District/Regional Format

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I was referencing if there was NO bag and tag system or ship date that Collin mentioned earlier and in several other threads before. What is keeping a team from waiting until good teams compete in week one and the build their robot in the following weeks to do exactly what team X does but better and have it for week 5 all ready to go? It is definitely a very low thing for a team to do, but I am sure that there are teams out there who would do it.

Yes it doesn't happen now because we have ship date and teams can only hold back 40lbs of weight, but I was replying to FIRST moving to a no ship date and every team keeps their robot in between competitions.

VRC teams do exactly this. It's not something low, it's copying in a way... how many teams are currently trying to tried to copy 469 after they saw them at Cass Tech?

I like the idea of ship date, leave that no ship date to FLL, FTC and VRC

[FoleyParent]

I have been a part of FIRST since 2005 when my son was a freshman in high school and have always enjoyed reading Chief Delphi for as many years. But, I have never officially registered or posted. This is my first, so please go easy on me .

My team, 910 really enjoys the playing time we get for our money with FiM, but we too have really missed the opportunities to play and get to know other teams from outside of our state. We do not have the extra money required to pay for both travel and registration for an out-of-state regional in additional to FiM.

Right now in FiM, when there are open slots available at a district event, teams can register for a third district for $500. Registration for these open slots occurs after regular registration (your first two choices) is closed. Last year we were able to play in 3 district events. This year we were not.

I propose that a team’s third event (for that same $500) can ONLY be for open slots in district level events outside your home state/region (which operate in the same or similar format as FiM). This would go in both directions, thus providing teams outside Michigan to compete within Michigan, as well as essentially reserving the extra slots for only outside teams. Only your 2 district events within your state/region would count toward your qualifying points for your state/regional championship event.

In terms of off-season events to get in extra play... The mid-west has many off-season events also. Our team tries to attend as many of them as we can for all of the reasons stated in earlier posts. I would encourage all teams to participate in them. But I do not feel that it replaces or takes away from all of the positive aspects of the FiM structure.

In response to State lines not working for all states, I do not think that ‘conferences’ (to steal a word from sports) has to be based along single or multiple state lines. It might be more cost effective for some of the teams in the upper peninsula of MI to play in a ‘conference’ out of Chicago or the North Central US. Or maybe, for teams in northern CA to be a part of a Northwest US/Southwest Canada 'conference'. There is no reason why the lines couldn’t change and/or the district format evolve as FIRST grows… continuous improvement .

Getting excited for Atlanta... see you there!

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by FoleyParent

I have been a part of FIRST since 2005 when my son was a freshman in high school and have always enjoyed reading Chief Delphi for as many years. But, I have never officially registered or posted. This is my first, so please go easy on me .

There are some really great ideas in this post. Welcome to the CD Community. If the rest of the posts are anything like this one, you'll be a valued member very quickly.

Originally Posted by FoleyParent

Right now in FiM, when there are open slots available at a district event, teams can register for a third district for $500. Registration for these open slots occurs after regular registration (your first two choices) is closed. Last year we were able to play in 3 district events. This year we were not.

I propose that a team’s third event (for that same $500) can ONLY be for open slots in district level events outside your home state/region (which operate in the same or similar format as FiM). This would go in both directions, thus providing teams outside Michigan to compete within Michigan, as well as essentially reserving the extra slots for only outside teams. Only your 2 district events within your state/region would count toward your qualifying points for your state/regional championship event.

I really like this idea and think that it can be implemented the quickest of any of the other ideas proposed here with the current FiM structure. It could be a first come / first served for "outside" teams. I would love for our team to come see how a district competition operates and how the model could be expanded to other regions. What better way than to let them compete. A few caveats I think that would need to be in place: 1) Since there would be so few spots available - the "outside" team would get no Championship qualification from these events. Since a Michigan team cannot qualify for Championships simply by winning a district, why should a team from another state? Also, to make sure none of the Michigan teams lose point earning oppotunities at that district, what if the "outside" team was not able to win any judged awards, at least during the learning phase of the "team swap"? It would stink not being able to win awards at a competition, but that's a price you pay to go to this extra event for so cheap.

Originally Posted by FoleyParent

In response to State lines not working for all states, I do not think that ‘conferences’ (to steal a word from sports) has to be based along single or multiple state lines. It might be more cost effective for some of the teams in the upper peninsula of MI to play in a ‘conference’ out of Chicago or the North Central US. Or maybe, for teams in northern CA to be a part of a Northwest US/Southwest Canada 'conference'. There is no reason why the lines couldn’t change and/or the district format evolve as FIRST grows… continuous improvement .

I love this idea. What if, every three years you had to declare your "region"? This would put the onus on the teams to figure out where it fits best for them to play. You would be limited to only select from say 3 regions surrounding your general geographic location, but the choice would still be yours. This can be implemented while there is a mix of districts and regionals, too. Why can't, after two years of trying it, a team from Michigan decide they don't want to do the FiM structure? Why can't a team from a state close to Michigan decide that, for the next three years, they are going to be a "Michigan" team?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by FoleyParent

‘conferences’ (to steal a word from sports)

Yes! A word to define the geographical area which supports a championship - CONFERENCE. Let's push for that to be the official designation.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Also, keeping robots back is not wise due to copying. 217, 1114, 469, 148, and so many other good robots debuted in week 1 and 2 regionals, and some before ship date. What is keeping a team competing in week 4 or 5 to just rebuild their robot to do exactly what that team does? I don't want to see FIRST turn into a bunch of variations of the same good robot competing everywhere.

My experience in VEX, where we have five tournaments each about a month apart in Redmond, Vancouver, and on Vancouver Island for just over 50 teams is that keeping the robots back does allow some copying. But I think that is a good thing.

It gives teams a microcosm of the real world of engineering, where you KNOW you can't stand still. The robots that won our first event in November, would have been slaughtered at our final event in March. I tell students that if someone is copying you, then that means they are one month behind you... and you better keep running if you want to stay in front... and watch out for teams that will leapfrog past you with radical new designs. We saw at least one completely brand new concept in how to play the game in our fifth and final event this year. In FRC, if you've got a good robot in Week 1, you can be pretty confident that it will be a good robot at the Championships. Not in VEX.

Of course rebuilding in VEX is pretty easy to do... the robots are all made of re-usable parts, so doing a complete re-build can cost absolutely nothing.... and the events are weeks apart, giving plenty of time to tear down, rebuild and retest.... and can be done without close adult supervision.

The FRC schedule has different constraints on it than the VEX schedule does, and thats why I'm happy to be able to play both games... but I wouldn't necessarily condemn copying or improving upon a good design as a bad thing. In fact, it is the smart thing to do!

Jason

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Tanner

I don't know if GA FIRST is planning to do anything, but from what I know and who I know, I don't think so.

Do I think FIRST should impose the District/Regional format on the country/world?

From what I know of the system in Michigan (which is little, so bare with me) is that it seems you get more out of less. Specifically, more chances at district competitions, ergo more of a chance to get to Atlanta, from a "less" (read: same) amount of money.

Saving money is great, which seems like what this format was made to do, though without seeing/experiencing a district competition I couldn't say much about it. I can say I do like the lighting/set-up of the regionals. Again though, I don't know much about the district competitions.

I like the bag/tag idea though that's probably because our main regional is literally 10 minutes away from where we work. Don't know about the district format though, but that's probably because I don't know enough to make a well informed decision.

-Tanner

Tanner, that isn't precisely true. District winners do NOT get invited to Atlanta. In order to keep the number of teams that are given invitations from Michigan static (the same as when we only had 3 regionals), a set number of births are given: 3 State Championship Chairmans, etc etc. Only the 3 winning robots at the state championship are given auto-invites, along with the state championship award winners (EI, Chairman, etc).

So, it performs 2 functions:
It is MUCH harder now to get in to Atlanta by being a random "picked by the number 1 alliance" team, because you have to perform well at TWO districts (40% of your final score) and the championship (60% of your final score).

It is MUCH harder to get in via Chairmans, etc. You no longer compete just against the chairman's presenters at your regional. You compete against all other 140 teams in the state, because after you win a district chairman you have to go win a state chairman's to be invited.

Essentially, what you now have coming out of Michigan is the cream of the crop, the best of the best (as far as Michigan teams go). Unless a team has the cash to pay their way in, if they've come through the Michigan District system, they're the real deal.

[AnibaS]

The problem with expanding the FiM model seems to be the number of teams from each area. States like MI and CA both have a large number of local teams, but I don't think even NY would have enough teams for this system. We only have one Regional, and half of the teams come from NJ.

I think this system would also take away diversity- teams wouldn't have the opportunity to play against teams from cross the nation and world. It's always great playing against the returning teams from London and Brazil at NY!

On the other hand, the MI system is certainly successful in giving teams more experience and does bring out the creme de la creme.

[Jamie Kalb]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Are there any other parts of the country/world that are making plans to follow the FIRST in Michigan District/Regional format?

I know there's been serious talk of doing this in C.A. due to the large number of teams (~150 teams and 4 regionals). I'm not sure yet what I think of that.

[Wayne TenBrink]

I am biased, but I recommend that they "impose" the district model on the rest of the country/world. District lines should accomodate a workable mix of quantity and distance. There would be some resistance, like there was in Michigan, but I would expect that to go away once people realized that they were getting a much better value and only losing half as many work/school days (OK, so maybe that isn't such a great selling point for the students).

If you consider the inverse of the current choice, it sounds rather funny (or sad). Imagine FIRST coming to Michigan at this point with the following proposal: "In order to grow the program in your economically stressed area, we propose raising the fees, cutting the number of events in half, reducing the number of matches per event, removing any objective means of scoring your team relative to your peers, and eliminating any affordable, merit based events. In exchange for this, we have arranged give your hard-raised money to professional event planners and transportation services so don't have to lug that 120 lb behemoth by yourselves, and you can watch the few remaining matches under some really cool lighting and great sound." It wouldn't work with me.

