Georgia Districts confirmed for 2016!

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by D.Allred

It's going to be an interesting year in SC. Normally NC and GA comprise 15% to 20% of Palmetto Regional teams. I'd be surprised to see any this year. At this point, we don't have a locked in date since the venue is not available week 1.

Good luck with your district events!

David

Finally...but too late! We avoided Palmetto in 2013 and 2014 because it was week 1...couldn't schedule any alternatives in 2015, so we came and showed just why we hate week 1 events so much (with our awful performance), and now that NC is switching to districts, Palmetto is finally going to be a different week. Bummer!

[ebarker]

Now I'm curious about when and where Palmetto is ?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Now I'm curious about when and where Palmetto is ?

I'm not on the committee, but here's what I know:

1) The Palmetto committee and Myrtle Beach Convention Center had the last weekend in February penciled in well in advance for the next few years.
2) FIRST jerked the rug from under everyone and said "Surpriiiiiise! Kickoff is January 9, not January 2." Which doesn't really matter if you're a later week, but if you're Week 1 you're hosed. Naturally, the venue was unavailable for New Week 1.
3) The lion's share of the financial backing for Palmetto is in the Myrtle Beach area, and the convention center is moving heaven and earth to accommodate us. I would be properly shocked if it moved from Myrtle Beach.
4) The last plan I heard--admittedly, about two months ago--is to stage Palmetto Wednesday/Thursday/Friday the first week of March (9-12) in Myrtle Beach.

--------------------------------

Georgia does have a certain special place in my heart, since Peachtree was home to one of my favorite memories in FRC. (The win was just the icing on that cake.) Congrats to our neighbors on reaching the transition point, and as a competitor I am beyond ready for South Carolina to join you there.

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I'm not on the committee, but here's what I know:

1) The Palmetto committee and Myrtle Beach Convention Center had the last weekend in February penciled in well in advance for the next few years.
2) FIRST jerked the rug from under everyone and said "Surpriiiiiise! Kickoff is January 9, not January 2." Which doesn't really matter if you're a later week, but if you're Week 1 you're hosed. Naturally, the venue was unavailable for New Week 1.
3) The lion's share of the financial backing for Palmetto is in the Myrtle Beach area, and the convention center is moving heaven and earth to accommodate us. I would be properly shocked if it moved from Myrtle Beach.
4) The last plan I heard--admittedly, about two months ago--is to stage Palmetto Wednesday/Thursday/Friday the first week of March (9-12) in Myrtle Beach.

--------------------------------

Georgia does have a certain special place in my heart, since Peachtree was home to one of my favorite memories in FRC. (The win was just the icing on that cake.) Congrats to our neighbors on reaching the transition point, and as a competitor I am beyond ready for South Carolina to join you there.

Yes, that is what I had heard as well. Right now the Myrtle Beach convention center calendar has FIRST robotics on the calendar for 2/26 - 2/27 (Fri - Sat) which obviously does not work.

But I can't see the next week working either since there is another event scheduled at the same time. Perhaps they could handle both? Or perhaps Palmetto will be a week 2 or 3 event?

I hope they can figure something out. A Wed-Thurs-Friday event is going to be trouble for a lot of teams, especially our long distance friends. This may be a much smaller Palmetto regional as a result.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

Perhaps they could handle both?

If I remember correctly MB has 3 or 4 halls, and the FRC event takes two halls. So yes, it could happen.

[MikeBrock]

Exciting! Hopefully this means Georgia will have an increase in team strength outside of the current few decent teams who make it to Champs.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by RufflesRidge

Hot take given that kickoff has never been held on January 2nd.

It was held January 9th in both 2010 and 1999 and the 1993 manual lists it as January 8th. This makes perfect sense given that the 2nd would put setup for kickoffs, as well as the Founder's Reception on New Year's day.

Shouldn't have been much of a surprise.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I would have been surprised if Kickoff had been January 2. It was "delayed a week" before recently enough that I think the planning committee ought to have known it was a possibility.

I could give the committee a pass for not remembering the 1993 and 1999 dates (only one South Carolina team existed at all in 1999), but I had forgotten about 2010. Perhaps the better phrasing is that the committee was caught off-guard by it.

Originally Posted by robochick1319

But I can't see the next week working either since there is another event scheduled at the same time. Perhaps they could handle both? Or perhaps Palmetto will be a week 2 or 3 event?

I hope they can figure something out. A Wed-Thurs-Friday event is going to be trouble for a lot of teams, especially our long distance friends. This may be a much smaller Palmetto regional as a result.

Originally Posted by ebarker

If I remember correctly MB has 3 or 4 halls, and the FRC event takes two halls. So yes, it could happen.

