Registration 2015

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Michigan now has 344 teams with 78 rookies. This means we need 18 district events for sure. Still has 13 veteran teams from last year not registered (or waitlisted) for events. There may even be rookie teams still not assigned an event yet.

18 events? With Kentwood that makes only 17 as of now.

Escananba has 28 teams right now, and Traverse City has 31. If I counted correctly, there are about 12 teams who have Esky as home event that are probably waitlisted for Traverse (31 + 12 = 43 > 40). I wouldn't mind an 18th event somewhere up north.

Edit: With some newer additions at Esky, that's more like 15 UP teams that are likely waitlisted at Traverse (the 16th is going to West Michigan).

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

18 events? With Kentwood that makes only 17 as of now.

Escananba has 28 teams right now, and Traverse City has 31. If I counted correctly, there are about 12 teams who have Esky as home event that are probably waitlisted for Traverse (31 + 12 = 43 > 40). I wouldn't mind an 18th event somewhere up north.

Edit: With some newer additions at Esky, that's more like 15 UP teams that are likely waitlisted at Traverse (the 16th is going to West Michigan).

344 Teams x 2 Events each = 688 total spots needed (barring any more teams)

688 spots needed. 17 Events x 40 Spots = 680 spots available.

18th Event needed.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

344 Teams x 2 Events each = 688 total spots needed (barring any more teams)

688 spots needed. 17 Events x 40 Spots = 680 spots available.

18th Event needed.

It is not out of the question to have 41 or 42 teams at a District competition, is it?

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It is not out of the question to have 41 or 42 teams at a District competition, is it?

Its possible but they need an 18th event to facilitate third plays.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Its possible but they need an 18th event to facilitate third plays.

There is no requirement for 3rd plays.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It is not out of the question to have 41 or 42 teams at a District competition, is it?

Michigan is now at 350 teams, so the theoretical 18th event is half full. Also the previously stated demand for 3rd events. (Edited to add: Not that the 3rd play is required or anything, but FiM seems to have a unstated goal of getting as many teams as much play time as possible. This is based upon previous statements from multiple board members, and multiple years of many 3rd play spots).

If they ever ended up really in a jam, or team counts were only over capacity by one or two teams, I could see that being a last resort sort of option.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There is no requirement for 3rd plays.

There isn't but considering registration fees for third plays do not go to FIRST but instead stay in the district it is in the district's best interest to have those slots available.

[Taylor]

Third plays do not need to be in the state of Michigan. With the new inter-district play option, there are many opportunities for MI teams to play more than twice without the $4k registration fee.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Third plays do not need to be in the state of Michigan. With the new inter-district play option, there are many opportunities for MI teams to play more than twice without the $4k registration fee.

Yeah but from my understanding the 3rd play fee goes to the district where the play occurs. 3rd play fees are counted on in a district's annual budget. While small overall every bit helps and is needed to make this work.

From the team standpoint the cost of a 3rd play in another district ramps up travel costs significantly in many cases, so most would probably rather play in their home district from that stand point.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

...considering registration fees for third plays do not go to FIRST but instead stay in the district it is in the district's best interest to have those slots available.

I'm having difficulty making the math work out in favor of adding a district event. 40 district teams paying third-event fees, set against the cost of putting on a competition, seems unlikely to be a money-positive proposition to me. But if the organizers can make it happen, the benefits to the teams in the region are good.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm having difficulty making the math work out in favor of adding a district event. 40 district teams paying third-event fees, set against the cost of putting on a competition, seems unlikely to be a money-positive proposition to me. But if the organizers can make it happen, the benefits to the teams in the region are good.

The money a team pays towards its first two district events do not go to the district to fund that event. Those go to FIRST which does not give a district event money to run your event (in our case the Reading and UNH district events). The money to run those events the district has to raise.

This is what I have been told if this is not the case someone can set me straight.

Also in the wake of adding a new event some teams may drop their first or second events to they can attend the new event if it is closer so it would become a "primary" event for a good number of teams.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

The money a team pays towards its first two district events do not go to the district to fund that event. Those go to FIRST which does not give the specific event money to run your event (in our case the Reading and UNH district events). The money to run those events the district has to raise.

This is what I have been told if this is not the case someone can set me straight.

Alan is saying

40 X Registration Fee < Cost of District

You are correct that the money goes to the District System. But Alan is saying that's not economically viable as the sole reason to do another district.

[TikiTech]

Howzit!

Team 3880 – The Tiki Techs - Have received their final conformations and will be competing at the Australia, Hawaii and Silicon Valley regionals!

Looking forward to an exciting season.

Aloha!

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm having difficulty making the math work out in favor of adding a district event. 40 district teams paying third-event fees, set against the cost of putting on a competition, seems unlikely to be a money-positive proposition to me. But if the organizers can make it happen, the benefits to the teams in the region are good.

This is super fuzzy information, nobody quote me on this, but I recall districts being in the 7K-14K range. This post here from 2009 used to link to a presentation that showed the breakdown of how much was spent on each event. Does anybody have that document, or a more recent equivalent?

That said, there's a lot more to running an event that just the dollar cost, there's also drain on volunteers and limits on time and field availability to consider. The actual "cost" of an event is much higher than the dollar amount spent, and thus even if there is a slight financial gain from 3rd plays the biggest value is probably in team experience/satisfaction gained from more time on the field.

Edited to add: Okay I was wrong, average cost for a district (in 2009 anyway) was 24K. That's what I get for trying to remember things from 5 years ago. In my defense, the event I was involved in came in at around 10K Thanks Christopher149 for finding that. I wonder if there is more recent data in a similar vein?

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Allison K

This is super fuzzy information, nobody quote me on this, but I recall districts being in the 7K-14K range. This post here from 2009 used to link...

Here ya go. It says "Total expenses for the 7 events: $170,000".

I'm amused to see our robot in the Traverse picture.