**FIRST EMAIL**/FIRST Adds District Event Model Alternative to FRC Program

[fuzzy1718]

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

i know on my team and a few others around, this survey was not even given to the students.

Well that's a little disappointing, hate to say it. :/

[waialua359]

Some conversations have occured in Hawaii about the postings on this thread.
The idea of change when it involves:
1. Allowing teams to play more often in a season
2. Saving on cost to teams
3. Savings for FIRST such as FedEx freight costs/donations
4. Better logistics in terms of the RPC for respective events

IS a great thing.
But, I see one major drawback. It's not equal for everyone.
I would hope that further discussions and exceptions be made for teams not as fortunate in terms of location issues, or non-qualified participants outside district model events.
If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.

Having the opportunities to compete with California teams is part of our history (started by 254) and I cant see not being able to compete with them or in NJ in 2011 and beyond.
As Wayne pointed out earlier, FIRST is more than the robot competition itself. Its giving students an opportunity to broaden their horizons, meet new people, and visit the areas surrounding the competition.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

If California ever adapted such a model in 2011, that would be devastating for many Hawaii teams. We have been fortunate enough with our sustainability plan to travel to other regions, including the east coast. But for many other Hawaii teams, you spend the whole year, an arm and a leg, getting to ONE mainland regional.
Sure, we are just one small State............but you can understand the concern if you were from here. Whether we are from the mainland US or not, we have students who enjoy FIRST much like everyone else.

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by EricH

What if... HI was included in a CA districting plan?

The only problem with that is, you'd still have to get the robots to the mainland somehow, and then get students over there.

We thought about the possibility of that. But, yeah, like you said.........the cost to attend many events in one season would be impossible. Being a part of the CA districting plan wouldnt work.
I was implying that perhaps a pool of teams (based on criteria) could be exempt from either participating/not participating in district events. I cant see how it would hurt Michigan, for example, if a team from outside was allowed to compete with the rest of their teams, due to a criteria such as ours. Hmmm...

[dtengineering]

Geographical issues come into play not just for Hawaii teams, but for any team located more than a couple hour's drive from a potential competition site.

I think the Alaska and UK teams, in particular, might share this concern, but I also think of some of the teams from Montana and Idaho who make long drives through snowy mountain passes to reach either Portland or Seattle. Not to mention, of course, teams in Alberta, who are even further from FRC hotbeds than the Montana and Idaho teams.

Attending two district competitions for the entry fees equivalent to one regional competition, while a benefit for teams that do not face challenges in their travel budget, could be a real challenge for teams that are "inconveniently" located. In fact a district model with multiple competitions could actually make it more difficult for those teams to compete on an even footing than it already is.

I do, however, have faith in the people who run FRC, to think about these challenges and find a way to address them that works for everyone. The district model, after all, is an option... not a requirement... and I do get the sense that it will be implemented with a fair degree of flexibility and sensibility.

Jason

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

The district model, after all, is an option... not a requirement... and I do get the sense that it will be implemented with a fair degree of flexibility and sensibility.

Jason

Jason,
I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Jason,
I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur.

Plus, we might need you guys here in NJ for 2011

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Plus, we might need you guys here in NJ for 2011

Other than freezing butt, NJ is a great competitive regional. We WILL get back there soon.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I am a bit confused now. If CA was to become the district model that Michigan is, wouldn't it be impossible for Hawaii (outside) teams to attend?
That was more my concern than the option of being able to still attend other regionals.
Even if traveling to the midwest/south is a few hundred more than going to CA, that's an insurmountable task to overcome, considering the amount of people on a team that attends.

I'm also with you on the fairness and flexibility that FIRST will probably incorporate as these changes for the better occur.

I believe that part of an earlier discussion was setting up districts based on regional (Midwest, New England, etc), and not necessarily state boundaries, due to the sparse locations of teams in some areas. Even if California's state boundaries were used to set districts, I'm sure that FIRST would realize how much of a problem it would be for the Hawaiian teams if they weren't included in California's district, and would allow you guys to compete there.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Karibou

I believe that part of an earlier discussion was setting up districts based on regional (Midwest, New England, etc), and not necessarily state boundaries, due to the sparse locations of teams in some areas. Even if California's state boundaries were used to set districts, I'm sure that FIRST would realize how much of a problem it would be for the Hawaiian teams if they weren't included in California's district, and would allow you guys to compete there.

