Chief Delphi
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Regional Competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Registration 2016 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138273)

Mark McLeod 28-10-2015 17:26
Re: Registration 2016
 
We have passed the total number of teams that played last season (2892) at around 3:30pm today.

sciencenuetzel 28-10-2015 17:33
Re: Registration 2016
 
So I see that most district events get initially capped at 30 and they save space for rookies and then it becomes a wait list.

My question is how many teams do they allow total? Is it different based on the venue?

Mark McLeod 28-10-2015 17:54
Re: Registration 2016
 
Typically, District events shoot for 40 teams.
It's a number that evenly divides by 12 matches per team and generally fits into the smaller venues used.
40 teams * 12 matches per team /6 teams playing per match = 80 match event
80 Qual matches ~= 9.5 hours of play.

Some venues might be smaller, because they may not have enough space for spectators or pits.

Events can always add that extra rookie or veteran to accommodate special circumstances.
You can see last year's district event totals here.

Christopher149 28-10-2015 18:56
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1502076)
Typically, District events shoot for 40 teams.
It's a number that evenly divides by 12 matches per team and generally fits into the smaller venues used.
40 teams * 12 matches per team /6 teams playing per match = 80 match event
80 Qual matches ~= 9.5 hours of play.

Some venues might be smaller, because they may not have enough space for spectators or pits.

Events can always add that extra rookie or veteran to accommodate special circumstances.
You can see last year's district event totals here.
The list of teams in Michigan indicates there are 396 teams with a permanent number (which I think means that many are signed up for an event) and 25 with a temporary number. So, where is event #20 going to be?

396 teams * 2 plays / (40 teams/event) = 19.8 events.

Mr V 28-10-2015 19:23
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencenuetzel (Post 1502069)
So I see that most district events get initially capped at 30 and they save space for rookies and then it becomes a wait list.

My question is how many teams do they allow total? Is it different based on the venue?
It all depends on the district and sometimes the event. For example this year the PNW events are 36 teams while last season is was 32 teams. Other areas have 40 team events. This year the PNW only reserved 4 spots but other areas reserved up to 10 spots.

Note this season there will only be 9 PNW events while last year there were 10. Many of the venues were selected on the basis of being able to accommodate 40 teams.

GaryVoshol 28-10-2015 20:22
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1502076)
Typically, District events shoot for 40 teams.
It's a number that evenly divides by 12 matches per team and generally fits into the smaller venues used.
40 teams * 12 matches per team /6 teams playing per match = 80 match event
80 Qual matches ~= 9.5 hours of play.
The math is even easier than that.

12 matches per team / 6 teams per match = 2

So the number of matches is twice the number of teams, no matter how many teams there are. And never any surrogates.

Mark McLeod 29-10-2015 07:55
Re: Registration 2016
 
1 Attachment(s)
2900 teams

P.J. 29-10-2015 12:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1502095)
The list of teams in Michigan indicates there are 396 teams with a permanent number (which I think means that many are signed up for an event) and 25 with a temporary number. So, where is event #20 going to be?

396 teams * 2 plays / (40 teams/event) = 19.8 events.
And assuming all of those temporary numbers become actual teams, Michigan will actually need 21 (maybe even 22) events. If my math is correct.

Mark McLeod 29-10-2015 12:41
Re: Registration 2016
 
Michigan currently has 363 teams registered for event(s).
So right now it requires 19 events and has room for only 17 more teams.

Last season Michigan ended with 345 teams.
At this time last year Michigan had 326 teams registered.
So, 19 more teams or not quite 6%.

If growth from this point in time were the same as last year, that would produce ~385 teams needing 20 events to house (plus room for 15 additional teams on top of that).

Zebra_Fact_Man 29-10-2015 21:39
Re: Registration 2016
 
Fun fact about 2016 FiM teams:
over half of all FiM FRC teams have existed less than 4 years. Yep, more than 50% of current FiM did not exist when this year's seniors were freshmen (currently 185+).

