Re: Registration 2017
 

For a while it appeared that 6330 was a revival of 2625, being named "2625 - Arc Angels", but they seem to have changed their team name after realizing that they didn't get their old number.

Re: Registration 2017
 

They probably met the criteria for a Rookie Team instead of a returning veteran team. Honestly if I was in their shoes I would rather come in as a rookie then a veteran especially in a district system when I get +10 points just for existing.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Hrm. The reserve capacity for all FiM districts was just increased significantly, taking the open capacity for almost all events down by a few spots. Southfield went from having 10 reserve to 19 reserve. Midland and Traverse City both went from single open to zero, West Michigan went from eight open to one, and Center Line went from 11 open to zero.

That changes our plans a bit.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Anyone else have issues with FIM registration? That was thoroughly frustrating, tbh.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Second district event registration that opened at noon EST today went very smoothly for me. MOE 365 registered for the MAR Seneca event.

I wanted to share as positive feedback to FIRST from my perspective.

Thanks!

Re: Registration 2017
 

Very smooth for us as well. In and out in under a minute. 1018 will be attending Perry Meridian and Tippecanoe.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Did the event(s) fill up on you? It seems that several filled to their (low) capacity, whereas ones like LSSU still have 7 (or is it 5?) slots open.

Re: Registration 2017
 

2546 teams
A large jump (60) from the home system Districts as teams got into their events.

Re: Registration 2017
 

These are the places that are still missing veterans from last season:
#Missing
82 ---- MI
73 ---- MN
62 ---- Israel (new District hasn't begun registering teams)
55 ---- TX
41 ---- CA
39 ---- Mexico
26 ---- NY
25 ---- Canada-ON
23 ---- Australia
18 ---- FL
17 ---- GA
17 ---- LA
17 ---- WA
16 ---- MO
15 ---- China
15 ---- VA
14 ---- AZ
13 ---- Canada-AB
13 ---- CO
13 ---- SC
13 ---- TN
9 ----- HI
9 ----- MA
9 ----- MD
9 ----- UT
8 ----- IL
8 ----- NJ
8 ----- Turkey
7 ----- AR
7 ----- Canada-QC
7 ----- ID
7 ----- OK
7 ----- PA
5 ----- NC
5 ----- NH
4 ----- AL
4 ----- DC
4 ----- KY
4 ----- MS
4 ----- OH
3 ----- IN
3 ----- KS
3 ----- NM
2 ----- CT
2 ----- Dominican Republic
2 ----- Japan
2 ----- OR
2 ----- Taiwan
2 ----- WI
2 ----- WY
1 ----- Australia
1 ----- Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 ----- Brazil
1 ----- Canada-AB
1 ----- Canada-SK
1 ----- Czech Republic
1 ----- DE
1 ----- Denmark
1 ----- Ecuador
1 ----- IA
1 ----- India
1 ----- MT
1 ----- ND
1 ----- NV
1 ----- Poland
1 ----- PR
1 ----- RI
1 ----- SD
1 ----- United Kingdom
1 ----- WV

Re: Registration 2017
 

5813 registered for Southern NH at 12:01! ;) At 12:03, SNH was full. :P

Re: Registration 2017
 

Idk man. Having a low number is definitely a plus for pick lists. The perception of experience is almost as powerful as the experience itself. Plus that +10 pts goes away in full in only 2 years. Whereas you keep the number indefinitely.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Registration is up about 3% over last year at this point in registration.

Here are two three revised registration progression plots of the delayed opening.
The first just jumps (pretty much a straight line) from the morning after the late registration opening to corresponding surge markers that are present every year.
The second is the more accurate one that simply slides the opening day as Jon suggested earlier. Just plotting the actual delayed date looks better, but makes it harder to see the correlation between that day-early District arc and the 2012 regular arc.
The third uses the real dates for registration who's start dates spread over a couple of weeks in the past decade. Mile-marker events such as 2nd District opening and unrestricted Regionals, even US holidays are uncorrelated giving subsequent years a slanted look. It's most noticeable between the light green 2016 line (earliest registration ever opened) and the white 2017 plot (latest it ever opened).

The first plot variation better compares the fast fingers on the first day, while still correlating with the standard markers (where the surges are every year), such as the 2nd District event registration day where a lot of MI teams come out of hiding.

See if this is understandable and give me your preference.
I played with stretching the interpolation, but that didn't look much different than a straight line.

Re: Registration 2017
 

Ok, I've rewritten this like 5 times, I keep going back and forth.

The first one could be a useful comparison next year with the new preference system Frank has talked about in the blog - does the introduction of a new system for initial event registration significantly change how registration goes? But at the same time, I feel like it probably overstates what would have happened if registration proceeded normally this year, and could lead to false conclusions.

The second one I like for the simple fact that it represents reality. It shows that, despite being a week late, the initial surge "made up" for that lost week of registration immediately.

Looking at these graphs today, I was struck with a burning desire to see a third graph (or a third and fourth), one showing the difference, day to day, in registrations between years. So one line that shows (2017-2016), another for (2016-2015), etc. each day as registration proceeds. Does that difference generally stay the same? Does it increase at a predictable rate? Are there sudden surges some years that we can't explain? And, perhaps most appropriately, how does it show the difference between this year and last year?

Re: Registration 2017
 

The second plot is not actually reality either, so you may want to see a fully uncorrected plot.

Opening day in the 2000's up until about 2014 was typically halfway between this year's delayed opening and last year's opening. That's why I've been using Oct 3 as a normalized starting point for past years.

Re: Registration 2017
 

I got 88 teams in what I track. . .