The District System

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Are these lower quality versions than what we are used to in a Regional? Do they have an FMS?

Hate to be throwing out simple questions, but I missed the conversations out districts during the VA and Baltimore Regionals.

No problem, if you have any more detailed questions don't hesitate to message me.

To my knowledge, no, they are not lower quality, and yes, they run the full FMS, are "serviced" by FTAs, and all the ways the field is run is exactly like a normal FIRST field (save for venue-specific queuing arrangements). This year in particular it was nice to know that, with the slightly different pyramid heights, we knew 100% we were playing on the same field for 2/3 events, and will for all our offseasons.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Are these lower quality versions than what we are used to in a Regional? Do they have an FMS?

Identical to every other FRC field except for ownership.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Hate to be throwing out simple questions, but I missed the conversations out districts during the VA and Baltimore Regionals.

I'm glad that you are putting these "simple" questions out there. I am learning a lot about the district system, and I think it is really valuable for the community to have somewhere to look for a collection of various info about districts.

IMHO, you should continue to ask away for other people to see and learn.

[stjonl]

I started in FRC when my local tournament was a Regional. The year after that is when the District model went into effect in Michigan. The biggest change everyone needs to understand is that there will be more District Tournament events with fewer teams at each tournament. FIM is usually around 40 teams with MAR averages a few less. In Michigan, you play 12 matches during qualifications at both of the two District events. The smaller team count at each District tournament means it is more likely you will be in the elimination round and play in additional matches.

More District tournaments, for most teams, will mean there will be a local tournament that will be close enough not to incur a hotel bill. This local event is great for family, friends and your sponsors to attend and see why we all do this.

The district model will close the gap between power house teams and all the other teams. Most District model teams make noticeable improvements in their robot between their first and second tournaments. Giving teams more chances to learn and improve.

The District Model is the next step for FRC and it will probably not end there.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by stjonl

I started in FRC when my local tournament was a Regional. The year after that is when the District model went into effect in Michigan. The biggest change everyone needs to understand is that there will be more District Tournament events with fewer teams at each tournament. FIM is usually around 40 teams with MAR averages a few less. In Michigan, you play 12 matches during qualifications at both of the two District events. The smaller team count at each District tournament means it is more likely you will be in the elimination round and play in additional matches.

More District tournaments, for most teams, will mean there will be a local tournament that will be close enough not to incur a hotel bill. This local event is great for family, friends and your sponsors to attend and see why we all do this.

The district model will close the gap between power house teams and all the other teams. Most District model teams make noticeable improvements in their robot between their first and second tournaments. Giving teams more chances to learn and improve.

The District Model is the next step for FRC and it will probably not end there.

I'm all for more time on the field. Running a small team for 5 years, I understand the disparity in FIRST. I'm just concerned about the economic strain for any team that makes it out of the State competition. There is a huge difference in 2 and 3 paid events a year. The only way this makes sense is for those who qualify for states to go for free. FIRST wants to follow the state athletics model. That's what they do: competing in the State competition is free.

[Deetman]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I'm all for more time on the field. Running a small team for 5 years, I understand the disparity in FIRST. I'm just concerned about the economic strain for any team that makes it out of the State competition. There is a huge difference in 2 and 3 paid events a year. The only way this makes sense is for those who qualify for states to go for free. FIRST wants to follow the state athletics model. That's what they do: competing in the State competition is free.

An understandable concern as FRC is not cheap by any means.

As Steven mentioned above, MAR has grants that every team is eligible to apply for and receive to help or completely cover District Championship and World Championship fees. I'm not sure what FiM does/has but I would imagine they have something similar. Where does this money come from? Those big fancy regional events cost somewhere in the ballpark of $200k (at least for the two Regional's encompassed now by MAR) which does not come from registration fees. Assuming these same donations continue, running all district events and the district championship costs significantly less (not sure of exact amount, assume <$100k). There is now extra money for operating expenses and grants for teams. As one of the MAR board of directors likes to put it at events, (paraphrasing) MAR doesn't want the reason you can't attend either the district championship or worlds to be money.

I don't know specifics for your region, but guessing from your location listed here you would be encompassed in a "Capital Region" district? If so, one of my mentors from when I went to high school is heavily involved with looking into the district model there. I ran into him and MAR Champs last year and one of our district events this year. If you send me a private message I'll dig up his contact information for you. Yes, FIRST really is a small world...

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I'm all for more time on the field. Running a small team for 5 years, I understand the disparity in FIRST. I'm just concerned about the economic strain for any team that makes it out of the State competition. There is a huge difference in 2 and 3 paid events a year. The only way this makes sense is for those who qualify for states to go for free. FIRST wants to follow the state athletics model. That's what they do: competing in the State competition is free.

I love a lot about the district model personally, but an issue I know the state we both have teams in is going to run into a money issue. 5/6 teams who won awards at the Virginia Regional only attended one regional event and some barely made the financial cut for championships to the point where 422 was subsidizing the costs for merit based teams to go. There are a lot of reasons some of these teams aren't making enough money, but putting less strain on all teams by dropping the requirement a state/regional CMP $4k registration fee would be nice.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I love a lot about the district model personally, but an issue I know the state we both have teams in is going to run into a money issue. 5/6 teams who won awards at the Virginia Regional only attended one regional event and some barely made the financial cut for championships to the point where 422 was subsidizing the costs for merit based teams to go. There are a lot of reasons some of these teams aren't making enough money, but putting less strain on all teams by dropping the requirement a state/regional CMP $4k registration fee would be nice.