It makes no difference. There will be always be teams that are on the outskirts of districts, regardless of how their boundaries are drawn. Those teams will incur significant additional expense to receive the same opportunity to play as teams within districts, presuming things remain largely similar to FiM's pilot.

The boundaries of each district are arbitrary and meaningless; what matters is that teams that already incur significant travel costs to attend a single event will be placed at a tremendous disadvantage compared to teams in more densely populated areas.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Madison

It makes no difference. There will be always be teams that are on the outskirts of districts, regardless of how their boundaries are drawn. Those teams will incur significant additional expense to receive the same opportunity to play as teams within districts, presuming things remain largely similar to FiM's pilot.

I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district? If the distance traveled is no different (or less) and would theoretically be getting a better deal monetarily than they would under the regional system (even if you factor traveling expenses). So I don't see how districts would be fundamentally less advantageous for remote teams than regionals are. I understand that they proabably wouldn't have it as good as the more centrally located teams, but they almost certainly wouldn't have it severely worse.
-$0.02

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district?

Nope. Consider a team in Ironwood, MI. They're in the UP. The Wisconsin Regional is closer than their second district. It's a pain to drive anywhere else.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Nope. Consider a team in Ironwood, MI. They're in the UP. The Wisconsin Regional is closer than their second district. It's a pain to drive anywhere else.

Then they can pay to go the the Wisconsin regional, and they're still $1000 better than they were with the old regional system.

Even so, how can it possibly be $4000 more to travel 6 hours to Kettering than 3 hours to Milwaukee? Gas is expensive these days, but I have trouble seeing them spending an extra 4K to drive an extra 3 hours.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I think I lost you halfway through. If some teams will always be on the outskirts of districts due remote locations, why would the districts be any less advantageous than regionals? If there location is really that remote wouldn't the regionals be just as far (if not farther) away than the closest district? If the distance traveled is no different (or less) and would theoretically be getting a better deal monetarily than they would under the regional system (even if you factor traveling expenses). So I don't see how districts would be fundamentally less advantageous for remote teams than regionals are. I understand that they proabably wouldn't have it as good as the more centrally located teams, but they almost certainly wouldn't have it severely worse.
-$0.02

My concern is predicated upon the assumption that the district-model will operate as it did in Michigan and teams in participating regions will attend two district-events in place of the single, larger regional event they might have attended in the past.

By allowing districts to exist in some places but not in others, FIRST is creating inequality of opportunity for its most rural teams. The distance to an event, whether it be a district or regional, is inconsequential except for where it might increase substantially enough to require teams to travel by air in the future where they'd traveled by road before. Otherwise, increased travel costs are incurred by the additional lodging required when attending additional events.

If a team has to travel to a more populated region three times (for two district events and a regional championship event) to have the same opportunity to qualify and attend the World Championship as a more centrally located team and must pay for lodging each of those three times, how is that not disadvantageous?

It's true that they hop, skip and jump right past their old playground and attend a good old regional event somewhere else and, in that case, their costs probably won't rise over last year; though, please recall that the $1500 reduction in entry fees holds no relation to the implementation of the district model and I do not think those savings are not germane to this discussion. This offers them the cheapest opportunity for ongoing success and a shot at the World Championship, but it is by no means equal to what their former neighbors (however distant) are getting for their money.

For a team from Spokane, WA (on the state's eastern border), it's not unreasonable to drive to Seattle or Portland -- somewhere between 300-350 mi. each way. Do it three times, though, and those hotel bills are starting to get expensive. Their next nearest alternative site would be Davis, CA -- more than 800 mi. away. Driving is less practical and flying is quite a bit more expensive.

Perhaps a simple solution is that district organizers artificially locate district events in less populated areas and spread the financial burden of the west's wide open spaces around to more teams. Instead of making that team from Spokane haul it over the pass three times in March, maybe offer a district event in Spokane (or in nearby Idaho) and force teams from the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor to go east. At such a point, costs for most teams might remain unchanged from what they are now, but they're getting to play more. Some might groan about it -- how would teams in MI feel if they were forced to attend one district on the UP? -- but it's the best solution for the most number of teams.