Current Districts Map. Who is next?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

My point is, you can develop key volunteers as you expand. It would be a big jump the first year for MN, simply because of the size - they should have gone to districts 2 or 3 years ago. But I understand why they didn't, because they had so many new rookie teams in the years prior, they couldn't handle districts then. If they don't go to districts soon, though, the initial implementation will only get worse.

Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.

If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Unpopular suggestion that is probably borderline crazy... The scale of MN presents an issue, they would need at least 2 events a week during competition to go to districts. From some mapping I did a couple weeks ago I noticed that the overwhelming majority of MN teams are fairly clustered. I propose a reduction in team population in the short term (3-5 years). Merging together multiple teams would result in smaller team populations, likely reduce strain on smaller teams and reduce competition for sponsors. It could also make it feasible to transition to the District model due to reduced event requirements.

If you say that the volunteer base can support 8 events... reduce to 160 teams. It should be possible.

So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by logank013

So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.

I'm not sure where you're getting that I do or don't support districts. I was responding to the number of folks in this thread saying MN can't go to Districts because they are too large and their current volunteer base would be spread too thin. I proposed a solution to that problem.

As a long time Michigander and short time New Englander... I support districts. I was a volunteer the first year in MI, a volunteer in MAR the first year they went to districts, and a volunteer the first year when NE went to districts. I know the pains of going to districts fairly well.

[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.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'm not sure where you're getting that I do or don't support districts. I was responding to the number of folks in this thread saying MN can't go to Districts because they are too large and their current volunteer base would be spread too thin. I proposed a solution to that problem.

As a long time Michigander and short time New Englander... I support districts. I was a volunteer the first year in MI, a volunteer in MAR the first year they went to districts, and a volunteer the first year when NE went to districts. I know the pains of going to districts fairly well.

Ah. Got you. I wasn't meaning to say you did/ didn't support districts. I was just curious if the only reason people in MN are against districts for the sole reason of volunteers. Hopefully that make thing clearer

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by logank013

So basically, the conversation now is about the volunteer base? So would MN like to go to districts if they had the volunteer base of Michigan? I can't believe how many events they have in Michigan and the fact that they have enough volunteers to keep up. So would you then be a district supporter if MN had a better volunteer base? I'm just curious.

The volunteer issue is one thing and over 3 or 4 years could be addressed.

The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.

Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.

That's not loud, that's LOUD.

Minnesota would lose that going to districts.

People talk about how districts are awesome because teams get two plays where they'll see maybe 60 or 70 different teams across those events. But in Minnesota there's already 122 other teams at these double regionals. It would be a step backward for teams in Minnesota.

Not to mention, we've had Chinese, and Turkish teams at Minnesota events. We've had the Hawaiian Kids out. We'd lose those international and long distance participants if we went to districts.

Quite frankly FIRST should be using Minnesota as a model for the rest of the program, not trying to move Minnesota away from what is currently the loudest program in the world.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Quite frankly FIRST should be using Minnesota as a model for the rest of the program, not trying to move Minnesota away from what is currently the loudest program in the world.

... [citation needed]

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by DareDad

The bigger issue to me though is keeping it loud. Last year, Minnesota had 4 regionals. The two Duluth regionals are held under one roof, with 123 teams last year in the DECC. The Minneapolis regionals are held in two buildings next door to each other again with 123 teams last year.

Both of those events get real media attention. The local papers and television stations do stories on the events every year. In Duluth, one of the local teams has partnered with the newspaper to put a wrap over the paper during the event so everyone who gets a paper knows what's going on at the DECC that week.

That's not loud, that's LOUD.

Minnesota would lose that going to districts.

People talk about how districts are awesome because teams get two plays where they'll see maybe 60 or 70 different teams across those events. But in Minnesota there's already 122 other teams at these double regionals. It would be a step backward for teams in Minnesota.

Sounds like it would make an excellent State Championship.

Originally Posted by EricH

On the other hand, I rather suspect that a particularly good (read: persuasive) teacher/set of teachers could justify spending the entire week between back-to-back events "down there" in an extended field trip. This would include such items as college visits, some trips to museums of things that might not be available back home, plenty of homework time, and any other items deemed educational by administration, faculty, and parents.

