Wisconsin District Rankings

[rich2202]

Regarding Staffing:

To run 3 events, the Distrcit will need a major step-up in volunteers, especially in key positions. I could see 3 Head Refs, and 3 Lead Robot Inspectors rotating between the 3 District Events (they would be regular refs, and regular robot inspectors when they are not the head/lead).

Other positions (Announcers, FTA, CSA, Scorekeepers, etc.) are just as important, but don't need as many per event as you need Ref's and RI's.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

I'm glad to see a lot of people talking about and interested in this topic. My quest began after 2015 Wisconsin Regional and Eric has picked up where I have been unable to.

Ideally, I could see the state championship rotating between UW locations - Milwaukee has the Klotsche Center, Oshkosh has the Kolf Center Fieldhouse, and I'm sure the other UW schools have suitable locations as well. Rental rates for those two arenas aren't bad at all, and if we can get the schools on board to donate, then it is even better.

Bradley Tech in Milwaukee would be suitable for a district event as well, but parking is a bit of a problem (no main lot, all street parking).

As much as I would love to see the state split and half go with IL and half go with MN, it just isn't going to happen. It's not a perfect solution for all teams - some of those remote teams that only go to one MN event would now likely have to travel two or three times to play in other parts of WI. Teams that current travel to a second regional could see savings for 2 districts + DCMP, depending on if they need to stay overnight for the second district or the DCMP (putting a district event in Oshkosh/Appleton, Milwaukee, and La Crosse puts two districts within 60 miles of all but a few teams).

Current 2 regional team costs:
$5000 first event
$4000 second event
$3500 travel to non local event (bus for 4 days)
$3000 hotel for non local event (3 nights)
Total: $15500

Potential 2 district team costs:
$5000 for two district events
$2000 travel to non local district (bus for 3 days)
$2000 hotel for non local district (2 nights)
Total: $9000
$5000 for DCMP
$3000 travel to DCMP
$2000 travel to DCMP
Additional $10000 with far travel/lodging needed for DCMP

There are situations where the cost does go up*, but the possibility of having the district events on Saturday/Sunday makes me super happy so I actually have some vacation days left for, you know, vacation! And the kids don't have to miss so much school then. I will absolutely step up as a key volunteer for the event my team doesn't go to and will certainly help out where I can elsewhere. There are a lot of volunteers within the state that are less active than they used to be (myself included).

*Keep in mind that teams are eligible for the $5000 grant in the future, so that extra cost may be easy to overcome. I can only anticipate that growth will accelerate now because of the grant. We have over 300 FLL teams in the state right now - those kids are looking for FRC teams to join.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Regarding Venue:

A lot of Districts are held in High School Field Houses. Brookfield East, Brookfield, WI, has a nice new field house, that could possibly be used.

It seems like most Districts are Friday/Saturday. I'm not sure if WI schools are ready to give up their Field Houses on a Friday when school is in session. So, Sat/Sun events with setup Friday afternoon-evening?

Where would the WI Championship be played? If at the UWM Panther Arena, wouldn't that be the same cost as a regional? 2nd venue in the Milwaukee area? Or, same as the 1st venue?

Idealy I'd like to do what New England does and run mostly Sat Sun events. This gets rid of students and teachers missing school and mentors having to use vacation time.

Originally Posted by rich2202

Regarding Staffing:

To run 3 events, the Distrcit will need a major step-up in volunteers, especially in key positions. I could see 3 Head Refs, and 3 Lead Robot Inspectors rotating between the 3 District Events (they would be regular refs, and regular robot inspectors when they are not the head/lead).

Other positions (Announcers, FTA, CSA, Scorekeepers, etc.) are just as important, but don't need as many per event as you need Ref's and RI's.

I had several talks with key individuals in several districts in St. Louis this year and they are more than willing to send people to help volunteer and train if necessary.

Also Michigan requires each team at each competition they attend to supply 2 volunteers, this is another fantastic way to build up the volunteer base. I can speak from experience that parents love to volunteer if your team isn't big enough to sacrifice 2 members.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

... Michigan requires each team at each competition they attend to supply 2 volunteers, this is another fantastic way to build up the volunteer base. I can speak from experience that parents love to volunteer if your team isn't big enough to sacrifice 2 members.

Another plug for this, because I know it works. My team's volunteer corps has grown steadily, from one person six years ago, to twenty-three in 2016: One LRI, one CSA, one judge advisor, one game announcer, four referees, five robot inspectors, four field resetters, three pit admins, two event coordinators and one VC. No FTAs or Head Refs, yet -- but I can see that coming also.

We became a district event host team in 2013, and have no plans to stop doing that. Our volunteer presence is a little above average, but not all that unusual in Michigan. I know there are at least a dozen FiM teams with even more volunteer commitment, and more than that who will gladly arrive early and/or stay late to help with set-up and pack-up.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Another plug for this, because I know it works. My team's volunteer corps has grown steadily, from one person six years ago, to twenty-three in 2016: One LRI, one CSA, one judge advisor, one game announcer, four referees, five robot inspectors, four field resetters, three pit admins, two event coordinators and one VC. No FTAs or Head Refs, yet -- but I can see that coming also.

We became a district event host team in 2013, and have no plans to stop doing that. Our volunteer presence is a little above average, but not all that unusual in Michigan. I know there are at least a dozen FiM teams with even more volunteer commitment, and more than that who will gladly arrive early and/or stay late to help with set-up and pack-up.

This is some of the magic of districts right here.

I will continue to watch Michigan and dream about what it would be like if CA didn't have 5 RD's with little motivation to make Districts happen...

-Mike

[araniaraniratul]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

This is some of the magic of districts right here.

I will continue to watch Michigan and dream about what it would be like if CA didn't have 5 RD's with little motivation to make Districts happen...

-Mike

It's really funny the rest of us haven't really organized yet. I know for a fact we'd be completely ready to throw a 40 team District-Event here in Berkeley with minimal effort, and I know a few other similar situations.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

Current 2 regional team costs:
$5000 first event
$4000 second event
$3500 travel to non local event (bus for 4 days)
$3000 hotel for non local event (3 nights)
Total: $15500

Potential 2 district team costs:
$5000 for two district events
$2000 travel to non local district (bus for 3 days)
$2000 hotel for non local district (2 nights)
Total: $9000
$5000 for DCMP
$3000 travel to DCMP
$2000 travel to DCMP
Additional $10000 with far travel/lodging needed for DCMP

These district numbers as encouraging for the lower-mid tier teams (funding) as the cost is more feasible than two regionals. FRC 4607 is a low to mid-tier team and I would welcome this.

Wisconsin has a few things going for it that MN does not:
1. A large base of mature teams (93, 1714, 1716, 2202 come to mind).
2. Fewer teams to organize (52 vs 208)
3. A rather organized and robust outstate organization in the 7 rivers coalition (yes, some are in MN) that can help lead the charge.

I love our large regionals in the Midwest - but districts seems more viable to the sustainability of FRC. My greatest concern for FRC is if we face another economic dip like we had in 2007; can we continue with large regionals?

[Chief Hedgehog]

It would also serve MN great if WI would go districts first. My greatest concern for all of this is if MN tries to go to Districts before WI - would FIRST hoist WI, ND, and IA on MN?

This is a decision above my paygrade - but I think that with WI going on their own it will then lessen the burden for MN.

Iowa is south enough that they could continue working with MO, NE, and KS so that is not a concern. However, ND only has three teams - they cannot go it alone nor expect to travel to IA (or could they?). If MN has to absorb the three ND teams, what does that do for the MSHSL Tournament? MN cannot lose the partnership with the MSHSL - not without consequences. This partnership is a major selling point with new schools/teams.

I don't like to cheer on WI, but in this case I will! Get it done Badgers!

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

It would also serve MN great if WI would go districts first. My greatest concern for all of this is if MN tries to go to Districts before WI - would FIRST hoist WI, ND, and IA on MN?

Is there any talk of IL going to Districts? If so, my thoughts are:

Keep WI a Free State. Let MN and IL go to districts. Then WI teams would be free to join Districts in MI, MN, and IL, whichever is more convenient for them.

Let's say that Milwaukee teams joined IL, then we could hold an IL District event in Milwaukee.

The LaCross and Greenbay areas could decide if they want to organize with MN or MI. With Milwaukee holding an IL District event, they could hold an IL district event in LaCross or Greenbay, and be no different than a WI District.

Let's say that Greenbay Teams decided to join MI Districts, then Escanaba would be the closest, and then the issue is there enough teams for a Greenbay District event? If they held it early in the season, then I could see WI teams going for a "practice" event.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Is there any talk of IL going to Districts? If so, my thoughts are:

Keep WI a Free State. Let MN and IL go to districts. Then WI teams would be free to join Districts in MI, MN, and IL, whichever is more convenient for them.

Let's say that Milwaukee teams joined IL, then we could hold an IL District event in Milwaukee.

The LaCross and Greenbay areas could decide if they want to organize with MN or MI. With Milwaukee holding an IL District event, they could hold an IL district event in LaCross or Greenbay, and be no different than a WI District.

Let's say that Greenbay Teams decided to join MI Districts, then Escanaba would be the closest, and then the issue is there enough teams for a Greenbay District event? If they held it early in the season, then I could see WI teams going for a "practice" event.

That's not how districts work, as of now at least. Entire states have to go to districts when said state goes.

Also in all my talks in St Louis not a single person thought it was a good idea to go districts with multiple states.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

That's not how districts work, as of now at least. Entire states have to go to districts when said state goes.

My point was for WI NOT to go to the District model. Then, with states around WI going to District, teams could choose if and which they wanted to join.

In some respects, there are advantages to having a Regional surrounded by Districts. If MN, IL, and MI all were Districts, WI would be a convenient place for teams to come for a Regional. Also, Milwaukee and Chicago get a few international teams. If IL and WI went to Districts, then we would loose those international teams.

Also in all my talks in St Louis not a single person thought it was a good idea to go districts with multiple states.

WI particular, or in general? If general, there are already multi-state districts:
New England, Pacific North West, Chesapeake, Mid Atlantic.

Any reason for WI and IL not to form one Midwest District? Most of the IL and WI teams are near Milwaukee and Chicago. District Champs could alternate between Milwaukee and Chicago.

[BigJ]

My point was for WI NOT to go to the District model. Then, with states around WI going to District, teams could choose if and which they wanted to join.

If IL went to districts, and this was a possibility, (sponsor-willing) I'd drop regionals and go to IL to do districts in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, I doubt that would ever be an option afforded to us.

[ASmith1675]

I fully support any plan that moves Wisconsin towards districts, as I feel that it would benefit all teams in the area and improve our impact by making FRC more financial viable to both current and new entrants. It seems at this point the most direct path to this goal is a Wisconsin District, even though in many ways it would make sense to not divide the midwest along state lines.

With that said, please forgive my ignorance as I ask a few questions that have been running through my head over the course of build season:

1. Where does the mandate that entire regions (states?) move to the district model come from? Is it from FIRST HQ?

2. Is there something preventing a team from "opting in" to a district (or opting out for that matter)? While I believe that districts would be a benefit on the whole, there may be specific teams within the region that may be hurt by the district model. I'll give some hypothetical examples below, mostly as a thought experiment.

A Milwaukee area team is working on their financial plans. After doing the analysis, they find it would be more beneficial (for whatever reason) for them to go to 2 travel districts (assuming Indiana in this case - as they are currently the closest district), rather than the Wisconsin regional plus another travel regional. Is there any way for this team to join the district?

A Chicago area team is located over the Indiana border. They are a bit resource limited, and typically only attend a travel event once every 2-3 years. Before Indiana became a district they attended the Midwest Regional every year, with no travel costs incurred. Now their registration now funds them for 2 district events, but they can only attend 1 most years. Is there a way to opt out of their district in preference of attending just the Midwest Regional?

Again, note that these examples are purely hypothetical to serve as both thought experiments as well as playing a bit of devil's advocate both for and against the district model.

The crux of my question is, why are we tied to the fate of our region? Why can't a team decide what would be best of them, with the opportunities and challenges afforded to them?

I'm fully of the belief that the district model will be the model of FRC moving into the future. It almost seem inevitable, given the rapid growth in the number of teams over the past few years. Until that time however, it seems that teams should be able to make their own decisions, rather than decisions being made for them.

This rambled on a little longer than I intended. Eric, thanks for pulling all of this information together and getting (or keeping -- depending on your view) the conversation going.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by ASmith1675

1. Where does the mandate that entire regions (states?) move to the district model come from? Is it from FIRST HQ?

The blind leading the blind here: Its a lot easier to keep things within state lines. I think this has to do with funding and things like State-specific grants/sponsorship (i.e if UW had a large grant for STEM programs but can only be used in WI... the grant might be too big for a team to win, but a prime candidate for whatever FIRST in WI group is running districts. If we were the WI-IL districts, then FIRST in WIIL wouldn't be eligible).

2. Is there something preventing a team from "opting in" to a district (or opting out for that matter)? While I believe that districts would be a benefit on the whole, there may be specific teams within the region that may be hurt by the district model. I'll give some hypothetical examples below, mostly as a thought experiment.

I'm guessing the biggest problem is [see above]. For a Chicago team that is practically in Indiana, lets say they joined Indiana Districts... if Indiana FIRST received Indiana Grant Money that can only be used in Indiana, how does Indiana FIRST make sure they aren't violating that grant and using the money to benefit Chicago-Border Team?

I could be totally wrong here, but this is what I have gathered is the biggest problem for multi-state districts.

Edit: Removed false information

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

The blind leading the blind here: Its not a mandate, but its a lot easier to keep things within state lines. I think this has to do with funding and things like State-specific grants/sponsorship (i.e if UW had a large grant for STEM programs but can only be used in WI... the grant might be too big for a team to win, but a prime candidate for whatever FIRST in WI group is running districts. If we were the WI-IL districts, then FIRST in WIIL wouldn't be eligible).

I'm guessing the biggest problem is [see above]. For a Chicago team that is practically in Indiana, lets say they joined Indiana Districts... if Indiana FIRST received Indiana Grant Money that can only be used in Indiana, how does Indiana FIRST make sure they aren't violating that grant and using the money to benefit Chicago-Border Team?

I could be totally wrong here, but this is what I have gathered is the biggest problem for multi-state districts.

I have no real involvement with how NEFIRST (or PNW, or MAR, or CHS) acquires funding, but this is the first time I've heard state-based grants as a reason to avoid districts across state lines. I'm not saying this isn't a real problem, I'd just like to hear from the folks in New England, PNW, MAR, and the Chesapeake Region who have faced roadblocks.

The small districts really don't seem ideal to me... smaller regions are more likely to have multiple weeks where their field isn't in use (same field cost split across fewer teams / smaller region), don't have as much variety of team lists at their events to introduce more changing dynamics throughout the season, have much bigger 'jumps' to make when the region grows (or shrinks) and an event needs to be added or removed, and most significantly (for now, at least) it often forces teams near the borders of the districts to travel further... this map actually shows very well all the teams that currently travel far because of being close to district borders... note it seems to hurt teams more who are on the regional side of a regional/district border (western SC, northern Ohio, northern Idaho, northern Florida) than the teams on the district side. Also note, some of the worst situations have yet to come, such as if MN and WI are not in the same district, teams in northwestern WI are cut off from MN or if IL and MO are not in the same district, teams in Greater St Louis on the IL side would suddenly have much further to go. Really, it'd be nice to have people with some varied experience in large and small districts to compare...

Allowing teams to opt into or out of districts would certainly be good for minimizing the difficulties of border teams, but as being discussed, that path isn't without its problems.