pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[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.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

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.

If MN went to Districts this season, then they would have only needed 11 events assuming that all 11 events were capable of holding the maximum of 40 teams. Of course if not all of the events are capable of that then more may be needed. 208*2/40=10.4 Which is why I keep saying that it is best if it is done now. Making the leap in when there are more than 240 teams so that there will be a need for more than 2 events in a weekend seems like a very bad idea to me. In fact for the 1st season in the PNW we specifically choose to do a single week 1 event so that we could all learn together (and many key volunteers were doubled or tripled up) in hopes of making the rest of the events as smooth as possible. Event to event consistency is a top priority for the PNW District and I'm sure that it is for other current Districts as well. Personally I'd take 2 district events in HS gyms with only 8 matches and 40 teams per event over a single 64 team event with 12, 14 or even 16 matches if such a thing were possible.

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.

Yes I am guilty of lumping all volunteers together and there certainly are differences between the level of involvement and traning required for the different positions. A person could walk in off the street and work the check in desk with a 10 minute training while a FTA should have been a FTAA for a while and will have to go to HQ for the full training as well as attend the calls and keep up on the forum ect. However many of those people who for example are currently a ref, RI or FTAA may be ready and willing to move to the key position. Yes I agree that just because you fill one of those roles and are good at it does not mean that you would be good at the key role or that you may even want that key role. My point is that unless you ask for the volunteers they won't appear out of thin air. For the switch to the District System getting out ahead of the volunteer needs greatly increases the chances of success and minimizes the number of events a particular key volunteer needs to work. It could also provide more back ups in case someone can't make it for what ever reason. This is one area that I feel we in the PNW could have handled better. (Which is why I've been preaching that MN needs to start training people NOW). Do you think that there are not enough people willing and able to step up to make it happen?

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

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.

Regarding the venues count me in as one who before participating in the District system was very leery about loosing the flash of an event in a large commercial venue. It is very cool to walk into the seating area and see the field under lights as if it was a professional sporting event. After the first season I didn't miss it at all, though of course I have attended all of the DCMPs so I still see that there. To be honest it doesn't impress me as much as it once did, but that may be because of how long I've been doing it.

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

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.

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

That is not what I get from the people who have posted on CD and contacted me through other channels. From what I hear the leadership is planning on adding 2 or 3 more Regionals in the not so distant future. If you can't staff 25 days worth of events for a district system how can you staff 21 days worth of events that need more volunteers per event? Let alone the huge jump in cost.

To me the fact that they are reportedly considering adding more Regionals seems like pretty strong resistance.

Originally Posted by SoMe_DuDe904

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

If you look up to the left you will see that I am the FIRST Senior Mentor for Washington state. (which of course invokes me to say that everything that I post on CD is my own opinion and not the official word of FIRST) I have participated in FRC for 8 seasons now, 5 in the Regional System and 3 in the District System. 6 of those were on a strong, well funded team that did attend two events, iterated between events and managed to qualify for and attend CMP a number of times. The last two years have been on a team that started up last season who I'd say is in the middle of the road as far as funding. We made it to DCMP both seasons. Note in both instances we only qualified because of teams declining. In our rookie season we wouldn't have qualified if it were not for the rookie points bonus (10 the 1st season, 5 second season) and the fact that RAS is an 8pt award rather than the 5pts most awards earn.

Being a FSM does mean that I am supposed to be an advocate for teams and their experience, among other things. Because of this I spent a fair amount of time at the events in our first District season asking them about their feelings on making the switch. I can tell you that the students that I have talked to overwhelmingly prefer being in a District. The majority, but certainly not all of Mentors and Coaches that I talked to feel the same way. Of course it would have been impossible to talk to each and every participant so the information I have is based on a sample and does in no way represent everyone in the PNW's feelings on the switch.

Do not think for an instant that I do not believe that the people in charge of MN have not done a good job. The team growth speaks volumes about the work they have done and the dedication that such an endeavor requires.