California District Proposal

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alyssa

The reason that SoCal teams aren't being as vocal on the forum is because there is a general consensus in SoCal that these forums are toxic - don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.

That would explain it. Not sure that's limited to SoCal, either (the thinking these forums are toxic part--I've heard of folks saying that from all over). But that's beside the point.

[Ali Ahmed]

It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school.
Or maybe that's just me.

In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.

Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.

[Deetman]

As a data point, a general number for key volunteers would be the number events/2 rounded up. Based on the proposal, this would be 7 total of each for 1 California District Championship and 8 total for 2 California District Championships. This isn't set in stone - some key volunteers seem to have a tendency to go crazy and do more than 2 events, but strikes a nice balance, especially where events are not all within a 2 hour drive and allows for some overlap/trainees in positions.

[jpetito]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I don't know whether other districts do the same way. In Michigan, every team is assigned their home event based on their closest district event location. Teams can request FiM to change it if there is a good reason or if there was an error. Gail also held back a certain number of spots from each district event. Then teams registered for their second event. Then Gail take teams off the waitlists one at a time and assign them the remaining spots based on distance, team needs, try not to have back to back events etc. It is very tedious. I think I can help automate that if there is a need for it. Every year I create the list of home events for teams to send to FIRST. I already set up a similar spreadsheet for California to calculate the distances. I just need to put in the district venue locations.

Hi Ed-

Thanks for devoting your skill and the extra effort collating the data on teams/venues/weeks. It's tedious.

May I caution you on the spreadsheet/distance thing? Getting from South Torrance to John Burroughs HS on a Thursday/Friday afternoon will take an hour and a half, maybe two, depending on the variables. Probably about the same out to Valencia HS in Placentia. And the same time back, not counting a Chavez Ravine event or some basketball soccer thing downtown, or Knotts BF or the DisneyPlace. Even though it's only thirty-five miles via GPS device.

Joe.

[jpetito]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

Today I learned Orange County, California is in northern California.


/S

Hey Mark- If it's not already, it may soon be… hard for me to keep the orange/citrus teams distinct!

Joe

[jpetito]

May I suggest a holiday on this thread?

Have a nice one.

See you next week!

Joe Petito

[MeGuttieri]

Originally Posted by Alyssa

don't think that all of SoCal doesn't want districts because there aren't as many people involved on Chief down here.

Preach girl preach. Plenty of people in SoCal want districts, and want to be part of the change to make it happen. We can't forget that OCR was a new regional with a rookie volunteer coordinator who did an excellent job. It's more than possible to find the support for districts if we can band together.

For me, it's unbelievably sad to watch teams fall apart because massive regionals like LA haven't been worth the bang for their buck.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

It is very interesting that Southern California is not super vocal on CD. It's not that we don't read (lurk) Chief, we do. But we don't generally speak up. I will chalk that up to the Hollywood mentality of being too cool for school.
Or maybe that's just me.

In regards to moving to Districts in 2017, I do think we are capable of it. Eric was on the nose about volunteers. A combination of outside help plus locals stepping up should get us through the first year or two. The venues are another situation, though there are quite a few on the list currently. A few of those have already hosted an event. These are the two biggest issues but if I can see a reasonable solution then it can be done.

Of course, I'm an optimist so weigh my opinion as you see fit.

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ASD20

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

Correct, 2017 is almost completely booked. 2018 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible. 2019 is much more reasonable.
No where in this thread nor in the documentation Mike, RC, and Andrew put together does it ever suggest 2017 is a possibility.

I think the biggest take away from all of this is, we need to seriously do the groundwork and preparation that is needed to move to Districts. This means training up volunteers, locating venues, finding the financial backing, and the physical resources need to support the much larger number of events.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by billbo911

2108 is the absolute soonest this "might" be possible.

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

[Munchskull]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

Think that they could get it down to at least 2097? Perfectly reasonabe, right?

But seriously I would love to see California in districts, it would allow cross play between them and PNW.

[Ali Ahmed]

Originally Posted by ASD20

As far as having the people for it and the venues exist you might be, but its way too late in terms of organization for this year. Also, it sounds like there are already CA regionals that have been booked. I think with a lot of work this year, you can be ready for 2018, but its just too late for 2017.

Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Yikes 2108! Maybe us outsiders really don't get the situation in California.

Thanks for the catch! Corrected.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

Not from MI, but as I recall the statements made previously, the 2 volunteers can be anybody and don't have to be at an event that the team is at.

And TBH, that setup makes a lot of sense. (What I'd be wondering is if one person could account for both, but that's not as important.)

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Ali Ahmed

Yes, realistically speaking, you are correct. Contracts have been signed, funds have been allocated, etc. I was speaking from an idealist perspective.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone from Michigan speak about the 2 required team volunteers? Does it have to be students, or can parents/teachers/mentors also be part of that? What about teams with a very small population? Like less than 10, are they required to send the volunteers too or can an exception be made? I love the idea and am wondering how it's going in Michigan, or any other District that has the same rule.

The 2 required volunteers can be students or parents/teacher/mentors. Usually with 40 teams, there are enough volunteers with most teams supplying two. Exceptions can certainly be made with small teams, rookie teams or less resouceful teams. In the beginning, I couldn't find two parents so I volunteered myself. Later once the parents tried volunteering, they loved it so much they continued to do it and became part of the steady volunteer pool for FiM. This is a good way to grow the volunteer pool that people may not be aware of.