KC Regional Considering District Model

[Mongai]

Originally Posted by CalTran

THIS DOES NOT REFLECT THE THOUGHTS OF TEAM 2410

I wasn't a huge fan when Mr. Ritter told me about it. I love the idea of up to 20(!) qualification matches, but I wasn't so much a fan of splitting it up over 2 weekends. You make a good argument for the plan, but I just didn't like the proposal. It seems much too cumbersome to spread Greater KC over 2 (possibly non-consecutive) weekends just for one competition. It also meant that suddenly instead of 6 weeks to choose from, we would have this and then pick from the remaining 4 weeks of competition, and keep in mind that our robot has to be working and back before the eliminations. Maybe it's just how familiar I am with the Michigan system. I like the district system and all, but I just don't think it's quite time for the Kansas City area to transition.

Greater KC was an amazing home grown event where we had our closely knit teams and the occasional out of regional-er whom we would warmly welcome and, for lack of a better term, assimilate into our home. If it switched to the proposed system, then we would have to take a serious look at attending.

In addition, teams like 935 would have to spend twice as much for gas and hotels (total of 12 hour drive time!). Funny thing is, KC is our closest regional.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Mongai

In addition, teams like 935 would have to spend twice as much for gas and hotels (total of 12 hour drive time!). Funny thing is, KC is our closest regional.

Funny thing, when I Google city to city directions it places Oklahoma City 2 minutes closer to Newton than Kansas City, Missouri. Perhaps if I googled school to arena distances I might find KC closer. It's that close.

Regardless, the point is clear. In a less population dense area the GKC regional is the most attractive option for some relatively distant teams. Travel expenses would increase while still only vying for 5 or 6 spots at championship. For a similar travel expense (albeit a much larger registration fee) you could travel to two separate regionals, meet twice as many teams, and double your chances to qualify. For teams with the resources to go to two tournaments that still sounds like the better option. For teams without that kind of financial capital...?

When the comittee meets I hope they seriously consider travel grants to schools in your situation as an associated cost. I know they were hoping to be able to redistribute some money to teams with savings in this new model.

PS. If I didn't get to sleep in my own bed during the KC regional I doubt I'd find this proposal the least bit intriguing.

[Nemo]

Spending two weekends for only one event would be a deal breaker for our team.

Why are they looking at an in-between solution instead of figuring out how to make a district system work?

[treffk]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

Due to scheduling conflicts KC FIRST held their inaugurral FTC tournament on a Sunday morning this year. Many objected to school events trying to encroach on a time slot traditionally reserved for church/worship. My personal feelings aside I would not be able to make the pitch in my community that they should choose robotics over other Sunday morning options.

Only thing I am going to add to this thread is to mention that the Sunday we held the FTC tournament was also Super Bowl Sunday.

[Drivencrazy]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this system over other potential systems. What is the true benefit of more than doubling the qualification matches with no increase in the number of intense elimination matches? Sure the more qualification matches you run the more "accurately" the standings will sort the teams. But what do teams get out of playing the same teams over and over again in qualification matches. With only 48 teams and 25+* qual matches you play with or against every team almost 3 times! Seems excessive to me.


Plus if you are going to change the model of the competition why not change the way teams are selected to go to the championship? What is stopping them from splitting it into two "district" events with the top three point accruing robots going to champs after the second event? Teams don't need 29 qual matches and then one set of elims. But they could use 20 qual matches and two sets of elims. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that the three "best" robots should accompany the RCA, EI, and RAS winners to the champs. Even though a two event system isn't nearly as good at this as say a 15 event system I think you would still get closer than just sending the winners from one event.

When I heard this idea I was sort of baffled. I hope this isn't what they end up going with. This totally takes away the clout from the event and I am almost positive that after the first year the RPC will see a significant drop in corporate financial support meaning that there will be even less money to give to teams that would have to travel a significant distance.

*Fri1:9am-6pm, Sat1: 9am-6pm, Fri2: 9am-6pm, Sat2: 9am-noon with 1 hour lunch breaks on Fri1, Fri2, Sat1 yields about 230 possible matches with a 7 min turnaround time. With 48 teams this turns out to a little over 29 matches per team.

[scottandme]

So going off of the 39-48 teams estimate:

Why not just directly implement what MAR and FiM do, but skip the Regional Championships aspect?

Hold two "district" events, and have every team compete at both events. Practice matches/inspection Thursday night, 10-12 qualification matches Fri/Sat AM, and then eliminations on Sat afternoon. Repeat at a different venue. Award RCA, EI, and RAS at the 2nd event, and then qualify the 3 highest rated teams by points. Every team would get 20-24 qualification matches, you would have two sets of elimination matches, and there's no problem if teams come one weekend and not the other (separate schedule). If you have ~42 teams, you should be able to squeeze in 12 qualification matches (same as MAR/FiM). If you end up with 48 teams, you would still have 10 qualification matches (same as the current KC Regional).

With a little more growth, you can go to 3 district events. 48 teams would give you 3 district events with 32 teams at each. Add a district championship if/when you grow to ~4/5 district events (80-100 teams).

[nicholsjj]

How about we take a little more expanded/crazy view for a future district model(I have been dreaming about this for months it seams just a bit "too" crazy right now ). First priority we add a new regional in Memphis and Rolla or Cape Girardeau (will be a "little " difficult right now). Next priority we get both Missouri Regional, the Oklahoma Regional, and the just added Razorback Regional all on board(a bit more easy than priority one). Third priority we make sure that Iowa, Eastern Kansas, Western Illinois, Western Kentucky, and Western Tennessee teams all have an opportunity to join the district. Final Priority we get the University of Missouri-Columbia on board to host the district championship in the Hearnes Center(it would be a perfect place for a district championship).
In total I had around 125 teams plus growth, 6 large district events, and 1 championship or around the same numbers as MAR, except for land size. I think we are close to being able to do this the problem is that travel would be hard for teams/volunteers for their second event. I would love to hear others opinions on this system setup.Sorry for putting this hear but I think it is possible.

As for the KC area going to a "mini" district I believe it would be good for the KC area local teams and bad for the KC teams that are not so local, Iowa and mid-Missouri teams come to mind. I also would miss seeing all of the KC teams heading across 270 for the St. Louis Regional.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

As for the KC area going to a "mini" district I believe it would be good for the KC area local teams and bad for the KC teams that are not so local, Iowa and mid-Missouri teams come to mind. I also would miss seeing all of the KC teams heading across 270 for the St. Louis Regional.

How would it be bad for Iowa teams? Our team currently travels to two regionals that are 4+ hours away, so traveling wouldn't be anything new. If we can go to two events for the price of one, I'm pretty happy.

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by Nemo

How would it be bad for Iowa teams? Our team currently travels to two regionals that are 4+ hours away, so traveling wouldn't be anything new. If we can go to two events for the price of one, I'm pretty happy.

My thought was the two weekends for 5 qual. spots would be a turnoff. But the price for two weekends of competition is nice.

[DonRotolo]

I agree, Sunday mornings are not really ideal for many. But missing nly Friday school solves that issue...

Where is the geographic center of the 48 teams, and what is the furthest travel distance? I ask because a 3 event system might be a better choice. Or a two event system, but teams are "obligated" to attend only one, and highest points winds the CMP berths. Award chairmans, EI, etc at the last event, teams "in the runnng" are asked to attend for awards (being a Saturday it may be easier to justify).

Find another 48 teams and run it like MAR....

Just thinking out loud.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Drivencrazy

I'm not sure I understand the point of this system over other potential systems. What is the true benefit of more than doubling the qualification matches with no increase in the number of intense elimination matches?

Originally Posted by Nemo

Spending two weekends for only one event would be a deal breaker for our team.

Why are they looking at an in-between solution instead of figuring out how to make a district system work?

Originally Posted by Nemo

How would it be bad for Iowa teams? Our team currently travels to two regionals that are 4+ hours away, so traveling wouldn't be anything new. If we can go to two events for the price of one, I'm pretty happy.

I agree that a full district system like FiM or MAR would be preferred. These events started by folding multiple regionals into the system. Rumor is we haven't found a neighboring regional to pair with yet. St. Louis, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are all attractive options for a partnership with Kansas City. Did some thinking about what it would look like to partner with the other regional in our state and create a Missouri district. Below is my introductory analysis. Again keep in mind that I am not currently on any regional planning committee, and have limited influence to motivate change.

Unlike many states considering the district model, Missouri’s population (and FRC) centers are on the borders of the state. It would make sense to have a Missouri-plus state championship and allow teams from neighboring states to join in. It would be super if teams outside of the state could opt in or out on an annual basis.

61 teams from the state of Missouri participated in FRC in 2013.

• 29/61 played at the GKC Regional.
• 31/61 played at the St. Louis Regional.
• 1/61 played only at the Oklahoma Regional.

21/61 participated in a 2nd regional. (1 of those went to a 3rd regional)

• 7/21 teams also participated at Cross Roads.
• 8/21 teams also participated in Razorback.
• 3/21 teams also participated in Oklahoma
• 2/21 teams also participated in Alamo.
• 1/21 teams also participated in Queen City.
• 1/21 teams also participated in Hub City

Kansas had 20 teams participate in 2013, 16 of which played in the GKC regional. Most of the Kansas Teams are just over the border from Kansas City. There are no regional events currently in Kansas. 4/20 teams participated in a 2nd regional, split evenly between Razorback and Oklahoma.

