[FRC Blog] FIRST Championship District Allocations

[Nate Laverdure]

Compared to last year's allocations (7.4.4 of 2016 admin manual)

FIRST Chesapeake -2
Mid-Atlantic Robotics even
Indiana FIRST +1
New England +3
FIRST North Carolina +5
FIRST in Michigan +6
Peachtree +6
Pacific Northwest +9

[Bkeeneykid]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

7.4.4 of 2016 admin manual

As yes, the time where we could just simply cite a rule number rather than a link to a website that will probably change without notice....

Is this too passive aggressive against FIRST?

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Compared to last year's allocations (7.4.4 of 2016 admin manual)

FIRST Chesapeake -2
Mid-Atlantic Robotics even
Indiana FIRST +1
New England +3
FIRST North Carolina +5
FIRST in Michigan +6
Peachtree +6
Pacific Northwest +9

Didn't they say that all districts would gain at least one spot? How does Chesapeake lose two then?

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by TDav540

Didn't they say that all districts would gain at least one spot? How does Chesapeake lose two then?

Not really. Frank said

...if 2017 were to look like 2016 with respect to team counts, all Districts will have at least one more guaranteed slot at their Championship than they did in 2016

But this did not happen. Instead, the number of CHS teams counted as "secured" in this calculation dropped something like 13% to 115. EDIT note that 129 CHS teams are currently registered.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Not really. [url="http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/2017-first-championships-allocations-for-districts"]
Instead, the number of CHS teams counted as "secured" in this calculation dropped something like 13% to 115. EDIT note that 129 CHS teams are currently registered.

go us

[bkahl]

What a meme.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by TDav540

Didn't they say that all districts would gain at least one spot? How does Chesapeake lose two then?

When in doubt, blame Wil Payne.

(I have nothing else to add to this discussion)

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

When in doubt, blame Wil Payne.

(I have nothing else to add to this discussion)

i feel personally attacked

[yarden.saa]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Compared to last year's allocations (7.4.4 of 2016 admin manual)

FIRST Chesapeake -2
Mid-Atlantic Robotics even
Indiana FIRST +1
New England +3
FIRST North Carolina +5
FIRST in Michigan +6
Peachtree +6
Pacific Northwest +9

FIRST Israel +10 (moved from regional to districts)

[Chris is me]

You can clearly notice that if a region is going to South Champs, they got way more additional spots than if they are going to North Champs.

This really is not resulting in "bringing the Championship experience to more teams" in an equitable manner between the halves. The north half gets zero benefit from this split other than 1/3rd fewer teams at their event.

I'm sure the FIRST BoD will deem this split a success regardless of what happens, though. The numbers went up, more registration fees entered the account, the people that made the decision who didn't have to do any of the implementation will feel good while the staff who has to pick up the pieces of this top-down decision will struggle through these growing pains and bear most of the complaints.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You can clearly notice that if a region is going to South Champs, they got way more additional spots than if they are going to North Champs.

This really is not resulting in "bringing the Championship experience to more teams" in an equitable manner between the halves. The north half gets zero benefit from this split other than 1/3rd fewer teams at their event.

I'm sure the FIRST BoD will deem this split a success regardless of what happens, though. The numbers went up, more registration fees entered the account, the people that made the decision who didn't have to do any of the implementation will feel good while the staff who has to pick up the pieces of this top-down decision will struggle through these growing pains and bear most of the complaints.

Other than getting rid of two champs, or moving the locations to make them more geographically balanced... what's the solution here?

If FIRST gave districts equal representation divided among both champs but a norther district was given the southern champs likely 2-4x farther from them, would that be acceptable?

Not disagreeing with you, more so rambling about how the quantity and locations of two champs makes it really hard to make any such assignment equitable.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Other than getting rid of two champs, or moving the locations to make them more geographically balanced... what's the solution here?

If FIRST gave districts equal representation divided among both champs but a norther district was given the southern champs likely 2-4x farther from them, would that be acceptable?

Not disagreeing with you, more so rambling about how the quantity and locations of two champs makes it really hard to make any such assignment equitable.

It's a tough problem, but I think it would have been better to either make or allow more teams from the north to travel south, even if it's a bit farther travelling than going to the North Championship. As long as it's not drastically worse than travel to Atlanta / STL, it's not a huge problem, and it would make distribution better.

The choices for locations are limited, but I think it would have been better to put more focus on a roughly equal number of eligible teams for each event versus minimizing travel time. That, or allow for some more "flex states" in the model that can pick either or, instead of the current system of a big wall with a few holes in it via the waitlist.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's a tough problem, but I think it would have been better to either make or allow more teams from the north to travel south, even if it's a bit farther travelling than going to the North Championship. As long as it's not drastically worse than travel to Atlanta / STL, it's not a huge problem, and it would make distribution better.

I might be talking out my back side a bit here but, off the top of my head...

What if each district were assigned x number of additional spots in their non-home champs. I'd also argue their main allocation would need to be at 2016 (or slightly lower) levels, but the total allocation would be larger.

And to be fair, the southern districts would also gain additional slots to attend the north as well, albeit perhaps not as many.

It would give FIRST a tuneable, if you will, to try to balance things.

[MARS_James]

Since this is in response to a bunch of people's comments I am not quoting all of them.

When I last checked the difference between the number of teams "zoned" to each champs was +353 to North champs. However Missouri and Kansas are switching champs next year bringing the difference down to only +165. Yes that is still a lot of teams however FIRST really can't do much except hope that we have more growth in the south.

[Michael Kaurich]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Yes that is still a lot of teams however FIRST really can't do much except hope that we have more growth in the south.

And growth in Michigan will eventually stall when every high school has a team.