District/Regional Format

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I really like the district set up and how Michigan game play has dramatically increased over the past 2 years. I really hope that by 2012 there will be more in place if not sooner! But I am sure that there will be an allowance for travel, but possibly limited, such as one travel regional per team and possibly (but hopefully not) once every other year.

This would be more restrictive than the Michigan system.

[EricH]

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

What does factor in is that we've got two clusters of teams that are perpetually in the middle. The central coast teams like 973 have to go either up the coast and stay a few days or down the coast and do the same. The desert teams like 399 (Lancaster) and 1641 (Mojave) have to choose: California (typically L.A.), or Vegas/Arizona? It's not an easy question. It's like the MI UP teams, especially in the west end. I have yet to hear of a "good" solution for them (i.e., one that doesn't involve traveling a full day down and a full day back twice).

We've also got 4 main clusters, all around existing regionals.

But what really made FiM work well was the fact that there is one organization that assists the entire state. CA has no fewer than 3 (Team San Diego, SCRRF, and WRRF). They'd have to either coordinate or combine, and when you're separated by 2-9 hours between pockets of teams, and therefore organizations, it's a lot harder to do that.

For CA, a better short-term option might be to put a regional in the middle or expand one of the existing regionals to a double regional. If another regional was added, I'd suggest Bakersfield or Fresno--they're about in the middle, and could act as a meeting point for most of the teams. Long-term, yes, hopefully go district. But short-term, we don't have anywhere near the density MI does, and would want to build up more (and more sustainable) teams before going that route.


You can't just say, "You're going to use this model", because in this case, "this model" was developed in one area with one kind of needs, and those needs aren't necessarily the same in the rest of the country. You have to adapt the model to the area it's being adopted in. I've got some ideas how to adapt it to CA, but they'd need improvement, and you'd want another event or so.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

What does factor in is that we've got two clusters of teams that are perpetually in the middle. The central coast teams like 973 have to go either up the coast and stay a few days or down the coast and do the same. The desert teams like 399 (Lancaster) and 1641 (Mojave) have to choose: California (typically L.A.), or Vegas/Arizona? It's not an easy question. It's like the MI UP teams, especially in the west end. I have yet to hear of a "good" solution for them (i.e., one that doesn't involve traveling a full day down and a full day back twice).

We've also got 4 main clusters, all around existing regionals.

But what really made FiM work well was the fact that there is one organization that assists the entire state. CA has no fewer than 3 (Team San Diego, SCRRF, and WRRF). They'd have to either coordinate or combine, and when you're separated by 2-9 hours between pockets of teams, and therefore organizations, it's a lot harder to do that.

For CA, a better short-term option might be to put a regional in the middle or expand one of the existing regionals to a double regional. If another regional was added, I'd suggest Bakersfield or Fresno--they're about in the middle, and could act as a meeting point for most of the teams. Long-term, yes, hopefully go district. But short-term, we don't have anywhere near the density MI does, and would want to build up more (and more sustainable) teams before going that route.


You can't just say, "You're going to use this model", because in this case, "this model" was developed in one area with one kind of needs, and those needs aren't necessarily the same in the rest of the country. You have to adapt the model to the area it's being adopted in. I've got some ideas how to adapt it to CA, but they'd need improvement, and you'd want another event or so.

Eric,
I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.

[rwood359]

Are the MI competitions less expensive to produce?
Can two MI events be produced for the cost of one "standard" regional?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Eric,
I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.

I don't know. Something about travel distances...

If HI was added to CA for districts, you'd have to include travel. A LOT of teams would have trouble, even with the bonus competition, so you'd really want to have 2 districts in HI, and then short-order travel booking to the mainland of some form.

I'm not sure that having HI in a mainland district is a good idea long-term. You'd have to get the younger teams very good at fundraising in a hurry...

[SavtaKenneth]

Me and a couple of friends discussed this a few days ago and we thought the district system would be good to implement in Israel. One of the main characteristics of FIRST Israel is that the nearest regional for us, except for the Israeli one is a 10 hour flight away.

That means no Israeli team competes in more than one event per season because of the prohibitive cost of airfare. Also Israel is quite a small country (six hour drive from the southern most point to the northern most point) so doing bag&tag events shouldn't be too hard. Our thought was that it'd be a way to make the Israeli competition better because It'd give teams more matches to play and more of the FIRST experience.

The main problem we saw with this is that there are too few teams in Israel (55 or so) for the model to actually work. What do you think is the minimum amount of teams to implement the district system?

[Foster]

I'm a big fan of getting more for my money, but I'm a bigger fan of getting more robot competition time for the robot team.

