pic: FIRST FRC Participation

[rick.oliver]

[cdm-description=photo]43843[/cdm-description]

[Lil' Lavery]

Can anyone provide insight as to what happened in 2004/05? Did some grant project fund rookies then stop support?

[BigRickT]

How does the growth rate chart to attrition? It would be nice to see that chart with Growth as a percentage compared to Attrition as a percentage...

[NShep98]

Can anyone provide insight as to what happened in 2004/05? Did some grant project fund rookies then stop support?

My guess is a significant source of funding for FRC stopped entirely. On TBA's Insights page (http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights) 2005 is the only year in which there was a drop in the number of matches, by at least 1000 at that. And less matches fewer teams and/or events.

[Chris is me]

EDIT: nevermind, please delete this post

[Karthik]

Can anyone provide insight as to what happened in 2004/05? Did some grant project fund rookies then stop support?

I want to say that was the year of the $1000 increase in registration. It was either 2004 or 2005.

/edit: Yes, the registration fee was increased by $1000 for the 2005 season.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28820&highlight=registration+2005+fees

[GeeTwo]

My guess is a significant source of funding for FRC stopped entirely. On TBA's Insights page (http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights) 2005 is the only year in which there was a drop in the number of matches, by at least 1000 at that. And less matches fewer teams and/or events.

Not only was there little growth (the attrition and rookie curves practically touch, and the total number of teams is flat), this was the year that the game format went from 2v2 to 3v3, presumably accompanied by a reduction in the number of matches played at each event.

[bigbeezy]

Is the 2010-2011 bump in rookies due to the JCPenny grant? I can't remember when that began/ended. Know there were a ton of teams that took advantage of that.

Edit: That's when Districts began in Mich, right?

$1000 bump in registration is pretty big. Were rookies always $1000 more than vets or when did that start?

[Lil' Lavery]

Thanks, Karthik.

My guess is a significant source of funding for FRC stopped entirely. On TBA's Insights page (http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights) 2005 is the only year in which there was a drop in the number of matches, by at least 1000 at that. And less matches fewer teams and/or events.
A number of 2005 events are missing match results on TBA. That's the culprit.


Is the 2010-2011 bump in rookies due to the JCPenny grant? I can't remember when that began/ended. Know there were a ton of teams that took advantage of that.

Edit: That's when Districts began in Mich, right?

$1000 bump in registration is pretty big. Were rookies always $1000 more than vets or when did that start?

The first season of the district format in Michigan was 2009.

I believe the differentiation between the "rookie kits" and "veteran kits" began in 2010 (the second year of the cRio). For most of the duration of the IFI controller, all teams got a new control system each season.

[PayneTrain]

If my memory serves me correctly, the 2005 season was the first year of the modern era, but was not the first year of the modern frame perimeter. That structure has been evolving since 2000, the second year of alliance play. The increase in the registration fee also did not coincide with the move to the GWCC, but happened after the first year in the dome.

The remarkable team attrition might have been noticed by FIRST, as the FIRST VEX Challenge had its initial pilot a year later.

I want to say that was the year of the $1000 increase in registration. It was either 2004 or 2005.

/edit: Yes, the registration fee was increased by $1000 for the 2005 season.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28820&highlight=registration+2005+fees

I think you probably know the answer to these questions:

What was the first year teams used the IFI boards?
Did the registration fee fall down to $5000 in 2010 to coincide with the 1-time control system transaction, or was the move done independently? I have only been covering registration since 2011.

[Lil' Lavery]

The remarkable team attrition might have been noticed by FIRST, as the FIRST VEX Challenge had its initial pilot a year later.

The FIRST Vex Challenge actually had a pilot event in 2005, at the FRC Championship. The timing had more to do with the Vex kits becoming a full fledged product line in 2005/2006 (carried in Radio Shack, rather than the Edubot kits sold directly by IFI prior to that point).

[Karthik]

What was the first year teams used the IFI boards?
Did the registration fee fall down to $5000 in 2010 to coincide with the 1-time control system transaction, or was the move done independently? I have only been covering registration since 2011.

The IFI control system was first used in 2000.

Yup, the fee change was based on the new policy of not supplying teams with a control system each year.

[Basel A]

I want to say that was the year of the $1000 increase in registration. It was either 2004 or 2005.

/edit: Yes, the registration fee was increased by $1000 for the 2005 season.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28820&highlight=registration+2005+fees

Wow, that's a really powerful experiment. Many people in the FRC community have been talking about decreasing the cost of participation, with registration being a big part of it. Usually you can only guess at these things, about how big of an impact the registration cost has, but this is a great demonstration. This chart shows exactly what happens when you raise the cost. Have to imagine it'd have an opposite effect the other way.

[Foster]

Not sure I'm reading the graph right. I see a the rookie line at 2%. So it makes sense if you add 2% to exisiting teams that existing teams goes up. But 1% die, so the existing teams should die by 1% So the overall growth should be 1%.

Granted, I'm looking at the chart, I'm confused by it. TLI5, how to read the graph.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Not sure I'm reading the graph right. I see a the rookie line at 2%. So it makes sense if you add 2% to exisiting teams that existing teams goes up. But 1% die, so the existing teams should die by 1% So the overall growth should be 1%.

Granted, I'm looking at the chart, I'm confused by it. TLI5, how to read the graph.

I believe only the attrition rate is using the right axis. For 2015 to 2016 for example, rookie teams grew by ~400 but we also lost ~200 teams. Therefore, total teams grew by ~200 teams.