District/Regional Format

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

Thats one of my major gripes with the district system: teams are discouraged to from traveling outside the state to compete. The real answer to this thread can be found here.

[BrendanB]

I don't think that each state will become a district, but some are large enough to do so. I believe that instead FIRST will split up "sections" into districts. Like Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut could all probably wind up creating a New England District culminating to a huge championship. Although it would kind of look like a lot of the small off-seasons around which are pretty awesome!

But I do hope that FIRST works a way out for teams to travel. Our team traveled to another regional for the first time this weekend and had an amazing time at North Carolina. I would be very sad if others would not have the same opportunity. Yes there will still be travel with districts, but it is not the same when you are meeting/competing with a whole group of teams you have never played with before!

I really like the district set up and how Michigan game play has dramatically increased over the past 2 years. I really hope that by 2012 there will be more in place if not sooner!

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I really like the district set up and how Michigan game play has dramatically increased over the past 2 years. I really hope that by 2012 there will be more in place if not sooner! But I am sure that there will be an allowance for travel, but possibly limited, such as one travel regional per team and possibly (but hopefully not) once every other year.

This would be more restrictive than the Michigan system.

[EricH]

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

What does factor in is that we've got two clusters of teams that are perpetually in the middle. The central coast teams like 973 have to go either up the coast and stay a few days or down the coast and do the same. The desert teams like 399 (Lancaster) and 1641 (Mojave) have to choose: California (typically L.A.), or Vegas/Arizona? It's not an easy question. It's like the MI UP teams, especially in the west end. I have yet to hear of a "good" solution for them (i.e., one that doesn't involve traveling a full day down and a full day back twice).

We've also got 4 main clusters, all around existing regionals.

But what really made FiM work well was the fact that there is one organization that assists the entire state. CA has no fewer than 3 (Team San Diego, SCRRF, and WRRF). They'd have to either coordinate or combine, and when you're separated by 2-9 hours between pockets of teams, and therefore organizations, it's a lot harder to do that.

For CA, a better short-term option might be to put a regional in the middle or expand one of the existing regionals to a double regional. If another regional was added, I'd suggest Bakersfield or Fresno--they're about in the middle, and could act as a meeting point for most of the teams. Long-term, yes, hopefully go district. But short-term, we don't have anywhere near the density MI does, and would want to build up more (and more sustainable) teams before going that route.


You can't just say, "You're going to use this model", because in this case, "this model" was developed in one area with one kind of needs, and those needs aren't necessarily the same in the rest of the country. You have to adapt the model to the area it's being adopted in. I've got some ideas how to adapt it to CA, but they'd need improvement, and you'd want another event or so.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

What does factor in is that we've got two clusters of teams that are perpetually in the middle. The central coast teams like 973 have to go either up the coast and stay a few days or down the coast and do the same. The desert teams like 399 (Lancaster) and 1641 (Mojave) have to choose: California (typically L.A.), or Vegas/Arizona? It's not an easy question. It's like the MI UP teams, especially in the west end. I have yet to hear of a "good" solution for them (i.e., one that doesn't involve traveling a full day down and a full day back twice).

We've also got 4 main clusters, all around existing regionals.

But what really made FiM work well was the fact that there is one organization that assists the entire state. CA has no fewer than 3 (Team San Diego, SCRRF, and WRRF). They'd have to either coordinate or combine, and when you're separated by 2-9 hours between pockets of teams, and therefore organizations, it's a lot harder to do that.

For CA, a better short-term option might be to put a regional in the middle or expand one of the existing regionals to a double regional. If another regional was added, I'd suggest Bakersfield or Fresno--they're about in the middle, and could act as a meeting point for most of the teams. Long-term, yes, hopefully go district. But short-term, we don't have anywhere near the density MI does, and would want to build up more (and more sustainable) teams before going that route.


You can't just say, "You're going to use this model", because in this case, "this model" was developed in one area with one kind of needs, and those needs aren't necessarily the same in the rest of the country. You have to adapt the model to the area it's being adopted in. I've got some ideas how to adapt it to CA, but they'd need improvement, and you'd want another event or so.

Eric,
I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.

[rwood359]

Are the MI competitions less expensive to produce?
Can two MI events be produced for the cost of one "standard" regional?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Eric,
I would add HI as part of it. I'm sure a bunch here would participate as well.

I don't know. Something about travel distances...

