Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

I think this has been touched on a little bit, but I'd like to make it more concrete.

Many talk about a hybrid system (such as we have now) as if it's really bad. But we should think about how it compares to what we have now. Right now, most teams pay $5000 for a regional somewhere in their vicinity, maybe an additional $4000 for another event, and then go straight to CMP. Some teams in areas that have worked very hard to establish a district system benefit from this with more, cheaper playing time, smaller events, etc.

What makes adding an individual district worse? (vs going all districts, which is really not feasible for a while, if ever.) It definitely benefits the teams in the new district, and they deserve it because of the hard work needed to get there. Does it harm other teams? They do not see their playing time get more expensive, as some have suggested. It's still $5000 plus maybe $4000 and then straight to CMP. Maybe all nearby events are no longer available, but I think in these cases FIRST needs to consider opt-ins to the district system for nearby teams. Saying that district teams are coming and stealing your regional spots is kind of a sad argument (don't you think they would have traveled even if they weren't in a district?).

I'm saying that adding a district is good for those in the district, and really not a big deal for those well outside of it (those right on the cusp should have an option to join if regional availability suddenly vanishes). The people in district areas work their butts off to get the benefits, and the rest of us keep what we had. So let's not demand all or nothing on districts because of perceived inequality in a hybrid system. This inequality is directly related to the strength of the FRC community in your area, and as I've said before, a lot of FIRST happens because of the volunteers, mentors, and people at home, not the people at HQ.

Well I guess all of us rural teams in areas where it is extremely difficult to start teams are stuck paying more for less play. The more disadvantaged are stuck at an even bigger disadvantage. I understand why now we have a hybrid system but eventually it does needs to go everywhere. Otherwise you WILL see rural teams folding and/or less successful. Rural teams have to work twice as hard for a dollar than a lot of urban teams do, and now they are paying even more. We pay close to 8-10 thousand for two events, whereas districts get two events for the price of one.

I would like to see an opt in system. Otherwise you WILL see pockets of teams where travel to events is nearly impossible because the nearest event may be 10-15 hours away.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Well I guess all of us rural teams in areas where it is extremely difficult to start teams are stuck paying more for less play. The more disadvantaged are stuck at an even bigger disadvantage. I understand why now we have a hybrid system but eventually it does needs to go everywhere. Otherwise you WILL see rural teams folding and/or less successful. Rural teams have to work twice as hard for a dollar than a lot of urban teams do, and now they are paying even more. We pay close to 8-10 thousand for two events, whereas districts get two events for the price of one.

I would like to see an opt in system. Otherwise you WILL see pockets of teams where travel to events is nearly impossible because the nearest event may be 10-15 hours away.

To be clear, I don't mean to belittle the efforts of your team or any other in a rural area where travel, fundraising, and local growth are all more difficult. I've been very impressed with what 2614 has accomplished in the last 7 years.

However, I'd like to point that you say "even bigger disadvantage" and that you will be "paying even more," and this is what I was trying to address. You are not paying any more for your events just because someone somewhere else is paying less. District expansion does not make things worse for teams outside districts, only better for teams inside districts. You (and us) always had to pay 8-10 grand for two events, and this number won't go up with district expansion. Their number just goes down, so how is that anything but good?

The edge case is when all your event options are lost to the district, in which case opt-ins should be a possibility.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

I know Sean knows this, but just to clarify for a more general audience: teams, volunteers, and planning committee members are very often the same people. Very engaged, passionate, overworked, under-recognized people. They are the ones who inspire me.

And please correct me if I'm wrong (I am not someone from a district area), but as I understand it, the district non-profit and the volunteers who make everything happen are responsible for a whole lot more than most regional planning committees. Not only do they coordinate volunteers and secure venues and funding. They secure a lot more of these things, and have to provide field equipment, transportation, and storage, their own A/V coverage, key volunteers for all their events, all financial transactions relating to these (requiring a distinct, local non-profit bank account, instead of routing everything through HQ), etc.

A good illustration of all this can be found in this document (in particular on page 3). Regional Planning Committees bear no financial risk and have a lot of the process taken care of by HQ. They are only responsible for rounding up local volunteers, venues, and funding. Meanwhile, a district system takes all of these responsibilities and financial risks and manages them themselves.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

To be clear, I don't mean to belittle the efforts of your team or any other in a rural area where travel, fundraising, and local growth are all more difficult. I've been very impressed with what 2614 has accomplished in the last 7 years.

