Texas Registration 2015
 

Its another year of FRC and the Texas FRC registration numbers continue to decline.
Current FRC Texas registration is around 104 teams, which is a significant drop from 132 in 2013.

Here's a chart of Texas Registration Growth since 2003
http://2013.discobots.org/node/84

On the positive side, many other STEM programs are growing quickly in Texas. If anyone would like to discuss those statistics, I would be happy to provide a few numbers.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

What is causing the loss of teams in Texas? It's rather concerning, especially as FIRST pushes for growth. Is it that teams sign up, get a NASA grant (or some other kind of grant), and then a year or two later there's no more grant, and they cease to exist any longer?

To keep this program sustainable, on a national and state level, we really need to work on funding at least the minimum annual budget requirements of FIRST teams through state and federal education funding sources for career technical education. Selling lightbulbs and getting corporate sponsorships is great, but it does not work in all areas and will not continue to work forever.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Hopefully someone can correct me if this is wrong. Wasn't the spike in 2009 from JCPenney sponsoring a lot of teams?

What is the growth of other STEM programs?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Here's the thread from last year that discusses the growth from 2009-2012:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=120776

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

The JCP spike is the 2011 season. At least, for most of the US. Unless they started sponsoring teams in Texas earlier.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I thought it due to the TWC program? They were promoting new teams in Texas for two years, correct?

FIRST and UIL/Texas are talking and the TEA is approving or starting to approve more robotics classes. In our district robotics classes and computer science classes can now count as math and science credits. For the FIRST (pun intended) time this year there is an official STEM track for a high school diploma. This is only a rumor but I think AP Computer Science 2 qualifies as a foreign language credit! Plus we now have a Cyber Patriot team and our sister high school (Rockwall-Heath High School, home of FRC 3310) won an International Rocketry Competition in 2013. This is all in the last few years.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

The spike in growth was related to JCPenny and the TWC grants. The decline of team registrations is not as clear.

Many of these numbers include multiple sub-teams inside a single school.

FTC in Texas :
81 teams in 2009 season
300 teams in 2013 season

VEX (VRC) in Texas:
106 teams in 2009-2010 season
562 teams in 2013-2014 Season

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Follow the money, Andy. A lot of teams were almost totally reliant on that funding. There's a reason only 13 of the 50 2009 rookies are still around. Only two of us have WFFA winners, and only 2 or 3 have at least one regional victory. That was a rough year, before I got to Texas, and one that is often recalled as painful by the surviving participants.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Amazing growth there in the FTC/VEX teams. I believe more and more schools realize that FTC/VEX are more within reason than FRC for lots of schools.

Reasons that I see are
- less financial investment
- less tools required
- fewer technical resources required
- space required is much less
- contests are more locally accessible (less finances required to travel)
- less intimidating for a rookie/inexperienced teacher to begin a program

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

There has to be some other important factor here besides the JCP grants though. A whole bunch of MN teams were founded off of those grants back in 2010/2011 as well, but almost none of them have folded.

Here are the relevant documents I could dig up:
2010 (I think) JCP sponsored teams
2011 JCP sponsored teams

According to the second document, JCP sponsored 21 Rookie/2nd Year Teams in MN, and 28 in TX.
As of the 2014 competition season:
only 2/21 of these MN teams are inactive (3747 and 3524)
14/28 of these TX teams are inactive (3819, 3758, 3409, 3713, 3778, 3730, 3392, 3804, 3857, 3696, 3369, 3529, 3762, and 3869)

Perhaps it is not a useful analysis to compare MN to TX, since both regions seem to be outliers in terms of growth/sustainability (on opposite sides of the spectrum). I'm just curious as to why MN seems to be doing so well in this area, especially since there were no sustaining teams here prior to 2006.

Maybe since MN didn't have very many other robotics programs in 2010-2011, the teams here didn't really have the option to "drop down" to a less resource-intensive competition and thus were forced to stick through the sponsorship crunch? That seems silly, but I can't come up with a better explanation.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Andy,

What is the geographic distribution of the lost teams? Larger cities? West Texas? I ask only because I don't recall losing 2/3 of teams around the Austin area.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

The biggest losses are definitely more rural or small city schools. I can put exact numbers on these with a little data crunching if people are interested.

Texas Regions that struggle.
1. South Texas
2. El Paso
3. West Texas
4. Small towns scattered across the state.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

It is not about TEA approval it is about district approval. The robotics classes have been on the books for four years under CTE. Districts are just now picking them up. Whether that is due to having qualified teachers on staff or because STEM is the current buzz word in education today is something each district has to answer separately.

CTE (Career and Technical Education) is under a standards review. All of our TEKs are being reviewed and rewritten. Yes, you/we, will be getting more STEM/robotics classes. The battle is getting the core subject areas and districts to recognize the value of STEM courses taught under CTE along with those taught under the math and science departments.

Thank you HB5 (House Bill 5) :) one of several things I really like about it but it only applies to current freshmen, students on the 4x4graduation plan (current sophomores - seniors) don't get that 'STEM' endorsement opportunity...or any of the others for that matter.

Fact not fiction or rumor. It was approved by the Texas legislature and TEA in January. Here is the catch...that qualification expires in 2016. No one knows what's going to happen after that. Also, I am not sure what the teacher certification requirements are in order for it to count. I can find out and let you know but I think the awarding of the FL credit for CompSci is largely up to the district not dictated by TEA.

The CTE Computer Programming course re-writers toyed with asking for their course to count as a foreign language credit, however; the concern became what certification/re-certification TEA would require of the instructors to be considered qualified to offer the foreign language credit.

Hope this helps some and if you are teaching AP CompSci (or your district is) you need to look into the Foreign language thing now before it expires so that when that comes up for review you can hopefully keep it.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

3747 actually ended up combining with 3018 last year and now 3018 has switched over to FTC (at least last I heard).

We have a large corporate community in Minnesota that is absolutely awesome in keeping these teams running with the support of the RPC.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I have no problem at all with Minnesota taking over the Texas thread ! Texas has a lot to learn from the Minnesota model.

I don't see a lot of details about how new teams are funded in Minnesota. What is the typical funding process for a rookie Minnesota team (i.e. 2 years of funding , connecting sponsors to teams) ?

What is the name of the Minnesota non-profit that raises funds from the corporate community ?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Just to give some idea of how large Texas is and the distance between teams.
This is data from the 2012 season based on team358.org stats.

That's a huge difference and a large problem. Even just driving to some of the teams we consider in Greater Houston can take well over an hour without traffic.

By no means is this the only reason for team loss, but it's part of the problem. It's very easy to be isolated in our state.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

It's not only the team-to-team distance, it's also the team-to-sponsor distance. For teams in cities, these distances are small, but that's not the case for many teams, even teams that are relatively close to population centers. There's also the question of mentor support, which can be a problem even in the cities.

FRC 660 comes to mind. They were in Round Rock, the home of Dell, sponsored by BAE, a 2001 Rookie All Star, who suddenly stopped competing in 2010. Probably the departure of a key mentor, but I don't know their story.

Also, there's Reagan High School in Austin. They were FRC 4271, supported by JCP, and decided to move over to FTC. I'm still not sure why they didn't get the support, but that's a prime example of a grant beneficiary who dropped FRC because they couldn't get mentor and industry support.

For example of a manageable distance to a major city, Bastrop is 25 or so miles from Austin. They have good community support, and they are able to sustain a team. From my understanding of their story, this is due in large part to industry located in Bastrop that supports the Austin economy coupled with several dedicated retired community members with technical background who help out.

On the flip side, Del Rio is fairly isolated. You are guaranteed to go through a Border Control checkpoint when leaving it on your way to, well, anywhere. But, they keep their program alive.

Other isolated places that don't have industry or community support will need to rely on grants. That's my earlier point: How many teams got the TWC or JCP grant (both were fairly easy to get as I understand), spawned up a program, but never got the mentor support to sustain the team (like the Reagan situation above)? Or, more recently, how many potential teams and sponsors have looked at events that feature FRC next to FTC or VEX and say "well, I can reach X times more kids with that smaller program" and go after that instead? FRC is a big game, and it can be intimidating. It fits some schools well, and others not so much. But until we can express to Texas teachers, mentors, and sponsors that the FRC game offers so much different a challenge than the challenge of FTC or VEX, we can expect those FRC numbers to keep dwindling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the overall technology education programs are growing, as indicated by VEX and FTC growth. But, I don't like the idea that the FRC team count is shrinking.

