pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Dan Petrovic

Another, under-appreciated benefit to district events: With 12 qualifying matches being played instead of ~8, it's more likely that the most deserving teams will be in picking positions. A larger sample size will help ensure that the best teams end in their rightful position.

With the exponential growth of FIRST in Minnesota, I would be surprised to see them stick with regionals for much longer.

While I agree that having the 12 matches is great for getting better ranking results, one important thing to keep in mind is that playing 12 matches played over ~1.5 days with 40 teams is usually a much more grueling pace than teams that attend regionals are used to. I think the biggest break in scheduled matches we had this year was like 30 minutes (any longer was due to field issues) but most matches we played were within less than 10 minutes of each other making robot maintenance much more problematic if you have any major issues.

Not sure if anyone here can speak to this, but does anyone know if MN plans to still have scheduled practice matches like regionals do (curious due to the last part of the 3rd paragraph)? One of the things I liked about how practice matches are handled in FiM events it's all first-come first-serve, so if you have a robot that's ready to go, you can get back into the end of the queue and keep practicing, and if you're a team that's robot isn't ready right when practice matches start, you can still squeeze a few in at the end of the night without worrying about missing scheduled practices.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I think the biggest break in scheduled matches we had this year was like 30 minutes (any longer was due to field issues) but most matches we played were within less than 10 minutes of each other making robot maintenance much more problematic if you have any major issues.

Trust me, less than 40 is even worse. At IN DCMP 2015 (32 teams), every team got 13 matches, and 5188 was one of the (un)lucky teams to get a surrogate match on top of that. We had 7 gaps between matches that were 3 matches or shorter.

[EricLeifermann]

This flyer is awesome. I did not get a chance to see it while at the venue yeaterday. I plan on stealing this and using it in my push for Wisconsin.


I know everyone keeps talking about volunteer needs for a switch to district but the focus needs to be on the teams. Minnesota grew too big too fast to the detriment of all teams in Minnesota. Minnesota should have been the 2nd region to move to districts. Now they are in the no-mans zone of not knowing which direction to go.

Again growth for the sake of growth is a detriment to all teams in FRC and Minnesota is showing us all how true that is.

I know the RPC in Minnesota has all the best intentions and wants whats best for those teams in MN but it has come to make the jump and learn as they go before they're in a place that when they switch they need 20+ districts...

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Again growth for the sake of growth is a detriment to all teams in FRC and Minnesota is showing us all how true that is.

Could you expand on that statement? I've seen no indication of FRC in Minnesota "growing for the sake of growth", rather it's been quite organic.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Could you expand on that statement? I've seen no indication of FRC in Minnesota "growing for the sake of growth", rather it's been quite organic.

Minnesota grew so fast that the support for all those teams to truly be successful couldn't possibly be there.

If you think throwing $ at teams and then watching them routinely flounder to pass inspection or even field a robot that moves is beneficial to the kids on their team or the kids on other teams your wrong.

Quality sustainable growth is what benefits all. Quantity growth is not.

We all want every high school student to have the possibility to be on an FRC team should they want it, but that doesn't mean we start a team at every school because the money and sponsorship is there, when the support to truly run a successful* team isnt.

*I do not equate winning with success but I can say that nothing inspires more than winning. I can also say that watching your robot not move or score points for 2 days straight doesn't inspire either.

[itsjustjon]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Minnesota grew so fast that the support for all those teams to truly be successful couldn't possibly be there.

If you think throwing $ at teams and then watching them routinely flounder to pass inspection or even field a robot that moves is beneficial to the kids on their team or the kids on other teams your wrong.

Quality sustainable growth is what benefits all. Quantity growth is not.

We all want every high school student to have the possibility to be on an FRC team should they want it, but that doesn't mean we start a team at every school because the money and sponsorship is there, when the support to truly run a successful* team isnt.

*I do not equate winning with success but I can say that nothing inspires more than winning. I can also say that watching your robot not move or score points for 2 days straight doesn't inspire either.

This is a bit of a side-note, but FIRST should really take what you just said to heart.

Having a team at every high school is great and all, but I've been told by several Regional Directors that out of the 6000+ teams in FRC, only 3000+ have been sustainable and persistently re-registering with the program. Most of the other 3000 un-registered teams are rookies who flopped because of little support past their first season.

At the current rate of growth in teams, both Regionals and Districts will be most likely screwed since both types of events cannot accomodate the influx of teams. There has to be some sort of fix or alternate "third" competition/event system where the issues of both districts and regionals (i.e. too many teams, too much money, etc) are resolved, right?

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Could you expand on that statement? I've seen no indication of FRC in Minnesota "growing for the sake of growth", rather it's been quite organic.

What Eric said is exactly correct, at least in my opinion.

I work with multiple MN teams via email and over the phone throughout the season to provide remote support. Too often, teams were created with money but no outside mentor support. Essentially, when you talk to a principal/district official and say you have $5,000+ to start a FRC team in their school and it is an amazing experience for students, who is going to say no? All they need to do is find a teacher to officially be coach and the administrator/district official can be the alternate contact. You then have a teacher coaching a team who potentially has no engineering background. I can speak from experience that this happens, I've worked with multiple teachers who have had close to zero computer experience. I have no issue being tech support for teams and I love to help but what we've done is almost a disservice to these students. My favorite example is a 3rd year team that had 5 students and 1 mentor. I worked with the mentor for two weeks over the phone and email to get labview up and running and their electronics connected correctly. I know how amazing this program can be; it inspired me, but in this case we were not inspiring these students. We threw $5,000 at a team ($1,000/student) that struggled to get even the basics done and that makes me incredibly sad inside.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Minnesota grew so fast that the support for all those teams to truly be successful couldn't possibly be there.

If you think throwing $ at teams and then watching them routinely flounder to pass inspection or even field a robot that moves is beneficial to the kids on their team or the kids on other teams your wrong.

Quality sustainable growth is what benefits all. Quantity growth is not.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by ehochstein

What Eric said is exactly correct, at least in my opinion.

I work with multiple MN teams via email and over the phone throughout the season to provide remote support. Too often, teams were created with money but no outside mentor support. Essentially, when you talk to a principal/district official and say you have $5,000+ to start a FRC team in their school and it is an amazing experience for students, who is going to say no? All they need to do is find a teacher to officially be coach and the administrator/district official can be the alternate contact. You then have a teacher coaching a team who potentially has no engineering background. I can speak from experience that this happens, I've worked with multiple teachers who have had close to zero computer experience. I have no issue being tech support for teams and I love to help but what we've done is almost a disservice to these students. My favorite example is a 3rd year team that had 5 students and 1 mentor. I worked with the mentor for two weeks over the phone and email to get labview up and running and their electronics connected correctly. I know how amazing this program can be; it inspired me, but in this case we were not inspiring these students. We threw $5,000 at a team ($1,000/student) that struggled to get even the basics done and that makes me incredibly sad inside.

Wiscosin just passed a bill that will throw money at teams and I'm fearful that Wiscosin will have this same problem. Especially because the RPC in Wiscosin has the flawed* view that we need more teams before we switch to districts.

*North Carolina and Indiana has proved this thought false.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Wiscosin just passed a bill that will throw money at teams and I'm fearful that Wiscosin will have this same problem. Especially because the RPC in Wiscosin has the flawed* view that we need more teams before we switch to districts.

*North Carolina and Indiana has proved this thought false.

The small single state district format is also in GA. I assume it is working there as well. I will attest to the primary reason that the single state district systems work is because they have a very great backbone of teams that pulls it all together. NC had a lot of teams volunteer to pull triple duty so they could get the system to work the way they wanted. We were VERY impressed and felt very welcomed in North Carolina because they have a lot of people that "get it".

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by ehochstein

What Eric said is exactly correct, at least in my opinion.

I work with multiple MN teams via email and over the phone throughout the season to provide remote support. Too often, teams were created with money but no outside mentor support. Essentially, when you talk to a principal/district official and say you have $5,000+ to start a FRC team in their school and it is an amazing experience for students, who is going to say no?

Well why are you doing that then?

The state of Minnesota does not have grants to new teams. At least not that I've heard of. I know that Michigan and Iowa give (or gave) grants to teams but if Minnesota doesn't.

I go to MNFIRST.org and I see a button to donate, but I don't see any "free money for teams" verbiage.

So I ask again, explain how Minnesota is encouraging growth for the sake of growth?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Well why are you doing that then?

The state of Minnesota does not have grants to new teams. At least not that I've heard of. I know that Michigan and Iowa give (or gave) grants to teams but if Minnesota doesn't.

I go to MNFIRST.org and I see a button to donate, but I don't see any "free money for teams" verbiage.

So I ask again, explain how Minnesota is encouraging growth for the sake of growth?

My old team (2220) was started because somebody in our city saw that a company was offering grants to start an FRC team. He basically said he'd start one at Eagan High School and then told the school administration they had a new FRC team. From what I've heard of the team's early years, it's somewhat impressive that the team even came back for a second year, much less have gone on to become the impressive team they are now.

The team I currently mentor, 2667, exists because of a single sponsor. Despite having almost no communication with them last year and no idea that they planned to continue sponsoring the team (something that we tried very hard to correct), they paid for our fee this year. We did not know if we would be able to compete until that check came, completely unexpectedly, in the mail.

These are not isolated cases. There is a pattern here. Many teams here are constantly on the edge of disappearing, and don't have the resources or knowledge to effectively teach or inspire students.

Yesterday, I was talking with 2220's old faculty adviser, and he told me that going to the Wisconsin regional back in 2007 is the only reason the team came back for another season. I have to imagine that there are a number of teams that are perpetually in that situation.

[Road Rash]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I go to MNFIRST.org and I see a button to donate, but I don't see any "free money for teams" verbiage.

Perhaps he's referencing the grant money available from FIRST or somewhere else.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Road Rash

Perhaps he's referencing the grant money available from FIRST or somewhere else.

My point being that it's not a Minnesota thing. Minnesota has had phenomenal growth the past few years, greater than the rest of the US, but it's not because the state is throwing money at creating teams.

As I said upthread, the growth is organic, not because one major entity is pushing a grow at any cost strategy.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by DareDad

My point being that it's not a Minnesota thing. Minnesota has had phenomenal growth the past few years, greater than the rest of the US, but it's not because the state is throwing money at creating teams.

As I said upthread, the growth is organic, not because one major entity is pushing a grow at any cost strategy.

Not the state. The Fortune 500 companies and other generous corporate sponsors in the Twin Cities and throughout the state. This is nothing but commendable on the sponsors' parts, and has also been a major focus of the RPC since the beginning (connecting these sponsors and their grant money with new teams). We've seen enormous benefits and phenomenal growth. But many teams have lacked the mentor support and mature infrastructure to do well. It's not a novel idea that growing very very quickly will have unintended side effects and shortcomings.

[Road Rash]

Originally Posted by DareDad

My point being that it's not a Minnesota thing. Minnesota has had phenomenal growth the past few years, greater than the rest of the US, but it's not because the state is throwing money at creating teams.

As I said upthread, the growth is organic, not because one major entity is pushing a grow at any cost strategy.

I see your point. It would be interesting to know why growth has exploded in MN if it weren't from some cash infusion.