Indiana going to Districts for 2015

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

And if the "Indiana model" is different(aside from points) FIRST might not want to have "outsiders" there. Also there might be an eventual rule of "no interdistricts in a new system"

The Indiana model will be identical to the other districts in terms of rules, point structure, size of events, etc. The only difference will be in the size of the state CHP, which will be scaled to the number of teams in the state, as will the number of slots allocated to the state for the FIRST CHP.

[Travis Hoffman]

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity and would like to see additional protections installed to ensure that in state teams and other non-district teams get the first crack at attending Ohio events - perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events. I seem to recall some kind of restriction being in place last season but am not certain of how extensive it was.

[Link07]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

...perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events.

This rule already exists as of 2014

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity . . . .

As a Michigander, I don't like it either. One of a district system's largest benefits is that the most deserving teams qualify for the CMP. Going to an out-of-state regional subverts that intent. Michigan teams who qualify in Ohio/anywhere else take spots that are meant to be earned through our district system.

I've said several times that Michigan teams should not be able to directly qualify for the CMP outside Michigan. I don't think they should be allowed to compete for an RCA, and if they do win the regional, it should count as a qualification to MSC. Michigan teams should qualify from Michigan... But I guess it's a topic for a different thread.

[thatprogrammer]

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. If this model works, a lot more states that currently follow the traditional system might make the switch..

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

While good for Indiana, this is yet another district area surrounding Ohio that permits flow of district teams into our state while locking our state's teams out from competing at events formerly open to them.

Ohio is in the initial stages of organizing for a district push, but in the meantime, Ohio teams are going to feel even more pressure from insurgent district teams from MAR, MI, NE, and now Indiana who feel like taking some of their extra cash and throwing it at extra chances to qualify for the CMP at Ohio regionals. Ohio teams are finding it increasingly difficult to find reciprocal opportunities via the attendance of reasonably close out of state regionals. I am not a fan of this "poaching" activity and would like to see additional protections installed to ensure that in state teams and other non-district teams get the first crack at attending Ohio events - perhaps require district teams to wait until open registration before being permitted to sign up for non-district events. I seem to recall some kind of restriction being in place last season but am not certain of how extensive it was.

District teams can't register until Open Registration as per 2014 rules. I'm not sure what other kind of protection you want. The teams from MAR who can afford regionals have to work just as hard as you do to find other events to attend.

[M. Lillis]

So I ran some of the numbers based off of the usfirst.org 2014 directory.

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile

FiM has 21.9 teams per event
MAR has 24.4 teams per event
PNW has 20.1 teams per event
NE has 23.0 teams per event

If I were to guess, I would say that Indiana will have 3 district events. This would be 21.0 teams per event, keeping it in line with the other regions.

Also, MAR is weird because land area in not easily accessible for Eastern PA, so I used all of PA. This was also true for finding teams in PA, so I just used all of PA teams. I also included the 1 regional in PA, making the "event" count for MAR 7. This may be why MAR's teams per event is slightly higher than other regions. PNW's teams per Sq Mile is so low because both of those states are huge, while Indiana's is so small because there are only 63 teams.

Link to data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

[dodar]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

So I ran some of the numbers based off of the usfirst.org 2014 directory.

FiM has .005662 teams per Sq Mile
MAR has .003164 teams per Sq Mile
PNW has 0.001237 teams per Sq. Mile
NE has 0.003302 teams per Sq Mile
Indiana has 0.01758 teams per Sq Mile

FiM has 21.9 teams per event
MAR has 24.4 teams per event
PNW has 20.1 teams per event
NE has 23.0 teams per event

If I were to guess, I would say that Indiana will have 3 district events. This would be 21.0 teams per event, keeping it in line with the other regions.

Also, MAR is weird because land area in not easily accessible for Eastern PA, so I used all of PA. This was also true for finding teams in PA, so I just used all of PA teams. I also included the 1 regional in PA, making the "event" count for MAR 7. This may be why MAR's teams per event is slightly higher than other regions. PNW's teams per Sq Mile is so low because both of those states are huge, while Indiana's is so small because there are only 63 teams.

Link to data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

[M. Lillis]

Originally Posted by dodar

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

I just did straight division of total teams by total events. I did not calculate for teams who run their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th event. Just double the numbers and it will be closer to the actual count, but this still would not account for team who do 3 or 4 district events.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by dodar

21 teams/event doesnt give you 8 alliances of 3(24 teams).

Remember Districts includes two events per team-- the offered statistic isn't how many teams will be at each event, which is different from how many total teams there will be per event.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by Basel A

As a Michigander, I don't like it either. One of a district system's largest benefits is that the most deserving teams qualify for the CMP. Going to an out-of-state regional subverts that intent. Michigan teams who qualify in Ohio/anywhere else take spots that are meant to be earned through our district system.

I've said several times that Michigan teams should not be able to directly qualify for the CMP outside Michigan. I don't think they should be allowed to compete for an RCA, and if they do win the regional, it should count as a qualification to MSC. Michigan teams should qualify from Michigan... But I guess it's a topic for a different thread.

I'll note that this year's CCA winner did exactly what you described...

I do agree with this sentiment about qualification spot poaching. It didn't feel right when Indiana wasn't a district, and it doesn't feel right now that we are. FIRST did implement that when the district team qualifies outside district borders, it removes a spot from their district allotment.

That being said, I don't think it's a good thing to completely isolate teams in their silos until the World Championship. Having the experience of meeting teams from all over the country/world is a really great aspect. This is one of the apprehension points I have with being in a district now -- we'll see the same teams year after year without much variety unless we travel outside our district for a regional competition.

If the Indiana model works, it could signal a green light in how districts can be spread to states/areas with lower team populations. Long term, I think Regionals should co-exist overlayed with districts. Areas where districts still don't make sense can have their regionals, and then we can still have the larger events peppered throughout the world for that broader exposure.

[Allison K]

On topic - This is great and I look forward to the possibility of interdistrict play.

Regarding "poaching" of world championship spots, moving to a system of proportional representation districts at worlds would be a step towards eliminating the problem. This attachment here (which I saved from another similar thread, apologies because I don't remember which one or who posted it, but this is not my original content) shows how underrepresented FiM is at worlds. Although there are many great reasons for attending an out of district regional (meeting new teams, travel experience, etc.), worlds qualification is an incentive. Distributing spots proportional to the number of teams in the district while removing qualification incentives for district teams at regionals would both calm the regional teams that feel invaded by districts, and the district teams that feel like they are getting the short end of the stick at home.

[mathking]

I am happy, because I am eager for the time when FRC is entirely district model based. I am a believer, so I am willing to go through the pain as FRC grows into districts everywhere.

As Travis said, it does put a lot more pressure on teams from Ohio who want to get in an extra regional competition. Almost every year at least one (and often two) of Buckeye, Queen City and Pittsburgh are not possible because of Ohio Graduation Tests. Sometimes (like last year) the OGT and spring break effectively knock out all three. We went to Crossroads last year, but without that we would have had to go even further afield for our competition. As a team that has only once in 12 years been able to afford two regional competitions, this puts even more expense pressure on us.

All that said I am happy Indiana is doing this. They have a fantastic base of volunteers and mentors in Indiana and I am confident that they will pull off the district model well. Hopefully it will speed our entry to the district system.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Allison K

On topic - This is great and I look forward to the possibility of interdistrict play.

Regarding "poaching" of world championship spots, moving to a system of proportional representation districts at worlds would be a step towards eliminating the problem. This attachment here (which I saved from another similar thread, apologies because I don't remember which one or who posted it, but this is not my original content) shows how underrepresented FiM is at worlds. Although there are many great reasons for attending an out of district regional (meeting new teams, travel experience, etc.), worlds qualification is an incentive. Distributing spots proportional to the number of teams in the district while removing qualification incentives for district teams at regionals would both calm the regional teams that feel invaded by districts, and the district teams that feel like they are getting the short end of the stick at home.

As Frank said last fall,
http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprog...80%93More-Info

Our intent in the 2015 season is to move to a proportional representation system at the FIRST Championship, based on team counts.
[...]
We will be easing the full transition in 2015 to the proportional representation system by taking a modified approach in 2014. To eliminate uncertainty with the number of slots being awarded, we are using 2013 season team counts rather than current season (2014) counts. Also, to make this change less sudden for existing districts, and to make the allocation more closely match early discussions FIRST HQ had with new districts being formed, I am adding a single FIRST Championship slot for each District to the allocations that were determined mathematically from the 2013 team counts. As a practical matter, these additional slots will reduce by four the number of waitlist slots available at the FIRST Championship.

Emphasis mine.

Even a proportional system doesn't solve the problem. Teams from districts can and do go to regional events and win CMP spots... and they will continue to do so no matter how many spots their district has. Team 27 (and I have nothing against them, they're just an easy example from this year) came from Michigan to the Northern Lights regional last year and won Chairman's. That meant that they got to go to champs and some other team from Minnesota or Wisconsin or North Dakota or Hawaii did not. All those other teams didn't have the same benefit of qualifying at both a regional and within a district.

IMO the current setup disadvantages regional-only teams. The spreadsheet you linked to doesn't tell the whole tale - Minnesota, for example, didn't get all of those 24 slots. Some went to out of state teams in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Hawaii, etc. Minnesota only sent 16 teams to champs this past year. So while our state might have 8.56% of all FRC teams, our Actual CMP % was 4%.

District team's shouldn't be allowed to play at regionals unless regional teams can play (and earn their way to CMP) at districts as well. We're closing off significant areas of the country and making it harder and harder for some areas that are still doing regionals to send appropriate representation to champs. If FIRST is really moving towards a representational model for CMP, they need to figure out how to make that work for areas that still do regionals as well.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

...

IMO the current setup disadvantages regional-only teams. The spreadsheet you linked to doesn't tell the whole tale - Minnesota, for example, didn't get all of those 24 slots. Some went to out of state teams in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Hawaii, etc. Minnesota only sent 16 teams to champs this past year. So while our state might have 8.56% of all FRC teams, our Actual CMP % was 4%.

District team's shouldn't be allowed to play at regionals unless regional teams can play (and earn their way to CMP) at districts as well. We're closing off significant areas of the country and making it harder and harder for some areas that are still doing regionals to send appropriate representation to champs. If FIRST is really moving towards a representational model for CMP, they need to figure out how to make that work for areas that still do regionals as well.

Fair point, but that's why I also suggested removing the qualification incentive for district teams that attend regionals. District teams already have to wait to register for regionals until open registration, so we aren't taking spots away from teams who need or want them, we are just filling in empty spaces. If we were allocated proportional spots in our district, I wouldn't mind it if district teams weren't allowed to qualify for worlds at a regional (with any spaces earned by a district team at a regional creating a wildcard for the next most deserving non-district team). I suppose that would get awkward with Chairman's award spots, but it overall seems like a more balanced approach.

I do recall Frank's blog post on proportional allocation of spots, but thus far they've only mentioned intent. Hopefully that ends up being the case.