Illinois had 7 teams participate in the St. Louis regional. Chicago has a regional on the opposite end of the state. None of the 7 teams aforementioned attended Chicago this year. 6/7 have attended the St. Louis regional every year of their existence and those 6 have never attended the Midwest regional in Chicago.

Iowa had 5 teams participate in 2013. 4/5 have a history of attending events in the state of Missouri. There are no regional events currently in the state of Iowa. (If Minnesota ever closes their border like Michigan has this would also greatly impact these teams.)

The Razorback Regional in Arkansas had 41 teams this year, and is located only 45 minutes outside of Missouri’s southern border. Nearly 1/4th (9/41) of the teams playing at Razorback would likely be drawn away by a Missouri district. No Arkansas teams played in Missouri this year. (I believe the health of the Arkansas regional is strong enough to deal with a district forming on their northern border, but it should be pointed out that 8 out of the 9 teams mentioned did play in the elimination rounds.)

I would love to see a 4 tournament district set up with 2 events in St. Louis, and 2 events in Kansas City. Each district venue would need to hold between 42 and 48 teams, with an event needing at least 32 teams attending to be viable. I could see KC on weeks 1 and 4, and St. Louis on weeks 2 and 5 with the championship in week 7. The championship should be somewhere between 48 and 64 teams in size. By combining 2 regionals together we should have 12 slots to send to champs. I would propose sending 2 chairman’s winner, 2 EI winners, 3 member winning alliance, 1 RAS, and the next 4 teams not already qualified based on points.

PS. I'm afforded the luxury of daydreaming here. No doubt the move of a local city to host 2 or 3 events instead of 1 is no small task. Maybe the KC proposal that started this thread is the first step in securing volunteer resources to help with the transition.

[Nemo]

Being in a district system where there were two events in KC and two events in STL would be great for our team. I'd be excited about it if it happened.

[Alpha Beta]

Some interesting ideas for a Missouri district from another thread.

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

80 teams in Kansas and Missouri should be enough. Assuming growth next year, you'd want 5 events. Looking at Where in the World is FIRST, you'd want 2 in the Kansas City area, 2 in the St Louis area and 1 somewhere in between (Maybe Jefferson City).There's be a lot of duplicates between the Kansas City events and the St Louis events, but some teams will want to travel, and provide mixing of the regions.

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Add southern Illinois to the KSMO district system! Say all the teams from Springfield IL on down.

Also include Iowa and Arkansas. Not sure about OK, they might want to join a Southwestern district system (i.e., Texas, Louisiana, etc.) instead.

All this speculation highlights your main point -- the teams are spread thin geographically. A strong district system should have at least five events, but more would be better. One event per twenty teams fits the FiM model, which is working well up here and in MAR right now.

All this speculation makes me miss my old team, and my old planning committee, back in St. Louis. Fun times ahead for you folks, I wish I could be there.

Since GKC and St. Louis were on the same weekend for the first time this year we never had the opportunity to get all the top teams in the state together. An invitational state championship offseason event would be a fantastic way to practice the logistics for a potential district championship without having to pay FIRST an exhorbinant entrance fee (which does not funnel back to the local tournament organizers). Lots of models (Minnesota, Indiana, etc..) to choose from. Noticed that St. Louis does not currently host an offseason event... (No pressure. ) Since it doesn't make sense to border off Southern Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas from Missouri, I'd invite them too based on points.

Jaxom already did a nice job of tallying up district points for Missouri and Kansas here. Just need to combine the lists and sprinkle in the Illinois and Iowa teams who attended Missouri regionals this year. (Maybe include 525 too for fun even though they, for the first time since 2006, did not play in Missouri and by school policy wouldn't be able to attend an offseason event here.)

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

Some interesting ideas for a Missouri district from another thread.


Since GKC and St. Louis were on the same weekend for the first time this year we never had the opportunity to get all the top teams in the state together. An invitational state championship offseason event would be a fantastic way to practice the logistics for a potential district championship without having to pay FIRST an exhorbinant entrance fee (which does not funnel back to the local tournament organizers). Lots of models (Minnesota, Indiana, etc..) to choose from. Noticed that St. Louis does not currently host an offseason event... (No pressure. ) Since it doesn't make sense to border off Southern Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas from Missouri, I'd invite them too based on points.

Jaxom already did a nice job of tallying up district points for Missouri and Kansas here. Just need to combine the lists and sprinkle in the Illinois and Iowa teams who attended Missouri regionals this year. (Maybe include 525 too for fun even though they, for the first time since 2006, did not play in Missouri and by school policy wouldn't be able to attend an offseason event here.)