Knufire 30-10-2015 02:59
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1502333)
Fun fact about 2016 FiM teams:
over half of all FiM FRC teams have existed less than 4 years. Yep, more than 50% of current FiM did not exist when this year's seniors were freshmen (currently 185+).
And I thought there were a lot of teams when I left...

Mark McLeod 30-10-2015 09:27
Re: Registration 2016
 
For comparison, for all of FRC ~40% of teams are less than 4 years old.

logank013 30-10-2015 13:34
Re: Registration 2016
 
What if registration was more like a draft? This would probably never happen but, it does have some advantages. Please note that the event setting in my analogy aren't real. They just work for the analogy. Say Team A is in KY and Team B is in WV. Team A signed up for their first event in OH during week 2 and Team B signed up for their first event in NC in week 4. Due to the slowness of both teams, the top events on their "Second Event" list are filled up. Team A Notices a not filled event in week 2 in MO but they can't go to 2 events in the same week. Team B notices a not filled event in week 4 that is in PA but they can't go to 2 events in the same week either. So Team A calls up Team be and they decide they want to trade the first event they've signed up for. So team A takes Team B's event in week 4 in NC and signs up for the event they could do in week 2 in MO. Team B takes Team A's event in week 2 in OH and signs up for the other event in week 4 that they could attend. Make Sense?

Taylor 30-10-2015 13:36
Re: Registration 2016
 
If you want to play that shell game with 3,000 teams, go for it.

EricH 30-10-2015 20:45
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1502413)
If you want to play that shell game with 3,000 teams, go for it.
Aye. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Regional Directors in question were able to work something out, BUT it'd probably be an "interesting" discussion to put it mildly.

Nemo 30-10-2015 22:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
"Shell game" might not be a fun method, but it's definitely realistic to have teams submit a ranked list of picks for each round and let an algorithm sort most of them out. Using geographical distances and team preference rankings, a cleverly designed algorithm could take care of most of the placements in each round, and the regional directors could use human judgment to sort out the rest just like they do now.

orangemoore 30-10-2015 22:12
Re: Registration 2016
 
Do we have a chance at hitting 3000 teams this year?

EricH 30-10-2015 22:13
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1502465)
"Shell game" might not be a fun method, but it's definitely realistic to have teams submit a ranked list of picks for each round and let an algorithm sort most of them out. Using geographical distances and team preference rankings, a cleverly designed algorithm could take care of most of the placements in each round, and the regional directors could use human judgment to sort out the rest just like they do now.
I was thinking of something similar, but along the lines of all teams declaring a home regional (or having it assigned by geography or past regional attendance history, if no declaration was made), and their first event would be their home regional unless they specifically opted to NOT register for their home event in the first round--and the assignments for that could be done just prior to registration opening, just so everybody--particularly RDs--could see what would fill up. When one of the biggest regionals in FRC is the third event to fill by a matter of minutes, something needs to happen...

And then for second round, open registration for any regional. But if a team landed on the waitlist for their designated home regional, then that would be a trigger to the RD in question to contact the team/move them up the waitlist/otherwise pull strings.

Zebra_Fact_Man 31-10-2015 09:33
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangemoore (Post 1502468)
Do we have a chance at hitting 3000 teams this year?
Yes. As of when I'm typing this, there are 2957 teams. MI still has 22 pre-rookie teams in queue according to this. That leaves the rest of the world to cover only 21 teams. Seems manageable.

Michael Corsetto 31-10-2015 11:01
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1502495)
Yes. As of when I'm typing this, there are 2957 teams. MI still has 22 pre-rookie teams in queue according to this. That leaves the rest of the world to cover only 21 teams. Seems manageable.
Once again, Michigan doing all the heavy lifting in the USA. Way to go guys, you make FIRST awesome.

-Mike

Doug Frisk 31-10-2015 12:04
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1502495)
Yes. As of when I'm typing this, there are 2957 teams. MI still has 22 pre-rookie teams in queue according to this. That leaves the rest of the world to cover only 21 teams. Seems manageable.
Pretty sure Minnesota has that covered, and then some.

