Ohio going to Districts?

[matthewdenny]

I had thought that during the Columbus kickoff event that one of the speakers had mentioned something about Ohio going towards a district system. Does anyone know what that might look like, or when they anticipate this sort of transition, and what it would mean to teams here?

[Koko Ed]

From what I heard almost all of FIRST will be going District by 2017 (there will be obvious exceptions like the Iowa/Nebraska/ Wyoming/North Dakota/ South Dakota areas where there area not enough teams and too much distance to make districts feasible).

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

From what I heard almost all of FIRST will be going District by 2017 (there will be obvious exceptions like the Iowa/Nebraska/ Wyoming/North Dakota/ South Dakota areas where there area not enough teams and too much distance to make districts feasible).

I will be quite upset if Iowa gets left out of all of the future regional systems in our neighboring states. Why is distance a different issue with districts? We have to travel to events anyway, so we can travel to out of state district events instead of out of state regional events.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I will be quite upset if Iowa gets left out of all of the future regional systems in our neighboring states. Why is distance a different issue with districts? We have to travel to events anyway, so we can travel to out of state district events instead of out of state regional events.

I'd agree. Teams from Iowa are as much a part of MN events as MN teams are-- I can't image North Star without you guys, and not having 525 in the state last year was just weird.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I will be quite upset if Iowa gets left out of all of the future regional systems in our neighboring states. Why is distance a different issue with districts? We have to travel to events anyway, so we can travel to out of state district events instead of out of state regional events.

The general issue with distance/sparse population and districts is not the distance itself but the number of times you have to travel (to have a chance at qualifying for worlds). As opposed to traveling to and perhaps winning one regional, you now have to go to two Districts and a District Championship to potentially make it to worlds. Additionally, while more travel means more play (for less money), there have been claims that because District Events are less 'flashy', their recruiting power is lower. The corollary there is that the travel/money schedule of 2 Districts + District Championship (which has at least the flashiness of a regional, but in my experience is even better due to the quality of teams) makes it hard to recruit and retain students.

This is what typically comes up in "Districts?" threads anyway. I am not in a sparsely populated area, so I am no claim that this is actually the case. We generally feel like districts are a better 'shot' at qualifying for Worlds, not in terms of percentages or input energy, but because better/longer measures of consistency mean less luck and more team control. We've also found that districts are great for recruitment and retention, simply because you far play more and with the same group of teams. (My students are much, much more likely to have more friends on more teams than they were pre-districts.) There's also an interim goal/awesome experience to aim for besides the difficulty of qualifying for worlds. That said, many MAR teams also benefit in recruiting by having more 'home' (close) events. This is not a benefit less densely populated areas would see, though I don't know what affect, if any, that would have.

To be clear, I'm just trying to answer this particular question, not suggest that anyone should cut Iowa out of districts. Personally I'd like to see a huge free-for-all where you just register for 2 Districts anywhere in the world, and choose your preferred District Championship.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

From what I heard almost all of FIRST will be going District by 2017 (there will be obvious exceptions like the Iowa/Nebraska/ Wyoming/North Dakota/ South Dakota areas where there area not enough teams and too much distance to make districts feasible).

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I'd agree. Teams from Iowa are as much a part of MN events as MN teams are-- I can't image North Star without you guys, and not having 525 in the state last year was just weird.

Originally Posted by dag0620

My hope is teams in sparsely populated states (teams/events wise) or teams teams in states who in the regional model typically competed out of state for their home events, will have the ability to choose and declare which region they will belong to based on what is best for them.

This is my feeling about it. It's no doubt that FIRST will be entirely districts in the near future and for the teams in rural locations, they should have the choice of which system fits them best.

The teams in Iowa may find it best to align with Minnesota for a district system for example.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

From what I heard almost all of FIRST will be going District by 2017 (there will be obvious exceptions like the Iowa/Nebraska/ Wyoming/North Dakota/ South Dakota areas where there area not enough teams and too much distance to make districts feasible).

My guess is that they will join a nearby district, or even form their own. FRC is a hard enough sell in really rural areas, and telling them that they have to pay twice as much to travel twice as far as every other team in FIRST would just kill it. Having some areas in districts and some not is just not a sustainable model. Even if that means they have to travel for six hours or more to get to a district event, I'm sure they'd rather do it than spend thousands of more dollars for much much less playing time.

Having these areas in neighboring districts will actually make it easier to start more teams anyway, ensuring that they can have their own district in the future.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

FRC is a hard enough sell in really rural areas, and telling them that they have to pay twice as much to travel twice as far as every other team in FIRST would just kill it.

I don't understand. Who would be asked to pay twice as much, and why?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't understand. Who would be asked to pay twice as much, and why?

Not in registration, nope. In travel. If teams have to travel extra distance to get to an event they can attend, just because all the nearby events are districts, they've got to either pay the money (read: raise extra money, possibly twice as much depending on distance) or join a district where you'll at least get double the mileage out of that money.

E.g.: A team in SD currently attends Colorado Regional. Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Idaho decide to combine forces for one district system. Simultaneously, MN goes district. Now, the nearest regional is Kansas City... unless, as floated a couple years ago, that area goes district, when it's Vegas, one of the Arizona events, or somewhere farther afield. Basically, when every regional is a 2-day drive, the cost of attendance just doubled (hotel, gas...).

So, the nice thing to do would be for the CO/UT/MN/ID district system to invite the SD teams (at least in certain areas) to join in, so that those 2x attendance costs at least go to 2x events.

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't understand. Who would be asked to pay twice as much, and why?

Districts are cheaper than regionals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but district event registration gets you 2 events and it is still cheaper/se cost as just one regional. If areas are left out of districts, this creates an unfair disadvantage to those left out. Then you add travel time, as EricH said above. I always use the example of WV. If everyone around us goes districts, and leaves us out, where are we going to go? Oh yeah, WV only has 4 teams, they can't support districts! Well we also can't support traveling to Montana paying the ridiculous regional registration fees AND all the travel costs only to get much fewer matches than the other teams ( scenario assuming 90% district saturation).

So include these teams in adjoining districts. I'm sure they'd rather travel the extra hours so they can get the more playing time and cost benefits that districts bring. This is why districts WILL be everywhere. If not, we are going to further alienate our rural teams and make it even harder to get new teams in these areas started up.

I.e. Giving a cost break and allowing more playing time for your money only to teams in FIRST-saturated/urban areas is an unsustainable model. Even if it means a team needs to travel for 6 hours or more to get to a district event, they should do it instead of being stuck with only one big expensive event 10 hours away.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

Districts are cheaper than regionals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but district event registration gets you 2 events and it is still cheaper/se cost as just one regional.

Pretty true. I'm pretty sure how it worked in Indiana was that it was $5,000 for the 2 events. The third event was $1,000 extra. And the DCMPS was $4,000. And like others were saying, I really feel like we sent the best robots in Indiana. Even the RAS, EI, CA were really good robots.

[matthewdenny]

I am completely unfamiliar with that format. How many events would a team need to register for? What do the costs look like?

[Jay O'Donnell]

Going to districts means you get more competitions and matches for the same amount of money. You get two district events or the same price as one regional. It is also a better way of qualifying for champs with the point system. Biggest downside (at least here in New England) is that the venues are smaller and amount of teams at a competition until the District Championship.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by matthewdenny

I am completely unfamiliar with that format. How many events would a team need to register for? What do the costs look like?

'Districts' essentially makes the lowest tier of competition broader ('District Events' replace 'Regionals), and adds a tier in the middle ('District Championsips').

Each team gets to go to 2 District events (capped at 40 teams) for the same $5000/$6000 registration fee that got them 1 Regional before. If you want to go to more District Events, they're $1000 each. The Distict CMP is $5000 (or 4k or something).

In terms of cost to compete per event, it's far cheaper... For teams that have only gone to 1 event before, and aren't in an FRC-dense area, it can introduce extra travel costs though.

What I think is best about it, is it makes the way teams advance far more intuitive... you get points for your wins (or rank this year) in qualification matches, for winning awards, for getting picked in alliance selection, for where you end up in eliminations, and for being a rookie or 2nd-year team (to help 'equalize' the playing field and to help young teams see DCMP and CMP). This may sound confusing, but it ends up advancing the best teams in the region exceptionally well. Far better than the 'crap-shoot' of winning a regional or Chairmans (i.e., being 1, 2, or 24th best robot or being single best in a 10-minute interview, an essay, or a video).

Incredibly few people say 'Gee, I wish we went back to the regional system' once they've experienced the district system.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

If you want to go to more District Events, they're $1000 each. The Distict CMP is $5000 (or 4k or something).
...
In terms of cost to compete per event, it's far cheaper... For teams that have only gone to 1 event before, and aren't in an FRC-dense area, it can introduce extra travel costs though.

Pulled two facts, one to emphasize one to correct.

District Events don't always cost $1000 more. I know in Michigan they were $500.


The second part is true. For certain teams it may increase travel costs. However, when I mapped out where events compared to the previous year's teams (which is what they logically should be based on) most places did pretty good.

PNW - http://beyondinspection.org/post/997...ific-northwest

FIM - http://beyondinspection.org/post/972...rict-stats-fim

Indiana - http://beyondinspection.org/post/997...-indiana-first

NE - http://beyondinspection.org/post/997...ts-new-england

MAR - http://beyondinspection.org/post/997...tlantic-region


PNW does the worst with forcing one team to drive 242 miles to its second closest event. And that team likely had to go that far for any events prior.

Teams at the weird outer edges of Districts (857 in FiM) get hurt the worst because it's shorter to travel to Wisconsin than to a second district.

Having done Districts -> Regionals -> Districts over the last couple years, as a team I prefer districts. As a spectator I prefer regionals.