So some of the EE would get 2 events, others would only get 1, based on what the local implementation is? And some would get 12 matches per event, others would get 6 or 8?
There’s substance to this idea. I think it needs work, but I like the core of it.
When we reach a point where the majority of FRC is in districts by the current method of establishment, this should be considered. There will be areas that won’t have enough mass to form their own districts, and don’t have any neighboring districts that make sense to join. This idea allows those areas and teams to be integrated to the same qualification methods everyone else uses.
With that said, I don’t think this is an idea to be implemented as early as 2017. We’re going to have a hybrid system of the District Model and Regional Model for a little longer. There’s just too much of FRC not in districts this point in time to make the OP’s idea feasible.
So overall, great rough idea that could serve as the icing on the cake to converting all of FRC to districts. We just need to bake a couple more layers to the cake first.
The Everywhere Districts:
At first sign up you Pick your District Champ location, there will be appropriate number per region
Not one size fits all - in denser areas there will be larger districts sending proportionally more representatives to Champs. This can be tricky - but some district champs may be smaller - and have fewer advance to Championships - so Hawaii may only get 4 slots into champs and NE get 24 (My numbers are hypothetical - it would be based on relative population between districts, I have not done the math) Small remote areas will have to team up at least enough to send 1, hopefully more, representatives to Champs - the diversity of these dense and low population teams will be nice at Champs.
Next 2 event signups any district event - in the world - Collect points per the District Point System. Yes you could worry about teams gaming to get easy district points - but that also helps even out the competitive balance over time - and the district champs will sift out those who do not belong.
As now in district system a 3rd event may be registered for - but will not carry district points
For the cost concern - legitimate concern for a 1 event team.
From my experience being a 1 event team was hard to sustain full inspirational energy, it was - is that all there is?
At least in districts for same cost as 1 regional you get 2 events. And you may find that that improves your competitiveness and that that improves your fundraising -
In order to go to the next level?
I think this idea has a lot of merit. I have a couple of changes, mainly terminology and qualification steps.
I propose you continue to call them Regionals and then you qualify to go to the Regional Championship. Then you qualify from the Regional Championship to go to the World Championship.
The qualification process for the Regional Championship is identical to the current steps to qualify for the World Championship at a Regional event (winning, awards, or wildcard). Each regional would send 6 teams to the Regional Championship as they do today.
To qualify for the World Championship you would then earn points at the Regional Championship similar to the district points. The number of teams to qualify is identical to the way districts are calculated, % of all FRC teams that are Regional teams.
Regional Event (1+) > Regional Championship > World Championship
District Events(2) > District Championship > World Championship
The increase in registration costs to move to this system would be identical to the increase in costs when switching a region to districts. The only difference being the likely more expensive cost of traveling to Houston for the Regional Championship.
Most New York teams (and their Ontario friends to the north, and their NE friends to the east) drive to St. Louis.
To be fair, districts that are actually in existence have already had to do the hard sell on isolated teams.
The district model is based on a minimum team density. The EED, by definition, consists of those areas that either don’t meet this density, or lack the desire to go to districts.
While I am not familiar with every district and its boundaries, it seems to me that every team that competed in a district in 2015 except 568 (Nerds of the North of Anchorage, AK) could reasonably drive POVs (personnaly owned vehicles) to their DCMP; no need to rent an intercity bus or buy airline tickets. For a Dallas DCMP in EED, this would be a very small fraction of the teams, and those who won there would then have to turn around and get another plane/bus to Detroit two weeks later.
I just don’t see an upside that comes anywhere close to balancing the problems this would create, except for travel agents.
So nobody has addressed this yet. So… each district is only suppose to be like 30-40 teams. So since most regionals are 60 teams, what if they had 3 times the district events. Then they go to a regional championships and you send 1/3 of the teams from the regional championship to worlds. This would strengthen the quality of worlds but it would make teams in rural areas non existent. 2 regionals, 1 regional champs, 1 worlds. That would be like 8 flights and 12 days of hotels for someone in south Dakota for instance. They would probably rather quit than go on.
In both the model I suggested and the one Nate suggested most Regional events would be identical to the way they are now. Noone is suggesting that you require every team go to more than one regional event.
But then, you need to qualify more than 6 teams per regional to the regional champs. Otherwise, you’d send everyone from the regional champs to world champs. It would be cool if they sent like 12 teams per regional to the regional champs. and sent half of the teams from regional champs to world champs. That would help filter out all the not so good teams that got to worlds through the regional model.
The number of teams that qualify for the regional championship could be tweaked. I didn’t look at how many would qualify for the regional championship in total and how many would qualify for the world championship.
Exactly what problem is this complex solution attempting to address and how does it address it?
I could be totally wrong here. But, I believe the intention of the Everywhere Else District is to solve the “problem” of two championships. The EED creates a championship-lite event for teams currently in the regional system. This would potentially allow for FIRST to focus on helping the district championships have the current level of inspiration of champs. While also maintaining the competitive atmosphere of the world championship that many on CD highly value.
To respond to the thread in general, I don’t think outside of the DCMP and points that you could run the EED like a district at all. I think you would still likely have to maintain large regional events.Quite a few teams would still participate in only one of these regional style events(which is covered by doubling their points from that one event?).
Additionally I think the idea of the EED definitely has some serious positives and negatives to be considered. Some of which have been touched upon already in this thread.
On the plus side, the EED would provide teams currently in the regional system the opportunity to go to two world class events. It would create a more competitive world championship without sacrificing inspiration. And finally, the model would easily allow for regions to split off from the EED to form their own district and reap the full benefits of said split.
On the negative side, under the current cross district play rules, the EED would likely halt any teams from the current districts from playing at any of the current regional events. EED teams would have to pay more to get to the world championship(however they do also get more play time). Teams in the EED would not get the same benefits as they would in other districts. Some regional events might be considered unfair because of the differences in number of matches between events. And the DCMP and the district in general could easily turn into a logistical nightmare.
Overall I think it’s a really Interesting idea. If anyone is willing I would be interested in seeing some of the calculations for how many teams you would need to send to EEDCMP and how many teams EEDCMP would have to send to champs. As well as what percentage of FRC would have to convert to districts to make the EEDCMP feasible (if any percentage at all).
Thanks for the question, but in this forum I’m going to decline to frame the proposal as a solution to some specific problem.
To Giantwalker’s excellent summary above, I would only add these points as possible motivations for the proposal:
The Everywhere Else District allows local organizers to add new historically-district-style events to the competition calendar one at a time, rather than in bulk (as what is currently required when forming a new district out of whole cloth).
The Everywhere Else District empowers local event planners to choose the mode of competition that works best for the teams they serve. This preserves the role of the local FIRST affiliate partners in defining the look & feel of the events they produce.
I would suggest that while the transition from the current competition structure to the Everywhere Else District might be complex, the ultimate working system is more uniform and far simpler than the current structure. In the long term it eliminates the philosophical split between “regional teams” and “district teams” by universalizing the philosophies of the district model. It immediately allows all FRC teams (regardless of geography, regardless of density, regardless of local politics) to qualify for advanced competitions in approximately the same manner. Borders between districts eventually become largely irrelevant, as they only determine which DCMP teams would be assigned to.
Here are some numbers that hopefully add some depth to the proposal. This analysis is based on 2015 registration data.
If you thought trying to book your travel to Championship after a week 5 regional win was tough before, just wait until nobody knows who qualified until after week 7. :rolleyes: