Registration 2016

[first3234]

I think I should clear what I meant in my last post I didn't mean split Michigan in to two separate districts I meant a district competition

[Taylor]

Isn't this what happens every time you make a district? The team I'm on in Indiana now never sees teams from our surrounding state like we used to.

Which is why offseason events like CORI, RAGE, CAGE, Battle for the Bluegrass, etc., are so important.

[Jared Russell]

Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

# rookies / # veterans / % growth / Country
------ 2 -------- 1 ----- 200.0% ----- Colombia
----- 17 ------ 15 ----- 113.3% ----- China
------ 1 -------- 1 ----- 100.0% ----- Taiwan
------ 8 -------- 8 ----- 100.0% ----- Turkey
----- 13 ------ 18 ------ 72.2% ------ Australia
------ 1 -------- 2 ------ 50.0% ------ Netherlands
----- 14 ------ 33 ------ 42.4% ------ Mexico
------ 1 -------- 5 ------ 20.0% ------ Brazil
----- 28 ----- 178 ------ 15.7% ----- Canada
------ 7 ------- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
---- 238 --- 2356 ------ 10.1% ----- USA
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- CzechRepublic
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Ecuador
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- India
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Poland


Here is a larger breakdown by state and country:
# rookies / # veterans / % / State-Country
----- 2 ------ 1 ----- 200.0% ---- Colombia
---- 17 ---- 15 ----- 113.3% ---- China
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Canada-BC
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- CzechRepublic
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Ecuador
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- India
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- NE
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Poland
----- 1 ------ 1 ----- 100.0% ---- Taiwan
----- 8 ------ 8 ----- 100.0% ---- Turkey
---- 13 ---- 18 ------ 72.2% ----- Australia
----- 1 ------ 2 ------ 50.0% ----- Netherlands
----- 3 ------ 7 ------ 42.9% ----- AL
---- 14 ---- 33 ------ 42.4% ----- Mexico
----- 1 ------ 3 ------ 33.3% ----- DE
----- 7 ---- 22 ------ 31.8% ----- LA
----- 2 ------ 8 ------ 25.0% ----- IA
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- Brazil
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- RI
---- 66 -- 341 ------ 19.4% ----- MI
----- 3 ---- 16 ------ 18.8% ----- Canada-AB
----- 2 ---- 11 ------ 18.2% ----- ID
----- 6 ---- 39 ------ 15.4% ----- Canada-QC
---- 18 -- 122 ------ 14.8% ----- Canada-ON
----- 2 ---- 14 ------ 14.3% ----- AR
----- 5 ---- 35 ------ 14.3% ----- MD
---- 15 -- 105 ------ 14.3% ----- TX
----- 7 ---- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
----- 6 ---- 45 ------ 13.3% ----- OH
----- 6 ---- 46 ------ 13.0% ----- NC
---- 29 -- 227 ------ 12.8% ----- CA
----- 1 ------ 8 ------ 12.5% ----- MS
----- 2 ---- 16 ------ 12.5% ----- UT
----- 7 ---- 62 ------ 11.3% ----- FL
----- 1 ------ 9 ------ 11.1% ----- NV
----- 6 ---- 57 ------ 10.5% ----- GA
----- 4 ---- 39 ------ 10.3% ----- OR
----- 4 ---- 40 ------ 10.0% ----- WI
----- 6 ---- 65 ------- 9.2% ----- MO
----- 9 --- 105 ------- 8.6% ----- WA
----- 4 ---- 47 ------- 8.5% ----- OK
----- 6 ---- 72 ------- 8.3% ----- VA
----- 4 ---- 62 ------- 6.5% ----- MA
---- 12 -- 186 ------- 6.5% ----- MN
----- 2 ---- 31 ------- 6.5% ----- NH
----- 3 ---- 47 ------- 6.4% ----- IN
----- 4 ---- 66 ------- 6.1% ----- NJ
----- 3 ---- 56 ------- 5.4% ----- IL
----- 1 ---- 20 ------- 5.0% ----- KS
----- 7 -- 140 ------- 5.0% ----- NY
----- 2 ---- 45 ------- 4.4% ----- AZ
----- 1 ---- 31 ------- 3.2% ----- TN
----- 1 ---- 36 ------- 2.8% ----- CO
----- 1 ---- 39 ------- 2.6% ----- SC
----- 1 ---- 46 ------- 2.2% ----- CT

It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I find it very interesting that Michigan continues to see 20% year-over-year growth while MAR and NE are well below the average. I am a big proponent of districts for a lot of reasons, but it seems like their introduction alone has not had a major impact on growth trends.

[Lil' Lavery]

Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

[Mark McLeod]

Looked at by System (District or Regional)
Teams registered to date

Rookies / Veterans / ratio of rookies to vets / System
---- 66 ----- 341 ---- 19.4% ----- FIM
--- 217 --- 1645 ----- 13.2% ----- Regional
----- 6 ------ 46 ----- 13.0% ---- NC
----- 6 ------ 57 ----- 10.5% ---- GA
---- 11 ---- 121 ------ 9.1% ----- Chesapeake
---- 13 ---- 145 ------ 9.0% ----- PNW
----- 3 ------ 47 ----- 6.4% ----- IN
----- 5 ----- 110 ----- 4.5% ----- MAR
----- 7 ----- 167 ----- 4.2% ----- NE

[Andrew Schreiber]

Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

And MAR/NE seems to have recently had low rookie growth partially due to the age of the region.

Mark, since you seem to be taking requests for plots, any chance you could do a visualization of team age by region? Box and Whiskers would be fine, but I think a Histogram might give more info.

[scottandme]

It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I find it very interesting that Michigan continues to see 20% year-over-year growth while MAR and NE are well below the average. I am a big proponent of districts for a lot of reasons, but it seems like their introduction alone has not had a major impact on growth trends.

In addition to the state funds - MAR and NE are pretty well established regions for FIRST. The "NJ" regional started in 1997, Philadelphia started in 1999. Using # of school districts/team or # of total students/team might show a better evaluation of FRC saturation in a region.

Recipe for success: giving free money to teams in a state with a gigantic base of engineering companies, engineers, and history of vocational/practical education in schools.

Edit: Andrew beat me - here's data for MAR...

http://i.imgur.com/sY5sBMI.png

[Hallry]

Edit: Andrew beat me - here's data for MAR...

Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?

[scottandme]

Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?

Changed the data for clarity. All data is for teams currently registered for the 2016 season. Counted split-off teams as the year they started competing, so 193 counts as a 2013 rookie. 265 doesn't exist anymore, so they're not in the data.

Column 1: Year
MAR: # of MAR teams founded that year
% of MAR: # of teams from that year / total MAR teams
% active: % of current teams that participated in that season.

The "% active" is the data to compare to Mark's statement that 40% of FRC teams are less than 4 years old. Not sure which year he's using as the cutoff - 2013 rookies and newer? A little more than 60% of current MAR teams participated in the 2008 season.

[Mark McLeod]

I did from 2013 on thinking that seniors this year would have started as freshmen for the 2013 season. Thinking that four years might be considered an "FRC Generation."

[Jessi Kaestle]

It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I did this analysis for all of the Districts since forming. The full analysis can be found here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W929hKsmvbodzsoDy7E4ol0ox3ejh97bjS9IFWds2as/edit?usp=sharing).

A quick analysis of the 2016 growth shows that, with the exception of Michigan, who is currently benefiting from significant state support, as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%

[logank013]

as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%

I think I'm confused as to what the percents are showing? Are the decrease in growth each year or the increase in growth per year? Thanks

[MrBasse]

Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

It definitely doesn't hurt, but don't forget that every new team is started and mentored with the help and sometimes persistent prodding of a local veteran team. There is a strong community in Michigan that makes the growth possible. Hopefully sponsors can keep up with all this development.

[Kevin Leonard]

Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

# rookies / # veterans / % growth / Country
------ 2 -------- 1 ----- 200.0% ----- Colombia
----- 17 ------ 15 ----- 113.3% ----- China
------ 1 -------- 1 ----- 100.0% ----- Taiwan
------ 8 -------- 8 ----- 100.0% ----- Turkey
----- 13 ------ 18 ------ 72.2% ------ Australia
------ 1 -------- 2 ------ 50.0% ------ Netherlands
----- 14 ------ 33 ------ 42.4% ------ Mexico
------ 1 -------- 5 ------ 20.0% ------ Brazil
----- 28 ----- 178 ------ 15.7% ----- Canada
------ 7 ------- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
---- 238 --- 2356 ------ 10.1% ----- USA
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- CzechRepublic
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Ecuador
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- India
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Poland


Here is a larger breakdown by state and country:
# rookies / # veterans / % / State-Country
----- 2 ------ 1 ----- 200.0% ---- Colombia
---- 17 ---- 15 ----- 113.3% ---- China
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Canada-BC
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- CzechRepublic
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Ecuador
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- India
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- NE
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Poland
----- 1 ------ 1 ----- 100.0% ---- Taiwan
----- 8 ------ 8 ----- 100.0% ---- Turkey
---- 13 ---- 18 ------ 72.2% ----- Australia
----- 1 ------ 2 ------ 50.0% ----- Netherlands
----- 3 ------ 7 ------ 42.9% ----- AL
---- 14 ---- 33 ------ 42.4% ----- Mexico
----- 1 ------ 3 ------ 33.3% ----- DE
----- 7 ---- 22 ------ 31.8% ----- LA
----- 2 ------ 8 ------ 25.0% ----- IA
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- Brazil
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- RI
---- 66 -- 341 ------ 19.4% ----- MI
----- 3 ---- 16 ------ 18.8% ----- Canada-AB
----- 2 ---- 11 ------ 18.2% ----- ID
----- 6 ---- 39 ------ 15.4% ----- Canada-QC
---- 18 -- 122 ------ 14.8% ----- Canada-ON
----- 2 ---- 14 ------ 14.3% ----- AR
----- 5 ---- 35 ------ 14.3% ----- MD
---- 15 -- 105 ------ 14.3% ----- TX
----- 7 ---- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
----- 6 ---- 45 ------ 13.3% ----- OH
----- 6 ---- 46 ------ 13.0% ----- NC
---- 29 -- 227 ------ 12.8% ----- CA
----- 1 ------ 8 ------ 12.5% ----- MS
----- 2 ---- 16 ------ 12.5% ----- UT
----- 7 ---- 62 ------ 11.3% ----- FL
----- 1 ------ 9 ------ 11.1% ----- NV
----- 6 ---- 57 ------ 10.5% ----- GA
----- 4 ---- 39 ------ 10.3% ----- OR
----- 4 ---- 40 ------ 10.0% ----- WI
----- 6 ---- 65 ------- 9.2% ----- MO
----- 9 --- 105 ------- 8.6% ----- WA
----- 4 ---- 47 ------- 8.5% ----- OK
----- 6 ---- 72 ------- 8.3% ----- VA
----- 4 ---- 62 ------- 6.5% ----- MA
---- 12 -- 186 ------- 6.5% ----- MN
----- 2 ---- 31 ------- 6.5% ----- NH
----- 3 ---- 47 ------- 6.4% ----- IN
----- 4 ---- 66 ------- 6.1% ----- NJ
----- 3 ---- 56 ------- 5.4% ----- IL
----- 1 ---- 20 ------- 5.0% ----- KS
----- 7 -- 140 ------- 5.0% ----- NY
----- 2 ---- 45 ------- 4.4% ----- AZ
----- 1 ---- 31 ------- 3.2% ----- TN
----- 1 ---- 36 ------- 2.8% ----- CO
----- 1 ---- 39 ------- 2.6% ----- SC
----- 1 ---- 46 ------- 2.2% ----- CT

This tells me two things:
Michigan is incredible, and we need to step it up in New York.

[Koko Ed]

This tells me two things:
Michigan is incredible, and we need to step it up in New York.
Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.

[Christopher149]

Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.

Rick Snyder at MSC (https://www.flickr.com/photos/governorricksnyder/albums/72157651503941258)

[Jessi Kaestle]

I did this analysis for all of the Districts since forming. The full analysis can be found here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W929hKsmvbodzsoDy7E4ol0ox3ejh97bjS9IFWds2as/edit?usp=sharing).

A quick analysis of the 2016 growth shows that, with the exception of Michigan, who is currently benefiting from significant state support, as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%I think I'm confused as to what the percents are showing? Are the decrease in growth each year or the increase in growth per year? Thanks

Sorry about the confusion. The data that I ported to CD shows only the growth from 2015 to 2016. Every district with the exception of MAR had positive growth for that period.

However when you look at the overall growth of each district (again with the exception of Michigan which this data just further proves to be AWESOME) it tends to have a spike for the first year or two then start to level out. I have added a graph to the sheet that better shows this.

[Jessica Boucher]

Mark, this may not be possible, but I would love to see if the data supports my "scorched earth" theory.

I love grants for rookie teams, I do. It's obvious growth into new schools is a KPI for the organization as a whole, but it's not like we haven't seen how rookie grants play out.

I have concerns that when rookie grants run out and the team fails, the school is essentially "scorched" and won't be amenable to picking the program back up again for a period of time. We saw this in New England with the Smith Family teams - only a handful still exist and we have to wait the school out for an administration change or something similar before they are open to jumping back in again.

All I'm asking is to just be careful. Yes, there are still a ton of high schools out there, but we're picking our best shot at sustainability in these grants and I would hate to see our growth stunted because of shortsightedness.

[sciencenuetzel]

Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?

[Doug G]

Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?

Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this. I have heard that they pay attention to local teams and how many events each waitlisted team has registered for.

[waialua359]

Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?
Its up to each committee.
I signed up for Hawaii yesterday for the waitlist, emailed the RD, they contacted FIRST this morning, and now I am on.
We are also on the waitlist for NY Tech Valley, emailed the RD who I knew from before, and was given some positive information.