If HI was added to CA for districts, you'd have to include travel. A LOT of teams would have trouble, even with the bonus competition, so you'd really want to have 2 districts in HI, and then short-order travel booking to the mainland of some form.

I'm not sure that having HI in a mainland district is a good idea long-term. You'd have to get the younger teams very good at fundraising in a hurry...

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think it's going to work in CA the same way it does in MI for a couple of years yet.

CA has: 0 regionals in the north geographic half of the state, 2 in the central portion, and 2 in the south. The team distribution (and the population distribution) follow this, so that doesn't really factor in.

What does factor in is that we've got two clusters of teams that are perpetually in the middle. The central coast teams like 973 have to go either up the coast and stay a few days or down the coast and do the same. The desert teams like 399 (Lancaster) and 1641 (Mojave) have to choose: California (typically L.A.), or Vegas/Arizona? It's not an easy question. It's like the MI UP teams, especially in the west end. I have yet to hear of a "good" solution for them (i.e., one that doesn't involve traveling a full day down and a full day back twice).

We've also got 4 main clusters, all around existing regionals.

But what really made FiM work well was the fact that there is one organization that assists the entire state. CA has no fewer than 3 (Team San Diego, SCRRF, and WRRF). They'd have to either coordinate or combine, and when you're separated by 2-9 hours between pockets of teams, and therefore organizations, it's a lot harder to do that.

For CA, a better short-term option might be to put a regional in the middle or expand one of the existing regionals to a double regional. If another regional was added, I'd suggest Bakersfield or Fresno--they're about in the middle, and could act as a meeting point for most of the teams. Long-term, yes, hopefully go district. But short-term, we don't have anywhere near the density MI does, and would want to build up more (and more sustainable) teams before going that route.


You can't just say, "You're going to use this model", because in this case, "this model" was developed in one area with one kind of needs, and those needs aren't necessarily the same in the rest of the country. You have to adapt the model to the area it's being adopted in. I've got some ideas how to adapt it to CA, but they'd need improvement, and you'd want another event or so.

There are 3 central coast teams; 973, 1388 and 1717. Also, we currently have to travel to every event, so I see no downside to the district system.

Making a central coast event would really be inappropriate in my opinion, there aren't a lot of good locations, every other team at the event would need to travel, and considering we're 120ish miles from 1717, it wouldn't be local to all the central coast teams.

[xzvrw2]

I dislike the district/state championship format for a few reasons. I feel that this format stops Michigan teams from knowing about the teams from the rest of the world. Sure a team can go to another regional, like 217, and see those teams, but who has that kind of money any more. Back when I was onmy team, I knew teams and people from around the world because I went to different regionals outside my state. Now I feel that the Michigan kids of today are being deprived of that. These kids hear of stories of other legendary teams around the nation and they can go check them out on here or other websites. But what about these new upcomming teams that, because of the new district format, people like myself cannot even get to see. Back when I was on my team we would go to the midwest regional and see teams like 71, 111, 45, 101, 383(yes the brazillian team), 16, 648, 234, 447, 292, and 461. Those are just the teams that I can remember off the top of my head. These kids will only see these teams at nationals. I think that it hurts FIRST by doing this. I know this format is well liked, and I know that I am rarely every on any more, but I do know that I kind of dislike how things are going and I wanted to voice my opinion on it. Thanks for your time.

[fuzzy1718]

What if teams could determine their equivant to "state championship" before they register for their districts. They would then compete in that area all season. For instance, what if 217 was getting tired of playing MI teams, so at the start of the seaon they decide to play in the Midwest area. It would solve the issue that U.P. teams have along with many other not densely packed areas, and would allow teams to intermix year to year. The only downside is travel costs. Which mean the intermixing would be limited to only a select few.

On a side note I had no idea teams were not supplying their volunteers. What if the number they needed to supply was based on the number of students on the team. I'm sure enormous teams like HOT and Chickens can spare a few more hands than say Martians or other small teams can.

[ExTexan]

On a side note I had no idea teams were not supplying their volunteers. What if the number they needed to supply was based on the number of students on the team. I'm sure enormous teams like HOT and Chickens can spare a few more hands than say Martians or other small teams can.

Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread. I have heard grumblings about teams not supplying volunteers and wondered about it. I think teams that don't supply the required amount should pay for the cost of people to replace their shortfall. Volunteers could be part of the price of entry.

However, that said, I and several on my team volunteer because we enjoy it and want to. Working with a "requried volunteer" that wasn't there for the experience would be a lot less fun for us and the teams.