However, I'd like to point that you say "even bigger disadvantage" and that you will be "paying even more," and this is what I was trying to address. You are not paying any more for your events just because someone somewhere else is paying less. District expansion does not make things worse for teams outside districts, only better for teams inside districts. You (and us) always had to pay 8-10 grand for two events, and this number won't go up with district expansion. Their number just goes down, so how is that anything but good?

The edge case is when all your event options are lost to the district, in which case opt-ins should be a possibility.

You paid 8-10k to FIRST. You also paid for travel costs. As more districts close off regionals to you your travel costs will, likely, go up.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

You paid 8-10k to FIRST. You also paid for travel costs. As more districts close off regionals to you your travel costs will, likely, go up.

Could not agree more with you. Should FIRST remove Vegas regional or roll it into California district Team Tators will have a choice between Denver or Calgary for the nearest second event with a substantial increase in travel costs.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

However, I'd like to point that you say "even bigger disadvantage" and that you will be "paying even more," and this is what I was trying to address. You are not paying any more for your events just because someone somewhere else is paying less. District expansion does not make things worse for teams outside districts, only better for teams inside districts. You (and us) always had to pay 8-10 grand for two events, and this number won't go up with district expansion. Their number just goes down, so how is that anything but good?

You don't get it.

A rural team, currently, pays $5K registration, plus travel to ONE event (let's just call that $5K, and include a few of the nice-to-haves like T-shirts in that if it's lower). So, for a measly little $10K (which, I might add, they have fewer places they can look for), they get about 10 matches plus practice at one regional.

Now let's take a district team from a relatively urban area. They pay the same $5K registration, plus travel to TWO events that are within a relatively short distance--I understand some teams in MI can go to two events without a hotel stay at either one!--so let's just say that they pay $2500 on total travel/other stuff (one fewer night in the hotel for the away event). And, they're in a more urban area, so more potential sponsors. $7500 gets them 24 matches at two events.

The rural team sees that they need a second event. Automatically double their budget for another 10 matches. $20K for 20 matches. They're paying more for fewer matches. (They're lucky, their 2nd event is still within a day's drive.)

Now... one or both of the rural team's events "goes district", with the team falling on the wrong side of the border. To get that 2nd event again, they've got to go even farther out--now it's 2 days of travel, or something like that. MORE money. Teams they competed with now have a huge discount for their 2nd event (as in, included with registration discount).



What you're saying is that that's NOT a huge disadvantage, and not getting even bigger. Nuh-uh. It's true that they're not paying more--but what he MEANT to say was "Paying even more than those teams in the district that just excluded us for the same number of events", or something like that. When the other teams are paying less for events, they can go to more events (and more chances to qualify for yet more events), invest more in the robot, all that good stuff.

It's not as trivial as y'all are making it sound.

[Alex2614]

Exactly. And to be clear, I want necessarily talking about just put team, as our city actually has a lot of potential sponsorship to choose from. But other teams in WV where their BIGGEST funding may be the board of education and the local Wal-Mart or if they are lucky another company close by. This is why rural teams fold more often. Coming up with 20k is not easy for anybody, especial rural teams. And to be clear, I wasn't saying that our costs are going up, but rather the advantage for urban teams only gets that much bigger.

I think that eventually we will see a district system everywhere, if nothing else out of necessity.

I understand why the expansion of districts has been slow and "region by region" but saying that it should only be in certain areas is almost like a slap in the face to teams outside those districts. Our costs are not going up, but the advantage is there. Now, if our regional costs were lowered that would be a different story. But urban teams already have much more potential out there for funding, and lowering their costs even more is the growing advantage I was talking about.

Now I understand not all district teams are urban, but for the most part, in general, they are.

[Nyxyxylyth]

Originally Posted by EricH

Now let's take a district team from a relatively urban area. They pay the same $5K registration, plus travel to TWO events that are within a relatively short distance--I understand some teams in MI can go to two events without a hotel stay at either one!

The new districts in Michigan helped spread things out a bit, but for lots of teams in the southeast, a one hour drive will get you to eight districts or even MSC. It's a scouting frenzy!

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth

The new districts in Michigan helped spread things out a bit, but for lots of teams in the southeast, a one hour drive will get you to eight districts or even MSC. It's a scouting frenzy!