Oh, and this decline in new rookies might be part of a broader problem:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=130809

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

As far as I know, there is no regional grant process in Minnesota. Many teams are securing initial funding from national rookie grants and then later finding small local businesses to fill in costs or larger companies like 3M to support then in the long run. We also have some teams that are absolutely fantastic at finding sponsorships, like 1816, who are very willing to help other teams learn from their practices.

MN FIRST is the organization that secures funding for regionals in the state, but as far as I know they don't fund teams.

We also have a relatively high amount of tech companies like 3M, Honeywell, Boston Scientific, PTC, and others who sponsor multiple teams long-term. An interesting fact in this regard is that while in many states health care or financial sector businesses represent the largest lobby, in Minnesota tech companies are the largest lobby at the state legislature. While we don't get funding from the state level, recognition from the state government and initiatives like MNDRIVE, which fund robotics industry growth, raise awareness both in businesses and in the public mind about robotics, which (and I'm just guessing here), makes STEM program growth and funding appealing for schools and businesses. Combined with Minnesota being a significantly smaller state than Texas, where the majority of teams are clustered right next to the majority of tech businesses, and it's a pretty good mixture for robotics growth.

A little bit of further conjecture, but I'd also say that Minnesota's largest robotics program is FLL is also a contributing factor to funding and team sustainability-- there are over three times as many FLL teams as there are FRC teams, which means there's a pretty large pool of students that already exist who are likely to be interested in programs down the line. Many teams will speak to the value of feeder programs, but I think that was and is a pretty important factor in the explosive growth and continuing sustainability of teams MN has experienced.

Hopefully this was at least vaguely useful. I'm sure Evan probably has a bit more to chime in.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I think one of the other factors in Minnesota is that FRC is recognized by the state athletic league as a team sport, just as football, basketball, dance line, etc. So the students are able to letter if their school chooses to do so. It also gives those teams that do not make it to world, a chance to participate in a state championship, just as other varsity teams in the state do.
Our rookie year was 2012 and funding is always an issue, our particular team does not receive any financial support from the school district nor much of any other support for that matter. We made a decision as mentors that even though the school district charges up to $200 for extra correcular participation fee ($25 for free or reduced lunch students) we would not charge it. We want the kids to be involved and did not think that money should hold them back. But, we are still here and even though we lost five seniors from a team of eight this past spring we have added more kids. Success!

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Is there such an organization in Texas? This would be great. Combine a non-profit raising funds for young teams (and teaching them how to do it) with some kind of formal mentor outreach and one could make a big difference.

Also I think the UIL and FIRST are talking, perhaps some kind of 1-year pilot program is being discussed? If FRC/FTC/FLL become UIL approved more money will flow from the school districts (which will help recruit and retain teachers).

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Rookies here have typically found the same 1st and 2nd year grants that teams all over the US are offered. I think what makes a big difference is that the RPC (Regional Planning Committee) has done a great job of making connections with the large tech companies in the state, and have hooked many of us up with their contacts. Having several employees of these big companies in your district sending kids to your school helps a lot too.

The only FIRST-affiliated non-profit I am aware of in Minnesota (aside from individual teams) is High Tech Kids, who runs the FLL and FTC programs. The Regional Planning Committee for FRC does not have a non-profit status (as far as I know), and cannot hold any funds intermediately between companies, teams, events, etc.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I was raised in the Texas Panhandle. I went to a small high school (six students in my graduating class.) I know how hard it would be to not only start an FRC team but to maintain it in such a small community. My father was an agriculture teacher and he would have been the closest qualifying individual to being a mentor for our team. Many of the teams from West Texas and the Texas Panhandle would fall in the category of small class sizes, little to no computer science taught in the high school, large farming and ranching communities, small amount of financial support from industry, etc. In small schools, students participate in multiple activities at the same time since there is not a large population of students.

Last year, we worked with a team at Hub City that had two mentors and seven students. I think that there are probably more teams that fall into circumstances such as these. I know of a team here in Austin that folded due to the teacher leaving and losing their only technical mentor.

Just as increasing the success of a school, many times it falls on a committed individual and most often that falls on the shoulders of a teacher. Many schools do not a financial structure to compensate teachers for this commitment. FIRST is seeking to get a partnership with UIL in the state with the hopes that this will lead to more finances and support from within the schools. School finance in Texas is in a mess and does not look to be be getting any better in the near future. I believe it is a false hope that such a partnership will open the books up to financing of many teams in the future.

It is very interesting that Minnesota has such a large number of FLL teams and they have seen an increase in the number of FRC teams. Laying the groundwork at younger ages drives success and creates interest not only at the student level but at the elementary level as well. Having taught in public school classroom and being a fourth generation teacher with in Texas. The support of elementary programs from parents is huge. As students begin to move thru school, parental involvement continues to dwindle. Parent support of a program is instrumental in assisting the mentors and teachers of the program.

As some others have mentioned here, geographic isolation is another big factor. Not only is the distance to contests but the distance to supporting veteran teams is a great distance as well.

I also believe that the prevalence of other STEM/Robotics contest in the state have played a factor. The growth of FTC and VEX has been huge in the state of Texas. see post from Andy about the number of teams in the past few years. In addition, BEST robotics continues to be successful throughout the state of Texas. These contests do offer a truly beneficial STEM program to the schools that chose to participate in them. Schools chose to participate in them for a variety of reasons: past experience, costs to startup, space, tools requirement, mentor availability, etc.

I believe Andy's questions are great questions. I also believe something could be learned from the Kansas City growth FRC that included 3 year commitment finances partnership between the teams and grants available.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

That's a good summary Norm.

One of the programs that helped grow teams in the 2009-2011 range was the Texas High School Project. There isn't much information online about it but this word doc sums up the program pretty well. Basically it gave schools about $18,000 over two years.

Does anyone have a list of teams that were founded using this money and how many are still around? From the little I know, not many of teams stuck around. A quick search through the team358 database says that 18 teams had "Texas High School Project" as one of their sponsors and are no longer competing as of 2014. Many of the schools were supported by both THSP and JCPenny.

After the poor retention rates that we saw for so many years, I know a lot of veteran Texas teams/mentors that shy away from actively encouraging schools to start FRC teams without some experience with a smaller competition 1st. There are so many other options (FTC/VEX/BEST/Botball/MATE/etc.) to allow schools to get into competition robotics that don't have the costs and drop out rates of an FRC team. I know whenever possible I try to convince teams to take a year and really watch a full season before doing FRC. It's so much easier to start a program when you have some idea of what it actually takes than starting blind just because someone is willing to pay your registration fee.

I would love to have Texas rookies competing at a level where they are all in contention for Rookie All Star. We do a ton of work to help prepare rookie teams for the season and work with them during the season but even with that help many of them fold after a year or two. The teams that do the best are those that either have experienced mentors or FRC alumni helping to run their programs but that's not an easy thing to get for a lot of the teams.

From a school perspective I can also see how it would make more sense to compete in several smaller programs. You can have more teams and compete more often where in FRC you may only be able to compete once per year. Now that Texas has a lot more off season FRC events (4 this season), it might become more compelling to compete in FRC.

The fact that FRC is hard is part of the point. It wouldn't be the same competition if it were easy to run a team but that does come with a cost.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

This is correct, we have a couple of dedicated RPC members that are great at finding funding for teams. The RPC has identified many very gracious companies and executives that will support MN teams but past the initial $5,000 teams are (usually) on their own to fundraise. In Minnesota it isn't a question of whether or not there is funding to run a team but more of a question if there is leadership to run a team.

The majority of teams are coached by a single science, math or technology teacher that don't always know what they are getting themselves into. There are many teams in MN (2470 being one) that don't have any professional engineers mentoring them, thankfully the number of teams that have professional engineers as mentor is growing every year.

The biggest sustainability issue in my mind for MN is finding those lead mentors/coaches and making sure they don't become overwhelmed throughout a season.

FRC does not have a non-profit that it runs under in Minnesota and in my opinion is the biggest obstacle to districts.

High Tech Kids also runs Jr. FLL.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I am a coach for the team in Del Rio, Tx., population 36,000, 150 miles from any city larger than us or other FRC team. My personal opinion is the declination of teams is based more on the mentor ratio, available resources and culture of the school district/town. I would bet that all of the teams that are no longer in existence had a limited number of available mentors. Our district recently received approved a stipend for 2 paid head coaches and 4 assistant coaches. We are a PLTW school and offer no robotics classes. When the stipend came out, we had 0 STEM teachers apply for the positions. I suppose their after school time is much more valuable or can get paid more for doing much less work, but that is only speculation.

The technical resources, engineering types, industry resources and community involvement is just not available to us like it is in a larger city.

