New District Events for 2013?

[KevinGoneNuts]

Originally Posted by calicogang

With Ca. approaching 200 FRC teams next year, we are running out of regionals. As it stands now, we have 5 regionals. Ca. would make the most sense of going to a Mi. style of events. Rumor has it that it is still a few years away. There is talk of adding one more regional, somewhere in the state. Maybe adding one more in L.A. and making it dual events like Seattle had this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did that, but they are doing this:

Originally Posted by R.C.

There is one being planned in the riverside area.

-RC

I personally would love to see one more Norther California Regional. I smaller one, just to alleviate some of the stress off of SVR and SAC, I feel like CVR did a good job at that, but another 30-40 team regional would be nice. It would be even better if it were near an airport, because then it would be a draw to some international and out of state teams. Then california could play host to the First ever FRC Triple Crown. If you win all three regional competitions you win the triple crown. Just a thought.

Another idea, although far-fetched, would be to have two CA districts, One North and One South. The State Championship could be a two fielder event North on one field and South on another and then the winners of each field have to face one another so it would be an ultimate North vs. South Battle. That would be crazy!!

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by KevinGoneNuts

Another idea, although far-fetched, would be to have two CA districts, One North and One South. The State Championship could be a two fielder event North on one field and South on another and then the winners of each field have to face one another so it would be an ultimate North vs. South Battle. That would be crazy!!

My Michigan bias may be showing, but if this happens all of Michigan will have a riot. Michigan and California have virtually the same number of teams (within 10 of each other I believe), so if California is turned into two regions there have to be some serious changes in Michigan as well. I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams.

I guess this is an issue that overlaps a lot of this talk of switching to district systems. How do we keep the number of teams going from each region "fair?" I know right now its the former number of regionals that area had, but that won't work much longer for MI. We have over 180 teams and we get the equivalent of 3 regionals (18 teams sent, I believe). California has 5 so theoretically if it goes to districts they will send 30 teams if my math is correct.

I don't know, just some thoughts. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything.

[KevinGoneNuts]

Originally Posted by P.J.

My Michigan bias may be showing, but if this happens all of Michigan will have a riot. Michigan and California have virtually the same number of teams (within 10 of each other I believe), so if California is turned into two regions there have to be some serious changes in Michigan as well. I realize geography is at work in your idea, but you have to look at it this way: 2 regions means (theoretically) twice as many teams going to St. Louis (or wherever the Championship is), and I don't think it would be fair to send say 30 out of 190 California teams there and only 18 out of 180 (those numbers are just guesses) Michigan teams.

I guess this is an issue that overlaps a lot of this talk of switching to district systems. How do we keep the number of teams going from each region "fair?" I know right now its the former number of regionals that area had, but that won't work much longer for MI. We have over 180 teams and we get the equivalent of 3 regionals (18 teams sent, I believe). California has 5 so theoretically if it goes to districts they will send 30 teams if my math is correct.

I don't know, just some thoughts. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything.

Haha I can see how that would upset a lot of michigan teams. I was just thinking geographically. My idea was that it would still be one championship, just divided up better. The same number of teams would qualify for champs at a CSC. The extra battle of North vs. South would really just be for the title of California State Champions. Both alliances would qualify, and then a predetermined number of teams on both sides would qualify for the FIRST CHMP. Like I said, It's completely far-fetched, but just a fun idea

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KevinGoneNuts

Haha I can see how that would upset a lot of michigan teams. I was just thinking geographically. My idea was that it would still be one championship, just divided up better. The same number of teams would qualify for champs at a CSC. The extra battle of North vs. South would really just be for the title of California State Champions. Both alliances would qualify, and then a predetermined number of teams on both sides would qualify for the FIRST CHMP. Like I said, It's completely far-fetched, but just a fun idea

This is very disadvantageous for SoCal teams from a competitive standpoint.

[KevinGoneNuts]

Originally Posted by Cory

This is very disadvantageous for SoCal teams from a competitive standpoint.

I know. It's just a fun idea. It would be a very cool off season event if anything.

[KevinGoneNuts]

I still can't decide if I'm for or against California having district events.

I can see why. Well 1) there are a lot of California teams and 2) it would be cheaper and there would be more events for teams.

But I think we need more regional competitions elseware. There are a lot of out of CA teams that rely on the CA regional competitions. There would probably have to be a Mexico Regional first (which honestly isn't that far away) and at least one more in the midwest. There are always a few idaho teams that come to CA, but another competition besides Utah is necessary.

[lynca]

Originally Posted by Steven Sigley

With this week being the Michigan and Mid-Atlantic Championships, I figure it's as good a time as any to ask.
What if any new District models do you think will be adopted for next year?
California?
Texas?

From a Texas perspective, teams are too spread out to really get the benefits of a district model. For example, teams from El Paso would still have to travel 8 hours to get to an event in San Antonio.

I think Texas is still a couple years away from really seeing the benefits of a District model.

[DevinW]

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

[xSAWxBLADEx]

Originally Posted by DevinW

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

I miss seeing non-michigan team in Detriot. I remember Team 2283 Panteras competiting with 469, 217, 47 (now 51), etc. It was great and a real powerhouse regional. I just wished they allowed maybe 5 slots in michigan districts for non-michigan team and the non-michigan teams just competited like they were at a regional and everyone else played for points. I just miss the non-michigan teams.

For example, This is Great Lakes in 2007. Super Powerhouse Regional!
http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2007gl

[jyh947]

Originally Posted by DevinW

I've heard rumors of Texas more than others, but Califorina or the Pacific Coast (Hawaii and Alaska included) Seems to be the most logical from my point of view. District tend to have more politics than other events, but, in my oppinion, they are more fun. (I'm in Michigan.)

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

[DevinW]

Originally Posted by jyh947

IMHO, making a California/Alaska/Hawaii district is very illogical. Imagine the cost of making EVERY team in this area attend two events, not even taking into account the cost for a Regional Championship.

I am also from Michigan. The district model works for us because 90% of teams have two districts within an hour of drive time. This significantly lowers the cost for a team because we don't need to account for hotel costs and bus rentals. The end of the day means that we drive home and rest for free, rather than paying $100 per hotel room per night.

There is almost no way that all 30+ teams from Hawaii can pay for one mainland event and their own district event. Its just not sustainable.

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by DevinW

Thinking about it now, you're right, but California still seems very logical to me. They have alot of teams there, you know. :3 I suppose we couldn't really have two Hawaii district, with the same teams attending each, that'd get a bit boring.

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

Personally, I'd love to see two new districts in Hell, MI and Paradise, MI on the same weekend. We could have competing volunteer tshirts, hehe

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace

Why would that be boring? Only Hawaii teams (with the exception of one team from Taiwan) attended the Hawaii regional this year, so I think that having a district system there would actually benefit them a lot.

If you have a Regional of 60-80 teams, then I think that it's plausible to have two districts in its place.

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That would be great, except that the Hawaii Regional only had 40 teams. A Hawaii-only district adds nothing at all, and a Hawaii+ district places massive travel costs on a ton of teams.

In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.

Actually, you could use the exact same argument to support turning L.A. into a district zone. Most years, it's only CA teams (and often only SoCal teams) other than one Chilean team. That's a 60+ team event! And when there are teams from other places, usually it's Arizona or Nevada.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by EricH

In terms of teams, true. However, it would double the play time of the Hawaii teams.

What about the state championships? Either you have most of the teams and wonder why you had the "district" events in the first place, or have a championship with 20 teams. And all of those teams have to pay more, of course...