paper: FAQs Regarding the FRC District Competition System

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Thanks Ed.

To clarify: The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the reasoning behind the current state of affairs relating to the District Competition System. Many of these details have never really been publicly discussed. Now that several other regions are considering migrating to similar system, many people have been inquiring on the specifics of these details and I thought it would be good to add some more awareness to this topic.

This is not intended to paint anyone in a negative light. It is simply a list of questions and answers. FiM has a good partnership relationship with FIRST NH and we work together to improve many things together. We hope to do more together in the future. One of the key points of this document is that there are items that FiM was allowed to change, and there were items which we were not allowed to change. Most people in the FRC community are unaware of this split. As other areas approach FIRST about forming new District zones, they will encounter some of these same limits and hopefully these explanations help the new regions to better craft their proposals.

Eric, to address your question/issue:

Q33: "Why can't teams opt out of your District System if they would prefer to play at outside regionals instead; why are they forced to be included in the District System?"
A33: This requirement comes from FIRST NH, not FiM. When we formed the District pilot in 2009, FIRST insisted that all teams in our state be included in the system and would not allow any exceptions. FiM actually wanted to allow teams the option to be excluded, but FIRST felt that this would create too much registration complexity.

This question is an excellent example of why I wrote this paper. Perhaps I will include this in a future update. Eric's team is in a difficult situation, being in a remote corner of the state. For years, I get the sentiment that they actually blame FiM for making their lives more difficult. In fact, we are well of their particular situation and we tried to address this with FIRST. Unfortuanately, this was not approved. I am not sure Eric's team understands the details of the arrangement and who has control of this constraint. Under the current arrangement, FIRST insists on strict geographical definition of who is included in our system and who is not. FiM does not control this.

I am no longer associated with 857 and can't speak for them, the current leadership of the team could love FIM.

I was speaking from my thoughts on the topic back in 2009. If you want to know why I "fought" it you are welcome to see my posts from 2009. When FIM was first brought to light I talked with many people involved in running FIM, including Jim, as to why it didn't make sense for 857 to be involved. They all listened with a concerned ear and told me the exact answer shown in Q33 Jim just gave.

For the record I loved FIM when I was involved in 2009-2011. It was awesome having 12 matches and getting more comp for your buck. It just didn't make sense financially and logistically for the team I was on at the time.

I think the district model makes sense for Michigan(though I may be one of the few who doesn't like the lights on during the competition ). I also think it makes sense to go in that direction for the entire FIRST organization. I also agree that with 3000 teams the entry fee is extremely high. It would make sense for it to be as high as it is if it actually went to the individual regionals teams attended. But that's for a different topic, so I will move one.

Again Jim , thanks for putting this out there, we can't demand transparency from FIRST if were not willing to give it our selves.