Indiana going to Districts for 2015

[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.

[GaryVoshol]

To be fair, I'm not sure they expected MI to have scores of new teams in 2014. They announce the spots before registration is closed, don't they? If they base the 2015 allocation off of 2014 figures, FiM's numbers should go up.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Allison K

I wouldn't mind it if district teams weren't allowed to qualify for worlds at a regional...

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There is no perfect solution, so their will be some pain in the transitions.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

So would you want to be competing (Alliance Partner) with a team that was not playing to win, not playing to qualify for the CHP?

There is no perfect solution, so their will be some pain in the transitions.

Doesn't this happen now in districts when teams get a 3rd event. Only the first two count towards district ranking points. Has it been a problem thus far?

PS. What was the biggest factor in getting FIRST to approve districts for such a small FRC population base?

My guess would be the dedication of the volunteers that run the offseason events as well as the two regionals.

Good luck, we're rooting for you to make this a success.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

Doesn't this happen now in districts when teams get a 3rd event. Only the first two count towards district ranking points. Has it been a problem thus far?

PS. What was the biggest factor in getting FIRST to approve districts for such a small FRC population base?

My guess would be the dedication of the volunteers that run the offseason events as well as the two regionals.

Good luck, we're rooting for you to make this a success.

There were some discussions of the choices behind the new compact district model being piloted by IN for next season at the FIRST World Conference this week. There was not a single reason given as the main driving force. Some of the reasons quoted was that they have proven they have the volunteer base to pull it off partially based on their ability to run off-season events. Their Regionals were also ones that have struggled to come up with sufficient funding in the past. So a big part of the case they made was that they really needed to make the transition to districts to ensure the long term sustainability of FRC in the area. Since they will end up with only 3 district events they will have lower infrastructure capital spending that could lower the costs in the initial season and certainly over the long term. In the PNW the need for 2 fields worth of equipment meant that there was not any cost savings for the initial season though there certainly will be this upcoming and future seasons.

Part of it was desire on FIRST's part to try a different District model that if successful could open up the viability of more areas joining the District System sooner as well as making the transition easier. It can also potentially be the pilot of district events weeks 1-4 and DCMP week 6, if they can align the dates which is one of the things FIRST has thrown out as something for other districts to potentially try in future seasons.

[M. Lillis]

All of the current district models are so large (Especially FiM) that they run their CMP event in week 7. Would Indiana, being such a small district, be able to run all of their events before week 5 and then run the INCMP in week 6? This would give any CMP bound teams an extra week of notice/prep.

[Calvin Hartley]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

All of the current district models are so large (Especially FiM) that they run their CMP event in week 7. Would Indiana, being such a small district, be able to run all of their events before week 5 and then run the INCMP in week 6? This would give any CMP bound teams an extra week of notice/prep.

See Chris' post:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

we expect to run 3 events at 40 teams per event....

Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here...

[Link07]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

See Chris' post:


Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here...

Just a numbers comparison

MAR has 110 teams (about twice the size of Indiana) and 7 district events that are already fit into just 4 weeks (1, 3, 4, 5 in 2014). We've historically not held Week 2 events, but I could see MAR pushing its districts into Weeks 1-4 and holding DCMP Week 6 if we absolutely had to.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

See Chris' post:


Barring major scheduling conflicts that I don't know of, 3 events is of course doable. I wonder for how long a shorter competition season could last though. Obviously, Michigan's 15-event schedule would not work easily into a shorter season. If there was much growth in a smaller area such as Indiana, how long until they have to extend the season?

Just thinking here...

Well for IN they could handle about a 25% growth from where they are at now until they would need to add another field to stay within 4 weeks of district events.

The fact that they can stay within that 4 week window with 1 field is a strong reason to try this smaller district model. The start up costs will be much lower as will the initial logistics and volunteer requirements. That allows some time for the district to save up for the 2nd field and all of the related equipment and increase their volunteer base to handle that higher number of events. All in all I think this model could represent the way to a district system heavy FRC much sooner rather than dragging it out for a decade or more.

[Alex2614]

Personally, I think that saying that we should only put districts in densely populated areas only gives the "urban" teams (and teams closer to urban areas) a bigger advantage over teams from more rural areas.

That is why I love that Indiana is doing this. It is proving to everybody that you don't need 150 teams in an area to do districts. I can't wait for the day that our team in West Virginia can be included in a nearby district region, such as Ohio or PA or whatever.

Looking down the road, even 5-10-15 years, I would hate to see everyone around us going into districts, and we are stuck traveling around these regions to traditional regionals, still paying $5,000 for one single event with 8-9 qualification matches, and traveling 10 hours to do so, with 4 nights in a hotel, which is exactly what we did in 2014. This is why I think, regardless of what FIRST says, out of necessity every team will eventually be included in districts. Otherwise we will have these "pockets" of teams paying much more for much less, and having to travel much further to get that. In order to expand FIRST in rural areas, we need to "level the playing field," so-to-speak, rather than giving areas with higher team density a bigger advantage.

I can't wait to see how it plays out in Indiana. One step closer to all-district!

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Personally, I think that saying that we should only put districts in densely populated areas only gives the "urban" teams (and teams closer to urban areas) a bigger advantage over teams from more rural areas.

That is why I love that Indiana is doing this. It is proving to everybody that you don't need 150 teams in an area to do districts. I can't wait for the day that our team in West Virginia can be included in a nearby district region, such as Ohio or PA or whatever.

Looking down the road, even 5-10-15 years, I would hate to see everyone around us going into districts, and we are stuck traveling around these regions to traditional regionals, still paying $5,000 for one single event with 8-9 qualification matches, and traveling 10 hours to do so, with 4 nights in a hotel, which is exactly what we did in 2014. This is why I think, regardless of what FIRST says, out of necessity every team will eventually be included in districts. Otherwise we will have these "pockets" of teams paying much more for much less, and having to travel much further to get that. In order to expand FIRST in rural areas, we need to "level the playing field," so-to-speak, rather than giving areas with higher team density a bigger advantage.

I can't wait to see how it plays out in Indiana. One step closer to all-district!

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Mr V

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

Similar to how Michigan was a test for large-size districts.

I think it's funny that responses have been really positive to this change-- I was looking at some old posts seeing people going to war over how terrible everything would be if we all went to districts. Now I'm not sure that there's a region that doesn't, for the most part, wish they could have a district system.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Similar to how Michigan was a test for large-size districts.

I think it's funny that responses have been really positive to this change-- I was looking at some old posts seeing people going to war over how terrible everything would be if we all went to districts. Now I'm not sure that there's a region that doesn't, for the most part, wish they could have a district system.

Hawaii?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

Hawaii?

The big problem for Hawaii is getting everybody between islands for reasonable cost and in a reasonable time. If they could solve that somehow, I'm pretty sure they'd be doing districts as soon as possible.



cadandcookies, I think some explanation for the negativity might be in order. I'm not sure this would have come across very well in those older threads. So...

There were two big reasons for "We hate this"/"We love this". One was the sudden "These guys get to do this, they can leave their area but you can't come in, oh and they get double the plays". Other areas complained that MI got double the value, they'd been working on trying this for years and HQ said no, and a few other complaints. But the #1 reason was the suddenness (some would say sneakyness). Internal complaints from MI came from the UP teams about having to increase their travel just to get to district events, instead of just going to MN and WI like normal.

The other reason for the complaining was when the points structure was initially announced--it really didn't appear to value anything that wasn't robot (AKA, the CA...) With the years of iteration, that's been dealt with.

Now that MI (and now MAR, NE, and PNW) have had some years as the guinea pigs, most of the wrinkles have been ironed out, and other areas have seen how more teams have formed, and better teams, and are chomping at the bit to at least explore what's next in forming their own district area. International teams who play in the U.S., meanwhile, are getting mighty nervous about potentially losing access to their preferred regional when that area goes to districts. (And trust me, I find that having the Chilean teams in L.A. provides quite a bit of spirit, and is a good thing--I'd hate to see 'em have to go elsewhere.)

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Mr V

The reason that FIRST agreed to this trial of a mini-district model was to see if it is a viable model that could be used in other areas that don't have the density for the current District System.

Exactly! That's why I'm excited for it!