Wisconsin District Rankings

[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

[MrHero]

Originally Posted by Ernst

So part of the goal of this thread is to discuss the transition to Districts. Does anyone know how much work has been done to reach that goal or if anyone from the Wisconsin Regional planning committee is on board? From one of the many Minnesota threads, the process is roughly:

1. Start a company (WI FIRST?)
2. Find people to run it
3. Get permission from FIRST
4. Raise money; buy a field; rent a building for storage
5. Start planning events

Ernst - The process you outline is very accurate.
Yes, the Wisconsin Regional Planning Committee is actively discussing and planning an eventual transition to the district model. We have been working closely with FIRST HQ as well as leaders from the Minnesota and Illinois programs.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

A very dedicated and driven group has formed to create a proposal and move Wisconsin to districts. It is our goal to have this happen by 2018.

Eric - Let's put this group in front of the Regional Planning Committee, so we can work together toward a common goal of growth and sustainability of FIRST programs in Wisconsin. Grass roots efforts are great, as is the passion of the FIRST community here, but multiple groups operating in a vacuum might prove counter-productive.

Invitations for the post-season RPC Town Hall meeting will be coming out soon - that would be a great venue to get everyone together!

Jeff Fenstermaker
Co-Chair - WI FRC Regional Planning Committee

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by rich2202

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.




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.

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.

It actually has been a mandate that when a state goes to districts the entire state goes, no opting out.

Also the discussion about single state vs multi state is a sense of identity and ease of finding sponsorship. With a single state district you can go to companies in that state and tout how their money is staying in the state and that they are sponsoring the STATE championship. When state lines are crossed things get muddled. Also multi state districts communication and agreement on how things are run get exponentially more difficult.

Another thing is the difficulty of a multi state district especially with IL is that instead of only needed 4-5 total events the 1st year moving to districts we would need 10-12. That's a much bigger undertaking and a really hard sell.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right now HQ is preventing teams from opting in/out of other districts, I'm sure there is some push back from the districts themselves but i don't think it is as big as HQ.

[rich2202]

I found this in the District Planning Guide

DISTRICT PLAY
Only FRC teams within the geographically defined area are eligible to compete at District Events inside that geographically defined area. Teams within the geographically defined area may register for additional District Events within the geographically defined area only if capacity exists. Priority will be given to FRC teams in a geographically defined area to ensure all FRC teams within the geographically defined area have had the opportunity to register for two district events.

Currently, geographically defined area FRC teams will not be able to register for District Events in geographically defined District areas other than their own. District teams may still register for and participate in FRC Regional Events when Unrestricted Event Registration opens provided the District team has registered for their two District Events. Participation in FRC Regional Events may take place before, in between or after participation in the two required District Events.

http://www.firstinspires.org/resourc...lanning-guides

Only teams in the geographic area can participate in the District, and a team in a District can go to a Regional only after registering for two events in their District.

[Jon Stratis]

The "mandate" to do districts within some sort of regional border is logistical. When placing an event (whether it's a district or a regional), you need to ensure its properly located close to teams, that it serve the teams properly. Allowing teams to "opt in" or "opt out" makes doing that a whole lot harder, especially in the border areas. You end up with a chicken/egg scenario - you need to know which teams are in before you plan events, but teams want to know where events are going to be before they decide if they want in or not. So, you have to draw some border ahead of time. Having teams from relatively far away truck in creates even more problems, as you need to ensure two plays for everyone in your district, and you often don't have many extra plays to go around.

So, you draw a line and say "everyone on this side is in this district" and go from there. Often, it's easiest to draw the line at the state border, but that isn't a strict rule. I can picture a geographic situation that would encourage a state to split in half - for example, if there are two distinct clusters of teams a long way apart, or if there is a single large cluster with only a few outliers near the border of another state with a nearby large city.

The other benefit to going by state boundaries is support - many locations (like Michigan) receive support specific to their state. It would be difficult to include outside teams with the same level of support from the local FIRST organization if things like money or state competitions had to stop at the state line due to external reasons.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Another thing is the difficulty of a multi state district especially with IL is that instead of only needed 4-5 total events the 1st year moving to districts we would need 10-12. That's a much bigger undertaking and a really hard sell.

Not any different from WI doing 3, and IL doing 7.

Maybe WI can go to district, and when IL is ready, there can be a discussion about whether to expand the WI District to a WI/IL District, or keep them separate.

Regarding State Specific Grants: Maybe the combined WI and IL Districts can be made up of two sub organizations: the FirstWI, and FirstIL. The sub-organizations are tasked with arranging District events in their state. So State specific grants can go to the sub-organization.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

The "mandate" to do districts within some sort of regional border is logistical. When placing an event (whether it's a district or a regional), you need to ensure its properly located close to teams, that it serve the teams properly. Allowing teams to "opt in" or "opt out" makes doing that a whole lot harder, especially in the border areas. You end up with a chicken/egg scenario - you need to know which teams are in before you plan events, but teams want to know where events are going to be before they decide if they want in or not. So, you have to draw some border ahead of time. Having teams from relatively far away truck in creates even more problems, as you need to ensure two plays for everyone in your district, and you often don't have many extra plays to go around.

Regarding this assumption.

Could you follow this process for an opt-out:

1) Draw the District boarder
2) Teams within boarder default to opt-in
3) Teams can choose to opt-out by certain date in mid-late summer
4) All teams that remain opt-in have district events planned around their location

I think this could work marginally well.

I do see your point though. If a district region has 100 teams near each other, and then 20 teams in a single removed location, this method could definitely break down quick. Imagine 19 of those 20 teams opt-out, leaving 1 team a part of the district structure, but geographically removed from the other 100 district participants. That is a real bummer for that 1 team, since they will have to travel to attend both district events. If, on the other hand, no team could opt out, that 1 team would likely have at least one district event local to them, given the 20 teams in their region that all participate in their district.

Just some thoughts.

-Mike

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

3) Teams can choose to opt-out by certain date in mid-late summer

Planning committees need a longer lead-time than that in order to secure locations.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Regarding this assumption.

Could you follow this process for an opt-out:

1) Draw the District boarder
2) Teams within boarder default to opt-in
3) Teams can choose to opt-out by certain date in mid-late summer
4) All teams that remain opt-in have district events planned around their location

I think this could work marginally well.

I do see your point though. If a district region has 100 teams near each other, and then 20 teams in a single removed location, this method could definitely break down quick. Imagine 19 of those 20 teams opt-out, leaving 1 team a part of the district structure, but geographically removed from the other 100 district participants. That is a real bummer for that 1 team, since they will have to travel to attend both district events. If, on the other hand, no team could opt out, that 1 team would likely have at least one district event local to them, given the 20 teams in their region that all participate in their district.

Just some thoughts.

-Mike

I think allowing teams to buy into a district would be interesting. This could possibly allow some teams that border a district area and even international teams to participate in a district for a year. This would obviously need to be done well before registrations so the DPCs have the number requirements they need.