Indiana going to Districts for 2015

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Danny, where is that number coming from? That's way higher then any number I have ever seen.

Wasn't it only 132 this year.

Originally Posted by who716

63 team I believe are in Indiana

Originally Posted by Karthik

Indiana had 52 teams last year: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/IN-USA

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm only seeing 132 as well: http://frclinks.frclinks.com/t/tx-usa

This confusion is coming from FIRST's website's inability to consistently and accurately report data.

If you use the frclinks.com approach, you get the correct number for Indiana and Texas. If you use the "What teams are in my area?" links, it lists inactive and unregistered teams with absolutely no distinction as to which are which for those states.

[M. Lillis]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

This confusion is coming from FIRST's website's inability to consistently and accurately report data.

If the FIRST website cannot report accurate numbers, then it should not be reporting numbers at all.

I will go back tonight and redo my calculations using frclinks

[donkehote]

Just out of curiosity sake, i added Ontario/Quebec as a district.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing


154 teams
6 events
1,010,989 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq Mile 1.52E-04
Teams/event 25.6

Doesn't seem to bad.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by donkehote

Just out of curiosity sake, i added Ontario/Quebec as a district.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing


154 teams
6 events
1,010,989 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq Mile 1.52E-04
Teams/event 25.6

Doesn't seem to bad.

Changed it so its just ontario, as including the 39 teams in quebec for the massive land area (595,391 sq mi) skews the numbers a bit.

115 teams
5 events
415,598 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq mile 2.76E-04
Teams/Event 23

Seems like Ontario deserves districts.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by donkehote

Changed it so its just ontario, as including the 39 teams in quebec for the massive land area (595,391 sq mi) skews the numbers a bit.

115 teams
5 events
415,598 Sq Miles
Teams/Sq mile 2.76E-04
Teams/Event 23

Seems like Ontario deserves districts.

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by Mr V

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year. The district system would not change the number of events, and the swich to two-day events would decrease the number of volunteer hours needed.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year.

Source?

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Source?

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...egional-events

The new regional is Greater Toronto Central.

Last year they ran GTR East, GTR West, Waterloo, Windsor Essex and North Bay. There is a possibility that they could be removing one of those regionals, but I see no reason to assume that.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...egional-events

The new regional is Greater Toronto Central.

Last year they ran GTR East, GTR West, Waterloo, Windsor Essex and North Bay. There is a possibility that they could be removing one of those regionals, but I see no reason to assume that.

GTR Central is located in the heart of downtown. I don't think it's safe to assume it's a brand new regional, since we know that GTRW at the Crescent School was only a one year arrangement. I suspect this is just a rebranding and relocating of GTRW, but a new regional would be pretty awesome!

My point is don't state something for fact when it's anything but.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

Ontario had 5 regionals last year, and they are adding a new one this year. The district system would not change the number of events, and the swich to two-day events would decrease the number of volunteer hours needed.

Apparently you missed the part about having people (in charge) willing to make the jump. It is not just about the event volunteers but also about the hours needed for all the logistics and preparations needed for District events vs the traditional Regional. It is also about the equipment needed for District events.

I guarantee that if the people who run the events in the Ontario area had approached FIRST and said that they wanted to join the District System, and had a viable plan to make it happen FIRST would have approved it. The fact that they approved the IN mini-district model shows FIRST's commitment to the transition to the District System.

FIRST actually approached the PNW with the desire for us to move to the District System for the 2013 season but we didn't think we could make it happen, in a high quality manner, in the time that we had after they suggested it. So we stuck with the traditional Regional events for 2013 and started gearing up to move to the District System for the 2014 season. The number of people working behind the scenes, and the number of hours involved was quite significant.

To expand on what others have said when an area switches to the District System they are responsible for many things that FIRST handles for Regional events. Negotiating contracts with the event, procuring the field, transporting the field, negotiating a contract with the AV provider or obtaining the equipment and providing the staff for the AV production. There also needs to be a plan for storing the equipment between events and during the off season. As I told a number of people from FIRST who came to our events, at CMP and the Global Community Conference the switch to districts gave me a whole new appreciation for the things that FIRST headquarters does for the Regional events that WFR was now responsible for. That was just during the transition season where FIRST actually supplied a number of items and support that they will not be doing for our second season.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Mr V

It is not a matter of an area "deserving" to be part of the district system it is a matter of an area having the people willing to make the jump to the district system as it requires a non profit org being set up if there isn't one already and a lot of work from the organizers and an increase in the number of dedicated volunteers.

While this may not apply to Ontario, it does apply to Minnesota. It seems unfair to complain about the Michigan, MAR, PNW, and NE areas benefiting from a district system and "excluding" everyone else, when they have put in a lot of work to get where they are. If Minnesota (or any other area) wants a district system, they need to work to get the volunteer base, the venues, the funding, and the infrastructure to do it. Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

While this may not apply to Ontario, it does apply to Minnesota. It seems unfair to complain about the Michigan, MAR, PNW, and NE areas benefiting from a district system and "excluding" everyone else, when they have put in a lot of work to get where they are. If Minnesota (or any other area) wants a district system, they need to work to get the volunteer base, the venues, the funding, and the infrastructure to do it. Despite what people might think, FIRST does little more than issue guidelines for how to participate in their global competition structure. They don't actually make any of it happen, it's the volunteers, students, parents, teachers, and the rest at home who do all the work of organizing events, venues, volunteers, team funding, etc.

