Understanding Regions and advancement to Worlds

I have been curious about where (which region) do the teams who qualify for worlds come from? I know each region has a certain number of slots (most 2 some +1) to send, but how many of the teams at worlds actually qualified from their home regions vs. another out-of-region event.

The question you ask is an interesting one, and unfortunately I don’t think there’s a centrally available way to provide the information you’re asking for.

Most regions (especially in the US) are moving towards a closed system - I’ll use my next-door neighbors in Vermont as an example. Prior to this year they’ve allowed teams from outside Vermont to come and compete in their State Championship event, but this year they’ve stopped inviting teams from outside Vermont. However, at the same time, closed systems are slightly expanding - I’ll use Texas as an example. Texas has multiple regions, and they’ve opened up a kind of “Texas Super Regional” (to use the Super Regional nomenclature of past) that is being called the “Texas FTC State Championships” where all of their slots are combined; it’s technically possible that all of the teams that might advance from Texas might come from a single Texas region. Other regions have other methods of advancing teams, it’s not as “standard” as one might think.

But the most difficult to document would be events in regions Outside North America (ONA), where we have less visibility and less clear boundaries regarding team involvement and participation.

I’m afraid the data you seek is not clearly defined and is thus not readily available.

-Danny

Danny,
thanks for the info. It still seems a bit odd that that data is not readily available. Especially, for example, last year’s worlds event. I mean, it’s definitely documented who attended, and from where the qualified and which region they are from.
This whole question of ‘open vs closed’ regional events is a talking point within our and neighboring regions. Definite pros and cons to both. I would think this should be more standardized by FIRST, at least across North America. For example, our region remained open to OOR teams, while our neighbors, who normally were open to our teams participating, closed their doors at the last minute. This does not seem very ‘gracious’ unless that’s the standard all regions are held to. I hope FIRST will take this topic into consideration and provide guidelines for the future.

There are more then one reason to close a region. FTC events are funded entirely by the partner (via fees and fund-raising), not FIRST and those partners often raise their funds by promising a commitment to the students in their region. ie.: West Virginia companies want to support West Virginia students. The other reason could be growth. If a region sees a large growth in the number of teams, their ability to offer those teams opportunity to compete may be limited. Especially in the number of volunteers needed. In the distant past, one of my teams had the chance to compete in a number of different states, but when we traveled we always had a minimum of two adults that volunteered at each qualifier we attended. Maybe, if every team provided at least one trained volunteer for each event they attended, (local or in a different region), this might make regions more apt to leave doors open,

1 Like

Maybe, if every team provided at least one trained volunteer for each event they attended

Very interesting idea. Getting enough, trained, volunteers to run a match is always a challenge. Having teams bring at least one per team might help.