Moral of the story-every regional is different in how they go about the specifics of adding teams from the waitlist.........contact the RD for more info.

-Glenn

[Andrew Schreiber]

Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this. I have heard that they pay attention to local teams and how many events each waitlisted team has registered for.

It is entirely at the planning committee's discretion. Typically rookies get priority but it's not a hard and fast rule.

[dag0620]

Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this.


It's technically the Regional Director's call. Some RDs may choose to include their committees on these decisions. Your mileage may vary.

[PayneTrain]

Weird, Guilford County took a spot off its total count. Went from 31/33 to 31/32 some time in the last 24 hours.

[mipo0707]

what regionals and districts have open spots still?
so many international teams at canadian regionals and so many canadians at regionals outside of canada

[Mark McLeod]

You can see for yourself here: http://173.255.246.196/2016/
Do remember that there are generally more slots than shown that get served out to waitlisted teams, late registering rookies, etc.

Regionals with general admission slots available:
Dates -------------------- Event Name ---------Filled - Left - Total
09-Mar - 12-Mar -- Arkansas Rock City Regional -- 43 ----- 9 ---- 52
16-Mar - 19-Mar -- Utah Regional ----------------- 37 ---- 12 ---- 49
23-Mar - 26-Mar -- North Bay Regional ------------ 30 ----- 8 ---- 38
30-Mar - 02-Apr -- Idaho Regional ---------------- 22 ---- 13 ---- 35
31-Mar - 03-Apr -- Hub City Regional ------------- 40 ----- 3 ---- 43
03-Apr - 06-Apr -- Western Canada Regional ----- 33 ----- 5 ---- 38

Districts showing open spots:
Dates -------------------- Event Name -------------------------------------------------- Filled - Left - Total
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- CHS District - Northern Maryland Event ---------------------------------- 32 ----- 2 ---- 34
17-Mar - 19-Mar -- PCH District - Albany Event ----------------------------------------------- 18 -- 14 -- 32
17-Mar - 19-Mar -- PCH District - Dalton Event ------------------------------------------------ 29 -- 3 -- 32
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- MAR District - Springside Chestnut Hill Event ---------------------------- 27 -- 2 -- 29
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- NE District - UMass-Dartmouth Event ------------------------------------ 30 -- 1 -- 31
24-Mar - 26-Mar -- NE District - Rhode Island Event ------------------------------------------ 33 -- 2 -- 35
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- NC District - UNC Asheville Event ----------------------------------------- 21 -- 15 -- 36
01-Apr - 03-Apr -- NC District - Campbell University/Johnston Community College Event -- 31 -- 1 -- 32
03-Mar - 05-Mar -- PNW District - West Valley Event ------------------------------------------ 34 -- 2 -- 36
24-Mar - 26-Mar -- PNW District - Philomath Event ------------------------------------------- 28 -- 8 -- 36

[Jimmy Nichols]

QCR has already let a team in off of waitlist. A Colombian Rookie team from Medellin, Team 6159.

[Sunbun]

...
Dates -------------------- Event Name ---------Filled - Left - Total
...
30-Mar - 02-Apr -- Idaho Regional ---------------- 22 ---- 13 ---- 35
...

Dates -------------------- Event Name -------------------------------------------------- Filled - Left - Total
...
17-Mar - 19-Mar -- PCH District - Albany Event ----------------------------------------------- 18 -- 14 -- 32
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- NC District - UNC Asheville Event ----------------------------------------- 21 -- 15 -- 36


Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?

[Hallry]

Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?

Yes. The ones I know of are the 2007 Brazil Pilot (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2007br) (15 teams) and the 2008 Brazil Regional (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2008br) (13 teams). Both of these events skipped the Quarterfinals.

[Karthik]

Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?

Waterloo 2005 ran with 24 teams, and went with 7 alliances of 3 in the eliminations rounds.

[orangemoore]

Waterloo 2005 ran with 24 teams, and went with 7 alliances of 3 in the eliminations rounds.

Why did 3 teams sit out?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Why did 3 teams sit out?

I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all

[Gregor]

I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all

It also wouldn't allow for any backup robots.

[waialua359]

I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all

This happened to us at an offseason event last year. It made for an interesting eliminations with only 21 teams attending the event.

On another note, I cant recall when the system changed to serpentine. That season, it might have been the 7th seed having to choose from the last 4 teams.
Trying to think back to 2005 when we were on a #1 alliance, I still cant remember when we took our 3rd alliance member....

[Aren Siekmeier]

This happened to us at an offseason event last year. It made for an interesting eliminations with only 21 teams attending the event.

On another note, I cant recall when the system changed to serpentine. That season, it might have been the 7th seed having to choose from the last 4 teams.
Trying to think back to 2005 when we were on a #1 alliance, I still cant remember when we took our 3rd alliance member....

I've always heard that 2006 was the first year of serpentine, after the intro of 3v3 in 05.

[EricH]

I've always heard that 2006 was the first year of serpentine, after the intro of 3v3 in 05.

That's correct. 2005 went 1-8, 1-8, top 8 remaining as backup (instead of the 1-8, 1-8, 2v2 matches previously used). 2006 went 1-8, 8-1, top 8 remaining as backup.

Except at IRI, but that's another discussion entirely.

[Mark McLeod]

3100 teams now.

[first3234]

Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max

[Andrew Schreiber]

Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max

Likely. It starts being real hard to get 12 matches if you have more than 40 teams.

[Christopher149]

Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max

I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.

[Basel A]

I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.

A bunch of Michigan districts would have a hard time fitting more teams. The extra district events will be added. In fact, one has been confirmed* already: Week 6 in Ann Arbor.


*although nothing is really official until it gets posted online

[Karibou]

I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.

Escanaba might be able to do it if they got creative, but you couldn't add too many more. You could probably fit another row in the hall between the pit gym and the field, but you'd sacrifice having the nice, wide aisles. Of course, you'd also have to figure out how to get >40 teams to want to go to Escanaba*...



*disclaimer: Escanaba is an awesome, fantastic, 100%-would-attend-again event, but I don't blame anyone who does not want to drive 8+ hours and end up in the UP in the middle of winter.

[Christopher149]

Escanaba might be able to do it if they got creative, but you couldn't add too many more. You could probably fit another row in the hall between the pit gym and the field, but you'd sacrifice having the nice, wide aisles.

Putting some pits against the windows? Otherwise, where'd the cafeteria go? (we fill half of it as it is)

Gail sent an email where the Ann Arbor event is all but guaranteed, and she's looking into the possibility of a second UP event week 5.

[wireties]

Has anyone gotten in off the Dallas wait lists?

TIA

[ebarker]

How can I get a list, preferable in spreadsheet of ALL current teams, by team number and location.

I need to run an analytic s exercise so I can calculate team density, by program, state population, etc... it is an update for a thing I did a few years ago,,,, need it for an upcoming briefing.