I am rambling a bit, since I am commenting between classes. To sum things up, I don't think there is a single thing that stops a team from continuing to participate in FRC. Money is a big issue, but I think finances can be overcome more easily than getting qualified people to mentor your team.

Please do not start a flame war, this is only my opinion from a new team from a small isolated town.

Mr. B

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I agree, but for the teams that don't have a dedicated mentor, when the money dries up no one is pushing to secure more funds and keep the team alive.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Parental support is vital for the health of any youth program. We see stark differences between swim teams that have strong parental support and those that don't. I suspect that a lot of the mentors supporting the FRC teams in Minnesota may have got their start as coaches or mentors for their children's FLL teams. That is where I got started as did a number of the other FRC mentors here in Houston.


The coach of one of the most successful FLL teams in Houston was bemoaning the fact that he had trouble helping to set up new FLL teams because the school district he is in is more interested in football than STEM. Before we moved out of that area, my sons were on two teams there. The first collapsed when the teacher/sponsor retired and could not be replaced. The other had difficulty in getting support from the school district, the school principal and the teachers. They also had trouble finding students who were interested. Several other teams have come and gone in that school district.


It probably becomes prohibitively difficult if the majority of the people involved in running a team (teachers, school administration, mentors, students and parents) have had no prior experience with smaller scale robotics competitions such as FLL, FTC or VEX. One could use the analogy of competing in FRC is like running in a full marathon. One typically works up to it by starting with 5k runs, etc. Of the three teams FRC my sons have been on that are/were struggling, none of the other people involved had any prior experience with any other robotics competitions. Unfortunately, not knowing what they don't know, they did not make good use of resources made available by more experienced teams such as Spectrum and the mentors did not ask to be mentored themselves. The team my son is with now has a strong presence in VEX and VEX iQ. They get much better results in terms of tournament results and, most importantly, the amount of learning that students experience.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

As teams from all around the country complain about not having enough regionals.

Texas definitely has enough regionals this year. We welcome all teams to the Lone Star State. :eek:
We are up to 115 Texas teams registered.

This year we have lost many notable teams.
Both 1429 & 2936 are chairman's award winning teams, so this news is tough on the Texas community.
Hopefully Texas can recover back to at least 132 teams, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Wow, that's very disappointing to hear. I hope they are able to come back to FRC next season...

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

And we have well over 220 spots at Texas regionals.

Not every team in Texas is going to play two events and a bunch of teams including mine will be playing out of state.

Houston, Alamo, and Hub City should all have open spaces for visiting teams.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Andy,

I know the Gatorzillas lost technical mentors as well as as the teacher mentor. At least they continue to be involved in STEM activities and contests.

In regards to 1429, I am sure that Paul struggled with this decision and in the end I have no doubt he did what as best for his students.

Most definitely I hate to see past successful teams such as these two team not participate but I also know that each program has to do what is best for them. My nephew has looked forward to participating on the Gatorzilla team for years. He was on the pit team last year as a ninth grader. He is most definitely; disappointed in the fact that they are not going to compete in FRC this year but they are participating in STEM contests.

I hope to see these teams return to FRC but I also support the decisions of the leaders in charge of the direction of these programs.

ItJustMrB, I admire you guys for what you accomplish with your circumstances you are dealt. It is obvious that you and your mentors continue to raise the bar for you students and team. I do believe that teams who lose a mentor or two(teacher) with your motivation and commitment will struggle to be successful.

I for one like the fact that we have open spots in our Texas Regionals allowing out of state teams to come and compete with us here in Texas. I like competing with new folks and teams. We continue to enjoy our relationship with several out of state teams we have competed with over the past few year. Some of these teams we competed with here in Texas as well as at out of state tournaments we were in, including Champs. I believe it opens relations between teams and allows teams that stay close to home to be exposed to different styles, strategies, practices and students. It is a great growth opportunity for the teams that chose to stay close to home (whatever that reason is).

I think it is great to see so many teams from out of Texas competing at our 4 regionals here in Texas.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Texas registration numbers have slowly inched up to 117 teams total.

All of the Texas events are on waitlists except for the Hub City Regional.

Judging from previous years, Lone Star & Alamo have at least 14 team waitlists with each event reaching a max of around 64 teams.
Dallas has the smallest capacity of around 46 teams limited by Venue size.

Hub City will probably not fill to the 50 team capacity with plenty of open spots available now.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

One team I've spoken to from Yes Prep Southeast that participated in the 2012-2013 season and probably before that season told me that they stopped the program because they didn't have enough funds, they also didn't have engineers or mentors experienced enough with FRC (didn't have any at all actually). So all of those reasons might contribute to the decrease of teams and most likely it's the lack of funds, that was their main reason.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We are now at 137 registered teams in Texas. 5 more teams than last year.

It seems that a few of the Texas regionals have not cleared their waitlists.
For example Lone Star without 118, 624 and 1477 would be quite odd !

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

WHAT'S up with Lone Star?! 118, 624, 1477, and 3847 missing from the roster seems really odd at this point in time.

Are they not, in fact, competing at Lone Star?

Also... does anyone know the FRC net-loss numbers for Alamo Region in 2014 and 2015?

I've heard net-loss for Alamo in 2014 was 10; and for 2015 net-loss is an additional 10-15... but I can't get anything verified...

Thanks!

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I know some of those teams are still on the Lone Star waitlist and I assume it will clear eventually and a few of the them will be getting in.

As for us, we will only be spectators at Lone Star this year (and volunteers, and anything else we can do). Lone Star is Easter weekend and our schools weren't thrilled with the idea of competing over the holiday. We'll be heading out of state to visit Arkansas and Bayou this year.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Alamo loss is probably due to Dallas being week 1. Same thing happened in 2013 right?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Rant button on:

We're just a bottom feeding, small team that relies totally upon several gracious corporate patrons, FIRST in Texas and the Texas Workforce Commission for the majority of our funding. I appreciate the support simply because the parent community in my school will/cannot support the financial costs involved in FRC. My school leadership has just this year had their "TEA funding light" turned on by our program. We are not supported by our school budget. We construct and compete out of partial robotics/weight room. We do not charge team fees as do the athletic/extracurricular folks. We'll continue to sell lots of spaghetti supper tickets, sell Vex "insect-bots" for Christmas and hoard ALL of the last four years' parts that can be re-used (screws/nuts/ bar stock and the like do add up when one is in charge of counting half pennies). I'd love to see TEA walk the talk and make Robotics a UIL sport. We could then justify an injection of STEM funds into robotics that are currently going into A/V graphics programs. Schools like mine have to make really tough choices when building/not building STEM programs. The choices historically have not been for robotics.

I ask my team each year to give me three companies/names of family and friends that have mechanical, CNC shops, or have a way to help us get our robot painted, our t-shirts printed, premiums for competition made (yeah...we're one of THOSE teams that hand make stuff at competition). It seems to work out each year. We make the hard "cold calls", do the presentations to the Chamber of Commerce to increase our networking "web", we present at all the schools in our network to build an awareness of what we do. We've exhibited at minor league baseball games, at the mall (that was unique-folks thought we were geeky panhandlers). We may not be going to nationals and frankly you won't see our record below in a signature. It's not about robots; we send kids to college on FIRST scholarships, we move kids to build "stuff" they had no idea about in the first place and we build a tight knit family for kids that go home to absolutely nothing on a daily basis. THAT'S why I coach at 3355 and teach at Summit Prep HS. I don't do it for money, stipend, shorter teaching hours, or any tidbits of recognition (we don't get any so that's moot anyway).

Instead of boo-hooin' about the decline in teams; ask the teams that are very fortunate and have consistently winning teams to mentor those that may be weaker. My hat's off to Team 704 for taking us under their wing in 2010. We'd be one of the statistics if that didn't happen. Physically supplying student mentors, sharing teaching resources such as CAD to teams that don't use it (we use Mark 2 eyeballs. measure 3 times and hold our breaths still) and working together to increase the number of corporate and small business patrons will help both teams.

Can't cry over the decline...let's fix the issue! If the issue is money-driven; find new ways to raise money, reduce some of the registration costs by moving to a less costly venue, changing the game so it's not so danged expensive to be competitive. Sure, it's only 4K...that's 4K that has to be raised, begged for, etc. It's not going to come from the state. I relish the idea that I do NOT hit my school's budget. It's a good feeling to be quasi-independent and not hear "we don't have the money for more pneumatic tubing". I challenge all to grab a rookie , 2nd or 3rd year team and build a graciously professional relationship. It may not help the funding crunch; it will build our community and will motivate kids to go to college because of your interest in THEM! Your build expertise will build confidence in others that don't know which way to tighten a screw and to we teachers (yeah...I was an AP Human Geography teacher before FIRST) to manage and contribute via their own field of experience/expertise. Who knows, you might even see 3355 in the quarters this year....we were there 2 years ago! It can happen!!! Look and fear the Purple....Purple Vipers!