Kingland093 31-10-2015 18:44
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1502512)
Pretty sure Minnesota has that covered, and then some.
Do we still have a lot of teams that haven't signed up yet? All of our events are on waitlist

Doug Frisk 31-10-2015 19:02
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingland093 (Post 1502564)
Do we still have a lot of teams that haven't signed up yet? All of our events are on waitlist
Sure looks that way. http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-o...eam%20N umber

Now, if all those teams actually register for an event is an open question, but I count 26 new teams in MN that have yet to register.

ehochstein 31-10-2015 20:00
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1502569)
Sure looks that way. http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-o...eam%20N umber

Now, if all those teams actually register for an event is an open question, but I count 26 new teams in MN that have yet to register.
The majority of those are 'ghost teams' I would only assume that the ones that already have a name will compete this year (if we're lucky). The rest are usually someone figuring out TIMS for the first time.

Aren Siekmeier 01-11-2015 04:09
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehochstein (Post 1502581)
The majority of those are 'ghost teams' I would only assume that the ones that already have a name will compete this year (if we're lucky). The rest are usually someone figuring out TIMS for the first time.
There are 47 teams on that MN list that are not registered for an event, 26 of which have no number, 5 of which have a name and location listed. Add to those 5 a good chunk of the 8 teams from 2015 who don't have an event yet (all registered in TIMS for 2016), as well as some of the 13 other teams with no event (returners who didn't compete last year and have registered in TIMS for 2016), and that could fill out the ~20 teams needed to hit 3k. And that's just MN, I'm sure other regions will bring a lot to the table too. In all, there are almost 500 teams in US (plus more internationally I'm sure) who are registered on TIMS but have no event yet.

2960 teams now.

Mr V 01-11-2015 14:03
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehochstein (Post 1502581)
The majority of those are 'ghost teams' I would only assume that the ones that already have a name will compete this year (if we're lucky). The rest are usually someone figuring out TIMS for the first time.
Yup, lots of people who are trying to register FLL teams seem to register in the FRC system, every year I see 4 or 5 of those who were trying to register FLL in WA.

Christopher149 01-11-2015 16:13
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1502657)
Yup, lots of people who are trying to register FLL teams seem to register in the FRC system, every year I see 4 or 5 of those who were trying to register FLL in WA.
And I've seen at least two schools attempt to register FTC teams through FRC this year in Michigan.

Jon Stratis 01-11-2015 23:38
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1502569)
Sure looks that way. http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-o...eam%20N umber

Now, if all those teams actually register for an event is an open question, but I count 26 new teams in MN that have yet to register.
I can tell you that a lot of those aren't going to convert to teams. Unfortunately, the registration process has a couple of holes you can fall into when clicking through the screens, and I know for certain that some of our teams fell into them and started fresh a time or two before getting it right. Each of those "attempts" would show up as a team without a number.

Mark McLeod 03-11-2015 09:54
Re: Registration 2016
 
3000 teams

Aren Siekmeier 03-11-2015 10:13
Re: Registration 2016
 
Michigan over 400 :ahh:

P.J. 03-11-2015 10:37
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren Siekmeier (Post 1502925)
Michigan over 400 :ahh:
So it would appear Michigan will have to add that 20th event.

notmattlythgoe 03-11-2015 10:39
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.J. (Post 1502928)
So it would appear Michigan will have to add that 20th event.
Has anybody run into this issue before? Going over capacity after registrations are pretty much finished?

Basel A 03-11-2015 10:40
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.J. (Post 1502928)
So it would appear Michigan will have to add that 20th event.
It's my understanding that Gail has simply been waiting until sufficient teams register before confirming the addition of more events (with the necessary details like date, venue, etc., having already been worked out for the events). I know there's at least one event that's just waiting for an OK.

Allison K 03-11-2015 10:42
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1502929)
Has anybody run into this issue before? Going over capacity after registrations are pretty much finished?
Michigan has added events late in the season the past three or four years in a row. I think in 2012 Bedford didn't show up until after kickoff actually. I assume it's as Basal mentioned above, details start getting worked out ahead of teams actually registering and then the events get officially added as they are needed.

