Current Districts Map. Who is next?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

I understand your opinion and the districts system would be awesome here in MN, but IMO Minnesota isn't going to districts anytime soon. From what I've heard, MN has issues getting enough volunteers for the 4 regionals we have in our state, so thinking about districts and the number of events that may need to be put up for districts here is insane.

Maybe in the next 5 or so years it may switch to districts.. but that's just my guess.

The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch. Unfortunately, until you make the switch you won't have the volunteer base you need.

Build it and they will come.

[Michael Hill]

I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.

I can definitely see either a SoCal+Arizona and a NorCal+Nevada district, or just a combined California (but that is A LOT of driving...we drove from SF to San Diego on our honeymoon, and I would NOT want to drive it for a competition). I'm surprised Texas isn't already a district. New York+Southern Ontario is a possibility as well, but I'm sure that district would get swallowed up by the Canadian teams there, so I'm not sure how much New York would really WANT to be in that district.

[Jimmy Nichols]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.

That isn't the only reason the area isn't going Districts anytime soon. Also, Kentucky is not being included in any of the models.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I'd like an Ohio/Eastern Kentucky/Western PA/West Virginia district, but the problem is volunteers in the region. For some reason, we just can't get enough of them to run a good district.

I can definitely see either a SoCal+Arizona and a NorCal+Nevada district, or just a combined California (but that is A LOT of driving...we drove from SF to San Diego on our honeymoon, and I would NOT want to drive it for a competition). I'm surprised Texas isn't already a district. New York+Southern Ontario is a possibility as well, but I'm sure that district would get swallowed up by the Canadian teams there, so I'm not sure how much New York would really WANT to be in that district.

I can't wait for this to happen! I think the issue of volunteers is the same as everywhere else. You won't get enough volunteers until we actually make the switch, because there are currently fewer volunteer spots in the first place. Nobody is going to volunteer for a regional if all/most of the volunteer spots are filled, because they think that they will just be standing around doing nothing. But if there were a shortage of volunteers, you would see more. For example, there currently are not any FRC events in WV (WVROX 2014 was the first ever), so there are practically no FRC volunteers in our state, except for those that volunteer where their team competes. However, if we were to host a district event in West Virginia, we would get the volunteers. In addition, districts makes it easier to start teams, therefore getting more people involved in FRC to volunteer. Plus, we have many parents that would volunteer at events, but can't travel as far as we do for regionals (they can't get off to go 6 hours away with us). But if there were a district event in their hometown or very close by, they would be more likely to volunteer. I'm sure we aren't alone in this.

This was the main concern for WVROX. We thought getting enough volunteers was going to be mission impossible. But, people pulled through, and we ended up getting enough and then some. We probably would have had more if WVU hadn't cut off volunteer registration so early. Most of our volunteers, with the exception of a handful of people were first-time FRC volunteers. And they would volunteer at a future WV district event, I have no doubt.

It's like a "build it and they will come" kind of thing. You're likely not going to get enough volunteers until there are enough volunteer slots to put the people into.

[bigbeezy]

I keep hearing Illinois will eventually. I think ideally Indiana, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin should join up.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

I keep hearing Illinois will eventually. I think ideally Indiana, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin should join up.

At R2OC this year Dan Green said they're pushing for Illinois to switch for the 2017 season, but that they want more teams first. I think he said the goal was to grow IL's current 58 teams to 65 before they switch.

I think it would be great for southern/eastern Wisconsin to join IL, but it seems like FIRST doesn't want states split like that anymore. Realistically, though, splitting Wisconsin diagonally so the northwest joins MN and the southeast joins IL is the only real way we could enter the district system, unless we add something like 20 teams. Wisconsin only had 41 teams last season, and the team distribution doesn't really help.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by ZehP

At R2OC this year Dan Green said they're pushing for Illinois to switch for the 2017 season, but that they want more teams first. I think he said the goal was to grow IL's current 58 teams to 65 before they switch.

I think it would be great for southern/eastern Wisconsin to join IL, but it seems like FIRST doesn't want states split like that anymore. Realistically, though, splitting Wisconsin diagonally so the northwest joins MN and the southeast joins IL is the only real way we could enter the district system, unless we add something like 20 teams. Wisconsin only had 41 teams last season, and the team distribution doesn't really help.

All of IL and WI could combine, although it might be a pain for NW Wisconsin/SW Illinois teams. It would make the rumored IL district more viable, and would make the MN/IA/WI district more manageable in terms of volunteers and team locations.

[tindleroot]

From the point of a view of a student in Indiana, prior to the 2015 season (as in Spring 2014), we were under the impression that Illinois and Indiana were going to form a district together. Not sure why that plan changed, but it probably was through FIRST mediating their smaller district trial and IndianaFIRST's and Illinois FIRST's own discussion.

As for coming years, I think that an Iowa/Illinois district makes more sense than Wisconsin/Illinois geographically. The Iowa teams may have to travel quite a bit, but then, when don't they? Adding Missouri in would also be pretty easy if they wanted it to be a larger Midwest district, since there would be enough teams/events that Chicago teams won't have to go to Southwest Missouri or vice versa. Also, St. Louis would be a great place for a Midwest DCMP.

Obviously, volunteer base would have to be flexible and available for such a large (area) district to work out with a lower team density than, for example, Michigan. Also, I would be sorry for Wisconsin if that district happened along with Minnesota.

[BenGuy]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch.

What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by BenGuy

What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.

Now this isn't robotics, but I'm also involved on my school's Speech Team. For that, we need to bring a judge (a volunteer) for every 5 students we bring. I'm sure state FIRSTs' could implement a rule like that if needed in that state.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by BenGuy

What a few Michigan districts do is require teams to provide volunteers in order to attend the competition... for example we had to provide one volunteer each day of the competition last year.

My point was, using the excuse that there aren't enough volunteers means they will never make the switch. Supply and demand, if the demand for volunteers isn't there the supply won't grow.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The thing is, this is the same concern that every region switching to districts has. No one has a cache of people sitting around to step in and take all of the additional volunteer spots that are added in the switch. Unfortunately, until you make the switch you won't have the volunteer base you need.

Build it and they will come.

Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.

You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.

Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.

It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Minnesota would need 15 district events just for the teams in Minnesota. If only Minnesota teams were allowed it would orphan the teams in North Dakota, northern Iowa and north/western Wisconsin. Add those teams into the district and there would need to be 17 to 18 districts minimum. Minnesota would be running 3 or 4 events per weekend during competition season.

You can't expect the key volunteers to work for six weekend straight. To make districts work you need six or more event leads, FTAs, FTAAs, Head Refs, Lead Queuers, Pit Admins, Lead Robot Inspectors, Judge coordinators, Lead Safety inspectors and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. That's fifty plus people all making a commitment to train and work four weekends during competition season.

Minnesota has some really committed key volunteers. But it's a small group that's maybe a third of what would be needed. Right now its a group of people who do Duluth's double regional and then Minneapolis' double regional. I've already committed to Iowa next year and I expect there will be enough of the core group that the key positions there would be covered.

It's the minor volunteers that are where Minnesota has trouble, and that I suspect has to do with the size of the events which have all of the teams in the area competing, so most of the natural volunteers are already occupied.

By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.

According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

By having your smaller events spread out you are also able to tap into a larger volunteer supply. It's more difficult to convince people to travel and pay for a hotel to go volunteer for an event than it is to get them to volunteer for one in their own back yard.

According to the MN numbers last year you'd need 11 events based on a 40 team max per event.

I agree. See below.

MN 192
WI 41
IA 9
Dakotas 5
Total Teams 247

Max Number of Teams per Event
40

Number of Events Needed
12.35

Number of spots (13 events): 520

Volunteer quality would suffer for the first year (like it has in just about every other area that has transitioned to districts) but it would recover after that.

More importantly, what MN is lacking currently is a non-profit running FRC in the state. We have a few organizational issues we need to fix before anything else.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by ehochstein

More importantly, what MN is lacking currently is a non-profit running FRC in the state. We have a few organizational issues we need to fix before anything else.

I think this is the big thing that gets missed in discussions about Minnesota going to Districts. Right now, the organizational structure for FRC in Minnesota is at best opaque and at worst comes off as exclusionary to teams outside the Twin Cities area, at least at the decision making level.

From where I'm standing (at the bottom, looking straight up, and without any inside knowledge) Minnesota needs some sort of exterior push to go to districts-- the system we have now is hindering us from progressing to districts. When we only have two weekends in the state with events, it makes it much easier to keep the same volunteers (and teams), which is a double edged sword-- it means the volunteers we do have tend to be very well seasoned and well trained, but it makes it much more difficult to train new volunteers, both in the practical sense that the slots for our existing regionals seem to be mostly filled, but also that from a team's perspective there isn't a need for them to be volunteering when everything seems to be under control.

On a little bit less of a concrete of a note, I also get the feeling that at the decision making level, there simply isn't much support within Minnesota for districts. I might be wrong (like I said, I'm pretty far outside the know for this), but that's the impression I've gotten.

We have a lot of talented and invested people here in Minnesota that currently aren't being utilized for FRC-- a sponge can only hold so much water. Maybe if we had a bigger sponge, we'd have more room for volunteers and a bit more diversity with who's filling volunteer positions.