California District Proposal, Rev 2

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Does North have an organization that can pull this together in the next year or two? * South does not, to my knowledge.

I'd like to disagree. There are so many great people in SoCal doing amazing work that frankly are not active on this website (and for good reason).

I've been speaking to SoCal Mentors/Students/Alumni/Volunteers for years and most want the district move and want to aid the transition.
You can even see that more SoCal people are posting on other forms of social media rather than this page. And frankly, many well known mentors try to not engage in arguments back on forth on these platforms.

Most mentors on my own team don't engage in these forums.
How can you judge an entire region when CD only represents a small portion?

I'm sure if I sent an email to every single FIST-er in SoCal the response would be less "ghost town" and more "how can I help"
Thanks
-Pauline

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

I'd like to disagree. There are so many great people in SoCal doing amazing work that frankly are not active on this website (and for good reason).

I've been speaking to SoCal Mentors/Students/Alumni/Volunteers for years and most want the district move and want to aid the transition.
You can even see that more SoCal people are posting on other forms of social media rather than this page. And frankly, many well known mentors try to not engage in arguments back on forth on these platforms.

Most mentors on my own team don't engage in these forums.
How can you judge an entire region when CD only represents a small portion?

I'm sure if I sent an email to every single FIST-er in SoCal the response would be less "ghost town" and more "how can I help"
Thanks
-Pauline

Pauline,

Great points you've made. A lot of people in California want districts! We will be discussing at most NorCal off-season events this fall about how to mobilize.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for Joe He does come from years of leadership with SCRRF, an organization that has served robotics initiatives in SoCal for many years. While I don't agree with his diagnosis, I think his evaluation comes from more than just these forums, and is based out of his experience with SCRRF.

I understand districts is a huge logistical and volunteer challenge. However, 9(?) other regions have moved to the district model already. What challenges do we face that other regions have battled, what challenges are unique to CA, and what perceived challenges are in reality trivial to overcome?

To Joe's point, I agree that working with school administrations is a challenge, but I do not agree that the challenge is unique to California. Other regions that run most or all of their events in High Schools have found solutions to this particular challenge that California should be able to adopt.

I think solution #1 is booking with venues early. Solution #2 is being willing to pay the usage fees (the 25k district event budget includes 10k for venue).

Thanks for contributing everyone!

-Mike

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I understand districts is a huge logistical and volunteer challenge. However, 9(?) other regions have moved to the district model already. What challenges do we face that other regions have battled, what challenges are unique to CA, and what perceived challenges are in reality trivial to overcome?

I think that the biggest unique problem for California (or New York, whichever comes first ) to trailblaze is district size and team distribution. Like Eric said above, California is big, and there are large parts of the state without the team density to host events. This is the root of the discussion surrounding possibly splitting Northern and Southern CA in some fashion. A similar problem exists in NY between teams in/around NYC and those upstate.

Whoever can work out scaling districts to situations like these (making a system that benefits teams and that HQ approves of) will end up having a large impact.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by EricH

I understand PA's objection to splitting the state, I think, but one thing the East Coast folks need to keep in mind when we're talking about distances is this: 307 miles from end to end (PA) is a fair piece... but CA is only about 500 from San Diego to Sacramento or San Fransisco (covers many of the teams), which doesn't include the northern part of the state. And there's mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. We're used to being "split" due to the distances and terrain. (Here's a hint, for the NE folks: I think you could probably fit CT AND RI into one of our larger counties, with room to spare.)

I think the point is that CA FIRSTers and its 501c (or plural) need to investigate the impact of any potential state (or other) funding on a "split" state format. That's not to say it should automatically rule out a split state format or that the state of California would be guaranteed not to support multiple partial state organizations, but it's a factor worthy of consideration. Getting blindsided by such as issue would be a definite negative for everyone involved, and especially so for those who hope to create a Michigan-like FRC environment in California.

Also, there's mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, too.

[Mr V]

I agree that CA is tricky due to the size both geographically and team count and I personally think that splitting the state into 2 districts is probably the best way to go. Then maybe after everything is up and running pilot points portability only for teams from and playing in the NCA and SCA Districts.

Two separate DCMPs avoids both potential long travel times and the need for an oversized FiM style DCMP. Points portability would potentially keep it as "one thing" in the eyes of the state and other potential donors.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I think the point is that CA FIRSTers and its 501c (or plural) need to investigate the impact of any potential state (or other) funding on a "split" state format. That's not to say it should automatically rule out a split state format or that the state of California would be guaranteed not to support multiple partial state organizations, but it's a factor worthy of consideration. Getting blindsided by such as issue would be a definite negative for everyone involved, and especially so for those who hope to create a Michigan-like FRC environment in California.

Also, there's mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, too.

There's a tradition in CA of split state organizations, particularly for HS sports. The Sections run largely independent of the statewide CIF and are quite akin to the state HS federations elsewhere. I follow HS track & field closely and I'm not aware of any other state with a similar geographic split in organizations. (There are states with differences based on type of schools, e.g., public, private, Catholic...) I would expect anyone would look at a N/S split in FRC as being quite similar, and in fact may even expect it.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

There's a tradition in CA of split state organizations, particularly for HS sports. The Sections run largely independent of the statewide CIF and are quite akin to the state HS federations elsewhere. I follow HS track & field closely and I'm not aware of any other state with a similar geographic split in organizations. (There are states with differences based on type of schools, e.g., public, private, Catholic...) I would expect anyone would look at a N/S split in FRC as being quite similar, and in fact may even expect it.

It's only 1 state org (MHSAA), but Michigan has separate LP and UP track & field Finals. But most? other sports are statewide i.e. basketball.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

It's only 1 state org (MHSAA), but Michigan has separate LP and UP track & field Finals. But most? other sports are statewide i.e. basketball.

The UP being an outlier, Michigan is much smaller and closer together than California.

Traffic is bad in the San Jose/San Fran area, as well in LA/SD. So any southern team going all the way north to compete (or vice versa) has a pretty brutal drive.

[jpetito]

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

+1

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

Thanks Joe!

All,

I mentioned on the show that I've been studying 990's to try to better understand the finances behind FIRST and Districts. Here are the latest 990's I could find: 990 Forms

Given the information in these 990 forms, I updated the District Cost Estimate further to reflect the need for payroll taxes and travel/hotel reimbursement.

Please note, nearly half of the CA District Budget is for staff salaries and related expenses. I think RD's in CA are concerned about keeping their jobs, so I believe it is important to demonstrate that there is a financial motivation to moving to districts.

Happy to answer any questions.

-Mike

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The UP being an outlier, Michigan is much smaller and closer together than California.

Traffic is bad in the San Jose/San Fran area, as well in LA/SD. So any southern team going all the way north to compete (or vice versa) has a pretty brutal drive.

California is unusual compared to other states. Until the 1970s "state" championships were the exception rather than the rule; Section champs were frequently the final stop. Even now at least 4 of 23 sports have N/S championships only. http://www.cifstate.org/governance/Playoff_Calendar.pdf

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for Joe He does come from years of leadership with SCRRF, an organization that has served robotics initiatives in SoCal for many years. While I don't agree with his diagnosis, I think his evaluation comes from more than just these forums, and is based out of his experience with SCRRF.

I also have some experience along those lines, and have been able to draw from some other persons' experiences as well.

If I had to point to a single thing that would keep districts from happening in SoCal, based on my experience and hearing the chatter... I'll point out three.

1) "Non-team" influences. That would be, as discussed previously, some combination of CAFIRST, school administrations, and other persons or groups that aren't necessarily affiliated with teams but have some stake in how FIRST is run in CA. No need to repeat that discussion. (I think the solution is to educate those folks on the benefits to the teams, and to them.)

2) Disunity (not discord, mind you)--this is more of a "we're not actually pulling together, only in the same general direction" than anything else. I'm only aware of WRRF in NorCal as far as robotics support organizations. I'm aware of SCRRF (LARobotics) and OCRA for sure down this way, and if I'm not mistaken there's another group in San Diego. All three will need to work together, more than simply coordinating when their offseason events happen so there aren't conflicts (they're really good at avoiding each other's event dates). Working together can produce a stronger pull than three individual yanks. I don't see a lot of that. Though there was that one year where the events all scheduled back-to-back and got one field for all the events, everybody pitching in to assist in insurance and moving it around the state--that's what we really need to see, everybody working together for a better experience. (#notajoke: I heard that the rev 1 proposal was the first time that SCRRF was officially aware that CAFIRST owned fields. We've been using the same wooden field for much of the last decade, with repairs of course, and sometimes a metal one.)

3) "Hey, aren't you the same person doing this as the last 5 years?" I'm not sure about the other groups, but for whatever reason, finding new people to fill old shoes isn't exactly easy. Either the new folks disappear after a season or two, or they never show up. Leaves the "incumbents" there, until they suddenly can't make it and somebody has to step up. (I didn't duck quick enough when that happened with the head ref at the Fall Classic a couple years back.) There's also the problem of "what can I do to help" turning into "where'd that volunteer go, he said he'd help?", but that could have a number of factors that aren't obvious and there isn't a single solution to that issue.


I think it can be done... but again, it's got to be together. Let's say we figure on two years as the timeframe. I think the first year would be dealing with a lot of the core issues--see the first two items above--on top of talking the system over with teams to identify where they can help (and maybe they can help with those items too). The second year would be the major push: venues, volunteers, and other similar items, in detail, along with getting the proposal in to HQ for a yea/nay. Am I sure it could be done in two years? Not really. It seems to me like dealing with the second-year stuff is being done first--my point of view, not necessarily accurate--which, while helpful in terms of making it faster later, doesn't address any of the first-year stuff that would need to be handled first. Does it need to be done, sure! Can it be done at the same time, sure! But the question is, are we ignoring issues that could prevent us from moving even faster? If we are, we need to stop ignoring those issues and solve them. Or: What do we not know that could wreck plans?



[This part mainly for humor.]
@Sean: The main pass north-south is higher than PA's highest point, by about 900'. I'd say that everything's bigger in CA, but any Texans reading this would probably object. (On a serious note, speaking of Texas, they actually submitted paperwork for districts and they've got a bigger spread/cluster effect than CA. Think we could learn a few lessons from those documents, but I don't recall them being made public.)

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by EricH

[This part mainly for humor.]
@Sean: The main pass north-south is higher than PA's highest point, by about 900'. I'd say that everything's bigger in CA, but any Texans reading this would probably object. (On a serious note, speaking of Texas, they actually submitted paperwork for districts and they've got a bigger spread/cluster effect than CA. Think we could learn a few lessons from those documents, but I don't recall them being made public.)

The Texas documents aren't public, I haven't seen them. I can tell you we have fewer teams then California but we do have a very big spread problem but also probably more clusters so that may make events easier. The plan was likely 9-10 events. We are using the extra year to get prepapred, hopefully more off-season events (only have 3 this year so far, California has way more) and train volunteers.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The Texas documents aren't public, I haven't seen them. I can tell you we have fewer teams then California but we do have a very big spread problem but also probably more clusters so that may make events easier. The plan was likely 9-10 events. We are using the extra year to get prepapred, hopefully more off-season events (only have 3 this year so far, California has way more) and train volunteers.

Allen,

Thanks for the insight into Texas.

Do you have any more details on the steps Texas is taking to get more prepared for Districts in 2018?

Thanks,

-Mike