pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I promised myself I wouldn't get heated in here again, but I want to be clear: the majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling, but the fact is, as far as most people from MN are concerned, you're just some guy in Virginia making unsubstantiated claims about the state of districts here (which directly conflict with their experience). The people who most need convincing are the people who are least likely to believe you.

I'm repeating what I have been told, because I believe it is true; and because I hope that anyone in MN who is interested will check to see if I'm right.

Checking to see if I'm right should be an easy thing to do, if people are willing to communicate with each other.

Blake
PS: Any of those folks you are referring to, who wants to ask me any question, is welcome to send me a PM.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Jon,
It is easy to lump teams together into one group but the reasons behind teams that are no longer in FRC is varied. One of the biggest is the reduction of money for anything but essential programs in school districts that are strapped for money. I can point to Chief Delphi and Huskie Brigade as one of those examples. Several Chicago Public School teams have disbanded as staff were reduced and schools closed. In many of these schools/school districts programs like band and orchestra have been eliminated as well. In smaller schools, getting a faculty member to take the team is also an issue as administrators are required to make decisions regarding what programs benefit the greatest number of students. Some schools that had multiple teams went down to just one. Some schools closed.
Money is also a factor, but considering the economic times we have weathered, I am actually surprised at the retention. The downturn in 2009 really hurt but we still kept a surprising number of teams.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

It is easy to lump teams together into one group but the reasons behind teams that are no longer in FRC is varied.

I agree Al. Slide six of this presentation has a breakdown of major reasons why the 10 teams in Indiana that did not reregister in 2014-2015 left the program: http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/...esentation.pdf

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.
...

OK - For many reasons that's understandable.

Getting confusion like that sorted out is good for everyone involved.

Blake

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.



I agree Al. Slide six of this presentation has a breakdown of major reasons why the 10 teams in Indiana that did not reregister in 2014-2015 left the program: http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/...esentation.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I'd like to point out page 8 of that presentation and the costs.

Under the Regional System they spent $245,000 producing 2 Regionals. Presumably all of that money was raised locally and FIRST did not have to step in to cover any short fall, but I do not know that for certain.

Under their first year in the District System they spent $90,000 producing 3 District events and the DCMP. They did also spend $23,000 on capitol expenditures and $40,000 on administrative costs for a grand total of $154,000 but $49,000 of that came from FIRST via their $1000 per team that the district serves.

So for this season it looks as though they only had to raise aprox $100,000 to cover the cost of the events and the administrative costs. Now some of that was likely due to the fact that the great people of AndyMark provided the use of a field perimeter and their facility for the shipping and recieving of the field elements, game pieces, awards, FMS, spare parts ect. I'm guessing that they also acted as the storage point for between events and in the off season, however they typically stored a field or two complete with the FMS so that those that want to have an off season event have a closer place to ship it from and back too.

So to recap even with the capitol expenditures in their first year they reduced their costs to ~43% of what was spent in the Regional system. Most of those capitol items will last for many seasons, some maybe in excess of 10 years. Yes there will be some replacements along the way but however you cut it in the long run it will be much cheaper than all the rental equipment that would have been required and of course were a part of the Regional budget.

Under the District System they spent

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

The majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling

I 100% agree with this. If we could make the process public, then people would know what to do to help get to the goal. Not trying to say that the RPC and MNFIRST are doing a bad job or anything, but it would be nice if it was more like how Frank has made FIRST.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The people who need to buy into implementing the district system are the people who will be implementing it. Artificially pumping up demand for it will not increase the speed at which it can be adopted.

If you want to make districts happen in an area you aren't actually helping to run, it doesn't seem productive to just start cheerleading without coordinating your message with the existing efforts and without taking into account what is actually possible given current and potential levels of support.

I strongly disagree. Getting those that benefit from the switch to realize the benefits and create the demand will help speed things along.

One of the things that people keep bringing up as the reason why it can't happen in MN now is the lack of volunteers, and I've been hearing that excuse for at least 3 years now. So educating the teams and letting them know that if they want it they need to step up and volunteer can go a long way to putting that excuse out to pasture.

Another excuse that is given is that they need to find the proper venues. The bulk of the venues should and will most likely be the schools that have teams currently. So again letting the teams know the benefits and the need for the locations can get teams to explore if their facility is suitable. IF the leadership would say we need X,Y,Z in a location do you have that? Then I'm certain if the teams knew the benefits a number of them would get out their tape measures, talk to their administration and see if they are a place that the MN leadership should consider.