I need a table that looks like

1311, FRC, GA
... and so on for the 3,000+ FRC entries, and FTC, FLL, JrFLL

actually all I need to know is how may teams exist by program by type by geographical area

so how many FRC teams are in each state / province, country
ditto for FTC, FLL, JRFLL

I don't really need the team numbers.

Thanks,

-eb

[Brian Maher]

If you have any programming ability, The Blue Alliance API (http://thebluealliance.com/apidocs) can be used to access a ton of data on FRC teams, including location. Unfortunately, it does not cover the other three programs.

[Rachel Lim]

How can I get a list, preferable in spreadsheet of ALL current teams, by team number and location.

I need to run an analytic s exercise so I can calculate team density, by program, state population, etc... it is an update for a thing I did a few years ago,,,, need it for an upcoming briefing.

I need a table that looks like

1311, FRC, GA
... and so on for the 3,000+ FRC entries, and FTC, FLL, JrFLL

actually all I need to know is how may teams exist by program by type by geographical area

so how many FRC teams are in each state / province, country
ditto for FTC, FLL, JRFLL

I don't really need the team numbers.

Thanks,

-eb

You can use the My Area search: https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=searchform

You'll probably need to use excel or something to extract the state abbreviation from the location, but I think it has team data for all levels.

[GeeTwo]

If you go to the "What teams and events are in my area (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on)" link on usfirst, you can get an exhaustive list of teams for any recent year, unfortunately only 25 per page, but the page number is in the URL, so you can script wget or similar calls to just keep getting 25 at a time until you're done. Leave the state at "All States" and radius at the "- Select -" value, and you'll get the world. The usfirst site supposedly only reflects teams that have registered, so the numbers are always low for the current year. However, they are always filled with "ghost teams" that never show up at an event. Oh - as I look at it now, this only covers US teams will that be enough?.

[Mark McLeod]

Registration closed at noon today at 3163 teams.
It's increased by two teams since then, so FIRST is not quite done yet.

[Christopher149]

Registration closed at noon today at 3163 teams.
It's increased by two teams since then, so FIRST is not quite done yet.

And Michigan's at 418 teams. Michigan is going to have to go out of state if it wants third plays.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

...Michigan is going to have to go out of state if it wants third plays.

Not particularly happy about that.

[first3234]

Yea plus not to mention not all Michigan teams get there two district competitions

[Aren Siekmeier]

Yea plus not to mention not all Michigan teams get there two district competitions

This should not be the case? With 21 events at a capacity of 40, there are 840 spots, which is more than twice the Michigan total of 418. There may be 4 third plays in Michigan.

I'm sure FiM is not giving all these spots out immediately, to make sure everyone gets events close enough to home and teams are evenly spread out. I can't imagine anyone won't get their two events.

[Foster]

Registration closed at noon today at 3163 teams.
It's increased by two teams since then, so FIRST is not quite done yet.

That's a pretty impressive jump over last years numbers. Mark, once the dust settles, can you post the graph that you started this thread with (bar chart with lost, current, resurrected, new teams) to see the 2015/2016 changes.

Question time: Is the growth due to STEM being in the front of lots of schools. Delaware did "Race to the Top" and did lots of great stuff with the money. Looks like Delaware has two new teams this year.

Or is it because the business world is picking up, there is new sponsor money available? We should be seeing more and more FRC college grads (High school class of 2012 and earlier) in the workplace? Should be ~200,000 FRC alumni out there)

Or is it because districts make it a better value proposition for teams?

Or is it because FIRST has done a good job in advertising and reaching into businesses to get support to start teams?

[logank013]

And Michigan's at 418 teams. Michigan is going to have to go out of state if it wants third plays.

1 open spot at IN Walker Warren Event...

[Mark McLeod]

Mark, once the dust settles, can you post the graph that you started this thread with (bar chart with lost, current, resurrected, new teams) to see the 2015/2016 changes.

There still remains some settling to wait out, but here is that graph as of today.
Team retention won't be accurate until the payments start failing to come in.

Resurrected veteran teams (those returning after a hiatus of some years) are significantly lower than in previous years-one returning team has been gone 8 years, but team retention (before payments are all in) is also higher than normal.

Here are the percentages:
9.6% growth (2015 was 6.8%)
13.2% are new teams (about the same as last season)
7.8% of the lost teams were offset by recovered vets (2015 was 10.8%)
~95% Team retention (2015 was ~93%)
17 resurrected veteran teams
7 new "vets"
410 rookies
2737 returning vets
155 vets missingsummary data: http://www.team358.org/files/frc_records/AllFinalFRC_Registrations.xls

[Mark McLeod]

24 countries are now represented (in order of # of teams):

USA
Canada
Israel
Mexico
Australia
China
Turkey
Brazil
Colombia
Netherlands
Taiwan
Chile
Dominican Republic
Japan
United Kingdom
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
France
Germany
India
Poland
Singapore

The team from United Arab Emirates is missing, but the Bosnia-Herzegovina team from three years ago is back.

[Mark McLeod]

Teams missing from last season are from these places (# missing / place):
12 ---- CA
10 ---- TX
10 ---- TN
9 ----- Canada-ON
7 ----- Canada-AB
6 ----- MN
6 ----- Israel
5 ----- WA
5 ----- PA
5 ----- NY
5 ----- MI
4 ----- VA
4 ----- UT
4 ----- OH
4 ----- NJ
4 ----- China
4 ----- Canada-QC
4 ----- AZ
3 ----- OR
3 ----- NC
3 ----- Mexico
3 ----- IN
3 ----- GA
3 ----- AR
2 ----- SC
2 ----- NH
2 ----- MD
2 ----- HI
2 ----- FL
2 ----- Australia
1 ----- WI
1 ----- United Arab Emirates
1 ----- RI
1 ----- OK
1 ----- NV
1 ----- MT
1 ----- MO
1 ----- ME
1 ----- MA
1 ----- LA
1 ----- KS
1 ----- IL
1 ----- IA
1 ----- DE
1 ----- CT
1 ----- Columbia
1 ----- Canada-BC
1 ----- AL

[Big Ideas]

Teams missing from last season are from these places (# missing / place):
12 ---- CA
10 ---- TX
10 ---- TN
9 ----- Canada-ON
7 ----- Canada-AB
6 ----- MN
6 ----- Israel
5 ----- WA
5 ----- PA
5 ----- NY
5 ----- MI
4 ----- VA
4 ----- UT
4 ----- OH
4 ----- NJ
4 ----- China
4 ----- Canada-QC
4 ----- AZ
3 ----- OR
3 ----- NC
3 ----- Mexico
3 ----- IN
3 ----- GA
3 ----- AR
2 ----- SC
2 ----- NH
2 ----- MD
2 ----- HI
2 ----- FL
2 ----- Australia
1 ----- WI
1 ----- United Arab Emirates
1 ----- RI
1 ----- OK
1 ----- NV
1 ----- MT
1 ----- MO
1 ----- ME
1 ----- MA
1 ----- LA
1 ----- KS
1 ----- IL
1 ----- IA
1 ----- DE
1 ----- CT
1 ----- Columbia
1 ----- Canada-BC
1 ----- AL

Fun with numbers. It would be interesting to see how this changes looking at the "per capita" for the groups (eg 12 CA_missing/240 CA_current=5%)

I suspect that TN and Israel are harder hit with losses then CA or MI. Question, how can stable teams hear about struggling teams soon enough so they can help them. Potentially keeping some from being lost teams. Are growth initiatives different and compatible with retention initiatives?

