**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/As

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
- The 111 situation is a bit odd, since they're a pre-qualified Hall of Fame team, yet they can still generate a wild card spot by being a wild card, even though they don't need a wild card. It works based on what we know of the rules, but it's definitely counter-intuitive

Hey Karthik! ;-)

Since I'm STILL relatively new and trying to decipher the-lay-of-the-land I could use some help... is it your conclusion that the 2013 eligibility criteria will INCREASE the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CMP by displacing the teams who have in the past used the wait-list to garner a spot?


Also, could you weigh-in on the District Model as if it was deployed several years from now and is the _dominate_ format nationwide... as to whether the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CHAMPIONSHIP would be HIGHER compared to the 2013 Regional rules that feed teams to CMP?


I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...


I guess what I'm concerned about, with the District Model, is LOSING the _height_ of the mountain that a non-current powerhouse team has to climb here in Texas to be Regional-WINNERS.

We have 4-5 elite/powerhouse teams that have dominated the Texas Regionals (field performance) for 4-5 years and I am JAZZED by the _enormity_ of the challenge to problem-solve our way to ONE or TWO WINS where we're up against/with these exemplar Texas teams... I DO NOT want it to be easier to qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP, I want that bar to be HIGH... and I want the Bronc Botz to _strive_ for the reward of a CMP slot year-after-year...

I just think that attitude/approach makes for a better team AND a better environment to expose teens to in order to help shape/prepare them for the _real world_. PLUS, it puts trophies in the case _and_ BLUE BANNERS on the wall... ;-)

REAL WORLD = TOP PERFORMANCE... otherwise, get used to Ramen Noodles dinner or living in your childhood bedroom.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...

Not sure if I'm one to take heed of, but I have no doubts that a District model implemented anywhere with sufficient density will do nothing but raise the bar for those going on to the Championship. Yes, District wins will be easier in Texas than Regional wins once were, but rightly so with the teams more spread out among events, and the idea is that the District events are at a lower level, so to speak. To move on to the World Championship, you still have to compete and do very well at the State/Region Championship (in this case the Texas State Championship), and it seems unambiguous to me that this would be much more difficult than advancing from one of the former Texas Regionals, since you now have all 4-5 of the powerhouses you mentioned and many other competitive teams who have made it through the district selection at the same event (rarely the case with the current model).

I think this has been explained already, and it sounds like you are afraid that the talent distribution in Texas drops off too fast for the above (maintained by high caliber out of state teams gracing you with their presence) to work. However, I also posit that the district model works wonders to raise the bar for everyone by encouraging more involvement and commitment via 2+ events. The teams have to come back and do it again, so they start seeing they need to continue to improve to have any shot, they can't just drop it until next year after the first event. It also builds community and a competitive spirit between teams seeing each other more at different events.

I myself am eager for Minnesota or some equivalent region to move over to this model, since we are quickly reaching a so-called "critical mass" (more like density) that makes the District system very appealing (for many other reasons as well). The exclusion of outside teams, however, is one feature I find very undesirable and that I hope will change.

As for the change at hand for the Regional model everywhere, I was wary when I first heard, but I'm liking it more and more. There are going to be issues, but this HAS to be better than filling those spots off the waitlist, right? (If you are mostly concerned with the level of competition at and the meaningfulness of getting to the championship event, which it seems we all are. Some might argue for the old waitlisting as a way for lower caliber teams to still get students inspired and pick themselves up by seeing the caliber of Champs every once in a while, but I suggest that the district model does this very well.)

[PayneTrain]

The primary motivation behind the district system was cutting the massive overhead of running three regionals in Michigan and instead truly operate only one regional and now 10 events that as a whole cost less than a regional and now supports nearly 200 teams... 200 mind-blowingly competitive teams chomping at the bit for the last four seasons.

Now the increased quality of the FRC product is being matched with the lower costs in MAR, and HINT HINT other states and regions will probably throwing their hat into the ring by the next season HINT HINT.

I have discussed this before at length, and barring an unfortunate missing external HDD and college coursework beating me down, I would have even more to talk about with respect to districts. This move by FIRST was not only to eliminate what I call the "Fastest Finger" competition for leftover CMP spots, but positions the league to move a qualification only via district->regional/"destination regional" tournaments within the next few years (I hope/think).

Ideally I think we could do something like this:

CMP representation would not be dissimilar to congressional representation, where a competing state/province/region of states/provinces are given the "standard six" spots guaranteed and the rest distributed based on team population. Under this format, the Michigan State Championship would ideally generate 26 at-large bids on top of the "standard six". I guess FIRST would not be too picky and would allow MSC to distribute the 26 spots however they choose: go down the final standings and pick the top 26, pick multiple SCA/EI/RAS awards, give a spot to everyone in elimination play, or whatever.
If the state of Virginia were to possibly go to a district system in 2014 for who knows why and this distribution system were used, VA would 6 spots on top of the standard six.

There are so many ways FIRST could navigate CMP to a purely-qualified-only event that I can't coherently spell out at 3am, but I do love the district system and what it could bring to the sport so I am always eager to talk about it (especially with people working for VirginiaFIRST) so it can be difficult to shut me up from espousing its benefits and necessity in what we will look back as the pre-district era instead of the modern era.

[dellagd]

Regardless, It generates more spots for Champs that is actually based on performance, So I think its a good thing.