Wednesday-Thursday-Friday is kinda murderous for our 4-H club. I know schools are on a tight leash for time out of the classroom (ridiculous, but another topic), but in our case it's not even a field trip for our kids. Add in the Georgia and North Carolina events coming off the board, and it's going to be tough planning a schedule that lets us compete twice. (Yes, 4901 has always done Orlando as the second event. But with the calendar shift, will that be back-to-back? That's a roughness all its own!)

As for the convention center, there are three halls (plus a grand ballroom) in the building. Palmetto has always used B for the pits, C for the arena (and just as important, the pull-out bleachers).

All that said, I would not shed a single solitary tear if Palmetto shrank by a dozen teams next year. Week 1 and 67 teams means a lot of good teams are getting lost in the shuffle at their home event. (Columbia is a combined 0-for-18 on awards and playoff appearances in the three years it's been in Myrtle Beach. The three years before that, a Columbia team was in the winning alliance. We haven't fallen off that much, have we?)

[RufflesRidge]

Originally Posted by Billfred

2) FIRST jerked the rug from under everyone and said "Surpriiiiiise! Kickoff is January 9, not January 2." Which doesn't really matter if you're a later week, but if you're Week 1 you're hosed. Naturally, the venue was unavailable for New Week 1.

Hot take given that kickoff has never been held on January 2nd.

It was held January 9th in both 2010 and 1999 and the 1993 manual lists it as January 8th. This makes perfect sense given that the 2nd would put setup for kickoffs, as well as the Founder's Reception on New Year's day.

Shouldn't have been much of a surprise.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Billfred

2) FIRST jerked the rug from under everyone and said "Surpriiiiiise! Kickoff is January 9, not January 2."

I would have been surprised if Kickoff had been January 2. It was "delayed a week" before recently enough that I think the planning committee ought to have known it was a possibility.

[DonShaw]

So some interesting facts

77 teams were listed in GA for 2015 season and only 60 teams competed in 2015. Why did 22.5% (17) not compete last year.

Why hold District Championships (State) in Athens, GA which will require 99% of the teams to travel and bear the brunt of hotel and meals?

I hear "cost per play" mentioned as the reason that district model is better than regional. Well add the expense of travelling into the equation and you will see it will cost teams more per play than prior.

About 60% of the teams in GA are located in the Metro Atlanta area, would it not make more sense to hold the championship in the areas that holds most of the teams? This would require fewer teams travelling expenses.

Minimum cost to go to worlds will now be approximately $9k to go to state and another $4k for world costing $13K under the district model. This assumption is if no travelling is required to district events.

Minimum cost to go to worlds under regional model $9k ( one regional at $5k and worlds at $4k).

I just do not see the benefit when analyzed with all cost per play calculated not just registration fees of FIRST.

I see every teams annual budget increasing by about $10k to cover getting to State to qualify for World Championships in whatever city you get assigned to play in. Now add another $20k to cover worlds and see what cost per play is!

[Siri]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

Minimum cost to go to worlds will now be approximately $9k to go to state and another $4k for world costing $13K under the district model. This assumption is if no travelling is required to district events.

Minimum cost to go to worlds under regional model $9k ( one regional at $5k and worlds at $4k).

I just do not see the benefit when analyzed with all cost per play calculated not just registration fees of FIRST.

I see every teams annual budget increasing by about $10k to cover getting to State to qualify for World Championships in whatever city you get assigned to play in. Now add another $20k to cover worlds and see what cost per play is!

I won't comment on Georgia travel costs from Pennsylvania, but last year 495 of the 609* teams registered for Worlds went to at least 2 events beforehand. This includes all of the Georgia teams in attendance. Districts increase the hypothetical minimum registration cost for Worlds, but that doesn't apply across the vast majority of reality, particularly when discounting places that are not candidates for districts (e.g. international/low event density).

It's also true that the vast majority of teams do not go to Worlds, and District events themselves are a huge boon to the cost-per-play of all but the most remote teams in district-ready areas. (I'm working under the assumption that Georgia's team distribution is district-ready and their district event placement will reflect that.) That said, we in MAR know what it's like to have a District Championship decidedly not at the population center of teams, and this does take its toll. It doesn't doom the system though, and events can move over time.

*Team count fluctuated a little up to the event; this is using 1114's database. Edit: see Sunny's post. Sorry, I must have missed someone.

[ttldomination]

Don, that's a good post of concerns. Primarily because we can take quite a few of those concerns, and analyze them with numbers.

Originally Posted by DonShaw

I hear "cost per play" mentioned as the reason that district model is better than regional. Well add the expense of travelling into the equation and you will see it will cost teams more per play than prior.