P.J. 03-11-2015 11:09
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1502930)
It's my understanding that Gail has simply been waiting until sufficient teams register before confirming the addition of more events (with the necessary details like date, venue, etc., having already been worked out for the events). I know there's at least one event that's just waiting for an OK.
That's what I figured, as that seems to have been the practice in the past. I'm not worried about them having one lined up, it's more just my curiosity as to where it will be.

first3234 03-11-2015 11:50
Re: Registration 2016
 
I think if they add another district to Michigan it will be on the west side of the state then the east side of the state just because of how many district competitions there are over on the east end of the state that's my guess

logank013 03-11-2015 13:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by first3234 (Post 1502939)
I think if they add another district to Michigan it will be on the west side of the state then the east side of the state just because of how many district competitions there are over on the east end of the state that's my guess
I've never heard of Michigan going to 2 districts but that isn't a bad idea. There are some drawbacks however. But has splitting Michigan into 2 districts been brought up before? I'm curious how the geographical split would split the powerhouse teams in Michigan.

notmattlythgoe 03-11-2015 13:07
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by logank013 (Post 1502956)
I've never heard of Michigan going to 2 districts but that isn't a bad idea. There are some drawbacks however. But has splitting Michigan into 2 districts been brought up before? I'm curious how the geographical split would split the powerhouse teams in Michigan.
Think they're talking about adding another event, not a whole new district.

logank013 03-11-2015 13:08
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe (Post 1502957)
Think he's talking about adding another event, not a whole new district.
Yep. Your right. Sorry for the misread but 2 Michigan districts would be interesting.

Taylor 03-11-2015 13:12
Re: Registration 2016
 
#splitchigan

Christopher149 03-11-2015 13:56
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1502959)
#splitchigan
I would not be surprised by a split MSC.

We know in 2015 that percentage-wise, Michigan would send ~70 teams to CMP, and MSC was 102 teams. Coming 2017 with SplitCMP, number of CMP teams will go from 600 to 800, so a 33% increase there means Michigan sends 93 teams (assuming constant ratio, but Michigan is still increasing fast).

So, maybe MSC West in the DeltaPlex and MSC East at EMU, about 60 teams each? Or put MSC in Cobo.

Hallry 03-11-2015 14:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1502959)
#splitchigan
#2Chigan

Richard Wallace 03-11-2015 15:31
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren Siekmeier (Post 1502925)
Michigan over 400 :ahh:
So proportionally, Michigan will have 80 teams at CMP. Ten per division. Game announcers will be saying "and from <locality> Michigan, Team <nnnn>" before more matches than not. Maybe they'll make a special announcement when a match does not feature a Michigan team. :rolleyes:

Nyxyxylyth 04-11-2015 08:53
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1502965)
I would not be surprised by a split MSC.

We know in 2015 that percentage-wise, Michigan would send ~70 teams to CMP, and MSC was 102 teams. Coming 2017 with SplitCMP, number of CMP teams will go from 600 to 800, so a 33% increase there means Michigan sends 93 teams (assuming constant ratio, but Michigan is still increasing fast).

So, maybe MSC West in the DeltaPlex and MSC East at EMU, about 60 teams each? Or put MSC in Cobo.
Splitting it would be nicer than another looooong day with octofinals.

Kevin Leonard 04-11-2015 09:29
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry (Post 1502967)
#2Chigan
#2Mich?
Its actually not a bad idea. But only once real inter-district play is in place. I'd hate to have teams that are friends from opposite peninsulas not getting to see each other anymore.

Christopher149 04-11-2015 09:51
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1503098)
#2Mich?
Its actually not a bad idea. But only once real inter-district play is in place. I'd hate to have teams that are friends from opposite peninsulas not getting to see each other anymore.
It'd be more like friends from Detroit / Not-Detroit not getting to see each other anymore. In 2016, there's only like 28 teams in the Upper Peninsula, and about 400 in the Lower Peninsula.

Jimmy Nichols 04-11-2015 10:35
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1503098)
I'd hate to have teams that are friends from opposite peninsulas not getting to see each other anymore.
Districts in general have caused that to happen for us traditional regional teams.

logank013 04-11-2015 11:09
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1503098)
#2Mich?
Its actually not a bad idea. But only once real inter-district play is in place. I'd hate to have teams that are friends from opposite peninsulas not getting to see each other anymore.
Isn't this what happens every time you make a district? The team I'm on in Indiana now never sees teams from our surrounding state like we used to.

Mark McLeod 04-11-2015 11:14
Re: Registration 2016
 
2 Attachment(s)
Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

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


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

tindleroot 04-11-2015 11:25
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by logank013 (Post 1503110)
Isn't this what happens every time you make a district? The team I'm on in Indiana now never sees teams from our surrounding state like we used to.
Michigan has been in districts since '09 and many teams have gotten very close over those years. Separation might be necessary soon, but it will be sad for many of those Michigan teams who will stop competing together.

first3234 04-11-2015 11:37
Re: Registration 2016
 
I think I should clear what I meant in my last post I didn't mean split Michigan in to two separate districts I meant a district competition

Taylor 04-11-2015 11:42
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by logank013 (Post 1503110)
Isn't this what happens every time you make a district? The team I'm on in Indiana now never sees teams from our surrounding state like we used to.
Which is why offseason events like CORI, RAGE, CAGE, Battle for the Bluegrass, etc., are so important.

Jared Russell 04-11-2015 12:02
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1503112)
Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

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


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

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

Lil' Lavery 04-11-2015 13:12
Re: Registration 2016
 
Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

Mark McLeod 04-11-2015 14:38
Re: Registration 2016
 
1 Attachment(s)
Looked at by System (District or Regional)
Teams registered to date

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

Andrew Schreiber 04-11-2015 14:50
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1503141)
Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.
And MAR/NE seems to have recently had low rookie growth partially due to the age of the region.

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

scottandme 04-11-2015 15:00
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1503125)
It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I find it very interesting that Michigan continues to see 20% year-over-year growth while MAR and NE are well below the average. I am a big proponent of districts for a lot of reasons, but it seems like their introduction alone has not had a major impact on growth trends.
In addition to the state funds - MAR and NE are pretty well established regions for FIRST. The "NJ" regional started in 1997, Philadelphia started in 1999. Using # of school districts/team or # of total students/team might show a better evaluation of FRC saturation in a region.

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

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

Hallry 04-11-2015 15:22
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottandme (Post 1503166)
Edit: Andrew beat me - here's data for MAR...
Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?

scottandme 04-11-2015 17:51
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry (Post 1503169)
Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?
Changed the data for clarity. All data is for teams currently registered for the 2016 season. Counted split-off teams as the year they started competing, so 193 counts as a 2013 rookie. 265 doesn't exist anymore, so they're not in the data.

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

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

Mark McLeod 04-11-2015 18:04
Re: Registration 2016
 
I did from 2013 on thinking that seniors this year would have started as freshmen for the 2013 season. Thinking that four years might be considered an "FRC Generation."

Jessi Kaestle 05-11-2015 13:30
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1503125)
It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.
I did this analysis for all of the Districts since forming. The full analysis can be found here.

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

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

logank013 05-11-2015 20:44
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle (Post 1503442)
as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

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

MrBasse 05-11-2015 20:55
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1503141)
Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.
It definitely doesn't hurt, but don't forget that every new team is started and mentored with the help and sometimes persistent prodding of a local veteran team. There is a strong community in Michigan that makes the growth possible. Hopefully sponsors can keep up with all this development.

Kevin Leonard 05-11-2015 21:31
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1503112)
Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

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


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

Koko Ed 05-11-2015 22:02
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1503572)
This tells me two things:
Michigan is incredible, and we need to step it up in New York.
Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.

Christopher149 06-11-2015 00:46
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1503585)
Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.
Rick Snyder at MSC

Jessi Kaestle 06-11-2015 08:34
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by logank013 (Post 1503559)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle (Post 1503442)
I did this analysis for all of the Districts since forming. The full analysis can be found here.

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

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%
I think I'm confused as to what the percents are showing? Are the decrease in growth each year or the increase in growth per year? Thanks
Sorry about the confusion. The data that I ported to CD shows only the growth from 2015 to 2016. Every district with the exception of MAR had positive growth for that period.