I am allllll sorts of jealous.

For my team more-or-less in the center (edit:: population center of teams) of MAR, one hour gets us to one of our districts. Two hours gets us to most of the events, but still not the the DCMP. (With new events for 2015, we should be able to get to two districts within an hour's drive. But it's taken a lot of pushing with MAR to recognize that need for central NJ.)

Compounded with our silly school rules about travel distance/hotel necessity, it makes districts just as expensive (if not more) than regional travel. Just a personal case, as from my understanding most other teams don't have this problem. We're just unlucky with the school rules we're given to deal with.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I am allllll sorts of jealous.

For my team more-or-less in the center of MAR, one hour gets us to one of our districts. Two hours gets us to most of the events, but still not the the DCMP.

Compounded with our silly school rules about travel distance/hotel necessity, it makes districts just as expensive (if not more) than regional travel. Just a personal case, as from my understanding most other teams don't have this problem. We're just unlucky with the school rules we're given to deal with.

NE, the longest drive to a district event I had this year was 2.5 hours to Pine Tree. Oddly, the shortest drive I had to a district was 1 hour to Northeastern/DCMP (It's only 40 miles but traffic in Boston is bad). Actually, I'm pretty sure that I live in the hole of the donut when it comes to NEFIRST events because they are all between 1 and 2.5 hours away.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

NE, the longest drive to a district event I had this year was 2.5 hours to Pine Tree. Oddly, the shortest drive I had to a district was 1 hour to Northeastern/DCMP (It's only 40 miles but traffic in Boston is bad). Actually, I'm pretty sure that I live in the hole of the donut when it comes to NEFIRST events because they are all between 1 and 2.5 hours away.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry or be envious. IMO, if you don't have to fill up your fuel tank at least once your event is nearby. Our closest regional is Utah which is 342 miles and 5+ hrs away. Sacramento (unfortunately scheduled the same week as SLC for the past few years) is just 568 miles or 9.5 hours distant but becomes a non-issue once the district model as envisaged is implemented.

Vegas, which may or may not be returning to the schedule for 2015, was our best choice for a second regional last year in terms of both proximity and level of competition and we covered the 625 miles in only 11 hours. Hope Joe and FIRST HQ can make sure this regional is back for many years to come.

Our carbon footprint gets much larger for a second regional after Vegas: Denver is just 830 miles distant with an estimated 13 hour travel time; while Calgary is on the horizon at 957 miles and 15 hours (not including border stoppage time).

So for those of you faced with a within district journey of 2+ hours, please be grateful for what you have. Worldwide districts anyone?

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth

The new districts in Michigan helped spread things out a bit, but for lots of teams in the southeast, a one hour drive will get you to eight districts or even MSC. It's a scouting frenzy!

What portion of the southeast are you talking about? For us, the second nearest regional is 2.5 hours away and the third is (I believe) 3.5 hours away.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by Monochron

What portion of the southeast are you talking about? For us, the second nearest regional is 2.5 hours away and the third is (I believe) 3.5 hours away.

Southeast Michigan.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Don't know whether to laugh or cry or be envious. IMO, if you don't have to fill up your fuel tank at least once your event is nearby. Our closest regional is Utah which is 342 miles and 5+ hrs away. Sacramento (unfortunately scheduled the same week as SLC for the past few years) is just 568 miles or 9.5 hours distant but becomes a non-issue once the district model as envisaged is implemented.

Vegas, which may or may not be returning to the schedule for 2015, was our best choice for a second regional last year in terms of both proximity and level of competition and we covered the 625 miles in only 11 hours. Hope Joe and FIRST HQ can make sure this regional is back for many years to come.

Our carbon footprint gets much larger for a second regional after Vegas: Denver is just 830 miles distant with an estimated 13 hour travel time; while Calgary is on the horizon at 957 miles and 15 hours (not including border stoppage time).

So for those of you faced with a within district journey of 2+ hours, please be grateful for what you have. Worldwide districts anyone?

I'd be envious. When I was in FL It was a 1.5 hour drive to the nearest event. But a 5+ hour drive to the next one (once the SF regional came into existence, prior to that it was 7+ to get to Atlanta)

That being said, Utah regional is easily in the range of my car from you... so, by your metric it's close. (Vegas is JUST outside the range)

[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"