Rant button off now

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Steve, thank you for the post. You are on the right track but I don't think anyone in this thread is crying over the issue. This isn't the first time this has been talked about and I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread has their boots on the ground working on the problem. The issue is it's a larger problem then any one person, or one team can fix.

Every year, we hold boot camp builds, bumper builds, scrimmages, my email and phone number is given to every rookie team. A lot of people try very hard to keep teams around and we still aren't able to sustain them and I promise it's not from a lack of effort on the veteran team's parts. We had two Texas teams win Engineering Inspiration at Championship last year and neither of them won the Chairman's award at their first event last year. The field of veteran teams that are leading the way for rookie teams and supporting robotics in the state is huge but none of us have been able to really crack this problem on a wide scale.

Your post shows your passion for the program but not every team has someone like you and that's a piece of the puzzle. There are things we can do and have done at large levels to make it easier for teams to stay around.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

*jumping up and down on your rant button in complete agreement*

Well said and truthful. Unfortunately many of the costs are out of even FIRST's control though. Moving to smaller venues will only work if Texas moves to a district system which needs much work to implement correctly and efficiently.

As far as the mentoring I agree and it is encouraged by FIRST and as you know based on your experiences with 704 does happen. Unfortunately some of us aren't near any other teams (distance of 90+ miles) until you can get a fellow district to form a sister team (which is what happened with us, we were first but a very close by district formed a team three years ago).

You are probably aware that TEA,UIL, and FIRST are currently in talks to make FIRST/Robotics a UIL event. Just remember that it will bring with it the other side of the coin in terms of rules about how long the students can work etc.

Overall I feel your pain (I am also one of those coaches of a small-town mid-sized team that has benefitted from the graciousness of other successful teams but we still seem to fly by the seat of our pants rather often) and agree with your sentiments regarding why we are all here.

Good for you and even better for your team that you are still so passionate after all the years you have put in!

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

John... I was referring to the overall region numbers--total number of FRC teams _residing_ in Alamo Region, not Alamo Regional-competition registration numbers which sold out both 2014 and 2015.

Regards,

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Steve... I hear you and can feel your passion and frustration...

The last season things started to come into focus for me as to what is and what works in FIRST FRC and I've concluded that there are only 3 types of teams:

A - Teams that are a _program_ with reliable and continual support and funding. Same as football and marching band.

B - Teams that exist because at least one adult _wills it_ to exist.

C - Rookie teams that may become either A or B or die pretty quickly.

The key thing, I believe, for teams to achieve at least B status is some early support and guidance from Tier-1 and Tier-2 teams that can lead to them playing Saturday afternoon Elims _instead_ of sitting in the stands after early-packing their pit.

I believe that even making it to the Quarters changes a team's "chemistry" and leads to create passion and anticipation in the returning students and energizes the adult mentor(s) who have to _will it_ to exist.

I think getting to State District model is a BIG priority--because it means more competitions for the same current single-regional $$ and provides more opportunities for these teams to play Saturday afternoon and have that positively affect the team's trajectory...

I'm interested to know anyone else's opinion on this...

Thanks!

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I have worked with several teams that span A through C. The "chemistry" is definitely different. In the type A team (not yet a power house team), there is hope of doing well rather than resignation to doing poorly. I feel that the hope reinforces the passion leading to better quality results and it becomes a virtuous circle.

I have not been involved in fundraising much but it felt good to write to a prospective sponsor that the team was able to make it to at least the Quarter Finals in every tournament they entered last year. Even if the sponsor does not understand the game, they are probably more likely to think that the team knows what they are doing and are teaching the students more effectively than the teams that "makes the top 70% possible". I would imagine that every sponsor would like to see the money they donate be used to the greatest effect.

The B and C teams I have worked with got most of their driving practice at the tournament(s) so being able to play at a second tournament would likely improve their chances of being picked.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

"a virtuous circle"... EXACTLY!!

Wish I had used that in my post... ;-)

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We have seen the virtuous circle thing happen with the swim team that my sons participate on. It is a very happy thing.

I think it is human nature to want to join and/or support a winning team (or at least one on an upward trajectory). This is one more reason why it is very important to quickly get a rookie team to a basic level of competence in all areas; robot, management, mentorship, fundraising. This is where the established teams can help, as Michael indicated. Unfortunately, this will not help all rookie teams. I am sure we all have seen teams where they already think they know everything and refuse offers for help.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Our team started in the 2012 season and won the Rookie All-Star award. I joined at the beginning of the 2013 season when we won the Gracious Professionalism award. Sadly, for the 2014 season, our team didn't get to compete due to a lack of funding. This year were are back with a AMAZING sponsor. FIRST has changed my life forever and opened up a whole new career path I never thought i'd find interesting. Unfortunately, Texas teams are declining. I hope to see the number of teams rise again soon!

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I definitely agree that districts need to roll out to Texas soon. For 3320 that's basically an entire extra competition for free, since Austin would likely have a local event. Not only does two chances help, but you're also more likely to make eliminations at districts because of their smaller size. The other bonus to local district events is that it's easier to recruit students when you can guarantee they'll be able to attend at least one event regardless of extra funding (a kid on the fence probably won't commit to the team if only the core team members can go compete). You can also easily show your local sponsors what their money went to, or hook in a new sponsor in an afternoon.

3320 is firmly in your "B" category, although relatively well funded (the present issue for the team is recruitment and attendance). I'd also agree with how much making eliminations means to this team. Last year I told the students a few times before competition that I'd be surprised if their robot wasn't picked. Every time I said it they were noticeably excited, and packing up the pit after being eliminated wasn't a somber, defeated affair for once. If the team wasn't almost entirely seniors it would have been perfect.

There's even a pretty neat situation that demonstrates this "elim-boosted virtuous cycle" phenomenon quite well. Look at my old hometown of Calgary, AB, home of teams 1482 and 4334. By now there are plenty of teams in the city, but for years and years 1482 was the only team for hundreds of miles until 4334 popped up in 2012. 1482 only ever appeared in eliminations occasionally, and attended Champs a few times. For 4334's rookie year, their rookie team didn't build anything far surpassing what 1482 or any team had built before, but it was the right robot in the right place at the right time that year and they nearly won Champs. Not too long after that 4334 had jump started tons of local teams and their own local regional. It seems highly unlikely that this outcome would have occurred without their eliminations and Champs experiences.

The really important part is it also relies heavily on having the students and mentors who are capable and willing to put that momentum to good use. A lot of people thought 4334 was crazy for wanting to start a regional in a city with two teams during their second season, but I think they knew exactly what they were doing. When attending their planning meetings, I always got the feeling that they wanted to get as much done while the excitement of their last season was still fresh in everyone's minds.

We need that sort of thing to happen on a smaller scale to get teams over the initially steep difficulty curve of running a team.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Paul... I agree 100%.

We need State District model in Texas no later than 2017 season. I don't know inside details but from what I've been told those who run the show haven't raised enough $$ yet that's required in advance of detaching from USFIRST and there aren't enough reliable teams to justify the move.

It's my understanding when you move to District model all USFIRST supplies is the game field and all revenue responsibility is solely on the state entity that runs the district. I'm assuming that'll be FIRST-in-Texas, but maybe another entity will be formed for that?

It's not clear if the potential UIL partnership, whatever it may morph into, is pacing moving towards district... but I believe it a mistake to take the foot off the gas if that's what's happening.

For the Alamo-FIRST region I'm working on developing a working-group of adult FRC team leaders to form ALAMO RISING which will be chartered with fact-finding and developing recommendations to USFIRST for sea-change caliber initiatives and programs so that Alamo region can provide a BIG chunk of success toward getting to Texas District... and maybe could be implemented in the other Texas regions too.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Just curious, why by 2017?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Because it's a better model for Tier-2 and Tier-3 teams.

And it's the _best_ competition sandbox getting to mostly eliminating Tier-4 teams by increasing their game play... they move up to at least Tier-3 by having _more_ experiences and some successes.

We need it in 2016, in fact, but that's not realistic based on what I've been told, though I'm not on the inside of anything going on...

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We are actually one of the teams that would benefit greatly from the district model and one of our engineering mentors it a huge supporter of Texas moving to the district model.

That being said I am leery of implementing it before they have all the details ironed out which is what led to my question (why 2017). While there are models already out there that work it took them years to get to that point. The next question becomes will we lose teams in the process?

IMHO we need education for and buy-in from the current teams for the district model to work effectively for us. Especially if FIRST no longer helps pay for anything beyond the game field.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

For those that want districts, all I can say is be careful for what you wish for....

Districts do have their good points. However,the major issue that Texas is facing is logistics. There are currently 4 regionals here, and with districts, there would be a necessity to increase the number of locations to hold events, to cover the 2 district event for the initial entry fee. There are enough teams here to have multiple events each week of the competition season.

Who and where would host these events? I know that high schools are now hosting in other districts to help offset the costs, but has anyone here tried to survey what schools could host a three day event, of which 2 would be during class time, and would require additional parking/storage/security for the attending teams.

We have several schools that host off-season events, but those are in the summer or on a Saturday only. This is a very different animal.

If this issue can be solved, then at least the ground work will have been broken.

PJ

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

District events are only 2 days and could potentially be saturday/sunday

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

You do have to do field setup the day prior to teams arriving so normally Thursday or Friday afternoon.

We have big enough high schools that can do it, we just have to get enough sites signed up.

One of the reasons for the increase in off-season events is to get schools used to hosting events before the move to districts. Spectrum is 100% behind districts and ready to host as soon as we make the move.

Districts don't have to be at schools, many of the large school districts in Texas have large event centers. We also have county arenas and things that often don't exist where current district models are held. Many of these sites aren't big enough for a regional but are the perfect size for a district event.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Well maybe UIL FRC competitions that also run in February, March, April can compliment the 4 regionals that are spread over those same months?

The only potential problem could be _if_ UIL decides to _exclude_ private school and home schooled students. It's my understanding that UIL excludes those students in every other UIL sanctioned activity (exception is private schools that go through a qualification/vetting process--and there's _only_ 2 state-wide that have succeeded in achieving UIL status).

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Not only that but UIL also normally requires schools to compete independently in all of their events. A large number of Texas FRC teams are from multiple schools or entire districts (1477, 118, 2587, etc).

3847 might be in the strangest situation. Strake Jesuit one of our schools is a UIL school, St. Agnes Academy our other school is not in UIL.

Also the UIL events couldn't be in season, that would mess up bag and tag and things.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

If my count is right, I think we're at a net gain in the Alamo Region. I know Greater Austin had 100% retention and additionally picked up 1 team (5503 in Smithville). Combine that with 7 other rookies from the Alamo Region that have registered for Texas Regionals and I think we're in positive territory.

Based on conversations I've had with others, I know there are district model discussions going on. While I do respect that those having those discussions are respecting others' time during build season, I just wish they were more out in the open.

Regarding funding, if I understand things correctly, the way the District model payment scenario works is this: FIRST licenses the game to the District and collects registration fees from teams. Districts need to gain sponsors, resources, and money to fund their events. The District Championship is funded much like a regional event. So, until we have 3 fields along with the transportation logistics in Texas, District Model is rather no-go, IMHO.

Some specific responses:

@Paul Johnson:
Spot on. Nobody should be looking at Districts as a panacea. Speaking as a MAR alum who was still decently involved with MAR teams as the transition to District took place, I can say there was a lot of concerns on how to get all of those extra events running. Bear in mind that a lot of volunteers FRC has in Texas are dedicated, but asking them to volunteer two days on separate weekends isn't the same as asking for 4 days on one weekend. If we scale up to what the other Districts are at, we'll need a lot more help or a lot more time from those who already help.

@Robin Segrest, @John Schneider & @Allen Gregory IV:
Devil is in the details as always. One big hitch is venues. I know we have high schools that are big enough to handle these types of events, but do we have the venues in the right places with the right people to sponsor them. For example, TRR was held at the Austin Convention Center because we outgrew Anderson High School. Unlike the northeast and Indiana where there are large basketball gyms in every highschool, Texas tends to have large football stadia instead. Keep in mind that where we could swing it in the Anderson Gym with 36 teams and a $200 registration fee, we really can't have that kind of space problem if teams are paying $2000 for the event.

@Michael Blake:
I think you're forcing a system of tiering and ranking on teams based on your observations that is both rigid and absolute. There are many more mitigating factors that impact teams, and particularly impact the move to the District Model. Not every team will see a net benefit, and the model will present challenges and benefits for every team.

Take for example a tacit promise in the District Model: You get two events for the price of one and they are in daily driving distance. For example, in MAR, FRC 41 can attend the Bridgewater-Raritan event in an adjoining school distrct, and then attend one in North Brunswick or Clifton or Mount Olive. All of these schools are within 30 minutes drive of Watchung Hills. Do we have 24-36 teams within 30 minutes drive of each other? Maybe, but not all are.

So, if we were to have 8 events, where would they be and what would it mean? Does it mean that teams in Houtson and SA need to go to the Valley for a second event? Does it mean Houston needs two events to get all of the teams their the two plays they are promised? Does it mean Roscoe needs to book 6 days of hotel instead of 3? Does it mean a team from Texarkana that's late in registration finds themselves with an event in Edinburg as their only option? What about teams that qualify for District Championship on the last week of District events? What if their school board requires 3 weeks to get a trip approved? Are those teams just out of luck? These are the types of details Robin speaks to, and need to be hammered out.

It's not just about plays on the field and experience in the game. It's about justifying trips, setting budgets, and not spending money you don't have or can't raise. There are often complex administrative, and yes, political, situations in schools that make it relatively easy to go to one regional event, but much more difficult to explain the need to go to two events and then the need to get registration, buses, and approvals on two weeks' notice to go to a District Championship event, where you may need to go through that all over again if you qualify for FIRST Championship.

Oh, and I haven't even touched the UIL stuff....
My only three comments now are:
1. If getting UIL support means that schools receive significant benefit over non-school or non-UIL teams, this presents a significant issue for parity between teams. UIL may also require teams that are comprised of multiple schools or of schools combined with local organizations to split into multiple teams. (+1 AllenGregoryIV)

2. If UIL runs competitions during competition season that are not regional events or otherwise progress a team toward the FIRST Championship, we are all in for a huge headache, logistical and otherwise. (+2 AllenGregoryIV)

3. UIL support may have significant negatives in the existing FRC community. Fundamentally, that risks throwing a bunch of money at schools to start teams that are a) not equipped to do FRC, b) not properly cultured for Cooperition, and c) not properly cultured for Gracious Professionalism. Kinda sounds like 2009 & 2010...throw cash at schools to start teams. Those teams are generally lost and miserable. Those teams don't come back. Stat of the moment: of the 50 FRC Rookies in Texas from the 2009 season, only 12 remain.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Jeffrey... I don't know where you get "forcing a system of tiering" as I was just giving my _opinion_ as to how things work/are... ;-)

But, what is _your_ model of what the team landscape looks like? You can't manage what you can't measure, right?

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Jeffrey... I was told by a reliable inside person that Alamo-FIRST had a net-loss of 10 in 2014 and at least that much net-loss in 2015.

I can't find any other place to definitively confirm... I'm hoping Andrew Lynch could weigh-in since he seems to have valid useful numbers.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I am not sure how many schools 1477 and 118 draw from but 2587 draws from 6 different schools from at least two different school districts. I think one or two students are the only ones from their school participating in FRC. Another school only has 2 or 3 students on our team. Some of the home-schoolers have been core members of the team. Breaking up these teams would not "just make a bunch of smaller teams" but probably end the FIRST experience for many of team members. It is likely that many of the schools will not have enough committed team members, parents, teacher/sponsors and mentors to reach critical mass and survive. The surviving teams would likely be shadows of their former selves. Would the 118 reveal video still be as inspiring? I hope so but I wouldn't bet on it. :(


You mention "culture" twice in this paragraph. If UIL takes over FIRST in Texas, it would have to be with the understanding that the current "culture of inclusion" is maintained if not expanded.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I don't try to manage it. That's not my job. I just try to support it and help those who want my help.

Regarding the measurement, quite simply, I don't try to measure it. I think that it is frankly impossible to apply rigid seemlingly objective measures to something so subjective as organizations of people and the relationships between them when they do not have identical goals and aspirations. To do so judges the "success" of a team based on what is collectively (or subjectively) thought to be "success." I'm very Ayn Rand on this point: The smallest minority is the individual, and I know each individual FRC team has their own goals for what they consider success. That's the great part about FRC, it's so big, so challenging, and so complicated that you get to (and rightly should) make your own definition for success.

Do I look at the teams with successful track records and rows of blue banners and hope to learn about how to make a better robot? Sure. But if I were to look at my own team's win-loss-tie record and judge them, I wouldn't be elated. Even if I tried to judge on field performance aside from WLT, I could certainly make arguments that we weren't a success because we didn't play every aspect of the game.

But, I can look at my alumni who visit every now and again and see how the team has impacted the career they have chosen. I've seen them come back and freeze in awe at our facilities today that we didn't have when they were on the team. I can look at our track record of teaching our students skills. There are all too many students I have dealt with who didn't know how to use a drill properly who now know a fair amount about design and fabrication. Are they engineers yet? No, but that's not what I'm after. I'm just glad that they got off on the right foot into a career that I hope they will find rewarding. (BTW, that career isn't always a STEM career.)

I can look at my team's contributions to the local FRC community and to the Manor and Austin communities. Just yesterday, I was modifying parts for one of our sponsors on our "new" 15 year old Haas Mill. We've been to the F1 track for events. We've been to Capitol Hill in DC, and members of our team testified before the Texas Legislature. We've gone from a portable classroom to a 3000 square foot shop and classroom facility. And, we did it without needing to pass a special bond measure. We've inspired at team (4610) to take on the FRC challenge fully, and they've inspired a team (5503) to do the same. Do you have any idea how involved 2789 is in TRR and the Austin Kickoff? All those social events in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the planning committee, the workshops, the Field Elements. Oh, and the President of the United States visited us. We didn't visit him. He visited us.

Do we have a Chairman's Award or Engineering Inspiration Award to show for this? No. Does that mean we didn't do it? No. Are we a success? I think so.

But, these are things I know because I'm on the team. There's more beyond what I'm mentioning here, too. However, I'm often surprised at teams, some relatively seasoned, who don't know half of what I just mentioned about 2789. I, therefore, as an honest thinker must conclude that what I know about a team from the outside is a mere fraction of what they are on the inside. For me, it's superficial and unfair to judge another team based on what I see. And for them to judge my team without walking in our shoes is equally bad, IMHO.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

On a broader scale, I think 2017 is also the timeframe that a decent amount of other regions are either looking at or being encouraged to look at for their own district rollouts, so pushing it back past that might end up with Texas behind the curve of other regions (if the rumors I've been hearing are accurate).

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Jeffrey... that's _awesome_ info about 2789, I didn't know that about your team!

So in my way of thinking I'd put 2789 as a Type-A team [UPDATED/changed to Type-B per Bobby Garcia's post below] - "A - Teams that are a _program_ with reliable and continual support and funding. Same as football and marching band."

And "A" teams have a lot of latitude as to what their activities and purpose for existence can be--hence the entire spectrum of team personalities that exist in these A program teams.

I'd _love_ 3481 to be a Type-A and to see what our personality would settle into, and we're incrementally moving there, but the bottom-line we're still Type-B - "B - Teams that exist because at least one adult _wills it_ to exist."

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I caution against making assumptions with viability and teams. Our team meets your conditions A and B, and as far as accomplishments, you can look at Jeff's post above. All that considered, our team folded 3, that's right THREE times between the start of this current school year and Kickoff, in spite of the fact that we had met conditions A & B, and in spite of what we've been able to accomplish.

Every year I make connections with people on other teams that leave me awestruck when they tell me details about how their team operates, and that goes for both established teams and rookie teams alike. My experience has taught me that as many different teams as there are active, that's how many different sets of conditional statement situations exist for what makes a "type" of team, regardless of how big or small their team number is.

As mentioned previously, if all teams had to pay were registration, that's true...but when you factor in travel, food, lodging, those numbers look different for some teams...especially when it comes to paying for two events, and then possibly having to travel to a state championship, and then to world championship.

In all honesty, I haven't been a big proponent of the district model, or UIL for that matter. As it stands right now, my school is a separate school from the main comprehensive high school in our district, and our students participate in UIL programs at the other high school in our district. We have concerns about how the UIL situation would affect our team. In terms of the district model, I can remember scrambling to secure money for champs the year we qualified, doing two scrambles for two championships does not sound appealing to me, particularly after this year, in which we've lost teacher mentors and lost significant sponsors...I'm not saying that I'm out picketing, or threatening to throw all our efforts into another competition or anything like that, I'm just saying that I have legitimate concerns.

As with most aspects about this experience, the UIL & the Texas District model talk further confirm that while I love the FRC competition, I love the people in the FRC community more.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Bobby... I'm assuming then that this had to do with funding and/or lack of reliable support from the school?

I see you dropped down to 1 regional from your usual 2... that could hurt a bit, unfortunately.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

In Texas, here's, in my mind, the teams that are Type-A... I'm purposely leaving some teams out--plus I don't know ALL the Texas teams' profiles... I'd like others to add to the list if they'd like to:

"A - Teams that are a _program_ with reliable and continual support and funding. SAME as football and marching band."

118 Robonauts
148 Robowranglers
457 Grease Monkeys
624 CRyptonite
1477 Texas Torque
2158 ausTINCANS
2468 Team Appreciate
2848 All Sparks
3847 Spectrum

Pretty sure I've got it right on these teams... anyone want to add some more teams?

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We lost most of the teachers that were involved with the program for a variety of reasons unrelated to FRC & our main sponsors changed their funding priorities with our school district and it hit us pretty hard. We still have solid financial support from our school as well as two class periods for robotics AND an entire graduation pathway/program of study built around kids getting the STEM endorsement for graduation based on the robotics program, but now it's down to just myself and a teacher on our campus, and the two engineers we've got.

It hurt A LOT. We also had to back out of Remix at the last minute because that was one of the weekends our team fell apart. We lost several students over the course of all this, some of whom had been with the team for more than just a year or two.

...and all of this in spite of accomplishments, or support, or finances, or machine shop upgrades, or experience. This past year has taught me all too well just how delicate and just how strong our program really is.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I agree completely and this is what needs to happen, honest and open discussion regarding both districts and UIL because the potential impact is enormous.

BTW, I am glad you guys stuck it out and made it through the hard times you faced. I can't imagine how I would feel if my team folded for reasons beyond my control...

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Phil, you have far more confidence in the integrity and consistency of politically appointed competitive athletics organizations than I do.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Not at all. That was more a statement of what I thought would be good for the FRC community. We recently went through some silliness with the people who run the Houston YMCA aquatics program so I would not expect that UIL would be any better. My mother-in-law would say that many of these people "don't have enough to be in charge of" so they impose themselves on us.

I am sorry that we don't get to play with your team this year. Hopefully we can meet up at an off-season event.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Likewise, Phil! We plan to attend as many off-season events as we can this year, so I'm sure we'll run into each other at some point!

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

;)

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

As posted in another thread...

I know I am not the norm, I live in South West Texas, 150 miles from any other FRC team. We are 150 miles from San Antonio, 180 from Laredo, 230 from Austin, 350 from Houston, 350 from Lubbock and 430 from Dallas. The actual registration cost of the regional is not at large as the travel and hotel costs. I appreciate the grants we have receive, as they cover almost all of our registration fees. If Texas goes to the district model, maybe they will consider travel costs for those teams that travel longer distances, which require hotel, meals, etc. that local teams do not have.


Mr. B

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We're in the same boat. We actually had money to register for two regionals this year, thanks to some generous donations from our sponsors, but due to the travel expenses, it just wasn't feasible. Simply going to Dallas or Lubbock for a weekend with ~8 kids and three mentors already adds up to $3,000-4,000. I would hope that Districts would lead to more events per geographic region within the state of Texas, but with only one other Texas team within 100 miles of us, it seems unlikely at best. The extra travel expenses could cripple or destroy teams that are already struggling to get by.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Same here. We (and one fellow local team) are just over 100 miles from Houston and almost 200 miles from Dallas. My team travels with 20 - 25 students. Travel and hotel winds up running us right at $4500.00 (this does not include mentor hotel rooms). Not sure what we would do about doubling the travel costs...other side of the coin is that we would get to participate in two events...

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We're a Michigan team with about the same number of students (or slightly less), and we typically go to events that are 150 miles (Escanaba) and ~380 miles away (TC). (and last year, we got to add MSC [550 mi] and CMP [680 mi] to the mix) So it's doable, though we're near the extreme edge of travel distance in Michigan.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We're traveling to Dallas and Lubbock from San Antonio for 2 of our 3 regionals this season.

It doesn't get much farther travel than that for potential district competitions which would be a minimum of 2 for the current price of a present-day regional if they follow the template rolled out in other states.

Although we're a Type-B team (see my earlier posts) we are rather well funded because we hustle for $$ each year and we operate with a shop donated with zero overhead.

3481 does not pay for students or mentors travel costs. In fact, if we had a $100k yearly budget I believe we still wouldn't pay for students or mentors. We do have to pay for 1 school chaperone's transportation and room but not their food. We spread that school person's cost over what the students pay. Mentors pay directly their expenses.

[EDITED]The reason for this approach, 3481's internal opinion only, is that paying for the travel costs of attending FRC competitions produces students and volunteer mentors who are truly interested and vested in the team. This may change starting next season, but probably not because then how do you chose which students and which mentors get their travel expenses covered and which do not?

Yes we have students here and there that have financial challenges so the senior team mentors get together and confidentially cover that student's costs.

We charge each student no more than $175.00 when traveling to Texas regionals and we make sure they bring $100.00 for Lunch and Dinner. We make sure we stay at inexpensive hotels that serve breakfast as part of the room cost. We put 4 students in a room. We rent CAPPS white vans. We leave Wednesday right after school from our shop but not before a nice buffet meal arranged by parents and traditionally this is trays of Panda Express--this way the first meal students have to buy is Thursday Lunch.

I believe this approach takes travel woes, at least for 3481, off the table other than how far are you willing to drive.

Hope this is helpful info...

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I do not doubt that it's doable and I applaud your team for being able to fundraise that well :) .

What we are really saying (or at least what I am saying) is that the discussion should happen in such a way that teams have time to start working on how to shift to the district system in regards to their own funding/travel issues and restrictions. The reason being is that we all keep talking about 'rumors' and 'I have heard from someone who'. If Texas is planning the shift for the 2017 season (only put that year out there because several have said it needs to happen no later than that) I need to start planning now for changes in my funding structure, how we spend money, and team structure (to accommodate travel).

Michael:
I am not sure of your team structure in terms of school affiliation. My team is directly tied to my high school which for us changes the rules a little (remember each school district sets their own rules regarding certain things).

For instance, in order for the absence for competition to be excused we have to register it as student travel. Because we are a team recognized by our school this means we have to take yellow dogs or charter buses (charters we would have to pay for out of our budget) students are not allowed travel in personal vehicles. The yellow dog costs us $3.00/mile and the driver is $9.00/hr. The driver must be paid 24/7 for the time they are with us because that is considered 'on call' time in case of emergency. This is district policy and non-negotiable.

This is the first year we are not paying student meals and even that is being called into question by my district because we are required to pay for the bus driver's meals. As far as covering mentor's hotels we always saw it as our way of saying thank you to the people who dedicate significant amounts of time away from their families to help us succeed.

And while I know you did not intend the comment the way I initially read it (I in fact had to reread it twice to appropriately understand what you were trying to convey) please know that my students and mentors are equally invested in what we do. If we required students to pay for their own travel, meals, etc. I would lose probably 2/3 my team due to financial issues and those are the very students we are trying hardest to reach.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Correct. I didn't mean any offense by that... just stating how _we_ look at it on 3481... just sharing _our_ internal thoughts and approaches to see if that's helpful to other teams.

We are affiliated with Brandeis HS/Northside ISD and we don't have the kind of restrictions from the district you shared. Your restrictions certainly change the travel calculus BIG time--I learned something I didn't know, so thanks for sharing that info.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I'd be interested to know what the teams that have >$40k annual budgets do or don't do for their students and mentors on travel costs.

Maybe someone could weigh-in if they know?

>>I'll start it off... 3481 does not pay for students or mentors travel costs. One exception is the required school chaperone who's travel and room are paid for by the students. The district pays for the chaperone's meals.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

3847 tries to split travel costs for both mentors and students.

In most cases we have students pay for their hotel rooms. This allows some students to pay for their own bed if they don't want to sleep 4 to a room. The schools/team normally pays for transportation.

The mentors don't pay for their hotel rooms but that's normally not a big expense as we usually only need two mentor/coach rooms, we share as mentors too. It's not like we are in the room for a long time on most trips anyway. We also have far fewer mentors than most teams.

Everyone always pays for their own food, mostly because the paperwork would be annoying if we paid for mentors/coaches food. I put enough of my own money into the team that dealing with the paper work to pay for food for me isn't worth my time. On occasion we'll have the team buy everyone's meal if it's pizza or something that the group is buying. We're pretty flexible.

For students who are struggling to meet costs we'll have the team pay for their hotel sometimes but this has been very rare. We can do some of these things because we are private schools and don't have as many students with finical hardships as other teams.

We also don't have any registration fees to be on the team, that way students can be on the team and not have to make an up front finical commitment, if they don't want to go on a trip or something they aren't paying for it unless they attend.

This clearly won't work for all teams but it's how we have been operating for the past 3 years with pretty good success.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

We do not pay for student travel or food (out of town) but everything for the Dallas Regional is covered. We try to pay for younger mentors travel costs but not food. We have money set aside for students who need a little help. The district pays for teacher travel. And when we travel to Nationals the district pays some (usually large) portion of the travel costs.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Michael,

No worries! :) Like you I am learning more myself and I do appreciate you sharing how your team is operating. It is giving me some fresh ideas of my own which we all need.

I know that many teams sponsor local workshops etc. for coaches but have not been able to personally attend one. What would be really nice is if FIRST in Texas could host a statewide webinar or conference for all the team coaches/mentors in which we could discuss the logistics of moving to a district model and UIL.

...Or maybe :D a forum on the FIRST in Texas website for us to voice concerns and ask questions. I think it might open all of our eyes to the work that has to be put in on the part of the volunteers and regional directors when planning a regional let alone planning multiple district events and a state championship. And maybe it would open their eyes to the potential issues many of our teams may face that they have not yet considered.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Why wouldn't you start planning for it now anyway? Teams will have less time to start working on the shift if they put it off until they hear official timing.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Well, at this point there is nothing from any official avenue (or at least any that I have seen) that Texas is moving to the district system. It is all speculation and rumors. We know there may be talks but no one has 'officially' acknowledged anything more than that (once again to my knowledge). Until there is official word some districts may not be willing to discuss the issue with their mentors/coaches.

Now, before you say that it is ridiculous that a district would behave that way I have vast evidence to the contrary on how the educational system in this state works; don't get me wrong, I love my state and teaching high school but we definitely have our flaws. For instance, six years ago we went through a major standards re-write that completely revamped all CTE (Career Technology Education) courses. Districts knew that the re-writes were actively happening and going to be implemented within a very short timeframe yet the majority did little to nothing to prepare for the changes. They took (and many of them still do) a, 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it', attitude.

I understand what you are saying but (and maybe this is just my shortsightedness :o) it is difficult for me to plan for the future based on rumors of things that may or may not happen.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Alright everyone, first off, I want to mention that these are my opinions on the situation. In no way is any of this anyone else's point of view but my own.

A little history about my years in FIRST: Started off on a rag-tag FRC team back in 2008 numbered 1817. This team, even though it's located wayyyy out in the middle of nowhere (West Texas) is still around today. I eventually made my way out to south Dallas (3730) and eventually a bit farther north of downtown Dallas (3005). Last year I moved up to North Carolina and am working with a team (2655) up here.

From what I gather (and heard), the financial stimulus provided by JCPenney and The Texas Workforce Commission was not allocated wisely throughout those years (2011 ~ 2013). Think of it like a contract created between a corporation and the government. An estimate is drawn up, money is allocated, and work begins. If the contractor finishes the job with money to spare, then the money should be returned to the government. This almost never happens, and usually leads to massive (generally unwise) spending near the end of the contract period. I'll leave translating the metaphor to you, but I'm sure you have an idea of what happened.

This had the effect of creating LOTS of teams that were well-funded (temporarily), but did not have the leadership to create a good robotics program. They were just started to boost numbers! All entry fees paid, free KoP, and some teams even received a travel stipend! I see lots of discussion about finances in this thread, but nobody mentions some other needs that teams have. Things like: knowledgeable mentors, corporate sponsors, school district/community support, parental support, etc.

Let's be honest here guys. Lots of teams started in Texas during those years did little more than build the kitbot frame. Go back and watch the Lubbock, Dallas, and San Antonio regionals. It's clear that the kids didn't get anything out of the experience, teachers were volunTOLD to run a robotics program, school administrations "lost" money provided to teams by the grant, there was no technical guidance to speak of, and both mentors and students became overwhelmed with the amount of work needed to keep the program alive. If you don't have technical leadership OR financial support OR mentor motivation, teams WILL NOT SURVIVE!

Allow me to pick on 1817 for a minute. They're out in the middle of nowhere, yet they're thriving. Why is that? The reason is that a very driven set of individuals laid out the groundwork for the team many years ago. Couple that with extensive support from the university/faculty, and you have a great robotics program! (Technical Leadership + Financial Support + Mentor Motivation!!!!)

