FIRST Chesapeake Districts

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

So I shouldn't point out the inherent inequity to VA teams? This doesn't make sense. For my team this change is going to add a significant financial burden. A quick ballpark figure is an extra $10k a year. I can't imagine how this is going to affect the smaller teams in my state.
I have two ideas to reduce travel costs.
1. give geographic priority to teams out of the DC metro area to their local events.
2. rotate the Champs between Richmond and MD on a yearly basis.

These seems simple enough.

I'd be curious how you derived that 10k number. Did it include DCMP? Was it based off a single regional season? So we can have some semblance of a useful conversation about this, I propose that we speak in terms of estimated cost per match. To compute this, I'd assume it'd involve estimating travel costs to the two geographically closest district events[1] then dividing by 24. Then we can compare this to your actual cost per match at your regionals from last year.

DCMP is, to me, more comparable to your CMP cost as, for many lower resourced teams, it's the culminating event of the season.


[1] From my research, most teams tend to go to the nearest districts if they only attend 2 events. If the area is dense enough to fill up it likely warrants an additional district.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'd be curious how you derived that 10k number. Did it include DCMP? Was it based off a single regional season? So we can have some semblance of a useful conversation about this, I propose that we speak in terms of estimated cost per match. To compute this, I'd assume it'd involve estimating travel costs to the two geographically closest district events[1] then dividing by 24. Then we can compare this to your actual cost per match at your regionals from last year.

DCMP is, to me, more comparable to your CMP cost as, for many lower resourced teams, it's the culminating event of the season.


[1] From my research, most teams tend to go to the nearest districts if they only attend 2 events. If the area is dense enough to fill up it likely warrants an additional district.

There is one issue with comparing it by cost per match, just because it is cheaper for each match doesn't mean it is cheaper in total. Districts are cheaper by cost per match, but actually more expensive in total in some cases, example below:

Regional
Local regional - 1st registration fee + no travel costs
Travel regional - 2nd registration fee + travel costs

District
Local district - 1st registration fee + no travel costs
Travel district - no registration fee + travel costs
DCMP - 2nd registration fee + travel costs

In the district scenario the total cost ends up being more because the team has to travel twice instead of once. This is not the case for all teams and obviously assumes they qualify for the DCMP. 2363 always had to travel twice and that won't change by moving to the district model so our costs will end up being equivalent.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Champs MUST rotate to VCU for equity's sake.

Why must the minority of teams be catered to for "equity's sake?" The population central of teams in the district is far closer to the MD site than Richmond/VCU. Having the DCMP there makes a lot more sense for the district as a whole, even if it's not ideal for some teams. Why not leave it near the population center for utility's sake?

Yes, there are teams that end up paying more in travel costs when they move from one regional competition to competing two, three, or fours times in a district system. It really shouldn't be as surprising or as controversial that competing in more events ends up costing more money to sparsely located teams.

Also, competing at the DCMP is not a requirement. Technically, you don't even have to compete at two district events (though your initial registration fee buys you into two of them). You can still compete with a comparable travel budget to a regional system, if you so chose.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

You shouldn't be asking if it solves inequity of travel costs. You should be asking does this make it worse most teams. There will always be inequity of travel costs and Districts can either exacerbate it, be approximately neutral, or be better. I'd like to see us at least make an effort to be neutral for the majority of teams.

I guess, more importantly, we shouldn't be whining about inequity of travel but instead we should be figuring out how to help teams most negatively impacted by these changes.

There will perpetually be some give and take with district event locations. MAR is commonly in a situation where the population center of teams is not what many consider an acceptable distance from most events. It appears the case may be that Chesapeake districts may bias too much towards the population center of teams, which can stunt growth and potentially damage team presence in other areas. There is probably a litany of reasons that the Hampton Roads area isn't stacked with FRC teams like it probably should be when you consider the industry there, but a reason that wouldn't be out of the question would be the lack of an official FRC event in a top 40 MSA, a distinction it shares with around 5 others, a situation being rectified this coming season.

