Ontario Moving to District Model in 2017

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

You know, there's really nothing like seeing someone take an overall cost increase and sell it as a cost savings. From my point of view, there's a cost increase of $33,500 CAD in registration fees. I think it would be more fair to say that the cost of registration for a second play has dramatically decreased, but that second play is now mandatory. Before you had around 60 teams go for a second play (I don't know how many may have played more than 2, but lets assume none did for a minute), which means 77 teams did not go for a second play.

Not accounting for the fact that FIRST Canada has said that the $7500 fee is approximation, and could be lower to account for exchange rates this fall, a $33,500 increase divided by 137 Ontario teams would work out to an increase of $244 per team.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Not accounting for the fact that FIRST Canada has said that the $7500 fee is approximation, and could be lower to account for exchange rates this fall, a $33,500 increase divided by 137 Ontario teams would work out to an increase of $244 per team.

But unfortunately the math really isn't that simple. Teams that attended multiple regionals previously shouldered much more of the burden willingly, while now those teams that didn't still have to pay an increased fee, much more than $244. It doesn't change the fact that there are 77 teams that now are being forced to pay for and attend two events. And while the comparison that's been posted of registration costs is nice, it does not take into account the total cost encountered per team for this change (additional travel costs, time out of school/work, for example).

CD is overrun with teams that regularly attend multiple events, and underrepresented by teams that struggle to attend one. I'm wondering, with all the different areas going to districts, has anyone done an analysis of teams that drop out the first year or two after the transition?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

But unfortunately the math really isn't that simple. Teams that attended multiple regionals previously shouldered much more of the burden willingly, while now those teams that didn't still have to pay an increased fee, much more than $244. It doesn't change the fact that there are 77 teams that now are being forced to pay for and attend two events. And while the comparison that's been posted of registration costs is nice, it does not take into account the total cost encountered per team for this change (additional travel costs, time out of school/work, for example).

CD is overrun with teams that regularly attend multiple events, and underrepresented by teams that struggle to attend one. I'm wondering, with all the different areas going to districts, has anyone done an analysis of teams that drop out the first year or two after the transition?

Teams aren't forced to attend their second event. There are a small percentage of teams in districts that do only attend one event.

Considering the US registration fee is the same for districts and regionals, I'm pretty sure that the increase in Canadian registration fees are due to factors other than the system switch. Of course we can't say this for sure without information from somebody on FIRST Canada staff.

I will say (and from what I've seen, many of the people who support districts also support this opinion) that teams who struggle to attend one event (and/or struggle to field a robot) would often be better served by switching to a program with lower barriers to entry (FTC/VEX) as they're missing out on a significant part of the experience (being able to compete, iterate, and compete again).

I concur with the need for analysis though. Always better to make informed decisions.

[GreyingJay]

Yes, I hope this is truly going to be a net positive for Ontario.

One big assumption I'm making is that this "around $7500 CAD" vs $5000 USD will resolve such that the costs work out to be the same - as has been the case for the US districts.

If so, then for many teams, there is either a positive impact or no impact.

If you already paid for and attended two Ontario regionals, then you can go to the same two events, but you've effectively only paid for one. Two events for the price of one.

If you only attended one Ontario regional, either due to cost or travel distance, you can still go to the same event for the same cost, and not attend a second district event. One event for the price of one. So you don't gain anything but you didn't lose anything either.

If you are a "top 60" Ontario team, then you will need to come up with "around $3000" on top of the "around $7500" to attend district champs, plus the added trip costs. However, if you were a team that previously attended two regionals anyway, then this added cost is still less than what you paid last year (minus the cost of a third trip) so you're getting 3 events for the price of 2.

Where it will hurt is a "top 60" team that only went to one regional last year, who will now be expected to pay for a trip to district championships, or forego their spot.

Where it will also hurt is any Ontario team that typically did not attend Ontario regionals due to distance and instead went to a regional elsewhere (say NY state). They will not have the option to do so this year. I do feel for those teams. We are kind of in that spot since Ottawa is closer to Montreal than it is Toronto. We were seriously considering going to the Montreal regional next year but that is no longer an option (unless we went after two district events).

Any World Champs expenses remain unchanged on top of all these competition expenses.

[PayneTrain]

Mandatory second play? If a coach doesn't want to go to a second event, are the board members of FIRST Canada going to put a horse head in their bed? I didn't see that in the letter at all.

[scottandme]

For discussion's sake:

136 teams competed in 2016 (1 showing as registered but didn't compete)
73 attended 1 regional
53 attended 2 regionals
10 attended 3 regionals

30 attended World Champs
8 attended 1 regional (11.0% yield)
16 attended 2 regionals (30.2% yield)
6 attended 3 regionals (60.0% yield)

Of the 8 single event teams, 5 qualified via RAS. The others were 3rd pick event winners (2 from the same event - via a backup being called).

As mentioned - if you only want to attend one event - you'll be able to continue as before. Most Ontario events were small to begin with, so you'll barely notice the difference.