If you're an Alaskan school new to FRC, are you more likely to approve giving students an entire week off to go to two highschools in Washington, or giving them a single weekend at a big convention center in San Jose/LA/Salt Lake City/wherever?

Districts are great, but they don't belong everywhere, especially not Alaska.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

Districts are great, but they don't belong everywhere, especially not Alaska.

Totally agreed. You probably should have around 50 teams to go to districts. You may be able to get away with 45 teams but assuming you have at minimum, 32 teams go to District Champs, you need around 50 teams. That's basically where Indiana was last year.

[Kevin Leonard]

Minnesota doesn't have enough volunteers, Regions X, Y, and Z don't have enough teams.

You know where has a large number of teams and a large volunteer base with dozens of teams that only get 8 or 9 qualification matches total for their registration fee? NEW YORK

There was obviously an in-depth thread about districts in New York a while back, but almost every team in the state would benefit greatly from districts.

Upstate teams that currently travel to get to two events can now have two events for the price of one, and possibly closer by. Downstate teams that currently attend one event can now attend two for the price of one, with more matches/event. Teams that build tremendous machines both upstate and downstate, but fail to win regionals can now have an opportunity to compete at higher levels if they choose.

Logistics issues include the great distances between upstate and downstate, and the location of a district championship, but these wouldn't affect the majority of teams in the state, and teams both upstate and downstate have close-knit networks of teams and sponsors that can assist with travel fees if necessary.

This would be huge for teams that consistently build good machines, but have trouble winning events with the intense competition at New York events, like 229, 694, 1126, 1511, 2791, as well as help bolster smart teams with lower resources, like 5236.

it could also help to spur team growth in New York City, as well as more sparsely populated areas of the state, like Central New York and the Adirondacks.

So please New York. Get it together and let's make districts happen for 2017 or 2018.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

Sounds like it would make an excellent State Championship.

It does. We've had a State Championship each of the past 4 years, sponsored by the Minnesota State High School League, the same organization that runs all the football, hockey, soccer, etc across the state. It's the oldest high school league sponsored championship around.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is our existing relationships with certain organizations in the state... For example, the University of Minnesota, which makes our Minneapolis double regional possible. You really can't understate the value the U of M or MSHSL places on FIRST and our current level of interaction with them. Switching to districts would affect both those relationships, something that needs to be done very carefully. It wouldn't be good to tick off some of the biggest event sponsors we have...

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

It does. We've had a State Championship each of the past 4 years, sponsored by the Minnesota State High School League, the same organization that runs all the football, hockey, soccer, etc across the state. It's the oldest high school league sponsored championship around.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is our existing relationships with certain organizations in the state... For example, the University of Minnesota, which makes our Minneapolis double regional possible. You really can't understate the value the U of M or MSHSL places on FIRST and our current level of interaction with them. Switching to districts would affect both those relationships, something that needs to be done very carefully. It wouldn't be good to tick off some of the biggest event sponsors we have...

I see what your saying about sponsors. I actually never thought for about how much sponsors affect the events. AndyMark being in Indiana helps by sponsoring I believe all of the district events. I bet that's why the Championship is in Kokomo since that's where they are located I believe. They make the district model work well. The only bad thing about switching to districts in Indiana sponsor wise is that there is now no event at Purdue and they sponsor 3 teams. I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by logank013

...The only bad thing about switching to districts in Indiana sponsor wise is that there is now no event at Purdue and they sponsor 3 teams. I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.

There are four teams in the Lafayette/West Lafayette area sponsored by Purdue FIRST. The fact that we are not hosting a district event at Purdue this year does not affect the sponsorship to the teams.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by logank013

I bet that's why the Championship is in Kokomo since that's where they are located I believe.

Like I mentioned in the Indiana thread, dates and locations for Indiana districts this year were mostly driven by venue availibility.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by logank013

I'm curious to see if those 3 teams still get sponsorships from Purdue.

Purdue has a college organization for FIRST alumni that mentors FRC, FTC, and FLL teams around the Lafayette/West Lafayette area I believe (I found this out when I visited the Purdue University campus this summer, here is the link to their website).