New District Events for 2013?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

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

California already has five, and will be adding a sixth next year.

[jyh947]

Originally Posted by bduddy

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...

A championship with 20 teams? Nice elimination bracket, bro.

[DevinW]

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.

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

That sounds awesome. The winners should compete for some higher award. XD It'd be fun.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by jyh947

A championship with 20 teams? Nice elimination bracket, bro.

That's my point. I've been saying for a while that Hawaii is one of a couple examples why a complete district system may not be a great idea.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That's my point. I've been saying for a while that Hawaii is one of a couple examples why a complete district system may not be a great idea.

It could work with Cali if they scheduled it correctly and limited the number of slots with the corresponding inland regional that would make teams have to go out to Hawaii to compete.

[Siri]

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.

I know people like the big-time regional atmosphere, but is there value to Hawaii teams of just getting more matches for the money? That's very a big part of the district system; you don't even really need the region/state championship if you have a good points qualifying system.

Just looking into cheaper events--say, a quasi-district model--might be a nice way of enhancing the program in some places, if not in Hawaii.

I don't like the idea of forcing CA teams to HI or vice versa. The idea of the district model is to encourage growth, partially by increasing teams' bang for their buck. Forcing teams, sometimes underfunded teams, to travel like that seems counter-intuitive.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by P.J.

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

Um, that would be you. If you want it to happen, make it happen. The rest of us are busy doing OUR own stuff, thanks.

.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Siri

I don't like the idea of forcing CA teams to HI or vice versa. The idea of the district model is to encourage growth, partially by increasing teams' bang for their buck. Forcing teams, sometimes underfunded teams, to travel like that seems counter-intuitive.

IIRC, the proposal of a HI/CA district would involve two district events in HI to ensure that they wouldn't all have to travel mainland; this makes the only issue in the region championship.

I think the big thing is that FIRST NEEDS to keep some places out of the district system in order to sustain international growth in places where there just aren't enough teams to have a system in place. Regionals like NYC, LA, and others that are filled with international teams need to stay in place. Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Um, that would be you. If you want it to happen, make it happen. The rest of us are busy doing OUR own stuff, thanks.

I know that, I was just kidding. My sense of humor doesn't translate well to pure text, so I apologize.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

I think the big thing is that FIRST NEEDS to keep some places out of the district system in order to sustain international growth in places where there just aren't enough teams to have a system in place. Regionals like NYC, LA, and others that are filled with international teams need to stay in place. Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.

Western Canada is being talked about for a Pacific Northwest area--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly part or all of Montana (and I already made my comments on which would probably be preferred), plus western Canada, instead of putting western Canada with Toronto.

I think the request to opt out, or more likely a request for another district assignment (e.g. New England instead of New York or Wisconsin instead of Michigan) is a really good way to go.

I've also already addressed the international/sparse area question. For these areas, there are a couple of options. Either you include them in the district that they usually end up in anyway (meaning they stay in the States for a week and a half, or go home and come back) or you give them a single event qualifying method. Or you let them go to any two district events, regardless of qualification area.

Oh, and BTW: Los Angeles is not "filled with international teams". This year, 66 teams attended. Brazil: 1. Chile: 1. That's 3%. Another team came from Nevada. Grand total 4.5% of teams were from out of state; most if not all of the rest were from Southern CA (AKA, half a state). That's pretty typical--you might get up to half a dozen out of state teams. Oh, and another regional is going to be added in the area. If that's not an argument to turn the L.A. Regional into a district system, I don't know what is! That said, I would not object to allowing international teams to play--the Chilean team's "home" regional is Los Angeles. But then you get back to the international travel dilemma.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by EricH

Western Canada is being talked about for a Pacific Northwest area--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly part or all of Montana (and I already made my comments on which would probably be preferred), plus western Canada, instead of putting western Canada with Toronto.

I think the request to opt out, or more likely a request for another district assignment (e.g. New England instead of New York or Wisconsin instead of Michigan) is a really good way to go.

I've also already addressed the international/sparse area question. For these areas, there are a couple of options. Either you include them in the district that they usually end up in anyway (meaning they stay in the States for a week and a half, or go home and come back) or you give them a single event qualifying method. Or you let them go to any two district events, regardless of qualification area.

Oh, and BTW: Los Angeles is not "filled with international teams". This year, 66 teams attended. Brazil: 1. Chile: 1. That's 3%. Another team came from Nevada. Grand total 4.5% of teams were from out of state; most if not all of the rest were from Southern CA (AKA, half a state). That's pretty typical--you might get up to half a dozen out of state teams. Oh, and another regional is going to be added in the area. If that's not an argument to turn the L.A. Regional into a district system, I don't know what is! That said, I would not object to allowing international teams to play--the Chilean team's "home" regional is Los Angeles. But then you get back to the international travel dilemma.

Ah, I see about LA. I was moreso saying that because I've read prior something about how since NYC and LA are such major cities, teams go there due to flight arrangements and all that stuff.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto.

Correct

[Siri]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

IIRC, the proposal of a HI/CA district would involve two district events in HI to ensure that they wouldn't all have to travel mainland; this makes the only issue in the region championship.

My apologies, I was referring to dodar's statement in which I thought "It could work with Cali if they scheduled it correctly and limited the number of slots with the corresponding inland regional that would make teams have to go out to Hawaii to compete." meant that HI/CA teams would be forced into traveling for districts. (I personally am skeptical of compelling more travel than geographically necessary.) My proposal for HI did indeed include 2 district-type events.

Originally Posted by stevend1994

Also, they need to make the barriers moreso regional than "State XXXX, State XXXX, and parts of State XXXX", or if that is done, they need to allow for a circumstantial opt-out, in which a team can put in a request to opt out of the district system. This comes to my mind based off teams in the western half of Canada, because (with my extreme lack of knowledge in Canadian geography...) it seems like a lot of Canada is densely populated in the eastern half near Toronto. A district system that encompasses all of Canada would just hurt teams that go to regionals moreso on the western half of North America.

Definitely. Though if FIRST is willing to split Pennsylvania for the district model, one would hope they'd readily split Canada at least once. I suspect few people would support Canada as a single district any more than making any other ~3,511,023mi² plot of land a single district.

[shortiechik2006]

Originally Posted by IndySam

There will be another Midwestern district by 2014.

Where?

[calicogang]

Please, please force us to attend The Hawaii Regional! Aloha!
Next year?? Hawaii, Spokane or Davis, and St. Louis. Sounds good to me.
Good luck to all 400 FRC teams this week @ Worlds. Sincerely, First Team 701.