We do 2 regionals (one away like FLR, CT, Pittsburgh, Chesapeake, etc. Some place thats a few hour drive for us) and one "home" event, Philadelphia (45 min drive so the families can all come and watch). Cost $10K+overnight stays

We also do 5 'off-season' events. Three in the spring (PARC, Monty, BR-BR) and two in the fall (Ramp Riot and Duel). Cost $1250+gas money

From what I see the 5 off season events (one day) are just as much fun as the big regionals. In our area (NJ, Eastern PA, DE) there seems to be enough teams to fill all the off season events. Which is a long way to say I think that smaller one /two day events would work and that bag and tag would also work in our area.

At a regional it appears that "most" teams spend the first day completing their robot and passing inspection. (First regional that they attend in a year, and no disrespect meant to your team). So I'd like to suggest that the teams that hold pre-ship scrimmages also have inspectors. If you pass inspection at one of the pre-events all you need to do is pass weight/dimensions at the regional. Inspectors could make spot/random checks if wanted. But it would cut down on the inspection process and be more of an inducement to be ready to play at the event.

One of the things that pops out in this thread is where teams are and how far they need to travel. For teams in Philly events in Rochester, Pittsburgh, Richmond and Boston (and all the places in between) are all a ~5 hour drive. So we have a huge range of choices. That makes it easier here to do regionals vs CA where there is 5-9 hour drive times.

One of the neat things is being able to see other teams at other places (like going to FLR this year and seeing Simbiotics and GRR in action). While it's fun to play with Chuck, Moe and Miss Daisy (which we do 6 times a year) playing with others is also very cool. So It would be nice to be able to pick which "district" event we go to.

[Jared Russell]

I think that districts would work well in Philly/South Jersey/Delaware, but I don't see them working as well in many other areas. Michigan has an unparalleled density of veteran teams and experienced volunteers that only a few other areas can touch - I think that a cost effective but disorganized district system would be less preferable than the current regional system in many areas.

Leaving the choice of what is best for each region - districts, regionals, super-regionals, mini-regionals - up to the teams and leadership in each region is what is best for everyone.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

The Districts are put on at a much lower cost. They are 2 day events (FR/SA). They typically are in high school gyms rather than in stadiums. There typically is no extra lighting and the audio/video system sometimes would not meet FIRST's standards. For all this, I don't know that many FIRST teams actually notice the corners that are cut.

Importantly, the schedule is such that teams still get 10+ matches in the FR/SA format.

Also reducing costs is the "bag and tag" system which saves on shipping costs. Essentially a team puts its robot in a bag and has someone with a certain gravitas sign off that the bag was sealed when it should have been. Teams bring the robot to the competition in the bag themselves with the seal still intact. If all the paperwork is in order, the inspectors unseal the robots and that is that. No crates to deal with.

Due to the cost reductions, the teams can participate at 2 Districts and the Michigan State Championship (if they qualify) at a cost roughly of a single FIRST Regional.

The teams get two district events for the same cost as one regional. Going to the championship costs $4000, the same as adding an additional regional. When space permits, teams can elect to schedule a third district for $500.

But Dr Joe missed one other cost savings - lower cost travel. The majority of teams can, if they wish, attend both district events without staying overnight. Those that do stay overnight have one less night lodging to pay for. (I'll address the minority of teams that have to travel to both.)

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

Which was exactly the case in MI before we went with FiM. There were two regionals only 50 miles apart in SE MI, and one in W MI. Nothing mid-state, nothing Up North. I appreciate that CA is larger than MI, but not all that much larger. Teams from the western UP are farther from the MSC site than teams from Philadelphia would be. We hoped to put one district in the UP, but there are only 4 teams (in an area 20% larger than Maryland and Delaware combined). Still, having a district in Traverse City cuts the travel time in half for one event. Far-flung teams have a disadvantage in both district and regional systems.

Originally Posted by waialua359

I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.

Hawaii does not yet have enough teams to fill one district; you need 30-40 (which you might fill with mainland teams as the regional does today). The HI teams would all have to travel somewhere else for the second event, and then again for a championship. Plus some teams would still have the inter-island travel for an in-state district event.

Originally Posted by rwood359

Are the MI competitions less expensive to produce?
Can two MI events be produced for the cost of one "standard" regional?

Far less cost. I don't recall the exact figures, but the most expensive district is only a fraction of the cost of the least expensive regional. All 7 districts are produced at a cost less than that of one regional.