I'm not on the FiM board, so I'm not exactly sure how the price for our state championship is set. I think it is based on FIRST's standard price for teams going to a second regional, and was set up that way as part of the operating agreement between FiM and FIRST. As the district model is expanded, perhaps this arrangement can be revised to allow the various district championships to be managed along the "district event" model rather than the "regional" model (i.e., lower cost).

In Michigan, there are usually a few (2-5??) qualified teams that decline their invitation to MSC. Money is usually a factor, but many of those teams decline because they chose to spend their money on other things (for example, they were already pre-registered for CMP or they competed in out-of-state events).

The "worst case scenario" with the district system is that you pay your $5K entry fee, go to two events (24 matches + elims). You decline the district championship because you couldn't come up with $4K in March. In the regional system, you pay your $5K entry fees and go to one event (8-12 matches + elims). You didn't sign up for a second event because you didn't have another $4K last October/November. The district model always gets you more playing time for the initial investment, and gives you more time to come up with additional money if needed.

For anybody that has been following the "mentor burnout" thread (which deals with much more than burnout), the structure of the district model accomodates some of the proposed solutions much better than the regional model. Most mentors and students can attend 2 district events for the same time off work/school as one regional event. The average playing time for "elite" and "struggling" teams is brought much closer - moreso by bringing up the bottom than bringing down the top. Robot access/out of bag time can be set as desired to accomodate goals for fostering continuous improvement while preventing an arms-race mentality or "wait and copy what works" mentality, reducing the "need" to build practice robots, etc.

I realize that the district model presents some challenges to some teams, but on the whole I think it is a necessary and good thing for the continued growth of FRC.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I'm not sure I buy the idea that this is going to save all teams money. The new and smaller teams are going to get more bang for their buck. I get that. What about the teams that go to Worlds? It's going to cost them more than it does now. Realistically, you can get to worlds with $9k in registration fees. With this new system, $9k will only get you to the State Champs. I'm guessing another $5k would be needed to pay for Worlds. This will increase the costs of teams going to worlds over the current system.

Another question: If you won Chairman's or EI at the district level, are you allowed to compete on the field with your robot at the state level? Will the tradition of having RCA winners on the field at Worlds change in this new model?

You say realistically, but I disagree. You're making a tremendous assumption: that a team can register for a single regional and win it. That's a 3/60*100, or 5% change a team could go. So realistically you're going only once every 20 years, unless you're a top level robot.

I realize that statistic is flawed and that many robots are perpetual bottom dwellers and others are always near the top, but in terms of chances to go you're far better with the district system. Imagine being one of those really good robots who has to go up against the 2056 / 1114 co-designed pair every single year, so you never win a regional at all.

You would be much better in the district system where you could save your money until you have a good robot then be virtually guaranteed of going. Nearly 1/2 of the field at MSC gets to go to World Championships.

1718 has gone to worlds every year the district system has been in place without ever winning a district until this year.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I'm not on the FiM board, so I'm not exactly sure how the price for our state championship is set.

The MSC was designed to be 100% free to teams. FIRST headquarters made the $5k fee mandatory.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

The MSC was designed to be 100% free to teams. FIRST headquarters made the $5k fee mandatory.

Teams who qualify for a championship should not face a prohibative financial burden. Would love to see FIRST compromise here, and maybe with our new president there will be some opportunity for renegotiations.

Currently the registration fee for Worlds is $5,000, and the fee for a second regional is $4,000. I could invision a compromise where we charge a $5,000 entry fee to the state championship, pass along a lesser amount to FIRST HQ, and use the difference to cover the World championship registration fee for those that qualify along with a $1000 travel stipend to the teams who didn't qualify so they can send some representatives to champs as spectators.

For example if 48 teams attend a state championship that advanced 12 slots to the world championship $60,000 would be needed (minus two $5,000 grants from NASA which covers the 2 EI winner.) to cover the championship registration fees. If $240,000 were collected in registration that would leave $190,000. Give $1,000 travel grant to spectate at champs to each of the 36 teams who didn't qualify and that would leave $149,000 to pass along to FIRST HQ, or roughly $3,200 per attending team.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I love a lot about the district model personally, but an issue I know the state we both have teams in is going to run into a money issue. 5/6 teams who won awards at the Virginia Regional only attended one regional event and some barely made the financial cut for championships to the point where 422 was subsidizing the costs for merit based teams to go. There are a lot of reasons some of these teams aren't making enough money, but putting less strain on all teams by dropping the requirement a state/regional CMP $4k registration fee would be nice.

All district teams get two events for the price of a regional. Even if they do not go to the district championship, they are way ahead of the game. We have some teams who do not attend the championship.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

The MSC was designed to be 100% free to teams. FIRST headquarters made the $5k fee mandatory.

What is FIRST's justification for this? Is it that it is unfair to give some teams 3 events at the same cost that other teams get 2 based on performance?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

What is FIRST's justification for this? Is it that it is unfair to give some teams 3 events at the same cost that other teams get 2 based on performance?

I think it would be unfair to give teams 3 competitions inside a district system compared to a team getting only 1 regional. Maybe that was their reasoning.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by dodar

I think it would be unfair to give teams 3 competitions inside a district system compared to a team getting only 1 regional. Maybe that was their reasoning.

Well by that logic it's unfair to give teams 2 competitions for the price of one.