SoCal teams) other than one Chilean team. That's a 60+ team event! And when there are teams from other places, usually it's Arizona or Nevada.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe

Why has this not been proposed before? Make it happen, people in charge.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by EricH

In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.

What about the state championships? Either you have most of the teams and wonder why you had the "district" events in the first place, or have a championship with 20 teams. And all of those teams have to pay more, of course...