Yes - there's no single event route to qualify for World Champs, but single event teams are unlikely to qualify under the current system. Last year only 3 out of the 65 veteran single event teams qualified for WCMP. You probably have a better shot via the waitlist.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by scottandme

For discussion's sake:

136 teams competed in 2016 (1 showing as registered but didn't compete)
73 attended 1 regional
53 attended 2 regionals
10 attended 3 regionals

30 attended World Champs
8 attended 1 regional (11.0% yield)
16 attended 2 regionals (30.2% yield)
6 attended 3 regionals (60.0% yield)

Of the 8 single event teams, 5 qualified via RAS. The others were 3rd pick event winners (2 from the same event - via a backup being called).

As mentioned - if you only want to attend one event - you'll be able to continue as before. Most Ontario events were small to begin with, so you'll barely notice the difference.

Yes - there's no single event route to qualify for World Champs, but single event teams are unlikely to qualify under the current system. Last year only 3 out of the 65 veteran single event teams qualified for WCMP. You probably have a better shot via the waitlist.

If a team is complaining about now "having" to attend multiple events because it is more expensive and at the same time complaining that they can't qualify for the championship from a single event they need to look at their priorities. If a team can't afford to attend a second district event they can't afford to go to the championship.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

CD is overrun with teams that regularly attend multiple events, and underrepresented by teams that struggle to attend one. I'm wondering, with all the different areas going to districts, has anyone done an analysis of teams that drop out the first year or two after the transition?

I would love to see this data as well. Anecdotally as a member of a struggling one regional team, having two district events to compete & improve has worked wonders for our sustainability. I believe that was part of the theory behind the District model.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

If a team can't afford to attend a second district event they can't afford to go to the championship.

I don't know if I'd make such a generalized blanket statement. Often times there are grants and sponsors who automatically pay additional funding for FRC teams who qualify for Championship. We had two different sponsors kick us extra cash last year based on us qualifying for the FRC Championship. Similarly, it's a lot easier to raise funds in general with a tangible and easily translated objective like "Help Canada High Robotics Team get to the Championship!"

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I don't know if I'd make such a generalized blanket statement. Often times there are grants and sponsors who automatically pay additional funding for FRC teams who qualify for Championship. We had two different sponsors kick us extra cash last year based on us qualifying for the FRC Championship. Similarly, it's a lot easier to raise funds in general with a tangible and easily translated objective like "Help Canada High Robotics Team get to the Championship!"

You mean like "Help Canada High Robotics get to their second event!" or "Help Canada High Robotics get to their District Championship!".

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

You mean like "Help Canada High Robotics get to their second event!" or "Help Canada High Robotics get to their District Championship!".

The latter definitely plays, but I'm unsure if the former has the same appeal to outsiders.

My general point is that there does exist a subset of teams that can attend a local event and the occasional FRC Championship when they qualify, but who may struggle to attend additional travel events outside of those without changes to their funding model. I'm not arguing those teams have to be catered to, but simply stating they do exist.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

You know, there's really nothing like seeing someone take an overall cost increase and sell it as a cost savings. From my point of view, there's a cost increase of $33,500 CAD in registration fees. I think it would be more fair to say that the cost of registration for a second play has dramatically decreased, but that second play is now mandatory. Before you had around 60 teams go for a second play (I don't know how many may have played more than 2, but lets assume none did for a minute), which means 77 teams did not go for a second play.

My question for those 77 teams is... why not? Was is registration cost alone? Total cost including travel? Time out of school/work? Lack of dedication/desire? For those 77 teams, does this change in pricing structure and event locations eliminate their reason for not attending two events, or cause them more headaches than they previously had?

The simple fact is, a change like this does make competition cheaper for some teams... but it also makes it more expensive for others. Are those others prepared for the additional fundraising needed?

23,500 CAD, though your point stands.

It's a relatively small price increase (~$200 per team) for a huge gain in playing time, event count, season length, that kind of stuff. Granted this increase in price is probably not distributed equally.

I think everyone agrees about the positives. Some argue that its easily worth the marginal price increase. Others disagree.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Considering the US registration fee is the same for districts and regionals, I'm pretty sure that the increase in Canadian registration fees are due to factors other than the system switch. Of course we can't say this for sure without information from somebody on FIRST Canada staff.

I'd venture to say it's similar to PNW's financial arrangement. FIRST tells FIRST Canada what they need in "participation fees" to cover the revenue they're counting on from Ontario normally (under regional system), or something similar (FIRST has a number of full time employees and support services they provide, as well as, you know, the game). Then it's up to FIRST Canada to raise money, collect registration fees, etc. to cover both this fee to FIRST and their own operating costs. In this way teams pay to their local district organizer and don't need to do a transaction with FIRST, which would also facilitate payment in CAD as mentioned. The higher fee is likely a result of how FIRST Canada is able to split their costs between donor support and the teams.

I could be totally off though.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The latter definitely plays, but I'm unsure if the former has the same appeal to outsiders.

My general point is that there does exist a subset of teams that can attend a local event and the occasional FRC Championship when they qualify, but who may struggle to attend additional travel events outside of those without changes to their funding model. I'm not arguing those teams have to be catered to, but simply stating they do exist.

You don't have to be argued whether or not they should be catered to because they are via the waitlist.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

You don't have to be argued whether or not they should be catered to because they are via the waitlist.

Getting a slot via the wait list doesn't help if you cannot afford to go. The wait list caters to teams that don't otherwise qualify. It doesn't take into account funding specifically. The core pillars of First is to make sure the program is diverse and affordable. I wouldn't call it catering to the low resource teams, but implied in there finding a way to make it affordable.