As a supporter of Indiana robot builders, I’d like to say the following about interdistrict play in 2017:
Bring it.
I ain’t skeerd.
I’d like to echo this sentiment, both as an FRC mentor for 1747 and as an accessory to the planning committee of the Tippecanoe district both last season and for this upcoming season. The Michigan teams that attended our event last year were a pleasure to work with and great competitors. We welcome our brothers and sisters in FIRST from the north.
If you’re worried about Michigan teams coming down to Indiana to hurt your chances, that may say more about you or your team than it does about the teams coming down. Good luck this season!
The bolded phrase is the key phrase.
Obviously you always want your team to perform well. But that doesn’t change when you’re facing a Michigan team or an Indiana team. You want to win the matches you’re in. You want to seed high. Etc.
What changes between an in-district and an out-of-district is that points “disappear” when earned by an out-of-district team. It’s beneficial for your ranking efforts if every point you fail to earn ends up disappearing, rather than going into the ranking of one of your in-district opponents.
Think of it this way. Say your team in ranked 5th at your event. If you’re ranked 5th at your event and the 4 teams ahead of you are from Indiana, you take the 5th most standing points away from the event. If you’re ranked 5th, and the 4 teams ahead of you are from Michigan, you take the most standing points away from the event. The total points you receive is the same in each scenario, but the latter scenario results in 4 fewer Indiana opponents gaining a lead on you in the district standings.
Sentiment Thirded.
I can’t WAIT to see our InF teams play against FiM teams!
Points can’t be stolen because points must be earned.
If you didn’t earn those points against a Michigan team, then it’s not the Michigan’s team fault for beating your team. It’s your team’s fault for not EARNING them. There aren’t participation medals in FRC anymore.
So, who are you? What team are you associated with? Why do you not have these things listed in your CD profile?
Uh, why do they need to have a team listed?
IDK I’m pretty proud of my team, I assume others feel the same.
Also I’m pretty proud of myself and my FRC accomplishments, and I don’t feel the need to hide behind an anonymous account.
But to each his own.
They don’t. It’s not a requirement. Maybe they aren’t even associated with any team. Who knows?
This person has been very vocal lately, and I personally believe that accountability by saying who you are can lead to more thoughtful posts on Chief Delphi.
Eh, some folks like their privacy. I can respect that. I don’t think calling them out on that is really a great idea.
Plus, everyone knows who I am and many would claim my posts aren’t “thoughtful” 
Conversely, at another event w/ only district teams, 4 teams gain more points than you.
Not sure the system is flawed, but then again?? If you’re the best team from your district at a district event, it might be a bit tough to see another district team gain more points being the 3rd best at a different event.
Looking at the PNW, there looks to be no teams coming to any PNW events, more likely than not because of the cost, as most of the other districts are in the Midwest/East Coast and the sheer cost of travel…
it would be nice if we had more districts out here, or if we just take Idaho…
In the future, I think it would be neat to have districts setup with overhead for more inter-district play, I.E. we’ll allocate an extra 10-20% for empty spots in a competition with the expectation that other districts do the same. Maybe an extra week 1 event?
I have no idea how that could work or the type of horse trading required, it also assumes teams in the district wanting 3rd plays are sated. Maybe teams signing up for their 3rd event between districts could trade events?
Just a thought.
I was more referring to the various posts in this thread regardless in-event strategy. Specifically the posts saying teams considered not picking Michigan teams or strategizing so that Michigan teams would not be as effective in their event. These strategies are actively harmful to your own ranking efforts.
I look forward to competing with MI teams. If we are better then we will have earned the points. If not we will have been exposed to even more teams and ideas. Either way sounds like a win to me…and isn’t that what FIRST is supposed to be about?
…and western MT 
there’s no reason not to…
And Calif…
Oh wait.
So far I only see one person from Indiana that’s against having Michigan teams at Indiana events. Strategically it makes sense to pick a Michigan team over an Indiana team assuming it doesn’t hurt how far you get in the bracket.
Of the Michigan teams at IN district events last year, they accounted for 174 points out of 2948 qualifying points (6%) and 174 points out of the 5735 total number of point for the state (3%).
To expand on this a bit, by my calculation that would have been enough to put four different teams above where the point cutoff for the Indiana district championship was last year. That’s ~7% of the teams in the district.
Have there been any other situations with such a large portion of the field not earning points? You get the similar incentives for avoiding certain picks when you have teams on their third event. The most third plays that I know of offhand was at the 2016 Philomath event, where I believe there were 4 teams out of 30 not eligible to earn points. (1318, 1983, 2907, 5803)
Unusual strategic effects would have been blunted somewhat by the fact that there were half the number of teams not earning points and it was in a district that was 3x the size.
If we’re talking about lost points, a large number of points were essentially lost at the Perry Meridian event last year as the event winners included the 2 highest point holders in the state (also at their third event) and an original and sustaining team who automatically qualifies for worlds without points. That’s 174 points (132 not including 45).
Wait, I’m sorry if there was any misunderstanding but I never would have suggested that IN teams should avoid picking MI teams. I think it sort of ruins the idea of FIRST to not pick the best team possible, for your alliance, and rather put your focus on avoiding teams.