Registration 2013

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Don't expect to see it happen too terribly quickly, but I'm sure it will happen. There are potential issues with volunteers in the area if you suddenly have to support a larger number of district events (especially in the key volunteer roles like Lead Robot Inspector or Head Ref).

Next, how do you handle teams that don't easily fall into a region? There are still areas with very low FRC population density. For those areas, teams would need to travel for 2 district events, plus the district champs, plus champs, or find a regional farther away to attend. Today, they are likely traveling to their nearest regional, which could be in an area that could be converted to districts.

Based on the growth maps in the first post to this thread, there are clearly areas of the country where this wouldn't be much of an issue... but there are also areas where it would be.

Right now there is an abstract "eye test" one could use to determine whether or not a given area has adequate density for the district system. A think an obvious case would be Georgia and the Carolinas, which is an area that supports 3 regionals that fill up very quickly and have a team population larger than MAR, but I don't know what, if any metric would be used to determine if that area would be dense enough. Sure ,some teams will have long travel times, but so do some teams in FiM and MAR. I don't know the point at which it's too thin to be feasible.

I like to think at some point district events won't have to be tied into certain regional or state championships, but you register saying you want points to be tallied for eligibility for an available regional or state championship event so you can maintain flexibility some rural teams may need while still moving over to the low cost district format.

I feel like regions should be competing against each other to have the best representation possible at CMP. When MAR and MSC teams are playing twice as many matches as my team for the same price, I would like to do something to level that ASAP.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

A think an obvious case would be Georgia and the Carolinas, which is an area that supports 3 regionals that fill up very quickly and have a team population larger than MAR, but I don't know what, if any metric would be used to determine if that area would be dense enough.

I found that straight teams per square mile works well to compare two areas when I was seeing how New England measured up to Michigan. Doing a quick calculation for the area you described, the 3 states together have about .88 FRC teams per 1,000 square miles. In Michigan, the number is 2.16 teams per 1,000 square miles. While I wouldn't take that to directly translate to readiness to go to districts, it is definitely a factor.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

I found that straight teams per square mile works well to compare two areas when I was seeing how New England measured up to Michigan. Doing a quick calculation for the area you described, the 3 states together have about .88 FRC teams per 1,000 square miles. In Michigan, the number is 2.16 teams per 1,000 square miles. While I wouldn't take that to directly translate to readiness to go to districts, it is definitely a factor.

Ah now I see, I must have read too quickly.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by AcesPease

I am a little confused. Is the density for New England higher if you include all six states?

Anthony's talking about down south, not New England:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

A think an obvious case would be Georgia and the Carolinas, ...