Are 8 play regional reasonable?

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If you really want to increase the number of matches teams play, the solution isn't districts or cycle times or longer hours. The solution it to put more teams on the field at once.

In the 2v2 alliance era, 6-8 play regionals were the standard. Yes, your $5000 could buy you as few as 6 matches. When 3v3 was introduced in 2005, we instantly saw plays per event increase.

Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events.

Give this man a cookie. I think we've got the solution!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events.

So they might be able to run a QUAD regional? Now there's an idea.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by EricH

So they might be able to run a QUAD regional? Now there's an idea.

Listen man, I'm just trying to help avoid the decimation of FRC in MN that would occur if they switch to a district system.

[AlexanderTheOK]

To chime in on the issue of not reaching enough potential volunteers and the advertisement of this need for volunteers, I'm one of those people that hasn't volunteered for a single event. I have friends who volunteer quite often. I personally didn't however because I simply thought that my time was needed elsewhere more than it was at the event...

Until I overheard said friends freaking out a week before my local regional, because there was no one to do x, y, and z at the event... Until I spent the entirety of the regional in the stands because the programmers had everything working nearly flawlessly and didn't actually need me to be free as a mentor.

I was, until the build season ended and events started happening this year, entirely unaware that volunteer supply was an issue. This is after 4 years, going on 5 in FIRST.

Of course now that I am aware of the problem I can be a part of the solution, for both offseason events and the next year.

The issue is however, that I feel I'm a part of a large group of oblivious people who might have the time and energy, but are simply unaware of the level of need. I'm going to be entirely honest. I don't read my email very thoroughly. There was likely an email asking for volunteers, but it got lost in the pile of emails that FIRST sends out that I frankly don't have the attention span to read.

So how do we get the oblivious shmucks like me to actually know about this?
That wasn't a rhetorical question, I seriously just don't know.

My best guess would be a more personal word of mouth approach to advertising the positions, talking to teams directly, and having the lead mentors of said teams place emphasis on this aspect of FIRST, but I suck at organizing things, so that's all this is, a guess. Maybe this is already being done, and I'm simply more oblivious than I thought. I don't know, the fact remains that people like me exist, and solving this problem could get areas closer to being able to support more small events.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

... decimation of FRC in MN...

Why was my first thought, "that's an anagram for medication?"

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Multiply 40 teams times 12 matches, then multiply 60 teams by 8 matches.

Understand now?

I'm fully aware of how math works. You can obviously do it too. So remind me again what your objection to posting "we only commit to 8 matches at this event" is? [1] since APPARENTLY that's a fairly easy number to compute given estimated field turn times (provided by first) and number of teams (provided by venue) I'm not seeing an issue.

As for "well 12x40 is less than 12x60" no duh. But it's not much less than 10x60, at least that's a more reasonable number of matches and you have a day and a half to get through them. Of course, I still stand by that it's a better team experience to play more matches in a smaller venue but we clearly have different views on that.



[1] other than the obvious of "it's crappy to only get 8 matches" and the fact that it'd be open and honest communication with teams.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by AlexanderTheOK

I was, until the build season ended and events started happening this year, entirely unaware that volunteer supply was an issue.

And that's a problem with almost any organization. When my sons played soccer ages ago, we went to practices and went to games. There was a referee at the game, we expected that. Kind of like the league supplies uniforms and soccer balls, the league supplies referees.

It wasn't until talking with my sons' coach (who was also a ref) that I began to appreciate the human aspect of it. You can buy equipment (whether that be uniforms or FRC fields). You can rent venues (athletic fields or regional sites). But you can't "buy" the people. Or it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

When my sons wanted to take the soccer referee course, I went along with them. I did it for 16 years before my knee and ankle gave out. And that led directly to me becoming a ref for FLL and FRC. (Believe me, the worst mentor arguing a call in FRC is a whole lot more GP than the average soccer coach.)

I don't want to be telling other areas what they should do regarding switching to districts. There are unique situations everywhere that will require a lot of work before areas can change to districts, if that is even what they want. Every area needs to evaluate more than just number of plays per dollar. But if number of volunteers per event is one of the things that is lacking - and we have difficulties with that in some FiM events - the only way to fix that is to ask for more volunteers. And give them reasonable pathways for getting trained to become better volunteers.

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events.

If the Duluth regionals do this, then it would be a double DECCer event.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'm fully aware of how math works.

You claimed a lack of understanding for why an event can't give 12 matches to 60 teams, when another event can do it for 40. It did appear appropriate to point out the math, since you didn't seem to be taking it into account.

As for "well 12x40 is less than 12x60" no duh. But it's not much less than 10x60,...

Your definition of "much less" probably needs tweaking. 480 is much less than 600. It's 20% less. In the other direction, 600 is fully 25% more than 480.

All other things being equal, having half again as many teams means getting only two thirds as many matches per team. That's just how it works. If you play eighty matches, a 40-team event gets 12 matches per team, and a 60-team event gets 8. Period. In order to give the 60-team event 10 matches per team, you need to play one hundred matches. Twenty more matches is a lot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You claimed a lack of understanding for why an event can't give 12 matches to 60 teams, when another event can do it for 40. It did appear appropriate to point out the math, since you didn't seem to be taking it into account.

He claimed a lack of ignorance why other events couldn't give 9+ (more than 8) plays for 60 teams (over a full event) when another event did 12 plays for 40 teams in one day.

[PayneTrain]

I wonder if the following solution would be one the Minnesota RPC, Minnesota teams, and HQ could find tenable:

Make all regional events with a roster near or over 60 teams function like a district championship, but permit a 6 hour unbag window as well. Start qualification matches at 2 PM on Thursday and you find the hours you need to provide teams with a service similar to what smaller regionals give.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I wonder if the following solution would be one the Minnesota RPC, Minnesota teams, and HQ could find tenable:

Make all regional events with a roster near or over 60 teams function like a district championship, but permit a 6 hour unbag window as well. Start qualification matches at 2 PM on Thursday and you find the hours you need to provide teams with a service similar to what smaller regionals give.

This is actually a great idea to get teams at large events more matches and with pit setups starting on Wednesday evening at regional events it is doable. Six hours on Thursday morning should be enough time to get teams inspected as long as A. they show up with less than two hours of work to do and B. there are enough inspectors on hand.

It doesn't work out to a perfect balance of time between teams in districts and teams at regionals in terms of access to your robots but even under the current system that doesn't exist. It would also help with the transition to future districts (or more regionals) because it would require the event to increase their inspection crew. Increasing just one section (or potentially doubling it) of volunteers is easier than needing several planning committees and several new key volunteers.

Its not a perfect solution but its a good option.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

This is actually a great idea to get teams at large events more matches and with pit setups starting on Wednesday evening at regional events it is doable. Six hours on Thursday morning should be enough time to get teams inspected as long as A. they show up with less than two hours of work to do and B. there are enough inspectors on hand.

It doesn't work out to a perfect balance of time between teams in districts and teams at regionals in terms of access to your robots but even under the current system that doesn't exist. It would also help with the transition to future districts (or more regionals) because it would require the event to increase their inspection crew. Increasing just one section (or potentially doubling it) of volunteers is easier than needing several planning committees and several new key volunteers.

Its not a perfect solution but its a good option.

For reference, 4 teams at North Star (60 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday Morning, and 10 teams at 10K (63 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday morning. They all had serious issues that they worked hard to fix throughout the day on Thursday. These are the same teams that a 6 hour robot access period wouldn't help. If they're oblivious enough to have a 140" frame perimeter, I seriously doubt that they will have the capability to fix that frame perimeter in their 6 hour robot access period on their own.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

For reference, 4 teams at North Star (60 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday Morning, and 10 teams at 10K (63 team event) didn't pass inspection until Friday morning. They all had serious issues that they worked hard to fix throughout the day on Thursday. These are the same teams that a 6 hour robot access period wouldn't help. If they're oblivious enough to have a 140" frame perimeter, I seriously doubt that they will have the capability to fix that frame perimeter in their 6 hour robot access period on their own.

Keep in mind these teams would have had the same issues if they were at districts and probably wouldn't have seen the field til later on Day 1. The first events of the years are typically the hardest and have a handful of teams who are in that same situation of working into qualifications to get inspected.

All you can do is educate teams on where they need to try to be walking in the door and give them some resources to succeed (send out the inspection sheet before bag day and encourage teams to run through it).