Current Districts Map. Who is next?

[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.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Mr V

The problem with MN's constant maybe in a couple of years is that as every year passes it gets harder and harder to make the transition. Every time another 16-20 teams is added it means another event is required. The 195 teams they had last season is already past the point that I consider a good size for start up. With 195 teams you need 390 plays at a minimum. So 390/36= 10.8 events and 11 events is the most I would want to do the first season so that you can have a single event week one to work all the bugs out. Now if you can find enough venues that can hold 40 teams you can get away with a start up number of 220 teams but you are preventing any additional plays at that point. Once you exceed 240 teams you will need at least one week with 3 events.

Because they are only 2 day events and there are fewer volunteers needed at a 36-40 team event than at a 60 team event it is about as easy to come up with enough volunteers to run 2 district events as it is one large Regional. Because there will be more dates to choose from your base of potential volunteers increases significantly. No the volunteer count doesn't scale perfectly since there are a number of positions that need the same number of people no matter how big the event is, for example you need 1 LRI no matter the number of teams but you need fewer RIs the smaller the event. Assuming that as others have speculated that a lot of the MN contingent is going to cross the boarder for the new 5th event in the general vicinity and you are basically there with your volunteer base. Getting volunteers at DCMP is relatively easy because a huge number of the people who did a district event want to be at the big show.

Minnesota's growth in recent years has slowed. We've reached a temporary plateau, but I don't expect that it will hold. There are a lot of potential teams to the northwest of the cities. However, with that said I don't think switching to districts will become more difficult over time. The oldest, active Minnesota team is just going into their 11th season. A lot of younger teams are just starting to figure things out and provide volunteers for events.

Also from conversations with smarter people than myself, I've learned that running an event of any size requires a pretty similar amount of volunteers. Especially key volunteers as you stated. That's without even considering the workload of the volunteer coordinator...

Assuming you do need to run 2 events per week for 6 weeks rather than our current 5 events (counting Iowa) during 3 different weeks, that's 7 more events in total. Focusing solely on key volunteers, it would require more than double the current number if they maintain the same workload. It's not feasible for an LRI to take 6 weekends off to help run an event.

TL;DR: As Minnesota gets older, the number of key volunteers will go up, which is the limiting factor for going to districts. The non-key volunteers will be there when we need them.

[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.

[Nathan Streeter]

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.

As Matthew pointed out, there were 218 MN teams in 2015... you need a district event for every 20 teams, so that's a minimum of 11, not 15.

Agreed that you can't expect the key volunteers to work for six straight weekends... BUT you're only in need of enough staffing to run 12-14 events (including DCMP; 14 would include surrounding states)... maybe that's 4 key volunteers each working 3 or 4 weekends or 3 key volunteers each working 4 or more weekends. At any rate, I think Matthew's spot on with his "If you build it, they will come..." more volunteers - including key volunteers - will step up as need arises.

I'll also kindly point out that there have been a diverse group of regions to go to districts... none of them have suffered from the change and I've hardly heard anyone saying "I wish we were still going to regionals." Look at the PNW as an example of a large region geographically with tight population pockets that also lacked the "region age" that Michigan or New England have... the PNW has definitely benefited from the change!

Also, it seems to me that FIRST HQ is really pushing regions to go to districts... a few years ago they were hoping most of FIRST would be in districts in 2016; it's more, but not nearly as much as they were expecting!

[Doug Frisk]

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.

You are assuming that each district events will host the maximum 40 teams. I'm assuming 30 as an average. Have you located 11 venues that have the space and power needed to host 40 team events?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by DareDad

You are assuming that each district events will host the maximum 40 teams. I'm assuming 30 as an average. Have you located 11 venues that have the space and power needed to host 40 team events?

If you look you'll see that the average district size is closer to the mid to high 30's.

You can get creative with venues, space and schedule are your only limiting factors. Power can be brought in.

I'm also assuming that since there are currently 2 off-season events in MN that there are at least 2 planning committees that would be willing to assist in planning district events.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

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

Originally Posted by ehochstein

Number of Events Needed
12.35

Number of spots (13 events): 520

Does anyone else worry about the effect felt if a region goes from having 4 regionals that you could "win" to having one main champion style event that you can "win"? I guess you get 12ish events that can be "won", but, as I have not yet played in a district, I wonder about the different in experience when winning these events.

[Bryan Herbst]

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.

As a few other people have noted here, the issue isn't so much sheer number of bodies to fill volunteer roles as much as reliable volunteers to fill key roles.

It is a work in progress, but it isn't going to happen over night. As of the 2015 FRC season, we had 1 returning FTA, 1 new FTA, 1 local FTAA, a handful (4 or 5?) scorekeepers, 1 local field supervisor, and 1 field supervisor from Iowa.

That's obviously just a couple of the key positions, and some of them (LRIs) we now have a fairly healthy number of. However, people can't just show up and start volunteering for these roles. Many of these roles require a high level of familiarity with FRC, a high level of interpersonal skills, and a high level of commitment to volunteering with the program. Once we have identified those people, we need at least a year to train them in for their role.

As Mr. V's post touched on, I think the biggest issue is that we grew incredibly quickly. The majority of our participants since when MN launched its first regional are either in college or only a couple years out of college. Obviously the rapid growth isn't a "problem" we can fix in MN- it is already done. What we can do is continue to work towards fixing our immediate problem, which is getting more volunteers and making some MN FIRST organizational changes to better support the program.

[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.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Monochron

Does anyone else worry about the effect felt if a region goes from having 4 regionals that you could "win" to having one main champion style event that you can "win"? I guess you get 12ish events that can be "won", but, as I have not yet played in a district, I wonder about the different in experience when winning these events.

So, my team is from Michigan (where I think the district replaced 3 regionals). Though we never won or made finals at a regional prior to districts, I have to say that making at least the finals at a district event is still a fantastic feeling. (I mean, we did that this year beating a 2014 world champion. Districts in no way feel "cheap".)

[Ryan Dognaux]

I would be surprised if at least Missouri & Kansas aren't in a common district by 2017. Kansas doesn't have enough teams to survive on their own and their closest regional is in Missouri as well.

Illinois is wanting to form their own district, but hopefully by 2017 we will have inter-district play. There are a few Illinois teams that always attend the St. Louis regional because it's less than 30 minutes away for them and I'd hate to see them have to travel 2 - 3 hours just to attend one event.

[Mr V]

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.

How did you calculate the need for 15 events? I show 192 teams for last season. That would mean 10 events for 40 team events or 11 events for 36 team events and 12 events for 32 team events. Even with 10% growth you would be covered with 2 events per weekend and 36 or more teams per event. Wait another year and you'll find you are stuck with starting off with those 3 event weekends and that is when you get into big trouble as a start up in my opinion.

The non key event volunteers are easy. As mentioned you can require teams to provide volunteers like MI does or just ask nicely. We've done pretty good rounding out the volunteers for most events by just asking teams if they can provide someone.

In my opinion this year MN really really needs to push for people who want to be key volunteers in the District system and have them shadow the existing key volunteers. It would also be a good idea to strongly encourage mentors from the influential teams and key volunteers to attend district events in one of the current districts that is most convenient for them. The earlier you start preparing the easier the transition will be. The longer you say we aren't ready the longer it will be until you are ready and the harder it will be.

[carpedav000]

Im still trying to figure out why IN went to districs. We are waaay to small IMO to be a district.