District System in Other Regions in 2010?

[MrForbes]

Looking at the map, the NJ/NY area looks more appropriate for expanding the district idea, but I'm not FIRST

[Alex Golec]

There is one critical element that has been overlooked here: FiM was a volunteer-driven organization. So unfortunately, pointing at a map and saying "district here" won't cut it. In order to spread the system, the region needs to be established, and have enough volunteers to step up above the team level to manage the region, otherwise, FIRST will still need to spend money on professionals to run that area.

Anyways, for a good divide-and-conquer evaluation, see Paul's post here .

-Alex

[David Brinza]

With almost 250 FRC teams in CA, NV, HI and AZ, it should be easy to fill the card for 10 or more district events (if FIRST could get that many venues in the Southwest). As in Michigan, each of the teams would compete in two district events with fair number of teams playing a third event. The Long Beach Arena is big enough host a double-field Championship for the SW super-region (like 75+ teams).

Unlike Michigan, though, I hope that teams from outside the SW would be allowed participate in the SW district events.

[bobwrit]

Quick anwser: We'll have to see what FIRST does.

Long explination: What I think(and maybe Dave or Bill can fill us in on) is happening within FIRST is that they are having high level meetings to discuss the district system, and whether or not to expand it outside Mishigan or whether to do out with it all together. So FIRST will probaly make their decision in 2-4 weeks, if they haven't already, and then seek corperate sponsors for whatever they choose. As the fund raising wraps up for what they choose, they will probaly announce the regionals/districts, or they will anounce everything mid-September. Again, time will tell whether or not the districts will expand.

[rogerlsmith]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

They don't hold the district events at regional sites. Think of it as FIRST done on the cheap. I was told some of the events cost as little as $10,000 to do. Regionals cost a whole lot more than that. So for the district model to work in other areas you have to think like they do and look for smaller venues to hold it in not the old regional sites.

This year the West Michigan District Event was in the field house @ Grand Valley State University, the same place the West Michigan Regional has been held for several years.

For me, it was not much of a change at all. There were fewer teams, but the event was executed flawlessly.

I am 100% in favor of expanding the FiM model to other areas. I hope the changes begin next season.

[Beth Sweet]

As of 2 blog entries ago, Bill Miller, director of FRC said that the district system is still being evaluated in the BoD. I do hope that this is the case, since team forums haven't even occurred yet, the widely spoken of "Brandeis evaluation" has not been distributed (to the best of my knowledge), aka, they haven't heard any feedback. Seems like that would be a necessity to evaluate a program.

So, there is no for sure that it will return in Michigan next year, and no for sure that it will spread across the rest of the competition. I do hope that people keep in mind that FiM was a pilot program, and as such, must be evaluated for its effectiveness and its fate will be decided. Bill made it clear in his blog: the success/failure verdict on FiM is still out. Let's not presume that FIRST will declare it a success to be continued and spread until FIRST says so.

[dwaynetrip3119]

very well said. we will see what happens soon

[smurfgirl]

I agree that somewhere in the Northeast would be very conducive to the district system- it's not too geographically large but there are a lot of teams and events which would be able to support the district system. New England or the tri-state area would both be a good place to expand to if FIRST decides that the 2009 pilot was effective and is worth spreading.

[Mr. Tech Vike]

As a team member of 2054 from michigan i see that making the rest of FRC having the option of running a District type of compititon would be better than just the one regional event you would compete at. i have seen both types of systems and i wish that Michigan did the switch sooner. At the first district you will see the flaws in yours and others robots and at the next district you will see those flaws have been fixed so at every level the competition gets tougher and tougher. Competition brings out the best results.

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by rogerlsmith

I am 100% in favor of expanding the FiM model to other areas. I hope the changes begin next season.

If it does expand I'd like to see it come to California. If it did so though, they may need to have more district events. Michigan had 3 events in 2008, and California had 4. Michigan also has about 122+ teams. California has around 160+ teams. (approximation)

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Steven Sigley

If it does expand I'd like to see it come to California. If it did so though, they may need to have more district events. Michigan had 3 events in 2008, and California had 4. Michigan also has about 122+ teams. California has around 160+ teams. (approximation)

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

[Steven Sigley]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

8 sounds good. And yeah i figure my team, a lot of the powerhouses, and some other strong California teams would want to do 3 districts, just off the top of my head:
100
254
330
115
701

No doubt there are many other teams that could afford to and would love to attend 3 districts.

Additionally, you kinda need 8-9 districts to accommodate any new team growth in the region.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Michigan had 132 registered FRC teams this year and California had 145. Michigan had 7 District events this year, California would need at least 8 for all teams to play twice. This would leave significantly more open spots than there were in MI last year, but I can't imagine there would be too much trouble in finding 30 teams that want to pay a bit more to play 3 times.

Or, as I suggested in another thread, allow "outside" teams a chance to take those spots--not for points--before opening the events up to 3rd-district teams.

Thinking about it, that could result in some really interesting events. Let's say, for now, that CA gets up to 155 teams, at 2 events apiece. There are 320 spots in an 8-district grouping, and 310 are taken. You now have 10 open slots, spread over 5-6 weeks and hundreds of miles. (If the number of teams goes over 160, you'll need a ninth event, or somebody only goes to one and goes out of state. Like that'll happen, but anyway...)

What to do with 10 open slots? They won't be counting for points, because any teams taking them will already have 2 events to get points in. So you may as well cross-pollinate--give outside teams a week's head start in registration for those 10 spots. You'd have to work out a price that's between "third district" and "second regional", but you could easily do that. Then after that week, have "open" registration, anyone can sign up. Price depends on in-state or out-of-state status. Now you get the benefits of the regional and the district system...

I'm with Beth: We'll have to wait. And as I said earlier, some aspects could easily be implemented before going to full district style.

[AB755]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

They don't hold the district events at regional sites. Think of it as FIRST done on the cheap.

I attended 3 district events in Michigan this year. Two (Detroit and West Michigan) were held at the same sites as prior years regionals. The third, Kettering, was held in a site that is VERY similar to the Boilermaker regional at Purdue. The look and feel of these 3 events were very similar to smaller regionals such as Boilermaker.

[merybar]

In terms of championship eligibility, what do Michigan teams have over any other team across the nation. Yes they are closer than Washington or California, but the championship registration policy and eligibility is the same, and consistent nationwide. Michigan still only sent 16 teams this year that qualified at the state championship, the rest of the teams were pre-qualified/pre-registered. So i guess what im getting at is i think im missing something, what do Michigan teams have over other teams across the nation other than the per match count? The system this year was GREAT i hope all of you can experience the match play count that Michigan teams got to experience this year!