Sorry to "hijack" the thread but I think this would be a viable option for the offseason event that we are planning to run this fall. The event would be ran on either Aug.9-10 or just the 10 depending on what the teams want. I think we would want to invite the top 32 ranked teams that competed at both Missouri Regionals.(We would also invite teams 16 and 525 if all 32 decline.) Registration would be for $200 if we would only run on the 10th then we would run the event just like Indiana except that we would have elimination alliances of 4 with alliance selection based off of Cowtown's and VRC's additions to the selection process.(i.e. 1-8 can't pick themselves, 1 picks first during the first two rounds of selection then 8 picks first in the final round, and all 4 teams have to play at least once during each elimination round). We would highly consider doing this if teams are on board for it.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

Sorry to "hijack" the thread but I think this would be a viable option for the offseason event that we are planning to run this fall. The event would be ran on either Aug.9-10 or just the 10 depending on what the teams want. I think we would want to invite the top 32 ranked teams that competed at both Missouri Regionals.(We would also invite teams 16 and 525 if all 32 decline.) Registration would be for $200 if we would only run on the 10th then we would run the event just like Indiana except that we would have elimination alliances of 4 with alliance selection based off of Cowtown's and VRC's additions to the selection process.(i.e. 1-8 can't pick themselves, 1 picks first during the first two rounds of selection then 8 picks first in the final round, and all 4 teams have to play at least once during each elimination round). We would highly consider doing this if teams are on board for it.

Ran the numbers for Iowa and Illinois teams that played in KC or SL to combine with Jaxom's Kansas and Missouri Rankings.
Total is the sum of 2 events. Best is the highest of the 2 events. Average is the average of the two events. I ranked on average. Of course teams who only played one event will have all 3 numbers the same. Ranking based on this. The ranking system does not award points for Chairman's, Rookie All Star, or Engineering Inspiration.

(By the way 1625 and 2451 are Northern Illinois teams, much closer to Chicago and probably not a target for an expanded Missouri district. They are marked in blue. Teams in red did not play in a Missouri regional this year.)

There are 94 teams in this list. Green line represents the top 32. For an Indiana style championship the purple line represents the top 24. If I was running a district championship with to qualify for champs I would be tempted to invite 48 teams (orange line).

State	Team#	Total	Best	Average
MO	1986	149	78	74.5
MO	1806	126	66	63
MO	1939	106	58	53
IA	3928	105	56	52.5
MO	1288	104	63	52
MO	1985	103	58	51.5
MO	3284	96	64	48
MO	1658	45	45	45
IA	967	85	61	42.5
MO	2408	42	42	42
KS	1108	42	42	42
IL	1625	80	52	40
IL	1208	79	53	39.5
MO	3528	75	41	37.5
MO	2457	37	37	37
MO	1329	37	37	37
MO	1730	71	42	35.5
MO	3885	35	35	35
MO	1706	66	45	33
MO	1444	31	31	31
MO	1775	61	42	30.5
KS	935	60	33	30
IL	2451	60	49	30
MO	4256	59	34	29.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA	4646	28	28	28
MO	1987	52	28	26
KS	3172	26	26	26
MO	1825	24	24	24
MO	2357	24	24	24
MO	2346	23	23	23
KS	1982	23	23	23
KS	1810	23	23	23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO	1094	45	27	22.5
MO	2978	22	22	22
MO	2345	22	22	22
MO	3862	21	21	21
MO	1763	21	21	21
MO	931	41	28	20.5
MO	3792	20	20	20
KS	1448	20	20	20
IL	4232	19	19	19
MO	3784	36	19	18
KS	2410	36	26	18
KS	1710	18	18	18
MO	4330	32	24	16
MO	4329	16	16	16
MO	1182	15	15	15
MO	4500	14	14	14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO	4455	14	14	14
MO	2353	14	14	14
MO	1764	27	15	13.5
KS	938	27	19	13.5
MO	2164	24	14	12
MO	4356	12	12	12
MO	1737	12	12	12
MO	4402	12	12	12
MO	3330	12	12	12
MO	4809	12	12	12
KS	2335	12	12	12
MO	4231	10	10	10
MO	4331	10	10	10
KS	3485	10	10	10
IL	4156	10	10	10
IL	4196	10	10	10
IL	4246	10	10	10
MO	1723	16	10	8
MO	4522	8	8	8
MO	2001	8	8	8
MO	4600	8	8	8
MO	2560	8	8	8
MO	3397	8	8	8
KS	1984	8	8	8
IL	4187	8	8	8
IL	4314	8	8	8
MO	1785	14	8	7
MO	2838	6	6	6
MO	1178	6	6	6
MO	4154	6	6	6
MO	2167	6	6	6
MO	1827	6	6	6
KS	1847	6	6	6
KS	3798	6	6	6
KS	1769	6	6	6
KS	1997	6	6	6
KS	937	6	6	6
KS	1777	6	6	6
MO	3764	4	4	4
MO	2874	4	4	4
MO	3973	4	4	4
KS	1994	4	4	4
MO	4404	2	2	2
MO	2902	2	2	2
KS	1802	2	2	2