Why are other programs winning out over FRC? Fact of the matter is that FRC is expensive in more ways than one. It takes time, dedication, skill, and money. If you start a team in a tiny town hundreds of miles away from any sort of metropolis, force the team to travel to an obligatory regional when 80%+ of the kids are using food vouchers for school lunches, and expect the kids to fund-raise when they have to go work out on the farm after class (I've mentored kids in this situation), you're crazy. I'm sorry, but any robotics program with requirements similar to FRC WILL FAIL!

This is why programs like VEX, GEAR, BEST, FLL, etc. are taking off. They're CHEAP (both financially and technically)! They don't require as much of a commitment or investment from teachers! It's not as intimidating! Kids don't have to participate in competitions to get something out of the program! A parent/teacher can run the entire thing out of their classroom/garage! You can get a team registered for an event, a single robot kit, and the playing field for VEX, GEAR, and FLL for well under $1000. If I recall correctly BEST also falls well under that $1000 cap, if they have to pay anything at all. Compare this to the ~$6k registration fee + $2k for the robot in FRC and it's easy to see why teams in rural areas are moving away.

None of this is a secret. Any "northern" model DOES NOT APPLY to Texas. The distances are too great, the cost of travel + lodging for three days sometimes doubles (or triples) the regional registration costs, rural communities in Texas are sparse and primarily agricultural-based, technical mentorship is extremely difficult to come by, and school districts are very reluctant to allocate resources (money, transportation, teachers, CLASSROOMS) due to restricted budgets and heavy sports influence. By no means is this a catch-all. There are lots of school districts, mentors, and companies that are willing to help out teams, BUT they tend to be located near areas of industry and development (Read: Cities). Now on top of it all you want to impose district competitions where it's unlikely, but possible that teams from (for example) El Paso may end up being forced to compete in Houston? Come on...

Let's play a game:

Try this: Without using any search tools, name 5 Texas teams that have qualified to attend champs in the past 5 years and are not located within roughly 30 miles of a city with a population greater than 150k. Tough, eh? Here's a list of cities to get you started. (I'm purposely leaving out instances like Woodlands vs Houston.) I can name two: 148 (Greenville is 40ish miles from Dallas) and 4063 (not counting Acuña, Del Rio's sister city in Mexico - Pop 145k)

Bonus round: Once again, without using any search tools, name 5 Texas teams that have qualified to attend champs in the past 10 years and are not located within 30ish miles of a corporate sponsor which provides technical knowledge (Boeing, NASA, L3, TI, TTU, etc) I can't name any.

I see some sort of correlation here, guys.

I applaud teams like TrixR4Kidz. They're definitely an outlier. I grew up in Eagle Pass, (40 miles from Del Rio, 15k residents, 120 miles from San Antonio, on the border with Mexico) and I hope that they continue to participate in future competitions given their proximity to other teams. I have no idea how they're doing it, but I'm willing to bet that a large part of their strategy is mentor and parent motivation.

TLDR: Don't treat Texas like Michigan. I can drive across your puny state in less time than it takes me to get from Lubbock to Dallas without traffic. You guys have it easy. Instead of trying to shoehorn FRC into schools, try starting FLL teams and build the FRC program from there. FRC teams are failing in Texas because of much more than money.

Maybe by the time those kids are in high school, we'll be able to mentor via the internet or something? I'd love to see a heat map of active teams in Texas.

P.S.

I have my theories... Some involving Houston being... Houston, and the regional being located on the other side of the state (10 hours from Lubbock, 11 hours from El Paso).

-Juan

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7...2!2d47.1211331

(the rest of your post was fantastic)

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Thanks to many on this thread for sharing insights on Texas Robotics.
I'm still confused why FIRST has not cleared the waitlist for the Lone Star Regional ... hopefully it happens in the next few days.

Growth with Texas Robotics is still moving, but in different directions than other states.

FTC in Texas :
81 teams in 2009 season
364 teams in 2014-2015 season

VEX (VRC) in Texas:
106 teams in 2009-2010 season
519 teams in 2014-2015 Season

FRC in Texas:
91 teams in 2009 season
137 teams in 2015 Season

VEXiq in its 2nd year is around 100 teams in Texas.
FLL is so big that I can't find numbers for it ! :eek:

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Where are you getting your numbers? I would love to look at growth trends from 2008 - 2010 and 2011 vs 2015. One would expect a large change around the 2011 stimulus and an abrupt loss in teams after the TWC money dried up.

The numbers you're showing seem to support my argument above. :rolleyes:

Instead of asking why FRC team numbers are decreasing, let's ask: What should team numbers be like if we didn't have the stimulus "bubble"?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Talk to the Lone Star Regional planning committee if you want to know. The responsibiilty for waitlists shouldn't be placed on the generic big FIRST organization. So far as I know, each Regional waitlist belongs to the group running that Regional.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Alan, we've done that. According to everything I know, it's not in the regional's hands.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Yes it is the RD or local committee who determines who gets in off the wait list.

In the case of Lone Star it is particularly bad because there are fewer teams on the wait list than there are reserved spots, so everyone on the wait list should have a spot. I'm surprised that FIRST hasn't been pressuring them to make the decision. Someone at FIRST actually manually moves them from the wait list to registered for an event. I know as I've been included on the emails to HQ requesting a particular team be moved from the wait list to the registered list in the PNW district.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Juan,

Amen and well said; wish I could have put all that together in a post as well as you did. You nailed every point right on the head.

I will add one team to the list without Googling it: 1807 The Dapper Dans. They made it to Worlds a couple of years ago via Hub City. Based in Kountze, Tx they were right at 15-20 miles from Beaumont and I think 90+ from Houston. Unfortunately this year I cannot find them registered anywhere in FRC. I don't know if they folded or moved to FTC seems like I heard a rumor though that they may have made a shift to Vex.

As far as clearing waitlists...I have also heard that it is in the hands of FIRST HQ not the local RD and personally speaking I think FIRST HQ is where the decision should be.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

It is the choice of the RD and/or local contact. They must send an email or make a call to HQ to have them manually move the teams. That is where it should be because the local people should know the specifics of the teams on the wait list and have a better understanding of who really needs to get into an event. There is a protocol where rookies are first to be moved from the wait list, teams with no events, and then it is discretionary and many factors can be considered. In the past FIRST has done it on their own and that led to problems, ie veteran teams were moved off of the list while there were rookie teams still trying to make it happen, that we locally were aware of and were actively working with. In that case there was still room for the rookie team but had they kept moving teams off there wouldn't have been a place for the rookie team which is one of the reasons for the reserved spots.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

The email that is sent to notify teams that they are off of the wait list comes from HQ, so that might lead people to believe that the decision is made by them.

The Finger Lakes Regional in Rochester, NY was in a similar scenario as Lone Star. We were put on the wait list on the opening day of the second regional registration, along with about 9 other teams. We didn't get off of the wait list until the middle of December, and 6 wait list/reserved spots were even converted back into open capacity. I can't really figure out why there was such a delay in getting off of the wait list.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Thanks! It's the sad truth, but what can you do. IMHO, if you look at what Dean first wanted from the FIRST programs, starting teams off early and getting them hooked on robotics at an early age is what FIRST is all about. Kids that grow up with robotics are more likely to have the motivation to pursue more advanced robotics programs later on in life. It's the job of those (current and future) FRC teams to motivate the students to continue their education beyond FRC.

Pretty sure that the wait list discussion might be better served in another thread? Mods?

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

I realize now we are talking about two different things. I agree that it is the RDs decision to who gets in off the waitlist. However it's my understanding that is HQ's decision as to when that process happens for each event.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

The way it happens is the RD makes the decision, or in the case of the PNW district the person who does that duty of the RD's job, then that person sends an email to HQ requesting the move. Depending on the time of the day that the request is made the team is moved off of the wait list that or the next day.

On multiple occasions I've been involved in the discussion of which teams to move off of which wait list and then watched the email being sent. Now depending on the work load at HQ it may take an extra day or two but in all of the cases I've been involved in HQ did it by the next day. I do not receive an email from HQ stating that a team has been moved off of the wait list.

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

Thank you for the clarification. I am one who tends to think of FIRST as the organizing 'company' so to speak and as such much of the 'inner workings' are somewhat of a mystery to me still.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies in terms of how 'clearing the waitlist' works. If the waitlist has not been cleared it may simply be a matter of the emails not being sent yet and the website updated.

Thank you for the insight

Re: Texas Registration 2015
 

624 and 1477 _now_ registered for Lone Star.

118 is not, though? 118 currently registered for Dallas and Sacramento only.

3847 has already stated they cannot compete at Lone Star do to Easter Weekend and being a Catholic School team.

--Michael Blake