pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The people who need to buy into implementing the district system are the people who will be implementing it. Artificially pumping up demand for it will not increase the speed at which it can be adopted.

If you want to make districts happen in an area you aren't actually helping to run, it doesn't seem productive to just start cheerleading without coordinating your message with the existing efforts and without taking into account what is actually possible given current and potential levels of support.

I strongly disagree. Getting those that benefit from the switch to realize the benefits and create the demand will help speed things along.

One of the things that people keep bringing up as the reason why it can't happen in MN now is the lack of volunteers, and I've been hearing that excuse for at least 3 years now. So educating the teams and letting them know that if they want it they need to step up and volunteer can go a long way to putting that excuse out to pasture.

Another excuse that is given is that they need to find the proper venues. The bulk of the venues should and will most likely be the schools that have teams currently. So again letting the teams know the benefits and the need for the locations can get teams to explore if their facility is suitable. IF the leadership would say we need X,Y,Z in a location do you have that? Then I'm certain if the teams knew the benefits a number of them would get out their tape measures, talk to their administration and see if they are a place that the MN leadership should consider.

Fact is that FIRST has almost certainly been putting pressure on MN to make the switch. I know that they approached what became the PNW district way back in 2012 with hopes of us making the switch for the 2013 season. We did say we needed more time, since there was less info on making the switch with less preexisting areas, and nothing had been done to start the process of qualifying locations as suitable and a whole host of other ways that we felt unprepared to make the switch that quickly.

So assuming FIRST has been pushing things that way already, top down hasn't got too far. So might as well start putting pressure on from the bottom as well as making sure that the bottom is prepared to be part of the solution.

Fact is that FIRST sees the District system as the future and that is where they are going. So those that keep resisting need to ask themselves am I going to be a part of the future of FIRST?

[gblake]

[Edit]Mr V. When I created the quote below (from your earlier post), I wasn't trying to accuse you of making excuses, or otherwise substituting my words/thoughts for what you wrote. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was. I was instead noticing that you wrote that you believe other folks are making excuses, and that you said you were making a couple of assumptions. I hope that clarifies that I was trying to be accurate, not put words into your mouth.

And... Now it's time to obey both the spirit, and the letter, of Jessica's wise advice.[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I strongly disagree. ... excuse ... Another excuse ... ... almost certainly ... So assuming ...

Hmmm.

You do know that you can contact the folks who currently are doing their best to guide MN FRC into an improved future, right? They can tell you what is underway, etc. What you wrote seems to convey that you haven't spoken to them yet about these topics.

After a conversation, you probably won't have to characterize any official statements as excuses (you might disagree with their conclusions, but that is different from labeling something an "excuse"); and you probably won't have guess about their relationship with FIRST HQ; and you can probably get answers to replace assumptions.

Doesn't that sound like a useful thing to do?

Blake

[Jessica Boucher]

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

What she said.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by gblake

What she said.

Hhm? Seems like a productive discussion at the moment.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Okay, I'm calling for this thread to be paused. No need for this back and forth, unhelpful discussion.

What is with this sentiment here? Just because two people disagree is not a reason to close an entire topic. This is a discussion forum, people are having a discussion. Nothing has gone even close to flaming, etc.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by bduddy

What is with this sentiment here? Just because two people disagree is not a reason to close an entire topic. This is a discussion forum, people are having a discussion. Nothing has gone even close to flaming, etc.

I would agree, point and counter point is the basis of discussion.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by gblake

Hmmm.

You do know that you can contact the folks who currently are doing their best to guide MN FRC into an improved future, right? They can tell you what is underway, etc. What you wrote seems to convey that you haven't spoken to them yet about these topics.

After a conversation, you probably won't have to characterize any official statements as excuses (you might disagree with their conclusions, but that is different from labeling something an "excuse"); and you probably won't have guess about their relationship with FIRST HQ; and you can probably get answers to replace assumptions.

Doesn't that sound like a useful thing to do?

Blake

Yes I think it would be extremely useful for those that can benefit from going to the district system in MN to pressure the leadership into giving them some answers as to what is going on.

No I have not contacted the MN leadership and have zero intention of doing so. That is for the people who will benefit to do on their own behalf.

From what I've heard from those in the know that are in MN or who have moved from MN the leadership keeps giving them excuses as to why they can't do districts, with the most popular being lack of volunteers. I have not heard anything regarding what they are doing to make it happen. In fact the few things I've heard indicate that they are more interested in adding more Regionals than making the switch.

I've also heard from people in MN who have told me they have been told to stop talking about the District system on CD and other social media, and I know and trust those people as giving me the truth.

So it doesn't sound like the leadership is working to move MN to the future at all and it certainly doesn't sound like they are willing to give honest answers as to what they are doing to make the switch or any plans to make the switch.

I'm already in the District system and I'm one of the people who worked to make the transition as smooth as possible. That includes stepping up to be a LRI and field supervisor, being the person that helps load the trucks at the warehouse, unload and reload them at the venue, and then repeat for the next weeks event. It also includes uncounted hours building the road cases to carry everything, figuring out a system to store it all, and how to pack the trucks efficiently.

Why did I do those things? Because presented with the full knowledge of what the District System is, I saw the benefits and was willing to be part of the solution instead of coming up with excuses as to why it wouldn't work. Of course I'm not the only one who saw the benefits and stepped up to make it happen. For much of the early road case building we had people from a number of teams give up their weekend, including a large portion of a team that made a 4+hr drive to come to the Fieldhouse to do whatever was required.

Making the switch to the district system requires a lot of work and making sure those that will benefit know the benefits and recruiting some of them to help is required for a successful switch.

I can not for an instant believe that there are not enough people on teams willing to step up to the plate and make it happen, IF they know how much it will benefit them.

So I believe that someone needs to make sure that every single team in the state knows ALL the details about the district system, makes their own decisions based on FULL knowledge. Then if they feel it is in their best interest let the leadership know that is what they want and that at least some of them are willing to be a part of the solution.

You made a lot of implications that I'm giving excuses but it seems like you are the one that keeps giving excuses as why informing teams is non-productive at the best and you seem to imply that it might actually be counter productive.

Again I agree that the teams of MN should do their best, no demand, a true open dialog as to the future on FIRST in their state, with a large focus on the District system.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I strongly disagree. Getting those that benefit from the switch to realize the benefits and create the demand will help speed things along.

No one from Minnesota is arguing against the fact that districts offer teams more plays. 24 instead of 8 is quite the increase in overall plays. What teams sacrifice over regionals is the consistency between all events and the scale in which the event is put on. Having your season end after two district events in school gymnasiums compared to having gone to a full event with 60+ teams, I would rather choose the latter.

Originally Posted by Mr V

One of the things that people keep bringing up as the reason why it can't happen in MN now is the lack of volunteers, and I've been hearing that excuse for at least 3 years now. So educating the teams and letting them know that if they want it they need to step up and volunteer can go a long way to putting that excuse out to pasture.

Its not the volunteers, its the key volunteers. Head refs, Refs, FTAs, GAs, MCs, Scorers, ect. People that have to be trained prior to an event kicking off. Having done game announcing in Minnesota for 5 years, I will tell you that we are getting there, but we are not there yet. To my knowledge, we have 4 approved game announcers that if push came to shove, they could do an event solo. We have 2 in training. We have 3 MCs. We have 3-4 Head refs. We have 3 FTAs and 2 FTAAs. You can see my point. To do Minnesota correctly (using Michigan as the analog) we would need ~13 district events to service the 208 Minnesota teams (roughly half of what Michigan has). You would be asking these some of the Key volunteers to 4 or more events. Until that number can be dropped to something more reasonable (which we are working on) we cannot reliably do a district setup.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Another excuse that is given is that they need to find the proper venues. The bulk of the venues should and will most likely be the schools that have teams currently. So again letting the teams know the benefits and the need for the locations can get teams to explore if their facility is suitable. IF the leadership would say we need X,Y,Z in a location do you have that? Then I'm certain if the teams knew the benefits a number of them would get out their tape measures, talk to their administration and see if they are a place that the MN leadership should consider.

Locations are not the issue. What others have mentioned, that you might be misconstruing as lack of locations, is the quality of the event. To go from Marrucci arena or the DECC to two high school gyms while still having to pay a $5,000 entry fee kinda makes teams and event planners squirm.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Fact is that FIRST has almost certainly been putting pressure on MN to make the switch. I know that they approached what became the PNW district way back in 2012 with hopes of us making the switch for the 2013 season. We did say we needed more time, since there was less info on making the switch with less preexisting areas, and nothing had been done to start the process of qualifying locations as suitable and a whole host of other ways that we felt unprepared to make the switch that quickly.

So assuming FIRST has been pushing things that way already, top down hasn't got too far. So might as well start putting pressure on from the bottom as well as making sure that the bottom is prepared to be part of the solution.

Forcing people into a decision that a majority of those involved do not support is bad news. You are correct in that FIRST would like Minnesota to move towards districts. You are wrong in assuming that FIRST has been putting on pressure. While I think the kids would love to see Woodie Flowers game announce at one of our district events, until we have enough Key volunteers with overlap Minnesota will not change. We have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If I am scheduled for an event right now and I cant make it because of a family emergency, we have enough game announcers to cover my absence. If we were in districts right now, that might not be the case.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Fact is that FIRST sees the District system as the future and that is where they are going. So those that keep resisting need to ask themselves am I going to be a part of the future of FIRST?

You are correct, but we are not resisting. To assume we are resisting FIRST like some sort of rebellious group is just pure ignorance.


Mr. V I dont know who you are but you seem to really like district events. What you have to keep in mind is Minnesota must be doing something right to have as many teams as we do. I would leave the planning to those who have really been crushing it in terms of growth. To go from 2 teams in 2006 to 208 teams in 2016 is nothing short of extraordinary. We have more FIRST teams than varsity hockey teams in the state of hockey!

RED = edit based on me learning something

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

No one from Minnesota is arguing against the fact that districts offer teams more plays. 12 instead of 8 is quite the increase in overall plays. What teams sacrifice over regionals is the consistency between all events and the scale in which the event is put on. Having your season end after only one district event in some schools gymnasium compared to having gone to a full event with 60+ teams, I would rather choose the latter.
.
.
.
Locations are not the issue. What others have mentioned, that you might be misconstruing as lack of locations, is the quality of the event. To go from Marrucci arena or the DECC to a high school gym while still having to pay a $5,000 entry fee kinda makes teams and event planners squirm.

All districts (including Minnesota if/when that happens) get two district events for the price of one regional.

I think this shows how important these discussions and grass-roots efforts are in making sure everyone (including key event volunteers) understands the basics of districts and are on the same page.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

All districts (including Minnesota if/when that happens) get two district events for the price of one regional.

I think this shows how important these discussions and grass-roots efforts are in making sure everyone (including key event volunteers) understands the basics of districts and are on the same page.

Honest mistake.

So my team would get 2 gymnasiums for the price of 1 arena.

Then why are we comparing 12 matches to 8 matches? Shouldn't we be talking about 24 matches vs 8 matches? And my totals would be wrong for the events, we would need at least 13 (which is what someone said on the first page) not 11.

So while were still talking about how awesome playing a full district event is, my point on the key volunteers is still valid.

Edit: I edited my post to reflect what I learned today.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

All districts (including Minnesota if/when that happens) get two district events for the price of one regional.

I think this shows how important these discussions and grass-roots efforts are in making sure everyone (including key event volunteers) understands the basics of districts and are on the same page.

This.

Losing the flash of a regional is a reason I've heard being cited very often in the MN district discussion. As someone who grew up in the district system and has only attended two regional events (Crossroads 2014, 10k/North Star 2016), I don't feel like I've experienced enough of both sides to comment well on the differences. While I intellectually know some of the production differences between the two types of events, can someone with more experience with both comment on how different the two types of events "feel"?

I can also say, when talking to each team at both regionals this year, I specifically mentioned the smaller event size in high school gyms. This only seemed to concern 1-2 teams. In retrospect, I wish I had recorded the responses I got to add some interesting data into this discussion.

Currently Minnesota has 208 teams. 208 teams * 2 plays per team / 40 teams per event = 11 events as an absolute minimum, not counting growth or 3rd plays.

Yes, the 24 vs 8 match difference is highlighted in the cost per match chart on the flyer (which actually assumed 9 qualification matches for the regional not 8).

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

NWe have more FIRST teams than varsity hockey teams in the state of hockey!

That might be true if you are counting all FIRST teams in Minnesota (FLL+FTC+FRC), but if you meant just the FRC teams then you'll need to be more specific....Minnesota's girls play varsity hockey too.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by northstardon

That might be true if you are counting all FIRST teams in Minnesota (FLL+FTC+FRC), but if you meant just the FRC teams then you'll need to be more specific....Minnesota's girls play varsity hockey too.

Well you have to standardize, if you used both that wouldn't be a fair comparison because FIRST robotics is co-ed sport.

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

Its not the volunteers, its the key volunteers. Head refs, Refs, FTAs, GAs, MCs, Scorers, ect. People that have to be trained prior to an event kicking off. Having done game announcing in Minnesota for 5 years, I will tell you that we are getting there, but we are not there yet. To my knowledge, we have 4 approved game announcers that if push came to shove, they could do an event solo. We have 2 in training. We have 3 MCs. We have 3-4 Head refs. We have 3 FTAs and 2 FTAAs. You can see my point. To do Minnesota correctly (using Michigan as the analog) we would need ~13 district events to service the 208 Minnesota teams (roughly half of what Michigan has). You would be asking these some of the Key volunteers to 4 or more events. Until that number can be dropped to something more reasonable (which we are working on) we cannot reliably do a district setup.

But hasn't the MNFIRST group(s) already been working on this for years? What difference is the next year or two going to make? MN has had 4 regionals every year since 2013 and based on your numbers some key volunteers still have to double up events. Unless the number of volunteers you trust for key positions doubles, next year, you may never be ready at this rate.