As you have probably heard, there is a group of people working to propose the creation of a new WOW district that would include West Virginia, Ohio, and Western/Central Pennsylvania. This post is meant to be a quick introduction of the status of that effort, and we expect to follow it with regular updates as proposal development progresses. A few key highlights:
We have formed a proposal development committee, are working toward developing a WOW district proposal that will be delivered to FIRST HQ in November of this year.
Progress so far: we have secured a 501.c3 (RaiseSTEM!) to serve as the WOW district entity. The focus for July will be on finalizing the board and securing funding.
We have been in touch with people at FIRST HQ (Don Bossi, Frank Merrick, and Andrea Winegar). They are encouraging us to move forward and are giving constructive feedback. They are aware of our timeline, and have agreed to give our proposal due consideration.
The WOW proposal development team is committed to transparency, and toward that end we will have community update telecons in August and October. In addition, FIRST HQ will help organize town hall meetings this fall meant to get feedback on the WOW proposal from teams, volunteers, and sponsors.
This slide deck is nicely fleshed out. You may have said it out loud at the presentation, but it may be worth noting on slide 7 that pre-qualified teams don’t count against that allocation of FIRST Championship slots. WOW has three such teams for 2019, as 120 and 2614 are Hall of Fame teams and 4027 won Einstein.
One thing I don’t see in the budget is start up capital investment in a least 1 field. While there are several different operating models in use all that I know of at least purchase one field. In the PNW we purchased everything except a generator which we rent as most schools don’t have the infrastructure in their aux gym or commons area to support the power needs of ~40 teams. Other areas rent a lot of the production equipment, either just to get going or long term. When the math was done for the PNW it was found that renting things 4-8 or so times would pay for them depending on the item.
I’d suggest just 5 events based on 94 teams. That leaves 12 spaces for 3rd plays, in the PNW district even 5 years in we haven’t had that many teams sign up for a 3rd play and it was less in the first year.
This saves money and allows for the qualifying events to be weeks 1-5 have week 6 off and a week 7 DCMP. With the $4000 DCMP fee you’ll find a lot of teams that have never attended 2 events that have to scramble to come up with the needed funding. Many teams will also have to scramble to get all the paper work in order to be able to attend. There will be a lot of teams caught off guard in those respects the first season.
One less event also means less load on the volunteers. That means that you could likely get by with the key volunteers you have now many of which will likely be willing to bear a little more load to get the district off the ground. The other volunteers will likely come, some that didn’t know they had it in them and others who have been wanting to get involved but didn’t really know how to go about it.
I do think it is very important when you talk to the current sponsors to focus on the equity that giving all teams a “season” brings. Do not drag them into the weeds of cost per match, and the attendant charts and graphs, as that is more likely to turn them off rather than get them interested.
The message should focus on;
The district system gives every team the opportunity for the full engineering experience.
It builds a stronger community which gives the potential for greater networking opportunities to the students.
If you must bring up team costs just say that it gives every team 2 events for the same cost as they are now paying for 1.
Thank you for the advice, we will be sure to include those comments in our next conference call.
We actually do have a field perimeter that was purchased for the area to use for current off-season events and eventual district competitions. In addition to the field, there is some AV equipment that was also purchased. So we are well on our way in those respects.
I know it wasn’t mentioned as a position in need on the slides, but if this goes through, I’ll be more than happy to scorekeep at least one event. Or do whatever role I find myself doing at that point of my FIRST volunteering career.
Very cool, I’m glad you folks are organized and have taken some big steps (such as the 501c3) to get this going.
Awesome to see people being proactive about districts rather than waiting for things to fall into their laps!
I also agree with the suggestion below which highlights how districts give teams a “full season.” It might be a good idea to explain that teams will have the chance to iterate their designs, improve, and gain confidence through improvements.
This is an excellent presentation. As someone whose teams have competed at Pittsburgh and/or Buckeye for as long as I can remember, I have been following the WOW developments as closely as I can. Although losing the ability to play in Ohio and PA (for now) would be bad for WNY teams, I applaud your efforts in organizing and hope that a potential WOW district could act as a catalyst to get the ball rolling in New York.
With that in mind, are you open to accepting help for the proposal from people who are from areas outside the WOW borders?
Also, on slide 3 there is a mention of a handout about the differences between the district and regional model. Is that handout available to view anywhere?
They also have other districts surrounding them though, which is something that PNW does not have. Those teams could easily pop in and fill them right up, especially if they’re looking for a fun “out of district” event with new teams.
We continue to have a few Michigan and Indiana teams coming over to play at our Regionals. It is possible that going districts could see that number increase.
Frankly who cares about out of district teams for the first season. In fact for a number of Districts the door was closed the first season and I think that was something either required or at least strongly suggested by HQ.
Trust me based on my experience helping to get the PNW district off the ground there is enough to worry about that you really really don’t want to mess with having more than 40+ extra spaces. Plus it is much less burden on the teams to have qualifying events week 1-5 and a week 7 DCMP.
