Districts in Texas proposal sent to FIRST

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Boise is nice in the Spring

I hear Hawaii is not bad also.
We will be in Idaho one day soon!

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by mwmac

Boise is nice in the Spring

So it Duluth... wait, scratch that. No it's not

[Brian Maher]

I am happy to hear that more teams will be able to benefit from the district system. It is really great for teams, especially struggling ones. It is the next step forward for making FIRST sustainable in regions that can support a district. It'll be interesting to see how well the system works in an area as large as Texas.

Originally Posted by asid61

On the other hand, no Texas teams in CA anymore. D:

I wouldn't say no Texas teams in CA quite yet. District teams can still attend regionals, and a decent number do to travel, play with different teams, get some out-of-district practice, or qualify for CMP. Off the top of my head I know that in MAR 11, 87, 303, 1676, 2016, 2234, 2590, 3314, and 4575 competed at various regionals this year.

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by Link07

Guess nobody called Mid-Atlantic.

Feelsbadman

Maybe we can have a revised email that goes "Our friends in other states and regions...and our acquaintances in MAR".

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

I am happy to hear that more teams will be able to benefit from the district system. It is really great for teams, especially struggling ones. It is the next step forward for making FIRST sustainable in regions that can support a district. It'll be interesting to see how well the system works in an area as large as Texas.

Like you stated, the thing that will be interesting to me about Texas districts is there's a significant # of teams that don't have more than 1 event (currently) within 300 miles of them, and some of those don't have any event within 300 miles. If the normal district rules apply, forcing those teams to do two competitions in Texas could place a significant burden on them, or force something like Lubbock to host 2 district events back to back with many of the teams competing in both against a roster of teams that is mostly the same, or some other solution I have not heard of/thought of. There's a LOT of Texas that is not within a couple hours drive of San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

[BSV]

As a team in Oklahoma looking at going to multiple regionals next year, that's going to kill most of our options. Arkansas and Kansas City are the only other nearby regionals (6 hours or less) besides OKC (2 minute drive). And KC and OKC were the same weekend last year. Texas is the entire landmass to our west and south.

I think that we'll need to attend the Hawaii Regional to make up for the loss of local Regionals.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

Like you stated, the thing that will be interesting to me about Texas districts is there's a significant # of teams that don't have more than 1 event (currently) within 300 miles of them, and some of those don't have any event within 300 miles. If the normal district rules apply, forcing those teams to do two competitions in Texas could place a significant burden on them, or force something like Lubbock to host 2 district events back to back with many of the teams competing in both against a roster of teams that is mostly the same, or some other solution I have not heard of/thought of. There's a LOT of Texas that is not within a couple hours drive of San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

A normalizing travel stipend would do it. They'd (FIRST in Texas) just have to redirect funds to support and/or raise additional funds towards that.

I know easier said then done on the raising of the additonal funds but my experience is it's very doable in Texas.

--Michael Blake

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by BSV

As a team in Oklahoma looking at going to multiple regionals next year, that's going to kill most of our options. Arkansas and Kansas City are the only other nearby regionals (6 hours or less) besides OKC (2 minute drive). And KC and OKC were the same weekend last year. Texas is the entire landmass to our west and south.

I think that we'll need to attend the Hawaii Regional to make up for the loss of local Regionals.

Come on over to the other Missouri regional, we'd love to have you (assuming St. Louis isn't on the same week as Arkansas and KC this year.)

[lpickett]

There is always Denver. Shouldn't be too bad to get to from OKC. We always enjoy out-of-town teams to Kansas City.

[Coach Norm]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Looks like Texas will be a priority for us in 2017 if they dont go districts. Running out of places to play.
But anyhow, good luck with getting it. Any area that can implement districts is an overall benefit for all participating/eligible teams.

+1

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

Like you stated, the thing that will be interesting to me about Texas districts is there's a significant # of teams that don't have more than 1 event (currently) within 300 miles of them, and some of those don't have any event within 300 miles. If the normal district rules apply, forcing those teams to do two competitions in Texas could place a significant burden on them, or force something like Lubbock to host 2 district events back to back with many of the teams competing in both against a roster of teams that is mostly the same, or some other solution I have not heard of/thought of. There's a LOT of Texas that is not within a couple hours drive of San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

Texas had 136 teams in 2015 according to this, so there will probably be around 7 events minimum (2 plays per team at 40 team events comes out to 6.8 events needed), though there will probably be several more, maybe like 10 (this is a complete guess), in actuality. According to TBA there were 4 events in Texas this year, so there will likely be twice or more as many events in Texas on the district model compared to the regional model. While I am sure some teams will have a larger travel burden because of districts, many teams will probably end up with more events close to them than they currently have.

Basically, I am trying to say that the change in travel burden will, at a minimum, probably not be quite as bad as you think, if not make things easier for a lot of teams.

[BSV]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

Come on over to the other Missouri regional, we'd love to have you (assuming St. Louis isn't on the same week as Arkansas and KC this year.)

Originally Posted by lpickett

There is always Denver. Shouldn't be too bad to get to from OKC. We always enjoy out-of-town teams to Kansas City.