I think Chesapeake's setup is more favorable to all teams than other district setups when it comes to balancing distances and therefore travel for all teams, but adding an event around Charlottesville / Waynesboro / Staunton / Harrisonburg / Winchester or along the 95 corridor in Central to North Central VA would be a solid move. I imagine a "tentative" bias towards locations in NoVA stem from the willingness to work with facilities that have been used in official and unofficial capacities in the past. For instance, I hope the Patriot Center stays on as a district location because while it was a pretty pathetic regional location it could easily be the best district location in the system.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

There is one issue with comparing it by cost per match, just because it is cheaper for each match doesn't mean it is cheaper in total. Districts are cheaper by cost per match, but actually more expensive in total in some cases, example below:

Regional
Local regional - 1st registration fee + no travel costs
Travel regional - 2nd registration fee + travel costs

District
Local district - 1st registration fee + no travel costs
Travel district - no registration fee + travel costs
DCMP - 2nd registration fee + travel costs

In the district scenario the total cost ends up being more because the team has to travel twice instead of once. This is not the case for all teams and obviously assumes they qualify for the DCMP. 2363 always had to travel twice and that won't change by moving to the district model so our costs will end up being equivalent.

I guess the TL;DR - I don't care about 2 regional teams when they complain that they have to travel to their second district since the OVERWHELMING majority already have to travel and their costs for the part of the season that everyone gets (districts) will likely go down approximately $4000. I've included 2014 data backing my claim that a large percentage of teams attending only one event and incur travel costs already.

Of the 1258 (46%) teams that attended only one regional in 2014[1] (2709 total teams), 577 (~46% of the 1258) traveled more than 40 miles and thus likely incurred some sort of travel cost (likely hotel stay) for their first event. The big thing I'm trying to get at is that for many teams a single event is ALREADY incurring travel costs and we should be trying to locate districts to minimize that number when locating events.


Edit- I'm more than willing to provide json dumps of my data should you want to recreate it/play with it.

Edit2 - In case anyone is curious, there ARE who attend 2+ regionals and were within 40 miles of both, here's your list: [333, 353, 369, 371, 623, 907, 1230, 1389, 1796, 2421, 2964, 4456, 4464]

[1] This is the last year I have data handy for.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I guess the TL;DR - I don't care about 2 regional teams when they complain that they have to travel to their second district since the OVERWHELMING majority already have to travel and their costs for the part of the season that everyone gets (districts) will likely go down approximately $4000. I've included 2014 data backing my claim that a large percentage of teams attending only one event and incur travel costs already.

Of the 1258 (46%) teams that attended only one regional in 2014[1] (2709 total teams), 577 (~46% of the 1258) traveled more than 40 miles and thus likely incurred some sort of travel cost (likely hotel stay) for their first event. The big thing I'm trying to get at is that for many teams a single event is ALREADY incurring travel costs and we should be trying to locate districts to minimize that number when locating events.


Edit- I'm more than willing to provide json dumps of my data should you want to recreate it/play with it.

Edit2 - In case anyone is curious, there ARE who attend 2+ regionals and were within 40 miles of both, here's your list: [333, 353, 369, 371, 623, 907, 1230, 1389, 1796, 2421, 2964, 4456, 4464]

[1] This is the last year I have data handy for.

Not for nothing, but Matt Wilson, Matt Lythgoe, and myself all operate out of Virginia where over 2/3rds of teams only compete at one regional, according to my weird document of area statistics I updated earlier in the year.

It's also probably worth noting that both 1086 and 2363 do help and have relationships with teams who are these one event only teams. Teams the size of 422, 1086, and 2363 will likely rise to the challenge of extra fundraising necessary to continue operating in the new system but it's worthwhile to raise concerns for the teams who may have no idea any of this is even happening.

[FrankJ]

Georgia is also going to districts. Highly likely for 2016. Near certainty 2017. This is going to make it extremely difficult for our southeast friends that are not going to the district model to attend 2 events. It also means regional in SC & NC will be sort of land locked surrounded by districts. Sorry for the semi off topic semi rant.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I guess the TL;DR - I don't care about 2 regional teams when they complain that they have to travel to their second district since the OVERWHELMING majority already have to travel and their costs for the part of the season that everyone gets (districts) will likely go down approximately $4000. I've included 2014 data backing my claim that a large percentage of teams attending only one event and incur travel costs already.

Of the 1258 (46%) teams that attended only one regional in 2014[1] (2709 total teams), 577 (~46% of the 1258) traveled more than 40 miles and thus likely incurred some sort of travel cost (likely hotel stay) for their first event. The big thing I'm trying to get at is that for many teams a single event is ALREADY incurring travel costs and we should be trying to locate districts to minimize that number when locating events.


Edit- I'm more than willing to provide json dumps of my data should you want to recreate it/play with it.

Edit2 - In case anyone is curious, there ARE who attend 2+ regionals and were within 40 miles of both, here's your list: [333, 353, 369, 371, 623, 907, 1230, 1389, 1796, 2421, 2964, 4456, 4464]

[1] This is the last year I have data handy for.

I 100% agree with you. My point was, using cost-per-match to say that districts are cheaper is incorrect. However, I think we can both agree that you can use the cost per match to evaluate the value of a district event. Even if you can only afford to go to a single district event you get more value from the event than you do from travelling to a single regional.

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Georgia is also going to districts. Highly likely for 2016. Near certainty 2017. This is going to make it extremely difficult for our southeast friends that are not going to the district model to attend 2 events. It also means regional in SC & NC will be sort of land locked surrounded by districts. Sorry for the semi off topic semi rant.

I believe I've heard that NC is in talks to go to districts in a similar fashion to Indiana.

[Thad House]

Coming from the PNW, I will say that moving the district championship to an area with many less teams actually nets out to costing more teams more money. In 2014, our championship was in Portland. That meant about 12 teams did not have travel costs. This year, they move the championship to Spokane. This increased the travel time for all but 4-5 teams, and actually cost more teams money, since there were less teams in the local area. You really do want the district championship in the most densely populated area of the district. That way if there are teams that need help raising money, its less teams, which should be easier to find money for. Ideally, we would have our championship in Seattle, but the venues in Seattle are not ideal for a championship, and people love the venue we have here in Portland.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Thad House

Coming from the PNW, I will say that moving the district championship to an area with many less teams actually nets out to costing more teams more money. In 2014, our championship was in Portland. That meant about 12 teams did not have travel costs. This year, they move the championship to Spokane. This increased the travel time for all but 4-5 teams, and actually cost more teams money, since there were less teams in the local area. You really do want the district championship in the most densely populated area of the district. That way if there are teams that need help raising money, its less teams, which should be easier to find money for. Ideally, we would have our championship in Seattle, but the venues in Seattle are not ideal for a championship, and people love the venue we have here in Portland.

Couldn't you just have 2 District Championships?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I 100% agree with you. My point was, using cost-per-match to say that districts are cheaper is incorrect. However, I think we can both agree that you can use the cost per match to evaluate the value of a district event. Even if you can only afford to go to a single district event you get more value from the event than you do from travelling to a single regional.



I believe I've heard that NC is in talks to go to districts in a similar fashion to Indiana.

Honestly, my goal with cost per match wasn't to prove it was cheaper. It was so we were talking the same units. If your 10k figure includes DCMP and travel costs to it it's not comparable to one that doesn't.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Honestly, my goal with cost per match wasn't to prove it was cheaper. It was so we were talking the same units. If your 10k figure includes DCMP and travel costs to it it's not comparable to one that doesn't.

Correct. Let's look at one that doesn't include DCMP:

Single Regional - registration fee + travel costs

District 1 - registration fee + no travel costs
District 2 - no registration fee + travel costs

In this situation it should basically come out to even, but if you have to travel twice because there isn't a district event close to you then the cost goes up compared to a single regional. However, you still have the option to only go to one district event, and you still get an increase in value by doing this.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Couldn't you just have 2 District Championships?

We only have about 150 teams. About 75-90 in the Seattle Area. about 30-40 more in the portland area, and the rest are spread out, with about 15 located in the spokane area.

Here is a map of the district and its teams. The red dot is spokane, the green dot is portland. Its about a 6.5 hour drive between the 2. Seattle to portland is about a 3.5 hour drive, Seattle to Spokane is about a 5 hour drive.



I can't figure out why the image is not showing up, so here's a link. http://imgur.com/V4gC06f

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Thad House

We only have about 150 teams. About 75-90 in the Seattle Area. about 30-40 more in the portland area, and the rest are spread out, with about 15 located in the spokane area.

Here is a map of the district and its teams. The red dot is spokane, the green dot is portland. Its about a 6.5 hour drive between the 2. Seattle to portland is about a 3.5 hour drive, Seattle to Spokane is about a 5 hour drive.

:cough: 2 champs joke :cough:

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Georgia is also going to districts. Highly likely for 2016. Near certainty 2017. This is going to make it extremely difficult for our southeast friends that are not going to the district model to attend 2 events. It also means regional in SC & NC will be sort of land locked surrounded by districts.

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I believe I've heard that NC is in talks to go to districts in a similar fashion to Indiana.

NC is confirmed for an "Indiana style" small district system in 2016. I foresee expanding that district to include SC in the future. From the rumors I've heard, SC was approached early on to join, but resisted...this may or may not be true. GA could also expand, but I'm not close to any of the discussions there.

More toward the original topic - I am liking the thought of two Virginia district events within reasonable driving distance of Northern NC...giving us some potential options for inter-district 3rd events!