California District Proposal

[jpetito]

Hi JB987-

Pleasure to work with you guys/gals this last season.

Astute observations on prospective shifts in regional participation. What "offshore" team would not want to go to Vegas? And the airfare is not that much more than flying into LAX. District model would probably pull in the eastern Cal teams more so than present, even though the distances are almost equivalent.

Another bone to throw in the soup.

Joe.

[jpetito]

Hi s-neff--

Like your ideas on reservations for offshore teams to have reserved spots at the larger events.

For them to come all this way, pay the fees, the airfare, the hotel and transport and meals and junk, a gym with 44 teams and pits in hallways is something of a let-down.

For those of you who are "offshore," please comment on your preferences, especially if your habit is to play in West Coast events. Our "little" discussion here will affect you tremendously.

Joe.

[jpetito]

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

[jpetito]

Originally Posted by ASD20

According to the FRC Wikipedia page, the non-US or Canada teams are:

Israel (62)
Mexico (53)
Australia (39)
China (36)
Turkey (20)
Brazil (6)
Netherlands (3)
Taiwan (3)
United Kingdom (3)
Chile (2)
Dominican Republic (2)
Japan (2)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1)
Colombia (1)
Czech Republic (1)
Denmark (1)
Ecuador (1)
France (1)
Germany (1)
India (1)
Poland (1)
Singapore (1)
United Arab Emirates (1)

So lets pretend all of the US and Canada went to districts suddenly (so I don't have to account for team growth).
Completely ignoring the political/economical/many other factors and just focusing on geography and assuming teams from countries with Regionals go to that regional:

South American and Caribbean teams can go to Mexico
Taiwan, Japan, India, and Singapore can go to China
Israel goes to Districts (Based on geographical size and # of teams alone this seem feasible within a few years)
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the UAE attend a new regional in Turkey along with maybe Poland and the Czech Republic

This would leave 9-11 teams (depending on where Poland and Czech Republic go) all in Europe who don't have a regional. They could go to Turkey or that regional could go to somewhere in Europe that is more central to all of the teams. If Israel still holds a regional, then it probably makes sense to have the new regional in Europe. There could also just be 2 new regionals on the assumption that a lot of American teams would want to go to a European regional. Other than Europe, I think every international team is either as close or nearly as close to a regional as they are right now. It wouldn't be great and I have no idea how the international community will be able to adapt to growth and the potential transition of the large team population centers to Districts, but I think it is possible, at least right now, for the international teams to sustain their own events.

However, I do think it FIRST should come up with a way for teams in low density areas to at least compete in district events, if not qualify for Champs through them.

Yikes!
What with the geopolitical events of the last couple of years (and just this week!), assuming teams from various countries would or could go to another is a large assumption on our part. We go outside the continental US we've got to consider much, much bigger issues, having nothing to do with FRC.

Joe

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by EricH

I'm pointing out that, from my point of view on the ground, it's not going to be easy. I also happen to be largely unable to help, because I work insane hours. But if you're going to say that, then you also need to GET DOWN HERE and see what it's like. I have no more to say on that.

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

Joe,

Thanks for the important reminder. It is very clear that there are plenty of High School venues in California to cover 16 (or more) district events, as you have stated. These are venues that can support 36-40 teams, have stands, pits, etc. This is a good baseline to establish, and one that we are working towards with the growing list of venues that many individuals are beginning to contribute towards. To everyone continuing to hunt for venues, THANK YOU!

Second, Joe, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this assumption:

Venues that currently host FRC events (Regional or Off-Season), and to a lesser extent venues that used to host FRC events, are likely to have the people problem mostly solved. I know this goes for DHS, PGHS and COHS (three CCC sites). These administrations WANT us at their school and let us book only 6 months out to get the weekend we want. I'm going to bet that many of the other venues currently in use have decent or better relationships with the school administration as well.

Do you agree with my assumption?

If you agree, I think we are getting close to solving the people portion of our venue equation. Just like many other districts have done across the country. Unless you think that, statistically, California administrators are prone to be hell-bent against FRC events

Thanks for the feedback,

-Mike

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Hey Eric-

I don't know if you're intending this side effect, but the way I read your above statement was basically "The only people who could understand how stuff works here are people that physically occupy this space". It comes off extremely close-minded to me.