So, I did some quick analysis on this on a number of different scenarios.

Now, please understand that there are quite a few variables at play, and I'm sure that there is a particular combination of team size, matches, performance, travel budget, etc. that'll disagree with what I have here.

Using the figures in OP's attached document, and assuming some basic information, here is the CPP breakdown.

Hotel Room: $100
Rooms: 10/night (28 students and 6 mentors)
Food: $10/meal
Travel: $500
Misc: $500

Team attends GSCR (No Travel, No Eliminations): $547
Team attends P'Tree and GSCR (1 Travel, No Eliminations): $792
Team attends P'Tree and GSCR (1 Travel, All Eliminations): $485

Team attends 2 Districts (2 Travel, No Eliminations): $485
Team attends 2 Districts (2 Travel, All Eliminations): $363
Team attends 2 Districts and State (3 Travel, No Elims at State): $395
Team attends 2 Districts and State (3 Travel, All Elims): $383

The bolded ones above represent the dynamic that your team (a large, successful team) is likely to fall into. As you can see, this move represents a 20% drop in cost per match. For a team that can only afford the registration fee and must travel to both events, there is still a significant improvement in CPM.

However, the number of matches does mask the reality that teams must dedicate more money. Including travel, 1261 would have to bring almost $5,000 more to the table in districts. A 1-regional team would have to bring $5,000 more to the table (assuming that they travel to both events).

The CPM numbers favor districts. The total cost numbers favor regionals.

Originally Posted by DonShaw

Minimum cost to go to worlds will now be approximately $9k to go to state and another $4k for world costing $13K under the district model. This assumption is if no travelling is required to district events.

Minimum cost to go to worlds under regional model $9k ( one regional at $5k and worlds at $4k).

So, this point is valid. Your minimum cost in order to get to worlds is higher in the district model.

However, I can't help but feel like this is an obvious point. Like, of course, you're paying for two more events, why wouldn't you pay more? But let's take a look at how many teams this actually effects.

There were 11 teams at worlds from GA. Of those 11, 3 went to one regional. Of those 3, 2 were on the waitlist. That means that hypothetically speaking, 1 team would have faced this cost barrier.

I don't think the numbers diminish what you're saying; they just put your point in perspective

Just looking at the facts,
- Sunny G.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

77 teams were listed in GA for 2015 season and only 60 teams competed in 2015. Why did 22.5% (17) not compete last year.

I don't know. Do you have any insight into the disparate numbers? (17/77 is only 22.1%, isn't it?)

Why hold District Championships (State) in Athens, GA which will require 99% of the teams to travel and bear the brunt of hotel and meals?

Your exaggerated numbers don't make me want to take you very seriously. In order to have 99% of teams travel, you'd need 100 teams at the state championship with only one not traveling. With fewer than 80 teams in total, that isn't very likely.

From a brief look at the map, it seems to me that there are at least four FRC teams in Georgia that wouldn't need to do an overnight trip to Athens. Even if every team in the state made the championship, that's less than 95% who would need to travel. Your point would have been just as strong had you said "more than 90%" instead of the hyperbolic "99%".

About 60% of the teams in GA are located in the Metro Atlanta area, would it not make more sense to hold the championship in the areas that holds most of the teams? This would require fewer teams travelling expenses.

It would make a lot of sense if you could assume two things: all teams are equally likely to attend the state championship, and the costs of the two venues are the same. The first assumption is reasonable, if perhaps a bit generous. Do you have any information on the second?

Minimum cost to go to worlds will now be approximately $9k to go to state and another $4k for world costing $13K under the district model. This assumption is if no travelling is required to district events.

Minimum cost to go to worlds under regional model $9k ( one regional at $5k and worlds at $4k).

I just do not see the benefit when analyzed with all cost per play calculated not just registration fees of FIRST.

If you analyze it again with two regionals, you'll see the benefit clearly. Complaining that it's more expensive to attend twice as many events doesn't strike me as an attitude I should care a lot about.

Originally Posted by ttldomination

So, I did some quick analysis on this on a number of different scenarios....

Team attends 2 Districts (2 Travel, No Eliminations): $485

You didn't show the numbers for a team that does not need an overnight trip for one of their events. That would make the cost per play even lower.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

So some interesting facts

77 teams were listed in GA for 2015 season and only 60 teams competed in 2015. Why did 22.5% (17) not compete last year.

If you look at the FIRST site for locating teams they show teams that have not competed for up to 3 or more years which is why there is the discrepancy. FIRST keeps them in the system in case they return and because of their rules for determining rookie status. Why that is in the publicly available team listings I'm not sure. So the reality is that only 60 teams registered for the 2015 season. Why those 17 teams dropped of over the last 3-4 years I do not know.

