Indiana going to Districts for 2015

[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?

[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!

[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.)

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.)

Thanks for the history lesson. I've been reading through some of those old threads and it's cool to hear some retrospective from someone who was there. Things can change a lot in half a decade. I'll be interested to see how much the model changes in the next five years.

[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.