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

Jessica Boucher 06-11-2015 12:52
Re: Registration 2016
 
Mark, this may not be possible, but I would love to see if the data supports my "scorched earth" theory.

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

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

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

sciencenuetzel 06-11-2015 19:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?

Doug G 06-11-2015 19:16
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencenuetzel (Post 1503693)
Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?
Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this. I have heard that they pay attention to local teams and how many events each waitlisted team has registered for.

waialua359 06-11-2015 19:23
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencenuetzel (Post 1503693)
Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?
Its up to each committee.
I signed up for Hawaii yesterday for the waitlist, emailed the RD, they contacted FIRST this morning, and now I am on.
We are also on the waitlist for NY Tech Valley, emailed the RD who I knew from before, and was given some positive information.

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

-Glenn

Andrew Schreiber 06-11-2015 19:23
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug G (Post 1503695)
Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this. I have heard that they pay attention to local teams and how many events each waitlisted team has registered for.
It is entirely at the planning committee's discretion. Typically rookies get priority but it's not a hard and fast rule.

dag0620 06-11-2015 22:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug G (Post 1503695)
Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this.

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

PayneTrain 09-11-2015 23:59
Re: Registration 2016
 
Weird, Guilford County took a spot off its total count. Went from 31/33 to 31/32 some time in the last 24 hours.

mipo0707 10-11-2015 13:07
Re: Registration 2016
 
what regionals and districts have open spots still?
so many international teams at canadian regionals and so many canadians at regionals outside of canada

Mark McLeod 10-11-2015 13:25
Re: Registration 2016
 
You can see for yourself here: http://173.255.246.196/2016/
Do remember that there are generally more slots than shown that get served out to waitlisted teams, late registering rookies, etc.

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

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

Jimmy Nichols 10-11-2015 13:48
Re: Registration 2016
 
QCR has already let a team in off of waitlist. A Colombian Rookie team from Medellin, Team 6159.

Sunbun 10-11-2015 22:53
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1504296)
...
Dates -------------------- Event Name ---------Filled - Left - Total
...
30-Mar - 02-Apr -- Idaho Regional ---------------- 22 ---- 13 ---- 35
...

Dates -------------------- Event Name -------------------------------------------------- Filled - Left - Total
...
17-Mar - 19-Mar -- PCH District - Albany Event ----------------------------------------------- 18 -- 14 -- 32
18-Mar - 20-Mar -- NC District - UNC Asheville Event ----------------------------------------- 21 -- 15 -- 36
Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?

Hallry 10-11-2015 23:00
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbun (Post 1504376)
Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?
Yes. The ones I know of are the 2007 Brazil Pilot (15 teams) and the 2008 Brazil Regional (13 teams). Both of these events skipped the Quarterfinals.

Karthik 10-11-2015 23:12
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbun (Post 1504376)
Knowing how unlikely it is, has an official FRC event ever been run with under 24 teams (less than what makes up eight elimination alliances of three teams each)?
Waterloo 2005 ran with 24 teams, and went with 7 alliances of 3 in the eliminations rounds.

orangemoore 10-11-2015 23:13
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1504379)
Waterloo 2005 ran with 24 teams, and went with 7 alliances of 3 in the eliminations rounds.
Why did 3 teams sit out?

MaGiC_PiKaChU 10-11-2015 23:40
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangemoore (Post 1504380)
Why did 3 teams sit out?
I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all

Gregor 11-11-2015 01:43
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1504385)
I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all
It also wouldn't allow for any backup robots.

waialua359 11-11-2015 04:27
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1504385)
I guess that would imply 1st alliance to have no choice on the last robot, even if that robot isn't working at all
This happened to us at an offseason event last year. It made for an interesting eliminations with only 21 teams attending the event.

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

Aren Siekmeier 11-11-2015 04:30
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1504412)
This happened to us at an offseason event last year. It made for an interesting eliminations with only 21 teams attending the event.

On another note, I cant recall when the system changed to serpentine. That season, it might have been the 7th seed having to choose from the last 4 teams.
Trying to think back to 2005 when we were on a #1 alliance, I still cant remember when we took our 3rd alliance member....
I've always heard that 2006 was the first year of serpentine, after the intro of 3v3 in 05.

