(Lack of) Value in the Regional Model

[Lil' Lavery]

A lot of what I wanted to say has been pointed out already. I am a staunch supporter of districts, but I also believe that a lot of Kevin's gripes can be addressed outside of the district system. Just as I was back in 2009. People forget what a radical change districts were when they first appeared, and how much of that has transitioned into the regional experience. Instead of crating and shipping our robots to our local events, we bag and tag them. While the amount of matches per event is still a concern, 7-8 per team used to be the norm regardless of event size. Running 12 matches was unheard of, even at small events.

The regional experience can be further improved independent of which areas become districts. FIRST HQ can make outlines to regional planning committees, regional directors, and FTAs more clear on the quantities of matches to be run. FIRST HQ can make outlines to the judges advisors about how to distribute judges. If anything, this sounds like a great place for input by the FRC team advocate*.

*I have no idea what the FRC team advocate does on a day-to-day basis or if they would actually have any say on this matter, but it at least fits the job title

I'd also like to point out that there are district events held in venues other than high school gyms. When affordable, college stadiums/athletic facilities are still venues at the district level. I know of events at UMASS-Dartmouth, Northeastern, WPI, Rutgers, NJIT, and Purdue off the top of my head. I'm sure there have been some in Michigan and PNW as well.

While a supporter of districts, I do want to point out that the production/AV losses can be more significant than some are letting on, at least initially. MAR has improved significantly in the AV department over the years, but the first season had projectors without suitable power, audio equipment that wasn't audible in portions of venues, poor quality webcasts, and the lack of production value at the MAR Championship event has lagged behind that of regionals ever since Show Ready stopped providing it. This is to be expected, and things have improved dramatically as MAR learned what needed to be fixed and people gained experience in how to fix it. Hopefully the lessons learned from each existing district can help smooth the learning curve even more for future districts.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Many on this thread have experience with district events and they are in favor of the change. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind their views. If it is strictly financial I don't buy into it. IMHO a big part (being redundant now) in the overall experience for kids is getting out and raising $$. At least that is our model and I believe that is why they offer an entrepreneur award.

The entrepeneurship award can still exist even if the fundraising goal is changed. Some arbitrary value on the amount that needs to be raised in funds doesn't remove that experience from the equation.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Our kids get to present twice for chairman's. Do you get this with district? I don't know. The list goes on.........

Yes, you still can present Chairman's at each event you attend (unless you win your first one).

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The regional experience can be further improved independent of which areas become districts. FIRST HQ can make outlines to regional planning committees, regional directors, and FTAs more clear on the quantities of matches to be run. FIRST HQ can make outlines to the judges advisors about how to distribute judges. If anything, this sounds like a great place for input by the FRC team advocate*.

While the discussion about regionals vs districts is important, Sean hit the nail on the head. The fact is that districts WILL eventually be universal (for all but a few select locations), but until that happens, most of us are stuck with the regional model. This is not a *BAD* thing, but the regional model needs some refinement, and the areas that Sean hit on is exactly what I'm after.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

While it would be nice to do six minute turn around times and give people more matches you also have to realize that there is little margin for error with such a tight window. Often the events will suffer death by a thousand paper cuts. A minute lost here, a minute lost there and next thing you know you are a half hour behind. God forbid something serious happens to the field or a team comes out that is just not connecting at all. It is really hard to make an event run smoothly without losing time. In my personal opinion I think they should at least do seven minute turnaround times for the championships but Ii know they are going to push for six minute turn around times. That's gonna be a tall order to pull off.

You're absolutely right. The schedule must be properly crafted to allow for unforeseen circumstances. The answer is not to universally apply 6 minute cycle times, but possibly to allow the cycle to be adjusted on the fly if things are going smoothly. Cycle time is also related to directives given for introductions, load-in/out of robots, and of course, field reset. We were spoiled last year where field reset was a piece of cake compared to this year. '13 wasn't terrible and neither was '12.

No doubt its a tough thing to figure out - if it were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.