Thanks for the data.

[Jimmy Nichols]

7 new "vets"


Back in '94 P&G started 2 teams, one at Walnut Hills HS and one at Aiken HS. the Aiken HS team competed in '94 and '95, where as the Walnut Hills team competed for several years, then went to Northwest HS(144) and then to Lakota East HS(1038). Since then The Northwest team started back up and took on the original 144 number. Team 6084 is at Aiken HS and received a new number because when they quit competing in '95, teams had not been assigned numbers yet. I'm not sure why they didn't try to get an older number, but at this point there is no originial mentors or sponsors involved.

[cadandcookies]

Can I ask what's up with Tennessee? Looks like they had a net loss of 9 teams this year (+1 rookie, -10 veterans). Was there a major loss of funding or just bad luck?

[guniv]

Can I ask what's up with Tennessee? Looks like they had a net loss of 9 teams this year (+1 rookie, -10 veterans). Was there a major loss of funding or just bad luck?

Not really sure. Knoxville has just over 10 teams in the area and has a regional here so we're isolated from everyone else, but I know that TNFIRST doesn't do much more than plan the regional and only seems to work with teams in the Knox-area. The only other things I see them do other than the regional is the kickoff and they got teams one sponsor last year. Memphis has a lot of teams too and they have their own support network there separate from TNFIRST, and I know I see them update a blog a lot. We don't see many of those teams over here because there are regionals closer to them than SMR.

I suspect the team losses are from rural areas. I know in Knoxville that we have a hard time securing decent funding and can't imagine how rural teams could sustain without the rookie grants. Knoxville is fortunate to be next to Oak Ridge where Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex are, so many Knox teams have mentors from these organizations and receive significant sponsorships as a result.

Also, another factor might be that we're slowly getting surrounded by districts. TNFIRST briefly mentioned at a conference our team held in September they're looking into it, but I don't know (and I suspect they don't either) when that might happen. Georgia and North Carolina went to districts this year which lowers the number of regionals around us to attend. I know most Knoxville teams go to Palmetto, and some went to the Georgia regional previously. We're trying out Rocket City this year and hope it goes well!

[Mark McLeod]

The missing Tennessee teams are mostly from Memphis

3227 - Memphis, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
3516 - Memphis, TN (attended Lone Star & Georgia last season)
3783 - Memphis, TN (attended Arkansas & Smoky Mtns last season)
3856 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4396 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4989 - Memphis, TN (attended Alamo last season)
5691 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

5040 - Arlington, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
5405 - Red Bank, TN (attended Arkansas & Queen City last season)
3675 - Seymour, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

A lot (half) were double regional teams, only one affected by the rise of districts.

[RogerR]

The missing Tennessee teams are mostly from Memphis

3227 - Memphis, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
3516 - Memphis, TN (attended Lone Star & Georgia last season)
3783 - Memphis, TN (attended Arkansas & Smoky Mtns last season)
3856 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4396 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4989 - Memphis, TN (attended Alamo last season)
5691 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

5040 - Arlington, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
5405 - Red Bank, TN (attended Arkansas & Queen City last season)
3675 - Seymour, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

A lot (half) were double regional teams, only one affected by the rise of districts.

According to the Memphis FRC website:


Last year, Shelby County Schools had 13 High Schools participating in FRC.

SCS has had it good, unlike most FRC teams, SCS teams did not have to find their own funding for the team from companies and donors due to the Race to the Top funding and thanks to the SCS budget which included funding for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education.

Unfortunately, this will not be the case this year since the Race to the Top Grant is over and due to budget cuts.


Source: http://frc.memphisfirstteams.org/

[guniv]

The missing Tennessee teams are mostly from Memphis

3227 - Memphis, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
3516 - Memphis, TN (attended Lone Star & Georgia last season)
3783 - Memphis, TN (attended Arkansas & Smoky Mtns last season)
3856 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4396 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)
4989 - Memphis, TN (attended Alamo last season)
5691 - Memphis, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

5040 - Arlington, TN (attended Bayou & Smoky Mtns last season)
5405 - Red Bank, TN (attended Arkansas & Queen City last season)
3675 - Seymour, TN (attended Smoky Mtns last season)

A lot (half) were double regional teams, only one affected by the rise of districts.

I look pretty silly now!

[Jon Stratis]

I suspect the team losses are from rural areas. I know in Knoxville that we have a hard time securing decent funding and can't imagine how rural teams could sustain without the rookie grants. Knoxville is fortunate to be next to Oak Ridge where Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex are, so many Knox teams have mentors from these organizations and receive significant sponsorships as a result.


I know a lot of rural teams (I haven't counted, but you could probably consider half of MN teams to be rural). While finding funding is difficult for them, I think sustaining that funding once they get it is actually a little easier.

Teams from big cities (like the Twin Cities) derive most of their funding from 1-3 large grants from large companies. Those companies rely on selling products nation- or world-wide. When tough times hit, those companies pull back and those teams they support have a large amount of money to make up from other sources.

In contrast, more rural teams don't really have access to those large companies. They get donations from smaller companies, from the community, and from concerns that are much more local. Their funding comes, generally, in smaller chunks - instead of having a company give them 10k, they might have 10 companies that give 1k each. So if one of those companies backs off, they then have much less money to make up.

So yes, the expiry of rookie grants can hurt them a lot, if they didn't spend that year setting up a solid base for themselves. But once they have that base, I wouldn't expect any sort of mass-exodus from rural areas. Those teams are just too spread out, and their funding is too spread out, to be affected all at once like that. Teams from cities, on the other hand, could be - imagine if a large company decided to stop giving to teams. That could affect a dozen teams or more, all at once, all in the same small area!

[Mark McLeod]

FRC registration seems to have peaked yesterday at 3180 teams and is now starting to fall back. If the past remains an accurate guide, then it'll fluctuate a bit more up until the December holiday break, before it slowly falls off up until the first event.
Last season the fall lost 33 teams.

It's at 3176 this morning.

[MechEng83]

FRC registration seems to have peaked yesterday at 3180 teams and is now starting to fall back. If the past remains an accurate guide, then it'll fluctuate a bit more up until the December holiday break, before it slowly falls off up until the first event.
Last season the fall lost 33 teams.

It's at 3176 this morning.

FIRST, I'll apologize for this post being a tangent.

I see these numbers and all I can think of teams I know and have interacted with: Blaise of Glory (3180), Killer Bees (33), and Purple Precision (3176)

Great to see over 3000 teams and the reach expanding every year!