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Don, that's a good post of concerns. Primarily because we can take quite a few of those concerns, and analyze them with numbers.



So, I did some quick analysis on this on a number of different scenarios.

Now, please understand that there are quite a few variables at play, and I'm sure that there is a particular combination of team size, matches, performance, travel budget, etc. that'll disagree with what I have here.

Using the figures in OP's attached document, and assuming some basic information, here is the CPP breakdown.

Hotel Room: $100
Rooms: 10/night (28 students and 6 mentors)
Food: $10/meal
Travel: $500
Misc: $500

Team attends GSCR (No Travel, No Eliminations): $547
Team attends P'Tree and GSCR (1 Travel, No Eliminations): $792
Team attends P'Tree and GSCR (1 Travel, All Eliminations): $485

Team attends 2 Districts (2 Travel, No Eliminations): $485
Team attends 2 Districts (2 Travel, All Eliminations): $363
Team attends 2 Districts and State (3 Travel, No Elims at State): $395
Team attends 2 Districts and State (3 Travel, All Elims): $383

The bolded ones above represent the dynamic that your team (a large, successful team) is likely to fall into. As you can see, this move represents a 20% drop in cost per match. For a team that can only afford the registration fee and must travel to both events, there is still a significant improvement in CPM.

However, the number of matches does mask the reality that teams must dedicate more money. Including travel, 1261 would have to bring almost $5,000 more to the table in districts. A 1-regional team would have to bring $5,000 more to the table (assuming that they travel to both events).

The CPM numbers favor districts. The total cost numbers favor regionals.



So, this point is valid. Your minimum cost in order to get to worlds is higher in the district model.

However, I can't help but feel like this is an obvious point. Like, of course, you're paying for two more events, why wouldn't you pay more? But let's take a look at how many teams this actually effects.

There were 11 teams at worlds from GA. Of those 11, 3 went to one regional. Of those 3, 2 were on the waitlist. That means that hypothetically speaking, 1 team would have faced this cost barrier.

I don't think the numbers diminish what you're saying; they just put your point in perspective

Just looking at the facts,
- Sunny G.

Why the assumption that in the District system teams will have to travel for both of their district events but attending one Regional would require no travel? Fact is that district events are typically spread geographically so that hopefully the vast majority of teams will not have to travel to one of their district events.

Also how did you determine the number matches in your calculations? One of the requirements of the District System is that there are 12 qualifying events at each event. I don't know about the events in GA but around here 9 qualifying matches was what we typically got at a Regional. You also have to factor in the fact that a team is more likely to make it to the finals in the District System. I don't know how big the GA events will be and what the Regional events were but in the PNW we typically have ~32 teams at a district event and our Regionals were up to 64 teams. So a 75% chance of playing at least 2 more matches vs the Regional where the probability can be as little as 1/2 of that.

When I ran the rough numbers when the PNW District was started I found that the number of teams that had traditionally attended 2 Regionals was almost as large as the number of teams at our DCMP. In the end those teams did make up a large percentage of those who actually attended the DCMP. When you factor that in most of the teams that made it to DCMP did not have their registration fees go up while seeing their number of matches increase about 50%. The travel costs for a lot of them did go up but since a district event is only 2 days and are typically held in areas where hotels are cheaper than where the Regionals were held their travel costs did not double.

As I've pointed out in previous discussions of the District System FIRST does sell it as lower cost but in the real world it does lower the cost for some teams, keeps it about the same for others and increases the costs for the rest of the teams. On the other hand in my experience the teams that see their costs increase are those that benefit the most from participating in the District system.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You didn't show the numbers for a team that does not need an overnight trip for one of their events. That would make the cost per play even lower.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Why the assumption that in the District system teams will have to travel for both of their district events but attending one Regional would require no travel? Fact is that district events are typically spread geographically so that hopefully the vast majority of teams will not have to travel to one of their district events.

I primarily did this to test Don's theory that travel will tip the scales in favor of regionals. Not having to travel for a district will, of course, reduce the CPM and overall costs much more.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Also how did you determine the number matches in your calculations?

I used the numbers in the document that OP linked to. 12 matches per district, 8 matches for the Peachtree Regional (GA) and 11 matches for GSCR (GA).

I will repeat my disclaimer that I used some basic numbers and scenarios on either end of the extremes (all travel vs. no travel, all eliminations vs. no eliminations, etc.). There are many, many factors/scenarios/events that play into the CPM analysis.

- Sunny G.