District System in Other Regions in 2010?

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by rogerlsmith

I am 100% in favor of expanding the FiM model to other areas. I hope the changes begin next season.

If it does expand I'd like to see it come to California. If it did so though, they may need to have more district events. Michigan had 3 events in 2008, and California had 4. Michigan also has about 122+ teams. California has around 160+ teams. (approximation)

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Steven Sigley

If it does expand I'd like to see it come to California. If it did so though, they may need to have more district events. Michigan had 3 events in 2008, and California had 4. Michigan also has about 122+ teams. California has around 160+ teams. (approximation)

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

8 sounds good. And yeah i figure my team, a lot of the powerhouses, and some other strong California teams would want to do 3 districts, just off the top of my head:
100
254
330
115
701

No doubt there are many other teams that could afford to and would love to attend 3 districts.

Additionally, you kinda need 8-9 districts to accommodate any new team growth in the region.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

Or, as I suggested in another thread, allow "outside" teams a chance to take those spots--not for points--before opening the events up to 3rd-district teams.

Thinking about it, that could result in some really interesting events. Let's say, for now, that CA gets up to 155 teams, at 2 events apiece. There are 320 spots in an 8-district grouping, and 310 are taken. You now have 10 open slots, spread over 5-6 weeks and hundreds of miles. (If the number of teams goes over 160, you'll need a ninth event, or somebody only goes to one and goes out of state. Like that'll happen, but anyway...)

What to do with 10 open slots? They won't be counting for points, because any teams taking them will already have 2 events to get points in. So you may as well cross-pollinate--give outside teams a week's head start in registration for those 10 spots. You'd have to work out a price that's between "third district" and "second regional", but you could easily do that. Then after that week, have "open" registration, anyone can sign up. Price depends on in-state or out-of-state status. Now you get the benefits of the regional and the district system...

I'm with Beth: We'll have to wait. And as I said earlier, some aspects could easily be implemented before going to full district style.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

2. Instead of charging Michigan teams the normal $4000 to attend a regional outside of their state (2nd regional cost...) make the cost $3000 considering $1000 is usually for the shipping, Because Michigan teams have to bag their robots, the can transport it themselves to other regionals. This would allow some MI teams to travel again to regionals held outside their state (Milwaukee, Midwest, BMR, Buckeye etc.)

I'm not sure where you've heard this, but it's not accurate from what I understand.

FedEx donates your shipping for two events (and home from Championships). If you use those two up, you pay for your own shipping.

Word on the street is CA might be next, in 2010.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Ice Berg

My team is not from Michigan, and I did not go to any of the district events or the championship. However, it seemed to me like a very good system. Teams got more events, more matches, and it seemed to really send the best teams to nationals. Has anyone heard if they will be using this model in other places? I would love to see it in the tri-state area (NY, CONN, NJ). We have 5 regionals in the area (nyc, utc, sbpli, finger lakes and nj), and it seems like it could work well. I wasn't at nationals, so I don't know if they announced anything about spreading the district system, or new regionals. Anyone know anything about this?

I'm also pro-district for next year. This whole time I just haven't been able to figure out with regions would be designated as part of certain district competitions. NYC, UTC, SBPLI,FLR, and NJ might be too large of an area, but it would be AWESOME to see this happen.

[KF987]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'm not sure where you've heard this, but it's not accurate from what I understand.

FedEx donates your shipping for two events (and home from Championships). If you use those two up, you pay for your own shipping.

Word on the street is CA might be next, in 2010.

Any way Nevada can get thrown in with CA on this?

-Keaton

[EricH]

Originally Posted by KF987

Any way Nevada can get thrown in with CA on this?

-Keaton

I was calculating a bit, and if CA went to a district system, it might be advantageous to grab NV and/or AZ in the process. More districts, more fun, right? And neither state can really support a district system on its own.

Then again, that's a HUGE area--6 regionals that are bigger than districts. I'd figure 10-12 districts, and then try to figure out where to hold the zone championship.

[KF987]

Originally Posted by EricH

I was calculating a bit, and if CA went to a district system, it might be advantageous to grab NV and/or AZ in the process. More districts, more fun, right? And neither state can really support a district system on its own.

Then again, that's a HUGE area--6 regionals that are bigger than districts. I'd figure 10-12 districts, and then try to figure out where to hold the zone championship.

I think it would be really cool to do this, but we would probably lose the "Vegas Regional" because the venue is only open week 5, unless the championship was week 6. It COULD be a place for the championship if they opened up the Cox Pavilion for the pits and had the Thomas and Mack for the Fields. That would be really cool, and some what of a central location for the championship

-Keaton

[MrForbes]

Looking at the map, the NJ/NY area looks more appropriate for expanding the district idea, but I'm not FIRST

[Alex Golec]

There is one critical element that has been overlooked here: FiM was a volunteer-driven organization. So unfortunately, pointing at a map and saying "district here" won't cut it. In order to spread the system, the region needs to be established, and have enough volunteers to step up above the team level to manage the region, otherwise, FIRST will still need to spend money on professionals to run that area.

Anyways, for a good divide-and-conquer evaluation, see Paul's post here .

-Alex

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Alex469

There is one critical element that has been overlooked here: FiM was a volunteer-driven organization. So unfortunately, pointing at a map and saying "district here" won't cut it. In order to spread the system, the region needs to be established, and have enough volunteers to step up above the team level to manage the region, otherwise, FIRST will still need to spend money on professionals to run that area.

Anyways, for a good divide-and-conquer evaluation, see Paul's post here .

-Alex

That's goes for any FIRST event. Except maybe the off season where they are on their own when it comes to getting a paid professional.

[Michael Corsetto]

All this district talk is making me excited! 24 qualification matches instead of 7? For $1000 less? Sign me up! Cory, I hope you're right and CA is being considered for the district model next year. Its seems like an efficient and sustainable method to keep FIRST growing at a decent rate. With a few more years of growth, the district model may start looking just like local high school sports leagues. Now thats a thought!

Who knows, if FIRST saves enough money on the district model, maybe we can all get a cRio in the KoP next year

[Alex Cormier]

I would love to see it happen in NY. NY is a lot different then any other state though. The City has tons of teams and the rest has a few handful teams. This would cause some issues with the whole district setup. I am thinking that Canada will be the next to get districts.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

2. Instead of charging Michigan teams the normal $4000 to attend a regional outside of their state (2nd regional cost...) make the cost $3000 considering $1000 is usually for the shipping, Because Michigan teams have to bag their robots, the can transport it themselves to other regionals. This would allow some MI teams to travel again to regionals held outside their state (Milwaukee, Midwest, BMR, Buckeye etc.)

Teams did travel outside the state. They had to ship the bagged robot to the event, and then ship it back home, again bagged. They could use the donated FedEx shipping for at least one leg of this. They also had to crate up to ship to Atlanta.

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Who knows, if FIRST saves enough money on the district model, maybe we can all get a cRio in the KoP next year

FIRST doesn't save that money. It's the regional committees that save it. Except in cases where a region can't attract enough sponsorship to support the event, and FIRST steps in. So districts won't have any effect on whether or not you get a new cRIO.

When thinking of new areas to expand the district model, remember the 3 key things needed:

1. Density of teams
2. Density of volunteers (including key positions like FTA, field supervisor, lead que, head ref)
3. An organizing committee

That last item is the most crucial. Just because you have enough teams to support district/champ structure, doesn't mean you have enough expertise to organize and run the structure, all year long.

In MI, 3 existing regionals were replaced with 7 district events and 1 championship. The model has identified 16 geographical areas which might or might not eventually get their own district event.

The Michigan pilot was announced on July 30, 2008. I'd expect any new district/champ models, or any changes to the MI version, to be announced sometime this summer.