Future district models would NOT be based on single-state boundaries, with the possible exception of CA and TX. Instead what you would be looking for is a concentration of teams and existing regionals. You replace 3-4 regionals with 7-10 districts and a championship event. You also need at least 90-100 teams in the area the championship covers. For example, the Boilermaker, Midwest and St Louis regionals could be replaced with district events in or around Chicago, Springfield/Peoria/Champaign, St Louis, Rolla/Columbia, Hammond/Gary, Indianapolis, Ft Wayne, Bloomington. (I have no idea if those locations are centralized for teams; I only picked cities that are distributed across the map.) Buckeye, Pittsburgh and Finger Lakes could also be replaced by a district model; in that case eventual district sites could be set up in KY or WV as well as in OH and western PA and NY. Three or 4championship sites could be established along the eastern seaboard from New England to VA/NC. The two Minnesota events plus Wisconsin could create a district area.

The southeast isn't quite at the concentration of teams needed yet. And it is very difficult to figure out what to do about large areas of the West that have few teams, and international teams. Something will have to be done in the Pacific Northwest; Seattle barely has enough room for the WA teams now and any expansion of teams would swamp them. But how do you combine Arizona, Las Vegas, Utah and Colorado? How do you accomodate the teams in MT, ID, WY, ND and SD, let alone AK? Another concern is that if many areas adopt the district/championship model, the remaining areas will have less options of traditional regionals to choose from.

Hopefully a cross-championship-border scheme can be accomodated, particularly in the far-flung areas. For example, teams in the western UP would be closer to events in Duluth or Green Bay than they are to the ones in Michigan, should MN and WI create a championship. For that matter, they'd also be closer to a championship in Milwaukee or Minneapolis. I'd also like to see ways to allow cross-border visits, even if only for a third event that doesn't count toward your championship points. We really miss seeing our friends from Toledo, Canada and other areas who frequented MI events in the past.

Someone mentioned the lack of volunteers for key positions in MN, and that is critical to the success of districts. Last year MI imported one district head ref and the FTA for the MSC, as I recall. This year we had all home-grown volunteers. That works in MI because of the depth and experience we have. With a state like MN with one 5-year team, thirteen 4-year teams, and the other 91 teams being younger (an incredible average of 30 rookie teams per year!), the experience level is just not there yet. Yet something has to be done; expansion of another 30 teams in MN next year will require yet another expensive regional. As Dean mentioned while speaking at the Troy District event, FRC started in a high school gym in NH 20 years ago, and the only way we can afford to expand the availability of FRC to all schools in the country is to return to those lower-cost roots for events.

There are problems with the district organization that have yet to be solved. One of them is getting the required two volunteers per team per event; some teams do not step up to fulfill their commitment and other teams have to take up the slack. Local committees can over-estimate their importance, making suggestions or even demands that go beyond or against FRC rules and policies. (That could theoretically happen at traditional regionals as well, but with key positions such as the FTA and LRI being appointed, there is less chance.)

If other areas adopt the district model, I am confident that we here in MI will support them with the experience we have gained these last two years. I believe that districts are the way to go, the only way to give FRC sustainable growth for the future.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Foster

I'm a big fan of getting more for my money, but I'm a bigger fan of getting more robot competition time for the robot team.

We do 2 regionals (one away like FLR, CT, Pittsburgh, Chesapeake, etc. Some place thats a few hour drive for us) and one "home" event, Philadelphia (45 min drive so the families can all come and watch). Cost $10K+overnight stays

...

At a regional it appears that "most" teams spend the first day completing their robot and passing inspection. (First regional that they attend in a year, and no disrespect meant to your team). So I'd like to suggest that the teams that hold pre-ship scrimmages also have inspectors. If you pass inspection at one of the pre-events all you need to do is pass weight/dimensions at the regional. Inspectors could make spot/random checks if wanted. But it would cut down on the inspection process and be more of an inducement to be ready to play at the event.

This is the one thing that I like about the district model over the regional model and that is that you get twice as many games over two separate weekends for the same cost. When you add in the State Championship for those that win, the Michigan System participants have a huge advantage over other Regional winners when they get to Atlanta.

We're a poor team that can only afford 1 regional and so we have 15 games under our belt going into Atlanta this year, where the Michigan teams going into Atlanta have 3 times that many. Practice makes perfect, and also they have had the whole competition period to mature their robot in the pits. We were a first week regional and didn't even get a chance to show our ball looper because all our potential alliance partner were trying to get working robots. We haven't seen our poor lonely robot in 5 weeks now.

Like you said, the first event for a team is usually about finishing up your robot to compete, and by the time there's a state championship the teams there are in their fighting configuration, battle tested. Add in that most of the Michigan teams know each other after seeing each other for so many games and it only takes one of them to seed high enough in a division at Atlanta to lock in alliance partners. Human nature being what it is, I myself would probably pick a team I know and have played with consistently over another robot I have maybe seen in one game at Atlanta. I hear tell that scouting doesn't work that way, but 2 trips to nationals and seeing who gets picked on Saturday tells me different.

