Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Taylor

There's always a third option.
For those in a regional/district wasteland, create your own system.
I'll pick on Idaho, since those nice people seem to be the most vocal on this thread.
I saw 19 ID teams participated in Aerial Assist. For 2015, Indiana will be a district system with roughly 60 teams. So, the challenge is set: if each ID team starts two others (on average), you can have your very own district, set up when and where you want events to be, and possibly create interdistrict play with your out-of-state friends/rivals.
That's a big challenge. Lots of work. Tons of planning. Army of volunteers, mountains of paperwork, so much trouble. I know, because we've done it. So have our friends in Michigan, PNW, MAR, NE...
I realize this doesn't create an immediate solution. It doesn't help you for 2015, or likely 2016 or 17. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. You just have to screw it in.

Edit: I truly am not trying to be condescending in tone; please don't read that in this post. At all.

Since you state that you are "not trying to be condescending in tone" as you "pick on" us "nice people" in the "regional/district wasteland" of Idaho, I feel compelled to respond. Firstly, sincere congratulations on pioneering a new district model concept. However, I would posit that tripling the team population in any state within 3 or 4 years would raise serious concerns about team sustainability. Putting that aside, let's examine some facts as we consider your challenge. 23 years elapsed before Indiana reached the 60 team milestone. Idaho has taken 10 years to reach 19 teams. Applying Indiana's historic rate of growth would require almost 16 years for Idaho to add 41 teams, (that is an awfully long tunnel). Indiana generates a GSP of $298 billion compared to $58 billion for Idaho; has a population density approximately ten times greater and a population 4 times larger than Idaho.

It is not a fear of hard work (we all work hard), that has driven my comments here and elsewhere for FIRST to consider establishing the world as a single district with a single scoring system, an elimination of district championships and the top 600 ranked teams advancing to Champs. Rather it is a recognition of economic and population distribution realities coupled with a desire for there to be a championship qualification process that is perceived by all participating teams to be fair and equitable. We have all seen the threads discussing # of plays per $, bag access periods and multiple iteration opportunities for district participants vs single regional qualifying teams. IMO the current district growth model and its Balkanization of the FIRST world will perpetuate and heighten the competition differential between district member teams and regional qualifier teams.

Finally, you challenge the "wasteland residents" to "create their own system" by essentially creating a district thereby permitting our district members to enjoy the benefits of the district model and inter-district playing opportunities. I would suggest that economic rationalities dictate that the "wasteland residents" will continue to fundraise for travel expenses and team sustainability for the foreseeable future. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride"

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by mwmac

However, I would posit that tripling the team population in any state within 3 or 4 years would raise serious concerns about team sustainability. Putting that aside, let's examine some facts as we consider your challenge. 23 years elapsed before Indiana reached the 60 team milestone. Idaho has taken 10 years to reach 19 teams. Applying Indiana's historic rate of growth would require almost 16 years for Idaho to add 41 teams, (that is an awfully long tunnel).

In Minnesota there have definitely been sustainability issues. Both with volunteer base and sponsorship dollars. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think Minnesota went from 2 active teams in 2006 to over 180 in 2013.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

In Minnesota there have definitely been sustainability issues. Both with volunteer base and sponsorship dollars. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think Minnesota went from 2 active teams in 2006 to over 180 in 2013.

That's correct. And they did so in a, surprisingly, sustainable manner. I went through and checked teams that stopped competing in MN 2006 - 2010 (2 - 180)...

2006 Teams 2
2007 Lost 0
2008 Lost 0
2009 Lost 3
2010 Lost 3


I'm sure I could continue to count but the gist of it is that they haven't lost a ton of teams. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine how successful these teams are for various measures.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

In Minnesota there have definitely been sustainability issues. Both with volunteer base and sponsorship dollars. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think Minnesota went from 2 active teams in 2006 to over 180 in 2013.

186 in 2014 I believe. Also before Green Machine and the Banner Bots in 2006 there was Team 10 The Red Knights from St. Louis Park who competed from 1998 to 2002. Everyone tends to forget that there was a team before 2006.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

In Minnesota there have definitely been sustainability issues. Both with volunteer base and sponsorship dollars. I'm sure someone will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think Minnesota went from 2 active teams in 2006 to over 180 in 2013.

Fantastic job on team growth and retention! Please note that the economic and population disparities between MN and ID could be, I believe, a key driver in an area's ability to grow/retain teams: 2009: MN GSP $323b vs ID GSP $54b; population: MN 5.4m vs ID 1.59m; population density: MN 67/sq mi vs ID 19/sq mi.