EricH 11-11-2015 13:06
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren Siekmeier (Post 1504413)
I've always heard that 2006 was the first year of serpentine, after the intro of 3v3 in 05.
That's correct. 2005 went 1-8, 1-8, top 8 remaining as backup (instead of the 1-8, 1-8, 2v2 matches previously used). 2006 went 1-8, 8-1, top 8 remaining as backup.

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

Mark McLeod 11-11-2015 17:52
Re: Registration 2016
 
3100 teams now.

first3234 12-11-2015 13:55
Re: Registration 2016
 
Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max

Andrew Schreiber 12-11-2015 14:05
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by first3234 (Post 1504765)
Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max
Likely. It starts being real hard to get 12 matches if you have more than 40 teams.

Christopher149 12-11-2015 14:12
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by first3234 (Post 1504765)
Dose anyone know if district competitions are still going to be 40 team max
I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.

Basel A 12-11-2015 15:07
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1504773)
I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.
A bunch of Michigan districts would have a hard time fitting more teams. The extra district events will be added. In fact, one has been confirmed* already: Week 6 in Ann Arbor.


*although nothing is really official until it gets posted online

Karibou 13-11-2015 10:19
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1504773)
I can tell you that Escanaba and Traverse City would be very hard-pressed to fit >40 teams in their pits. FIM has to add 2-3 district events on top of the 19 we already have for 2016.
Escanaba might be able to do it if they got creative, but you couldn't add too many more. You could probably fit another row in the hall between the pit gym and the field, but you'd sacrifice having the nice, wide aisles. Of course, you'd also have to figure out how to get >40 teams to want to go to Escanaba*...



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

Christopher149 13-11-2015 18:46
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karibou (Post 1504993)
Escanaba might be able to do it if they got creative, but you couldn't add too many more. You could probably fit another row in the hall between the pit gym and the field, but you'd sacrifice having the nice, wide aisles.
Putting some pits against the windows? Otherwise, where'd the cafeteria go? (we fill half of it as it is)

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

wireties 14-11-2015 00:35
Re: Registration 2016
 
Has anyone gotten in off the Dallas wait lists?

TIA

ebarker 14-11-2015 18:10
Re: Registration 2016
 
How can I get a list, preferable in spreadsheet of ALL current teams, by team number and location.

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

I need a table that looks like

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

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

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

I don't really need the team numbers.

Thanks,

-eb

Brian Maher 14-11-2015 18:48
Re: Registration 2016
 
If you have any programming ability, The Blue Alliance API can be used to access a ton of data on FRC teams, including location. Unfortunately, it does not cover the other three programs.

Rachel Lim 14-11-2015 19:07
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebarker (Post 1505242)
How can I get a list, preferable in spreadsheet of ALL current teams, by team number and location.

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

I need a table that looks like

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

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

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

I don't really need the team numbers.

Thanks,

-eb
You can use the My Area search: https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index....age=searchform

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

GeeTwo 14-11-2015 19:26
Re: Registration 2016
 
If you go to the "What teams and events are in my area" link on usfirst, you can get an exhaustive list of teams for any recent year, unfortunately only 25 per page, but the page number is in the URL, so you can script wget or similar calls to just keep getting 25 at a time until you're done. Leave the state at "All States" and radius at the "- Select -" value, and you'll get the world. The usfirst site supposedly only reflects teams that have registered, so the numbers are always low for the current year. However, they are always filled with "ghost teams" that never show up at an event. Oh - as I look at it now, this only covers US teams will that be enough?.

Mark McLeod 23-11-2015 22:18
Re: Registration 2016
 
Registration closed at noon today at 3163 teams.
It's increased by two teams since then, so FIRST is not quite done yet.

Christopher149 24-11-2015 00:17
Re: Registration 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1507534)
Registration closed at noon today at 3163 teams.
It's increased by two teams since then, so FIRST is not quite done yet.
And Michigan's at 418 teams. Michigan is going to have to go out of state if it wants third plays.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:29.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi