Wisconsin District Rankings

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by rich2202

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

I don't think "need" is the word you are looking for.

"Like" would be more appropriate, in my opinion.

When booking high school gyms, you don't need a full calendar year. 8-9 months is workable.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. My experiences booking high school gyms for weekends is 8-9 months is plenty of time to book venues.

Didn't Michigan move to districts in the summer before 2009? They seemed to be able to find 7 venues.

Where there is a will...

-Mike

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rich2202

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

This. I don't know the typical lead time for districts, but at least for regionals discussions have already started with venues. I know of at least 1 regional date that was already known before champs (although contracts hadn't been signed yet, so it could change).

[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.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Didn't Michigan move to districts in the summer before 2009? They seemed to be able to find 7 venues.

Where there is a will...

-Mike

i doubt Michigan just woke up in the middle of the summer and said "hmm, I think it's time to change our competition structure" and made a district announcement the same day. There was significant planning that took place before the announcement, and I would assume that included items like identifying venues to use.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

i doubt Michigan just woke up in the middle of the summer and said "hmm, I think it's time to change our competition structure" and made a district announcement the same day. There was significant planning that took place before the announcement, and I would assume that included items like identifying venues to use.

According to my talks with Gail in St Louis this year, they decided to go to districts in July of 2008. And everything fell into place after. Im sure there were venues in mind but I do not believe that they were reserved.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

i doubt Michigan just woke up in the middle of the summer and said "hmm, I think it's time to change our competition structure" and made a district announcement the same day. There was significant planning that took place before the announcement, and I would assume that included items like identifying venues to use.

CHS is currently in the process of naming some possible venues. I know the venues were not locked down until mid to late summer last year.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

According to my talks with Gail in St Louis this year, they decided to go to districts in July of 2008. And everything fell into place after. Im sure there were venues in mind but I do not believe that they were reserved.

I don't believe everything just fell into place. "Districts" were not even a concept before 2008. They had to be invented.

From an old thread just before the start of the 2008 season, the exchange below is a faint glimpse into the thoughts that motivated FiM. I was not in Michigan at that time, but moved here a year later.

Originally Posted by Richard -- I'm wondering if FIRST works differently in Michigan?
Quote: Originally Posted by dlavery -- truer words have rarely been spoken...

I want to follow up on Dave's comment above, because it might help us all to consider the ways in which FIRST is different in Michigan.

Using data found here* and here*, we can see that Michigan has 104 registered FRC teams and hosts three regional FRC events (Detroit, Great Lakes, West Michigan) with a total published capacity of 130 teams. So if every FRC team in Michigan attends at least one Michigan event, and about 20% of them attend a second event, all the published event registration spots in Michigan will be filled -- leaving no room for out-of-state teams. Actually, Michigan probably has second event space for less than 10% of its FRC teams, because the final total of Michigan FRC teams in the 2007 season was 111 and it is reasonable to expect some growth.

As a thought experiment, let's consider this from the regional director's point of view. If we allow teams to register for a second Michigan event before all Michigan teams have registered for a first event, that decision will compel some Michigan teams to travel out-of-state -- making their cost of participation in FIRST higher. Not good for the goal of bringing FIRST to every Michigan high school.

---------

*Sorry the old links don't work any more -- FIRST's new site.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

I don't believe everything just fell into place. "Districts" were not even a concept before 2008. They had to be invented.

In an old thread just before the start of the 2008 season, this post is a faint glimpse into the thoughts that motivated FiM. I was not in Michigan at that time, but moved here a year later.

Yes I understand that everything didn't JUST fall into place. But the decision to go to districts was made in July/August of 2008. 3 people were the driving force behind it and the ones who did the bulk of the work to make the move.

The fact that 3 people were able to do it shows that its actually easier than people think. I also believe that the smaller the region the easier it is to make the move and grow with the teams over time instead of having 300 teams and making the plunge. I do not envy Minnesota, California, or Texas.

I don't agree with this but Gail believes that if there are 40 teams in an area that want to go to districts they should has that's really all you need to go to districts.

Also a district championship is not a requirement it is the option of the district to hold one or have team qualify only by their district event performance.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

i doubt Michigan just woke up in the middle of the summer and said "hmm, I think it's time to change our competition structure" and made a district announcement the same day. There was significant planning that took place before the announcement, and I would assume that included items like identifying venues to use.

I doubt that they did that too. That would be quite the eventful day.

Could potential district identify 2-3 "extra" venues, begin the process of booking them all well in advance, and then drop a few when they identify their team geographic break-down mid-summer?

On that note, how do districts plan venue location while considering rookie registration continues all the way through December?

-Mike

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

On that note, how do districts plan venue location while considering rookie registration continues all the way through December?

-Mike

If they're anything like how we run things in MN, they have a pretty good idea ahead of time where their rookies are going to be. There are always some surprises, but I can tell you our RD already has a good idea of the number of rookies we'll have in the state next year, and I assume he only knows that number by having a list of schools somewhere that he eexpects to take the plunge.

What gets difficult is needing to hold back spots for those rookies as they try to find funding, knowing that there are teams on the waitlist you have to defer informing almost until kickoff!

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I doubt that they did that too. That would be quite the eventful day.

Could potential district identify 2-3 "extra" venues, begin the process of booking them all well in advance, and then drop a few when they identify their team geographic break-down mid-summer?

On that note, how do districts plan venue location while considering rookie registration continues all the way through December?

-Mike

Cross your fingers and hope you built in enough extra room to accommodate all of the rookies. I've heard of instances where last minute venues were added to add more room. This is another reason official inter-district play would be nice, if you run out of some room and the neighboring district has some open spots extra teams can be placed easier.

I know CHS is looking to add an additional event next year because of growth but if official play can be opened with NC that event might not be needed.

[TDav540]

I can't comment on the situation in WI, but as a general rule, anything that moves an area to districts as soon as possible is most likely a good idea. Having "opt-in" teams is an interesting idea though, and here's something that makes sense to me.

Late December, Year (-1): Teams declare an interest in joining a district from another district or a regional area for year (1). If a team is geographically zoned for a district, that team cannot leave for a regional area.

Kickoff, Year (0): "Opt-in/Opt-out" window for year (1) closes.

Competition Season, Year (0): Events play out, Planning Committees get feedback on events

Booking Season, Year (0): Planning Committees book events, with an accurate team count from December, plus expected rookies.

Competition Season, Year (1): Teams that have opted in/opted out now compete in their desired location

This makes teams compete in the district/regional area they would rather prefer not to for a year, but after that they can move to their desired district.

Thoughts?

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

If they're anything like how we run things in MN, they have a pretty good idea ahead of time where their rookies are going to be. There are always some surprises, but I can tell you our RD already has a good idea of the number of rookies we'll have in the state next year, and I assume he only knows that number by having a list of schools somewhere that he eexpects to take the plunge.

What gets difficult is needing to hold back spots for those rookies as they try to find funding, knowing that there are teams on the waitlist you have to defer informing almost until kickoff!

Jon,

I know RD's work hard to identify and register new teams every year.

However, every RD already has a "good idea of the number of rookies" they will have next year. It's called their FIRST mandated growth figures. And it's their job (literally) to meet or surpass that figure.

Maybe your RD is way more prepared than ours (seems likely, since MN has experienced amazing growth over the past decade!), but our RD's are still talking to many schools all the way through the fall. Seems like nothing is set in stone until that team makes an account in TIMS and registers.

Matt,

I know MI has added some last-minute districts occasionally in the last few years.


Regardless, back to venues, when you increase your search scope to gymnasiums, a lot of flexibility opens up (more venues, less high-profile demand to compete for weekends, motivation for schools to host STEM activities, etc). I think 8-9 months is plenty of time to commit venues that adequately meet a schedule/location criteria set up by a District Organizer.

Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. I think there are much, much bigger challenges to districts than booking venues only 8 months in advance.

-Mike

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Jon,

I know RD's work hard to identify and register new teams every year.

However, every RD already has a "good idea of the number of rookies" they will have next year. It's called their FIRST mandated growth figures. And it's their job (literally) to meet or surpass that figure.