[Doug Frisk]

FRC registration seems to have peaked yesterday at 3180 teams and is now starting to fall back. If the past remains an accurate guide, then it'll fluctuate a bit more up until the December holiday break, before it slowly falls off up until the first event.
Last season the fall lost 33 teams.

It's at 3176 this morning.

For whatever reason, Central Illinois is still showing 30 teams. That was where they stopped before clearing their waitlist. They had 39 teams last year, so the number might go up yet again.

[Mark McLeod]

Here's an accounting of the increase/decrease in teams each Regional event has, as of today, over last season's final head counts.
For the new events I just entered zero.
I see 33 at Central Illinois right now.

Mexico City is the double digit winner.
Utah is the double digit loser.
It's an increase across Regionals of 33 teams, plus the new regionals (+225), and without the 2015 Regionals turned to Districts (-332).

-2 ---- Palmetto Regional
0 ----- Greater Toronto Central Regional
1 ----- San Diego Regional
-1 ---- Northern Lights Regional
0 ----- Lake Superior Regional
5 ----- Greater Toronto East Regional
17 ---- Mexico City Regional
-7 ---- Arkansas Rock City Regional
8 ----- Arizona North Regional
0 ----- Los Angeles Regional sponsored by The Roddenberry Foundation
0 ----- Orlando Regional
3 ----- Greater Kansas City Regional
3 ----- St. Louis Regional
-3 ---- Greater Pittsburgh Regional
4 ----- Alamo Regional sponsored by Rackspace Hosting
-1 ---- Central Valley Regional
0 ----- New York City Regional
7 ----- Israel Regional
0 ----- Australia Regional
-6 ---- Central Illinois Regional
-4 ---- Bayou Regional
-2 ---- New York Tech Valley Regional
3 ----- Buckeye Regional
-11 --- Utah Regional
-3 ---- North Bay Regional
0 ----- Rocket City Regional
4 ----- Sacramento Regional
-1 ---- Ventura Regional
0 ----- Colorado Regional
0 ----- Iowa Regional
0 ----- Finger Lakes Regional
-3 ---- Oklahoma Regional
-6 ---- Dallas Regional
-5 ---- Wisconsin Regional
2 ----- Waterloo Regional
2 ----- FRC Festival de Robotique - Montreal Regional
0 ----- Orange County Regional
1 ----- South Florida Regional
1 ----- Hawaii Regional
0 ----- Idaho Regional
-4 ---- Midwest Regional
5 ----- Las Vegas Regional
-1 ---- SBPLI Long Island Regional
9 ----- Queen City Regional
-1 ---- Smoky Mountains Regional
2 ----- Hub City Regional
2 ----- Western Canada Regional
4 ----- Windsor Essex Great Lakes Regional
1 ----- Arizona West Regional
5 ----- Silicon Valley Regional presented by Google.org
0 ----- Minnesota 10000 Lakes Regional
0 ----- Minnesota North Star Regional
5 ----- Lone Star Regional

[Jimmy Nichols]

For whatever reason, Central Illinois is still showing 30 teams.

I see 33 at Central Illinois right now.

For whatever reason the new FIRST site's Team and Event search has the event numbers locked, if you go to the archived site and the legacy FRC Event site then it shows the correct number of teams registered. I noticed this first with QCR, it shows 51 on the new search and 56 on the legacy search.

Edit: I suspect the new site uses a new database and the developers made a copy of the Event database vs. Mirroring it and TIMS is still linked to the old database for Registration.

[Mark McLeod]

The new team & event database has several things to be aware of.


It keeps teams listed that dropped out up to three years ago, so team counts reflect teams that registered any time in the past four years, e.g., team 1203 who last played in 2013.

The most recent rookies are still listed by a temporary number instead of their already assigned permanent number, e.g. team 6195 is still listed in the new database as team 201600651

Pre-rookie ghost teams are listed, but not signed up for any events, and probably won't be.

As Jimmy noted, event team lists are not up-to-date

[Navid Shafa]

As Jimmy noted, event team lists are not up-to-date


It looks like FIRSTinspires caught up with a lot of the event roster changes to the old domain this past Saturday.

[Mark McLeod]

Fell back below 3170 teams now.

[Knufire]

Teams will be notified shortly after December 11 as to whether or not a slot is available for them.

We're still waitlisted for the NC Guilford district. Any other teams been notified of recieving spots in an out-of-distrct tournament?

[Jacob Paikoff]

We're still waitlisted for the NC Guilford district. Any other teams been notified of recieving spots in an out-of-distrct tournament?

Have you heard anything? 234 and 1501 showed up on the team list for Guilford this morning and I would guess there's still room for 5188.

[tindleroot]

We're still waitlisted for the NC Guilford district. Any other teams been notified of recieving spots in an out-of-distrct tournament?

According to frclinks 5188 is on the roster for Guilford now.

[Knufire]

Have you heard anything? 234 and 1501 showed up on the team list for Guilford this morning and I would guess there's still room for 5188.

According to frclinks 5188 is on the roster for Guilford now.

Yup, we were notified on Monday that we got a spot. TIMS just didn't update until today.

[logank013]

Have you heard anything? 234 and 1501 showed up on the team list for Guilford this morning and I would guess there's still room for 5188.

Glad to see other Indiana Teams going to this event. Are any other teams from IN planning on going to Guilford beside 234, 1501, and 5188?

[Peyton Yeung]

Glad to see other Indiana Teams going to this event. Are any other teams from IN planning on going to Guilford beside 234, 1501, and 5188?

A follow up question to this would be are there any other Indiana teams going out of state to play?

[Mark McLeod]

Right now I see...

(3) Going to NC 234, 1501, 5188
(2) Going to Queen City 868,5484
(4) Doing a third Indiana event 292, 1024, 1741, 1747

[Peyton Yeung]

Right now I see...

(3) Going to NC 234, 1501, 5188
(2) Going to Queen City 868,5484
(4) Doing a third Indiana event 292, 1024, 1741, 1747

Thanks Mark!

[Mark McLeod]

Down to 3160 teams now.

[Mark McLeod]

So we currently show 3153 teams registered.
Frank said 3134 teams have paid.
So, FIRST is allowing grace time to 19 teams that still think they are likely to pull the funds together (after) the last minute.


3.134 As of last night, the number of FIRST Robotics Competition teams registered and paid for the 2016 season. We’ve exceeded our team goal for the season and still have a few more teams that may be joining us!

- See post at: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/numbers#sthash.ME1Sg53u.dpuf

[Hallry]

Frank said 3134 teams have paid.

Blair used the figure of 3132 teams during the Founder's Reception webcast tonight.

[Mark McLeod]

3149 3148 teams are showing registered.
I'm sure someone still hasn't paid up.

[Mark McLeod]

Down to 3140 teams now.

[Mark McLeod]

3139 teams when week 0.5 came.

and 3138 by the end of the first day.

9 events added or dropped teams in the last day or so.

[Mark McLeod]

Don't know what that's all about...

Down to 3135 teams with no shows at the latest events.