Perhaps if the entire country followed the district model, we could find a way for teams to attend events outside their district. That is the only thing I miss with the FiM structure (we can still go out of State, but others can't come to MI).

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I am biased, but I recommend that they "impose" the district model on the rest of the country/world. District lines should accomodate a workable mix of quantity and distance. There would be some resistance, like there was in Michigan, but I would expect that to go away once people realized that they were getting a much better value and only losing half as many work/school days (OK, so maybe that isn't such a great selling point for the students).

If you consider the inverse of the current choice, it sounds rather funny (or sad). Imagine FIRST coming to Michigan at this point with the following proposal: "In order to grow the program in your economically stressed area, we propose raising the fees, cutting the number of events in half, reducing the number of matches per event, removing any objective means of scoring your team relative to your peers, and eliminating any affordable, merit based events. In exchange for this, we have arranged give your hard-raised money to professional event planners and transportation services so don't have to lug that 120 lb behemoth by yourselves, and you can watch the few remaining matches under some really cool lighting and great sound." It wouldn't work with me.

Perhaps if the entire country followed the district model, we could find a way for teams to attend events outside their district. That is the only thing I miss with the FiM structure (we can still go out of State, but others can't come to MI).

Wayne, I'd love to see the FiM model expanded too (because we get so much for our money up here), but imagine having to drive 3 states away to get to your "championship", and one state away to get to your second "district". There team density is such that in many locations, they only have enough teams to fully fill 1, or sometimes two regionals. In those situations, creating enough district events to make the situation workable becomes a real problem, and even moreso when you take a state or regional championship into account.

[jblay]

When I first heard about the MSC format I thought it would be an awesome thing to have in the tristate area. A couple of district competitions throughout NY, NJ and CT would be amazing and it would help a lot of the teams in the area catch up to the Michigan caliber teams.

[MagiChau]

Well Michigan is the test subject of the format because of such a high concentration. Some teams can not even afford going to State Competition even with qualification. Being able to attend a low cost District event allows teams to participate in events with a lower budget. The main issue as everyone points out is that a lot of areas do not have such a concentration of teams. If district events become more common in the FIRST Robotics Competition perhaps more teams will become created? In effect the high concentration of team will become existent by the very system that worked for high concentration teams. Maybe this can work?

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Wayne, I'd love to see the FiM model expanded too (because we get so much for our money up here), but imagine having to drive 3 states away to get to your "championship", and one state away to get to your second "district". There team density is such that in many locations, they only have enough teams to fully fill 1, or sometimes two regionals. In those situations, creating enough district events to make the situation workable becomes a real problem, and even moreso when you take a state or regional championship into account.

Good point, but teams in low density areas already have to travel greater distances to attend their first or second event. For them, even if they skipped the second district event or the district championship (which we still need to pay for, BTW) they would still get more matches at a lower cost than they do for a single event now. Perhaps a streamlined path to the CMP could be found for those areas.

(In my previous post, I didn't give the volunteers the credit they deserve. Just because we aren't paying people to put on the events, it doesn't mean they just magically happen by themselves.)

[Nawaid Ladak]

#1: I've heard talks for New York State, but that's about it. everybody seems to want it in Minnesota, California, the Southeast etc. though.

To answer #2 Honestly, I'm not at all a fan of FIRST imposing the District system across the world. I would rather, create a 4 system approach

District System: same as the Michigan system but in different area's, ie: California, Texas and New England.

The "Super" Regional system: just like GTR in 2004 and 2006. 2 fields, more competition, and more spots to the Championship handed out at these events than at normal regional competitions. Count this as a State Championship without the process of going through he districts. This would work in a area where a VERY high concentration of teams are located in a small area, ie Minnesota, New York, The Baltimore/DC area, or areas where a District model doesn't fit the needs because there aren't enough teams to impose the system... ie: locations listed above, and Pacific Northwest. This would also benefit the outliers that fall into the system, for example teams that are located in Kennewick WA would only have to attend one event instead of going to Portland and Seattle for district events

The "Normal" Regional system: The normal setup for a regional. for places like Georgia, Florida, Arizona etc. who bring 40+ teams to their regional.

The "short" regional system: a setup just like Pittsburgh or Sacramento used a regional with 35 or fewer teams. ie: Pittsburgh, Palmetto, Hawaii etc.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

#1: I've heard talks for New York State, but that's about it. everybody seems to want it in Minnesota, California, the Southeast etc. though.

I've heard a lot for New York State, and something about a Capital Region "district size event" in the distant future. New York isn't a bad region for districts, but there's a lot of separation between Rochester-area teams, Albany-area teams, and NYC-area teams, so I wonder how it would work in practice. Next year...

I want a District system that allows teams from other areas to come to us, unlike Michigan. Otherwise, I think I'm fine with it.