For every region that jumps to a district, that above argument loses more and more of its (in my opinion) already weak starting value. EVERY region has unique challenges (types of available venues, funding, etc), but every region also has overlapping issues (growing a volunteer base, managing a schedule, figuring out best communciation practices). But each time another District pops up, it shows they've worked through their unique challenges and have pressed ahead. Every time this happens, the list of 'reasons it won't work here' gets smaller.

I just don't think the argument of 'you don't understand this area' is very inviting to problem solving. It seems like its intended to be a trump card to force others out of the discussion.

Just my 2 cents.

-Brando

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Why would anyone contribute helpful or constructive advice if we're being told we can never understand the area or problems unique to that area?

That type of response is doing the exact opposite of inviting useful feedback which is why I pointed it out.

I'm not pushing anyone, anywhere. I've put a ton of effort into helping my region make a leap - and a lot of people are in a similar situation I was a few years ago. Many of them have reached out for my advice and I'm simply stating it.

-Brando

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

As someone involved heavily in Southern California frc, I really do appreciate all the helpful advice from everyone. They in fact have dealt with the same issues and making SoCal open to that advice is something we need to do. And you know what, saying we don't have the venues, volunteers, ect are just excuses that others are trying to help us overcome. We will never be ready as a state if we don't push each other.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Except, while the problems may be similar, every area is different in terms of how far they are towards dealing with those problems, who they have available to work on them, and what their specific plan is to address them. Getting helpful and constructive advice to deal with problems identified by the people within the area is awesome. Being told "well, everyone else has solved the problem, you don't have an excuse" is not helpful. Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by scottandme

Is this entire thread not a prompt to examine the feasibility of the district model in California? Pretty sure that's why Mike, Pauline, et al made the document. The most recent posts have been exploring venue locations, since that's one of the major challenges for the transition.

I see a lot of people from outside CA offering data, suggestions, and their own experiences with different venue layouts. It seems very gracious that people are offering help for a cause that they won't benefit from at all. These are mostly people who have seen the benefit of the district model, and want California to enjoy the same benefits. I can't imagine that any of them have some nefarious agenda that they're trying to push CA (or MN) into - just that they have seen and know that the district model can (and has) worked everywhere that it has been implemented, and that it has numerous advantages over the regional model.

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Being pushed into something by outside forces before your area is actually ready to do it is neither gracious nor professional from those doing the pushing.

Not a single outside person in this thread has said that California NEEDS to go to districts or has said that California should rush into it. Everyone has been providing reasons why California should want to go to distracts and has been working towards finding solutions to the problems with the transition, so California CAN go to Districts when they are ready. This thread is called California District PROPOSAL and thats what this thread has been: proposals, suggestions, and advice.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Hi Andrew S/Data Nerd--

I think it's a settled issue that high schools are perfectly fine for District events--Some better than others of course.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get buy-in from the people who most have to be convinced, and about who I'm seeing little conversation: High school site and school district admin. Going back to the White Paper here:

California District Proposal White Paper: Refocusing the Conversations

it's a people problem, not an engineering problem, and the solutions must be relational, not logarithmic. The people who have direct effect on issues beyond our control must be convinced that what we do is worthy of backing.

Joe
FRC 1197

Joe, I agree with you that boots on the ground is what's going to find venues. I'm over here in NH and have no skin in the game. What I do have, however, is a willingness to dig through boring government reports and munge data into something that others can use without wanting to tear their hair out.

How to get buy in? Honestly, simplest approach is just ask. I assume each venue is going to have its own concerns and challenges.

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

If you read the thread, there seems to be a difference between Northern and Southern California... and those who worked on the document were all from Northern California. Eric has been pointing out issues with Southern California, and instead of getting helpful advice, he's being told "why don't you stop complaining". Not helpful for solving the problems in that part of the state.

1) There are PLENTLY of SoCal reps on the CA district proposal, just because they are not listed as a main writer does not mean there are 0 influences from SoCal.
2) Every issue brought up about the transition has been answered with great ideas and informative experiences. I love all the advice we've gotten! I am going to implement them into the SoCal region for sure!
3) Let's get this thread back on track, stop with the finger pointing.

We talked about venues, but I have a question as a person whos never competed in districts, how is the waitlist handled for events? Thanks!