So I like the district system for the opportunities and value it brings the teams for the money they pay, but I don't like having to play against those well practiced, pre-set alliances come Nationals time. :-) I would love more games for the same money.

[rees2001]

I have been thinking a lot about this lately for NY. Right now we have team density in NYC, Long Island, and Rochester (FLR). There are small groupings in Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo. If NY had a grant program to start new teams much like Michigan had a few years back, and we went to the district model we could have a much larger impact. We could have district events in Rochester, Albany, NYC, Long Island, and Buffalo or Syracuse. The NY championship could rotate between NYC and Rochester. For those not too familiar with New York State, it is a 6.5 hour drive from Rochester to NYC. It would be sad to not see many of the out-of-state teams we see every year but it may have a trickle-down effect on helping improve attendance at other regionals. Many of the teams that come to FLR would now travel to Waterloo, Pittsburgh or Cleveland.
I would be happy to help get the ball rolling here in NY if there is enough interest. If there is anyone else here in NY that wants to get this going send me a PM and we can start talking.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by rwood359

Are the MI competitions less expensive to produce?
Can two MI events be produced for the cost of one "standard" regional?

This is going to sound crazy, but I believe that all 7 districts cost about the same as 1 traditional regional. While that sounds impossible, you would be shocked at what a Regional costs. Talk to your local RCA to get an idea.

Joe J. was partially correct. 4 of the districts were at High Schools, and 3 were at colleges (Kettering, Wayne State, and Grand Valley). The State championship was also held at a university (EMU). For those that don't believe a great event can be held in a HS gym, I give you the IRI. With the lower costs and 1 less day of disruption, this model is much more attractive to Universities. A true growth plan would be to use technical Universities that are 1-2 hours from major team centers as hosts for District events. Teams would get the opportunity to compete in 2 districts in weeks 1-4 and thus qualify for a Regional Championship in week 5. About 50% of teams would qualify for the regional championship. At the regional championships, about 50% of those teams would qualify for the World championship.

[thefro526]

The biggest issue with the District Model for my team would be getting the trip to the State Championship or World Championship Event approved should we qualify.

Currently, to get any trip approved we have to go to the school board 30 days in advance. While we've already gotten very good at getting around this (Get any possible trips approved and cancel them when we can't go) it's just one more thing to worry about during the competition season.

Even with the above issue, I'd still love to see the New Jersey, Philadelphia, Delaware, New York City Area go to a District System. For teams that struggle with funding every year it's a really good way to make sure that you compete more than once, and it also extends the competition season for a lot of teams.

[Joe Johnson]

Just to keep the balls in the air, let me toss this out there.

Mixing matters. Both at the CMP and at the lesser events. There is value to FIRST to have the cross pollenization between regions.

What do you think of the idea of an Ambassador System where the Winners of a regional championship as well as the Chairman's Award winners (and perhaps even the Finalists) are invited to compete in a different district/regional the following year. It would not be mandatory and I think it would be best if the Ambassador teams were financially subsidized for the extra travel/shipping/etc expenses. I am thinking that of those 9 teams (3 winners, 3 Chairman's & 3 finalists) perhaps 3 become ambassadors.

In this way, teams from various regions would still mix and the culture of FIRST could be spread around but the costs are still kept reasonable and the Ambassadors would be charged specifically with spreading the culture. We could leave it to the creativity of those teams to define what that means, but I think that by charging them with the goal, you will see 1000's flowers bloom.

keep the thoughts and ideas coming.

Joe J.

[The Lucas]

I think New England should be the next region to go to District system because it already has the elements in place. ~ 100 teams in an area (NH VT MA CT RI & ME) with less area than MI (and most of that is ME). 4 Regionals currently and loads of experienced volunteers and FIRST HQ (which will get a chance to closely study district model first hand). CT regional is big enough and late enough in the season to be the the championship. Other 3 regional GSR, WPI, Boston become districts and you need 2 more districts (RI and maybe a second Boston district).

I am in favour of the district system for my area, Mid Atlantic, but drawing lines though the middle of states (and established regionals) is a difficult task to get correct and needs further study. You pretty much have to make multiple districts at once and split states. They to need make a proposal to teams, get feedback and adjust. I agree there needs to be line separating east/west NY, PA, and maybe MD & VA and that is the line to start with (I'll miss FLR ).

I hope they bring the Bag & Tag system to all regionals next (which looks like the way it is going). They could adjust the B&T hours for 3 day events because it would be difficult for larger events to be 2 days. The 3 day events should try to start qualifiers on Thurs like MSC and CMP.