Maybe your RD is way more prepared than ours (seems likely, since MN has experienced amazing growth over the past decade!), but our RD's are still talking to many schools all the way through the fall. Seems like nothing is set in stone until that team makes an account in TIMS and registers.

Matt,

I know MI has added some last-minute districts occasionally in the last few years.


Regardless, back to venues, when you increase your search scope to gymnasiums, a lot of flexibility opens up (more venues, less high-profile demand to compete for weekends, motivation for schools to host STEM activities, etc). I think 8-9 months is plenty of time to commit venues that adequately meet a schedule/location criteria set up by a District Organizer.

Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. I think there are much, much bigger challenges to districts than booking venues only 8 months in advance.

-Mike

+1

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Jon,

I know RD's work hard to identify and register new teams every year.

However, every RD already has a "good idea of the number of rookies" they will have next year. It's called their FIRST mandated growth figures. And it's their job (literally) to meet or surpass that figure.

Maybe your RD is way more prepared than ours (seems likely, since MN has experienced amazing growth over the past decade!), but our RD's are still talking to many schools all the way through the fall. Seems like nothing is set in stone until that team makes an account in TIMS and registers.

Matt,

I know MI has added some last-minute districts occasionally in the last few years.


Regardless, back to venues, when you increase your search scope to gymnasiums, a lot of flexibility opens up (more venues, less high-profile demand to compete for weekends, motivation for schools to host STEM activities, etc). I think 8-9 months is plenty of time to commit venues that adequately meet a schedule/location criteria set up by a District Organizer.

Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. I think there are much, much bigger challenges to districts than booking venues only 8 months in advance.

-Mike

Depending on the makeup of your communities in the district system, you likely have a vast supply of venues to choose from. This helps the district system have more leverage at the table than the in the regional system. For example, I would be surprised if there are many places able to support the double-double regional structure in MN besides the two places they already exist.

The district system top to bottom is far more fluid by design. I expect Chesapeake to shift to the WashingtonFIRST/PNW agreement with Manchester for the 2017 or 2018 season. The model there is effectively WAFIRST paying a franchise fee to HQ and the franchisee gets to run their operation however they want within the set rules. RPCs from my understanding always operated on a spectrum of influence and support from Manchester where newer or struggling events get more support than older events, but District systems are mostly left to their own devices for the better.

You shift from planning these monolithic events in the old 60+ team regionals with costs going over 100k for venue rental down to a very nimble schedule. You are not locked into venues that have to support the power consumption, seating, food and drink, janitorial and security, and etc for 60+ teams at a 3.5 day event. Rather, the district system is motivated intrinsically to pat down the budget ask for favors and make concessions they wouldn't be allowed to under the regional system, while simultaneously having more control of their own destiny that can lead them to buy certain equipment in a capital outlay plan. Why keep renting pipe and drape and AV equipment when you can find the money and buy and store it yourself? I mean, you already have fields in a warehouse somewhere; this stuff can probably squeeze into one of our trucks!

So I mean, you get this upside of freedom to control your own destiny as a geographic region or state-oriented program. You likely have more avenues to fundraise because of your new/newly more important 501c3 status and a much simpler model to follow than the regional model. However much like a young adult leaving the nest after she lands her first real job, it comes with it certain challenges. Budget for your own insurance, your own fields and associated equipment. You have to figure out whether or not to buy the really nice scissors to cut things now or buy the really cheap ones at the event site and where and how you would store one vs the other (That one was oddly specific for a reason; I know that's come up before in meetings). Maybe you want to buy your own A/V equipment? Not Manchester's problem anymore.

I haven't even said the "v" word yet. That's a train I think a lot of district systems will always be at least a little behind on, and every time a VC chooses the wrong fork in the road in terms of recruiting vs retention or reassignment vs termination, they run the risk of going in circles and ending up further behind than what is acceptable or tenable. That's not an envious task.

Back on topic; fun experiment! I would love to see more areas transition to the district model so areas can send more teams deeper into competitions and provide a real sense of seasonal progression outside of the "win or die" model.