[Mark McLeod]

3131 teams listed now

[GaryVoshol]

3131 teams listed now

Hi Mark,

What's the highest team number this year? I used to be able to look this up on the FIRST site, and probably with a lot of trial I could do it again, but I haven't found a way to get more than a radius of my location.

[rsisk]

Hi Mark,

What's the highest team number this year? I used to be able to look this up on the FIRST site, and probably with a lot of trial I could do it again, but I haven't found a way to get more than a radius of my location.

6237

[Mark McLeod]

Here's today's list of FRC teams.

[Mark McLeod]

3130 teams after another no-show.
They dropped out of Lone Star

[Hallry]

Here's today's list of FRC teams.

3130 teams after another no-show.
They dropped out of Lone Star

6216 was a no-show at both of their MAR District Events; don't know if you have taken that into account yet. They were listed in the Excel file you had posted.

[Mark McLeod]

I'm just going by the FIRST team list, and 6216 is still on it.
I heard that 6216 turned down mentoring team assistance during the build period, but their students got daunted by the challenge of their first time building a robot.
I know of a half dozen teams that didn't show up for their scheduled event, but FIRST only seems to remove those that didn't find the funding for the registration fee.

[Mark McLeod]

Long after this thread was done I decided to look at the average cost per team under the different systems in place, and that's only possible after the fact.

This doesn't look at number of matches played or anything like that. It's only focused on how much it cost teams playing under different Regional and District systems. The question was driven by practical considerations that new teams have in planning for a starting budget.

This doesn't take into account sources of funding, e.g., NASA grants, FIRST Rookie or Hardship grants, state funding, schools, sponsors, etc. All of which changes the actual impact on individual teams.
The interesting part was for the most part the average cost per team in each area was comparable, but in some areas it was rather higher.

------------------------
So, for the past 2016 season:

Total registration fees amounted to: $24,644,988

Area/Type --------------------- Total Cost ----- Avg cost per team ------- Number of events

Regional Rookies -------------- $1,946,000 --- Avg/team = $7,371 ----- 241=1 event, 23=2 events, 54=CMP
Regional Vets ----------------- $12,753,000 --- Avg/team = $7,519 ----- 1035=1 event, 610=2 events, 51=3 events, 285=CMP
FIM-MAR Rookies ---------------- $585,500 --- Avg/team = $7,411 ----- 78=2 events, 1=3 events, 14=DCMP, 11=CMP
FIM-MAR Vets ------------------ $3,493,500 --- Avg/team = $7,712 ----- 1=1 district, 415=2 districts, 37=3 districts, 108=CMP, 148=DCMP, 18=Regionals, 6=Inter-District
PNW ----------------------------- $1,902,988 ---- Avg/team = $12,044 ---- 148=2 districts, 10=3 Districts, 2=1 Regional, 64=DCMP, 35=CMP
NC-PCH-NE-IN-CHS Rookies --- $374,000 ---- Avg/team = $8,698 ------ 43=2 districts, 19=DCMP, 8=CMP
NC-PCH-NE-IN-CHS Vets ----- $3,590,000 ---- Avg/team = $8,215 ------ 9=1 district,391=2 districts, 36=3 districts, 1=4 districts, 205=DCMP, 99=CMP, 13=Regionals, 2=Inter-District

[Cothron Theiss]

Anyone want to shed some light on why the PNW District average cost per team is several thousand dollars more than the others?

[Mark McLeod]

It's because PNW uses a fixed price.
I hope that in actual practice the cost may be offset by hardship and other support grants to low-funded teams that PNW may provide.

For instance, 199 Regional Rookies paid only $6000 each to play - no second events or world championship-almost 1000 Regional vets only paid $5000 to play. Even paying for two Regional events is cheaper than the single PNW price, but the PNW price includes the District Championship if the team qualifies.
Overall across the board there were only 10 District teams that chose to play only a single event.

[Jon Stratis]

FIM-MR had 453 teams and 148 at DCMP, if I'm reading that right - 32% of teams. 37 attended a third district, or 8%. 18 attended a regional, or 4%.

PNW, on the other hand, had 158 teams and 64 at DCMP - 40% of teams. 10 teams attended 3 districts, or 6%. 2 attending a regional, or 1.3%.

I suspect at least part of it comes from that math. You had a higher percentage of teams spend more money to attend more events in PNW than in other places.

I think there's also a difference in the district cost depending on the district, isn't there?

[Mark McLeod]

Here are the prices I used: (please correct any errors)

Registration --------------- Veteran ----- Rookie --- extra Regionals -- 3rd District - Inter-District - District CMP - World CMP

Regional teams -------------- 5000.00 ----- 6000.00 ----- 4000.00 ------------------------------------------------------- ----- ----- 5000.00
FIM/MAR teams -------------- 5000.00 ----- 6000.00 ----- 4000.00 ------------ 500.00 --------- 1000.00 ------- 4000.00 -------- 5000.00
NE/IN/CHS/PCH/NC teams -- 5000.00 ----- 6000.00 ----- 4000.00 ----------- 1000.00 --------- 1000.00 ------- 4000.00 -------- 5000.00
PNW teams ------------------ 10886.00 --- 10886.00 ----- 4000.00 ----- ----- 1000.00 ----------1000.00 -------------------------- 5000.00

[Mark McLeod]

Here is a detailed breakdown of registration expenses just for the rookie teams in each area.
For example, 11 Regional Rookie teams only attended 2 regional events for a combined registration cost of $110,000 or $10,000 per team.
199 rookie teams attended 1 regional, 11 teams attended 2 regionals, 42 attended 1 regional+CMP, and 12 teams went to 2 regionals+CMP.

------------------------------------ 1 regional---- 2 regionals ----- 1+CMP ------ 2+CMP
Regional Rookies ($1,946,000) -- 199 ---------- 11 ------------ 42 ----------- 12
264 total teams ----------------- $1,194,000 --- $110,000 --- $462,000 --- $180,000
Avg/team = $7,371 ----------------- $6,000 ---- $10,000 ----- $11,000 ---- $15,000

------------------------------------ 2 districts---- 3 districts----- 2+CMP --- 2+DCMP --- 2+DCMP+CMP
FIM-MAR Rookies ($585,500) ----- 63 ----------- 1 ----------- 1 ---------- 4 ------------ 10
79 total teams ------------------- $378,000 ----- $6,500 --- $11,000 --- $40,000 ---- $150,000
Avg/team = $7,411 ---------------- $6,000 ----- $6,500 --- $11,000 --- $10,000 ------ $15,000

-------------------------------------------------- 2 districts------ 2+CMP ----- 2+DCMP ----- 2+DCMP+CMP
NC-PCH-NE-IN-CHS Rookies ($374,000) ----- 23 ------------ 1 ------------- 2 --------------- 7
43 total teams -------------------------------- $138,000 ----- $11,000 ----- $120,000 ----- $105,000
Avg/team = $8,698 ----------------------------- $6,000 ----- $11,000 ------- $10,000 ------ $15,000

------------------------------- 2 districts ----- 2+DCMP ----- 2+DCMP+CMP ----- 3+DCMP+CMP
PNW Rookies ($157,518) ----- 8 ------------ 2 ---------------- 2 -------------------- 1
13 total teams -------------- $87,088 ----- $21,772 -------- $31,772 ------------ $16,886
Avg/team = $12,117 ------- $10,886 ----- $10,886 -------- $15,886 ------------ $16,886

[Mark McLeod]

Here are some other closing registration numbers for the 2016 season.
I've also attached a spreadsheet with the breakout of how many teams incurred how much in registration expenses in case someone else thinks of something to look at.

2016 Events per team
1 ----- 1190
2 ----- 1173
3 ----- 462
4 ----- 247
5 ----- 56
6 ----- 2

Registration Pymts by teams (21 distinct variations of total team payments based on the number and type of events attended):
(Average Registration Fee = $7,877)

Reg Pymt - # teams --- % ------- Total
$5,000 ----- 1472 ------ 47.0% ----- $7,360,000
$5,500 ------- 17 ---------0.5% ----- $93,500
$6,000 ------ 288 ------- 9.2% ----- $1,728,000
$6,500 -------- 1 -------- 0.0% ----- $6,500
$9,000 ------ 556 ----- 17.8% ----- $5,004,000
$9,500 -------- 5 ------- 0.2% ----- $47,500
$10,000 ----- 105 ------ 3.4% ----- $1,050,000
$10,500 ------- 3 ------- 0.1% ----- $31,500
$10,886 ----- 121 ------ 3.9% ----- $1,317,206
$11,000 ------ 46 ------- 1.5% ----- $506,000
$11,886 ------- 2 -------- 0.1% ----- $23,772
$13,000 ------ 24 ------- 0.8% ----- $312,000
$14,000 ----- 347 ----- 11.1% ----- $4,858,000
$14,500 ------ 13 ------- 0.4% ----- $188,500
$15,000 ------ 51 ------- 1.6% ----- $765,000
$15,886 ------ 25 ------- 0.8% ----- $397,150
$16,886 ------- 8 ------- 0.3% ----- $135,088
$17,000 ------- 1 -------- 0.0% ----- $17,000
$18,000 ------ 41 ------- 1.3% ----- $738,000
$19,000 ------- 2 -------- 0.1% ----- $38,000
$19,886 ------- 2 -------- 0.1% ----- $39,772

[MrRoboSteve]

Last year PNW went to a funding model where they charge teams the full cost of the district events, and grant out all of their event fundraising to teams as a subsidy. The net cost to teams was between $5000 and $6800, according to this page:

https://www.firstwa.org/Team-Resources/FIRST-Robotics-Competition-Team-Resources/Payment-Details/FRC-Funding

[Mark McLeod]

Based on PNWFIRST facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/PNWFIRST/) comments from November 25, 2015
The final cost for some Vets seemed to be $6,366.
The final cost for some Rookies was $5,225.
The grant and funding seems to be a mixed bag and is hard for an outsider to track. The early deadlines would make it impossible for all teams to apply for certain grants, too.
I'm trying to ignore independent grants or the affect of state funding and just focus on PNW rebates (based of course on the success of their fundraising efforts for unrestricted grants).


I'll update based on this unofficial assumption.

Does anyone have links to the PNW final team briefings on 2016 team fee costs?
I found video briefings, but no official accounting.

[Mark McLeod]

Here are the updated registration costs, for the past 2016 season:
(Still looking for official PNW final pricing sources, since actual PNW average price is almost certainly higher.)

Total registration fees amounted to: $23,927,495

Area/Type --------------------- Total Cost ----- Avg cost per team ------- Number of events

Regional Rookies -------------- $1,946,000 --- Avg/team = $7,371 ----- 241=1 event, 23=2 events, 54=CMP
Regional Vets ----------------- $12,753,000 --- Avg/team = $7,519 ----- 1035=1 event, 610=2 events, 51=3 events, 285=CMP
FIM-MAR Rookies ---------------- $585,500 --- Avg/team = $7,411 ----- 78=2 events, 1=3 events, 14=DCMP, 11=CMP
FIM-MAR Vets ------------------ $3,493,500 --- Avg/team = $7,712 ----- 1=1 district, 415=2 districts, 37=3 districts, 108=CMP, 148=DCMP, 18=Regionals, 6=Inter-District

PNW Rookies ----------------------- $83,925 --- Avg/team = $6,456 ----- 12=2 districts, 1=3 Districts, 5=DCMP, 3=CMP
PNW Vets ------------------------ $1,100,070 --- Avg/team = $7,587 ----- 136=2 districts, 9=3 Districts, 2=1 Regional, 59=DCMP, 32=CMP

NC-PCH-NE-IN-CHS Rookies --- $374,000 ---- Avg/team = $8,698 ------ 43=2 districts, 19=DCMP, 8=CMP
NC-PCH-NE-IN-CHS Vets ----- $3,590,000 ---- Avg/team = $8,215 ------ 9=1 district,391=2 districts, 36=3 districts, 1=4 districts, 205=DCMP, 99=CMP, 13=Regionals, 2=Inter-District


-----------------------------------------------

Here are the revised prices I used:

Registration ------------- Veteran ---- Rookie -- extra Regionals -- 3rd District - Inter-District - District CMP - World CMP

Regional teams -------------- 5000 ------- 6000 ----------- 4000 ------------------------------------------------------- ----- ----- 5000
FIM/MAR teams -------------- 5000 ------- 6000 ----------- 4000 ------------- 500 ---------- 1000 ------------ 4000 ----------- 5000
NE/IN/CHS/PCH/NC teams -- 5000 ------- 6000 ----------- 4000 ------------ 1000 ---------- 1000 ------------ 4000 ----------- 5000
PNW teams ------------------- 6366 ------- 5225 ----------- 4000 ----- ------ 1000 -----------1000 ------------------------------ 5000

[Nuttyman54]

Does anyone have links to the PNW final team briefings on 2016 team fee costs?
I found video briefings, but no official accounting.

There won't be one final number for all PNW teams, since it's different for every team. The PNW fundraised pass-through grants aren't entirely unrestricted, so the FIRST Washington staff works to honor grant intent while evening out the final fees, but there isn't one universal public number. Everbody's invoice looks different.

The numbers you've listed look reasonable for 2016.

[Jon Stratis]

I find it rather interesting that the average cost per team actually goes up for all of the districts compared to regionals (although you do get more matches for that cost)... Which raises the question, should we be looking to optimize for number of matches/events played (which many argue increases competitiveness), or for cost per team (where a lower cost could help recruit and retain more teams per year)?

[Mark McLeod]

I find it rather interesting that the average cost per team actually goes up for all of the districts compared to regionals...

Just as a side note...
One of the elements in dropping the average cost per team seems to be in developing a large pool of teams, so that more and more are not offered the opportunity (extra cost) to attend district championships.
That broadens the base of minimum expenditure teams and drops the overall average per team cost.