The other thing local organizations need to think about is the health of the teams in their area. It's not just about starting lots of teams and getting events and recruiting as many volunteers as possible. We want this to be a quality experience for our kids. Poorly trained volunteers and a large number of floundering teams don't help.

Fairness is raised in these discussions all too often in my opinion. FIRST has created a two-tiered system within a competition that does benefit teams from districts by providing additional plays per $ as well as more opportunities to qualify for Champs. Pointing out a dichotomy should not be characterized as "unfair" discourse. I posted the following in the Frank Answers... about Championship qualifications and believe it is still valid.

"Some geographic regions lack the population density to transition to district play for the foreseeable future. Teams from these areas currently can choose to participate in regional events as their travel budgets allow but are not allowed to compete in district events. As the transition to district models proceeds as envisioned by FIRST (think California for example), the playing opportunities for these non-travel averse teams will diminish as will their chances for taking part in Champs in St. Louis.

Currently district participants can benefit from additional plays per $ but find they may no longer compete with historic rivals should those rivals become part of another district. This realization has generated calls for inter-district play to be included as a planning priority as well as the development of a uniform qualification methodology for districts.

FIRST appears to believe that the district model represents its goal for the future. If this is the case, I propose the creation of a world-wide district with a single unified qualification methodology. Geographically isolated teams could continue to travel for competitions or be incentivized to stage a local event (Hawaii x2 anyone?). Historic rivalries could continue. There also would be no complaints about district teams taking qualification slots by winning Regional events. I doubt that this is the best proposal and I welcome constructive criticism but I believe that the continuation of the current development path with districts vs regionals with its arbitrary setting of boundaries (waiting to see how FIRST handles California/Nevada given the recent PNW/Idaho precedent), reduction of qualification opportunities for non-district teams, and interference with historic team rivalries is worse."

Concerns have also been raised about a perceived need to lengthen the season to provide time for individual district championships while leaving time for travel/accommodation arrangements. I suggest that if FIRST implements a unified qualification methodology within a global district model, that week of competition could be eliminated as the top 600 teams ranked globally advance to Champs....

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by mwmac

FIRST appears to believe that the district model represents its goal for the future. If this is the case, I propose the creation of a world-wide district with a single unified qualification methodology. Geographically isolated teams could continue to travel for competitions or be incentivized to stage a local event (Hawaii x2 anyone?). Historic rivalries could continue. There also would be no complaints about district teams taking qualification slots by winning Regional events. I doubt that this is the best proposal and I welcome constructive criticism but I believe that the continuation of the current development path with districts vs regionals with its arbitrary setting of boundaries (waiting to see how FIRST handles California/Nevada given the recent PNW/Idaho precedent), reduction of qualification opportunities for non-district teams, and interference with historic team rivalries is worse."

Concerns have also been raised about a perceived need to lengthen the season to provide time for individual district championships while leaving time for travel/accommodation arrangements. I suggest that if FIRST implements a unified qualification methodology within a global district model, that week of competition could be eliminated as the top 600 teams ranked globally advance to Champs....

It is FIRST's plan to transition to the District System it is not something that they "think" they want to do, they are doing it and are actively trying to recruit areas to make the transition to the District System.

There was no precedent set in the PNW/Idaho boundaries. The PNW district wanted the ID teams to join the district but the ID teams did not want to join. It was revisited again after the 2014 season and they do not want to join for the 2015 season.

As far as the timing the current plan is for the PNW District to have our DCMP week 6 to increase the time for teams to plan for CMP. Long term the plan is to have the District events weeks 1-4 and give a break before DCMP.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Mr V

There was no precedent set in the PNW/Idaho boundaries. The PNW district wanted the ID teams to join the district but the ID teams did not want to join. It was revisited again after the 2014 season and they do not want to join for the 2015 season.

Hmm, this is news to me. I suppose it is the only conceivable reason that they ended up being excluded (I can't imagine FIRST or PNW having any reason to draw the line there). But I would have expected ID to want in ... Too much travel to attend a second event?

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

Hmm, this is news to me. I suppose it is the only conceivable reason that they ended up being excluded (I can't imagine FIRST or PNW having any reason to draw the line there). But I would have expected ID to want in ... Too much travel to attend a second event?

FIRST's original intention was to have MT and ID as part of the PNW District. MT teams would have had way too much additional travel so they were quickly dropped. It was put out to the RD for the ID area to poll their teams and see if the teams wanted to join or not. For the S. ID teams it would have meant a lot more travel as many of them did not traditionally play in PNW Regionals. There was some talk of the N. ID teams joining but from what I've heard the majority did not want to join. FIRST does have to draw a line somewhere and while they would prefer to follow state lines they were willing to let N. ID teams join.

I can't speak as to why any particular team or teams did not want to join the PNW district.