Thanks for the offer. We've had three robot trips to MO so far this year for FTC (KC, Rolla, and St. Louis), so we're happy with the place. We get a lot of MO teams at the OKC Regional, too.

Denver is a great city, too. 10 hour drive of wind farms, though. St. Louis is about 8.

It would be nice if there was some way to not shut out nearby teams for districts. I don't think we're going to districts any time soon, so if MO goes to districts we will be in trouble. The Texas thing definitely limits the options because we looked at Dallas, Houston, and Alamo before ending up at Hub City this year. But I hope it works out for the best in Texas.

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Basically, I am trying to say that the change in travel burden will, at a minimum, probably not be quite as bad as you think, if not make things easier for a lot of teams.

I agree that there will be several more competitions. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than the required 7. I also think that the travel burden will be easier for some teams (Many teams that used to only be able to do 1 event now being able to easily attend 2 district competitions within their home towns of Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or Houston, and maybe Lubbock with little to no cost increase) But I will be surprised if any pop up outside of Lubbock, Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. The team density outside of any of those cities just doesn't justify having a district competition anywhere else, and I don't think anyone has experience running district events outside of those 5 cities. So I think for several teams, more competitions available just doesn't help, and requiring attendance at 2 district competitions may prove to be an insurmountable financial burden. I'm not sure how many teams are in west texas (I wish there was a google map with a dot for every team in texas, but I don't want to take the time to make that happen), but for a team in El Paso the two closest cities that have event experience are Lubbock (5.5 hrs away) and San Antonio (7.5 hrs away). If the point of districts is to have two competitions ideally within driving distance to eliminate the need for a hotel, then that's just not possible with a sustainable team density for the foreseeable future.

All that said - I'm strongly for districts. I think it helps a significant number of teams, helps the teams of Texas from a world champs standpoint, and I'm hopeful that the negative impact to teams will be non-existent or mitigate-able. I'm just think/hope that Texas districts is a set up to function a little different than existing models.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

I agree that there will be several more competitions. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than the required 7. I also think that the travel burden will be easier for some teams (Many teams that used to only be able to do 1 event now being able to easily attend 2 district competitions within their home towns of Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or Houston, and maybe Lubbock with little to no cost increase) But I will be surprised if any pop up outside of Lubbock, Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. The team density outside of any of those cities just doesn't justify having a district competition anywhere else, and I don't think anyone has experience running district events outside of those 5 cities. So I think for several teams, more competitions available just doesn't help, and requiring attendance at 2 district competitions may prove to be an insurmountable financial burden. I'm not sure how many teams are in west texas (I wish there was a google map with a dot for every team in texas, but I don't want to take the time to make that happen), but for a team in El Paso the two closest cities that have event experience are Lubbock (5.5 hrs away) and San Antonio (7.5 hrs away). If the point of districts is to have two competitions ideally within driving distance to eliminate the need for a hotel, then that's just not possible with a sustainable team density for the foreseeable future.

All that said - I'm strongly for districts. I think it helps a significant number of teams, helps the teams of Texas from a world champs standpoint, and I'm hopeful that the negative impact to teams will be non-existent or mitigate-able. I'm just think/hope that Texas districts is a set up to function a little different than existing models.

Andrew... what do you think of a financial travel stipend to normalize travel for these far-flung teams funded by FIRST in Texas?

It's not perfect because of the hours of extra travel time you can't recover for these teams but would be the closest to the best solution possible I believe.

--Michael Blake

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Andrew... what do you think of a financial travel stipend to normalize travel for these far-flung teams funded by FIRST in Texas?

It's not perfect because of the hours of extra travel time you can't recover for these teams but would be the closest to the best solution possible I believe.

--Michael Blake

Bluntly put - I think it's naive to think that it'd happen. The Texas Workforce Commission grants, which seems to be the majority of the funding, already has the stipulations that it can't be used for travel, food, or lodging. My experience has been that most sponsors do not want money spent on those things, and I'd be hard pressed to think that FiT could find companies that would allow for their sponsorship to be used for costs associated with travel. Putting that burden on FiT just isn't any more sensible than putting it on the teams.

There's also nuances to consider in team sizes (how many rooms), and district rules regarding travel (for instance, any travel we use - bus or vans - have to be through a school approved vendor). If you were to attempt to do a financial stipend, I'd guess that the sponsors would also want to control what bus/van/hotel is used rather than just give the money to a team outright which could cause it's own set of problems. Granted though, if you could even get to this point I think most teams that have to deal with those sort of rules imposed by a district could find a way to make something work if it reduces costs...but I've learned never to doubt the ability for rules and regulations to force a decision that doesn't make any sense or to turn down "free money".

In addition to seeming unrealistic IMO, I think it treats the symptom rather than do anything to address an issue.

To be fair, I don't have a solution that I think is sufficient either. Do you allow teams to duplicate their score from attending 1 event if they justifiably can't attend 2? Do you reduce their registration fee to do only 1 district event? Do you allow west texas teams or border teams to compete out of state to count for district points? Do you only have districts for the parts of texas with a required team density (basically east texas)? Do you allow teams that aren't within XXX miles of a district event to decide on their own to opt-in or opt-out of districts? All of these come with their own set of obvious problems.