Note out of district teams don’t get to register until unrestricted registration opens so in district teams won’t have to worry about competing with out of district teams for their 1st and 2nd event.
I don’t doubt your experience, only adding info i thought would be relevant based on my knowledge that wasn’t hit anywhere else in the thread. I also wasnt suggesting any changes to the potential setups to the events, being on a team that had to deal a less than one week turnaround between qualifying and paying for DCMP I know how hard it can be, and wouldnt suggest changing that.
So you would have been there in the first season of the PNW district. That year we did 10 events with a planned 32-36 teams per event based on the area the pit was to be in and what we felt would work in each school. Due to scheduling and the desire to make every effort to ensure we got it right out of the gate, week 1 had only 1 event which meant that week 6 also had the single event. Then of course a week 7 DCMP. We were happy to say the problems were few as it was pretty much all hands on deck with 2, 3 or 4 people per key volunteer role.
However that scramble to get payment and get school approval meant a number of teams declined their DCMP spot. So we quickly switched to a 1-5, 7 season, at least until 2CMP and the mandate from HQ that all Houston Districts have week 6 DCMPs.
Again, im not doubting your experience. I trust you to give very good advice/info, and I dont expect that to change. I was only trying to add what I thought was relevant info, not trying to misdirect by any means.*
40-team events will support the current roster with only 5 events. But that will not be true if 7 new teams register. This number is not impossible and to ignore the possibility would be a mistake. I suggest having a 6th event on deck for when it is needed. You could even run 6 events aimed for 32 teams so that the event infrastructure is already there for when growth comes.
The alternative would be to okay events going to 41 or 42 teams for a short period.
As I mentioned before 5 events would be preferred because it allows for a week off before DCMP which lowers the likelihood that teams will have to decline their DCMP spot. Currently FIRST is the one that caps district events at 40 teams so exceeding that would require FIRST’s approval.
Yes gaining 7 teams by the 2020 season definitely is a possiblity so it would be a good idea to find at least 6 locations that could host an event if not more so there are back ups in place or have options to rotate the locations in the future.
It is curious that there is nothing in the presentation about the possibility of Western PA becoming a part of FMA. From the meetings that I have attended it is clear FIRST would like this. I was told that there are new directives regarding Districts not splitting states any more.
One of the main reasons given is the ability of a District to lobby the State legislatures for funding. If all of the State does not have equal opportunity to the “organization” then it is difficult to get the representatives to vote in favor.
This is a difficult issue because Western PA has affiliations with Ohio and West Virginia that they do not necessarily have with Eastern PA, New Jersey, and Delaware.
It is a long drive for those 27 teams to get from Pittsburgh and Eerie areas to Philadelphia and New Jersey areas, and vice-versa.
District teams from FIM, IN, and FMA currently “pop in” and fill up open WOW regional spots and have been doing so for some time. Ontario used to come down to Buckeye and Pittsburgh regularly when still under the regional format but with the advent of their district it seems they have been content with remaining up north.
It would be swell if WOW went district so the 2-way flow between these regions (except for FIM, which I’ve been told is a no room at the inn type scenario) could be restored for those within WOW looking for a low cost travel experience.
Interdistrict play would be an especially fun development that could not only encourage teams to cross district boundaries, but perhaps volunteers as well.
NOTES FROM: WOW Proposal Development Team Meeting
7:30-8:30pm EDT 11 July 2018
Review Action Items from last meeting
> Recruit accounting board member from Pittsburgh
> Engage RDs to discuss funding- WOW planners are engaged with FIRST regional directors in conversations with donors from each regional event to address any concerns from donors in going to a district rather than a regional model. Meetings are on-going as we are able to contact and schedule.
> Recap of MVRC mentor meeting- Meeting was a bit uneventful, overall message was we are still working on details. Spurred some volunteer support: 5 people have signed up since the MVRC 11 or 12 all together have signed up to help. There have been some discussion on the Chief Delphi board about folks willing to support this effort, Jon will post the volunteer sign up there.
Board formation updates
> June 30 meeting recap- Meeting was delayed due to delay in getting the annual report completed. Will be held week from Monday prior to the next WOW meeting.
> Proposal team public outreach – Sean McMahon has agreed to post regular status updates on Chief Delphi, SCRA Facebook, SCRA Mailing list, #wow_general Slack channel
> WOW branded Twitter, instagram, snapchat, etc- RaiseSTEM! wil control social media accounts, but be WOW branded. Katie will get an electronic version of the logo to the planning team. Dave will ask RaiseSTEM! If they will create a WOW media relations email account for raiseSTEM! that we can then use to create the social media pages.
Feedback from Chief Delphi post
> Reconsider number of events (someone recommended fewer)
> Planning right now is a bit far off, team growth will define a lot of this, for now we will stick with the existing plan (easier to reduce than to add in planning)
> Will need to plan towards a second field perimeter and have a contingency plan
New committee members
>One new volunteer has indicated interest in joining the planning committee, he was unanimously approved. Jon will send an invite for him to join the slack line.