Fact is that FIRST has almost certainly been putting pressure on MN to make the switch. I know that they approached what became the PNW district way back in 2012 with hopes of us making the switch for the 2013 season. We did say we needed more time, since there was less info on making the switch with less preexisting areas, and nothing had been done to start the process of qualifying locations as suitable and a whole host of other ways that we felt unprepared to make the switch that quickly.

So assuming FIRST has been pushing things that way already, top down hasn't got too far. So might as well start putting pressure on from the bottom as well as making sure that the bottom is prepared to be part of the solution.

Fact is that FIRST sees the District system as the future and that is where they are going. So those that keep resisting need to ask themselves am I going to be a part of the future of FIRST?

[gblake]

[Edit]Mr V. When I created the quote below (from your earlier post), I wasn't trying to accuse you of making excuses, or otherwise substituting my words/thoughts for what you wrote. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was. I was instead noticing that you wrote that you believe other folks are making excuses, and that you said you were making a couple of assumptions. I hope that clarifies that I was trying to be accurate, not put words into your mouth.

And... Now it's time to obey both the spirit, and the letter, of Jessica's wise advice.[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I strongly disagree. ... excuse ... Another excuse ... ... almost certainly ... So assuming ...

Hmmm.

You do know that you can contact the folks who currently are doing their best to guide MN FRC into an improved future, right? They can tell you what is underway, etc. What you wrote seems to convey that you haven't spoken to them yet about these topics.

After a conversation, you probably won't have to characterize any official statements as excuses (you might disagree with their conclusions, but that is different from labeling something an "excuse"); and you probably won't have guess about their relationship with FIRST HQ; and you can probably get answers to replace assumptions.

Doesn't that sound like a useful thing to do?

Blake

[Jessica Boucher]

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by gblake

Hmmm.

You do know that you can contact the folks who currently are doing their best to guide MN FRC into an improved future, right? They can tell you what is underway, etc. What you wrote seems to convey that you haven't spoken to them yet about these topics.

After a conversation, you probably won't have to characterize any official statements as excuses (you might disagree with their conclusions, but that is different from labeling something an "excuse"); and you probably won't have guess about their relationship with FIRST HQ; and you can probably get answers to replace assumptions.

Doesn't that sound like a useful thing to do?

Blake

Yes I think it would be extremely useful for those that can benefit from going to the district system in MN to pressure the leadership into giving them some answers as to what is going on.

No I have not contacted the MN leadership and have zero intention of doing so. That is for the people who will benefit to do on their own behalf.

From what I've heard from those in the know that are in MN or who have moved from MN the leadership keeps giving them excuses as to why they can't do districts, with the most popular being lack of volunteers. I have not heard anything regarding what they are doing to make it happen. In fact the few things I've heard indicate that they are more interested in adding more Regionals than making the switch.

I've also heard from people in MN who have told me they have been told to stop talking about the District system on CD and other social media, and I know and trust those people as giving me the truth.

So it doesn't sound like the leadership is working to move MN to the future at all and it certainly doesn't sound like they are willing to give honest answers as to what they are doing to make the switch or any plans to make the switch.

I'm already in the District system and I'm one of the people who worked to make the transition as smooth as possible. That includes stepping up to be a LRI and field supervisor, being the person that helps load the trucks at the warehouse, unload and reload them at the venue, and then repeat for the next weeks event. It also includes uncounted hours building the road cases to carry everything, figuring out a system to store it all, and how to pack the trucks efficiently.

Why did I do those things? Because presented with the full knowledge of what the District System is, I saw the benefits and was willing to be part of the solution instead of coming up with excuses as to why it wouldn't work. Of course I'm not the only one who saw the benefits and stepped up to make it happen. For much of the early road case building we had people from a number of teams give up their weekend, including a large portion of a team that made a 4+hr drive to come to the Fieldhouse to do whatever was required.

Making the switch to the district system requires a lot of work and making sure those that will benefit know the benefits and recruiting some of them to help is required for a successful switch.

I can not for an instant believe that there are not enough people on teams willing to step up to the plate and make it happen, IF they know how much it will benefit them.

So I believe that someone needs to make sure that every single team in the state knows ALL the details about the district system, makes their own decisions based on FULL knowledge. Then if they feel it is in their best interest let the leadership know that is what they want and that at least some of them are willing to be a part of the solution.

You made a lot of implications that I'm giving excuses but it seems like you are the one that keeps giving excuses as why informing teams is non-productive at the best and you seem to imply that it might actually be counter productive.

Again I agree that the teams of MN should do their best, no demand, a true open dialog as to the future on FIRST in their state, with a large focus on the District system.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, that's understandable, but it shouldn't have. That's a wrong assumption.

It does not include that assumption. I was trying to describe the intent of the flyer makers. As I am in the NC District, I fully understand that grassroots support is not needed (it was nearly sprung on most of us in the 2015 build season). I do, however, think that it could be useful. Especially if there is a sizable group who oppose Districts in MN, or if no public discussion is happening there. If the state as a whole is already well underway discussing if and how it could be done, the people in this thread have hid that fact pretty well.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

What she said.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by gblake

What she said.

Hhm? Seems like a productive discussion at the moment.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I strongly disagree. Getting those that benefit from the switch to realize the benefits and create the demand will help speed things along.

No one from Minnesota is arguing against the fact that districts offer teams more plays. 24 instead of 8 is quite the increase in overall plays. What teams sacrifice over regionals is the consistency between all events and the scale in which the event is put on. Having your season end after two district events in school gymnasiums compared to having gone to a full event with 60+ teams, I would rather choose the latter.

Originally Posted by Mr V

One of the things that people keep bringing up as the reason why it can't happen in MN now is the lack of volunteers, and I've been hearing that excuse for at least 3 years now. So educating the teams and letting them know that if they want it they need to step up and volunteer can go a long way to putting that excuse out to pasture.

Its not the volunteers, its the key volunteers. Head refs, Refs, FTAs, GAs, MCs, Scorers, ect. People that have to be trained prior to an event kicking off. Having done game announcing in Minnesota for 5 years, I will tell you that we are getting there, but we are not there yet. To my knowledge, we have 4 approved game announcers that if push came to shove, they could do an event solo. We have 2 in training. We have 3 MCs. We have 3-4 Head refs. We have 3 FTAs and 2 FTAAs. You can see my point. To do Minnesota correctly (using Michigan as the analog) we would need ~13 district events to service the 208 Minnesota teams (roughly half of what Michigan has). You would be asking these some of the Key volunteers to 4 or more events. Until that number can be dropped to something more reasonable (which we are working on) we cannot reliably do a district setup.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Another excuse that is given is that they need to find the proper venues. The bulk of the venues should and will most likely be the schools that have teams currently. So again letting the teams know the benefits and the need for the locations can get teams to explore if their facility is suitable. IF the leadership would say we need X,Y,Z in a location do you have that? Then I'm certain if the teams knew the benefits a number of them would get out their tape measures, talk to their administration and see if they are a place that the MN leadership should consider.

Locations are not the issue. What others have mentioned, that you might be misconstruing as lack of locations, is the quality of the event. To go from Marrucci arena or the DECC to two high school gyms while still having to pay a $5,000 entry fee kinda makes teams and event planners squirm.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Fact is that FIRST has almost certainly been putting pressure on MN to make the switch. I know that they approached what became the PNW district way back in 2012 with hopes of us making the switch for the 2013 season. We did say we needed more time, since there was less info on making the switch with less preexisting areas, and nothing had been done to start the process of qualifying locations as suitable and a whole host of other ways that we felt unprepared to make the switch that quickly.

So assuming FIRST has been pushing things that way already, top down hasn't got too far. So might as well start putting pressure on from the bottom as well as making sure that the bottom is prepared to be part of the solution.

Forcing people into a decision that a majority of those involved do not support is bad news. You are correct in that FIRST would like Minnesota to move towards districts. You are wrong in assuming that FIRST has been putting on pressure. While I think the kids would love to see Woodie Flowers game announce at one of our district events, until we have enough Key volunteers with overlap Minnesota will not change. We have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If I am scheduled for an event right now and I cant make it because of a family emergency, we have enough game announcers to cover my absence. If we were in districts right now, that might not be the case.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Fact is that FIRST sees the District system as the future and that is where they are going. So those that keep resisting need to ask themselves am I going to be a part of the future of FIRST?

You are correct, but we are not resisting. To assume we are resisting FIRST like some sort of rebellious group is just pure ignorance.


Mr. V I dont know who you are but you seem to really like district events. What you have to keep in mind is Minnesota must be doing something right to have as many teams as we do. I would leave the planning to those who have really been crushing it in terms of growth. To go from 2 teams in 2006 to 208 teams in 2016 is nothing short of extraordinary. We have more FIRST teams than varsity hockey teams in the state of hockey!

RED = edit based on me learning something

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

What is with this sentiment here? Just because two people disagree is not a reason to close an entire topic. This is a discussion forum, people are having a discussion. Nothing has gone even close to flaming, etc.