Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Aw, heck, I don't really care much about this, but teams per unit of area is a pretty poor metric. New York City or LA/Orange County could have ten times the teams per unit area of Alaska and still have an infinitely easier time finding resources. The most useful measure would probably be some measure of economic strength divided by number of teams. Connecticut, for example, has a much larger economy than Montana, which is about a zillion times larger geographically.

I'll leave the details as an exercise for the students. :]

As for airport scheduling, the larger the economic base, the better served you will be for airports. In Connecticut, this might be a problem if you are all trying to fly out of Hartford, but you could always fly out of La Guardia or JFK, or even Logan.

At least you have major airports handy. Consider the plight of teams in places like Bellingham, Washington, Coos Bay, Oregon, or Red Bluff, California. All of them have to schedule trips just to get to an airport capable of getting a connection through to Atlanta. (Yes, I know. Coos Bay has an airport. To fly to Atlanta they would fly to Portland, and then take a plane which would probably have to make a stop along the way. It's probably a 12-hour trip. I don't think there is a place in New England where a major airport takes longer to get to than driving from Bellingham to SeaTac. You easterners just don't understand distance...) (To not just beat a dead horse, but to beat it and then blow it up -- there are also a lot more choices for flights from major airports than small ones. There might only be one team in Helena, Montana, as a made-up example, but there might only be two flights a day out of there to a hub with connections to Atlanta.)

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

True, true. But contrary to what some people believe, many CT teams are located in rural areas (yes we have them) and the ones in urban areas ARE competing for the same dollars and mentors. Ask any of the several teams in the state who are scrambling to stay alive. (Does everyone in the country think Connecticut is full of millionaires? I've lived here for over 30 years and haven't met one yet - where are they hiding? :) )

Yes, we have access to nearby major airports, but that would necessitate another $1200 or more spent on bus transfers. Because there are only a few flights that directly fly to Atlanta from Hartford each day (it's weird), it means they book up very quickly and cannot accomodate groups. So we fly to Chicago or Detroit, then to Atlanta. Expensive and it takes a while - we were at the airport at 6:30 a.m. and arrived at the hotel after 5:30p.m. Or we fly a day ahead and come home a day late - more hotel costs, food costs, more school boards to approve the trip, etc. Or we split up the group. We never thought flying to Atlanta would be so expensive and so difficult.

I guess the bottom line is that there are difficulties encountered no matter if you are in a small state (geographical or population) or a large one.

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

I was thinking about setting the number of teams in a state vs. certain NAICS or SIC code percentages within the state (NAICS= North American Industry Classification System, SIC = Standard Industrial Classification, both define all industry types into numerical code)....but I couldnt decide on which code to use.

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Haha, California is smack in the middle! :)

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Ranking / State / Teams Per Capita* (in thousands)

1. New Hampshire - 54.1
2. North Dakota - 105. 7
3. Michigan - 108.7
4. Connecticut - 125.1
5. Virginia - 135.6
6. Alaska - 163.9
7. Washington D.C. - 177.8
8. South Carolina - 182.5
9. Montana - 185.4
10. New Jersey - 189.1
11. Colorado - 209.2
12. New York - 216.0
13. Massachusetts - 221.3
14. Kansas - 248.7
15. Oregon - 256.8
16. South Dakota - 256.9
17. Nevada - 291.9
18. Indiana - 297.0
19. Pennsylvania - 302.6
20. Hawaii - 315.7
21. Maine - 329.3
22. Arizona - 337.9
23. Ohio - 347.2
24. Rhode Island - 360.2
25. California - 362.6
26. Wisconsin - 367.3
27. Georgia - 367.9
28. Maryland - 397.0
29. Florida - 404.6
30. Missouri - 411.0
31. Washington - 413.6
32. Delaware - 415.2
33. Wyoming - 506.5
34. Mississippi - 580.6
35. West Virginia - 605.2
36. Vermont - 621.4
37. Idaho - 696.6
38. Oklahoma - 704.7
39. Alabama - 755.0
NATIONAL AVERAGE: 770.7
40. Texas - 803.2
41. Louisiana - 903.2
42. New Mexico - 951.6
43. Illinois - 978.0

44. Iowa - 981.4

45. North Carolina - 1067.7
46. Arkansas - 1376.3
47. Utah - 2389.0
48. Tennessee - 2950.5
49. Puerto Rico - 3894.9
50. Kentucky - 4145.9
51. Minnesota - 5101.0
52. Nebraska - has no teams


2,954,451 people/ ( 3 teams ) = 981354

Sticking up for Iowa!

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

I'm sorry I had that wrong! To find the number of teams per state, I used the Triple Play booklet that was handed out to teams at the regionals, and the map on it only showed two teams in Iowa. :confused:

Thanks for the correction!

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

uhh.. yea./.ontario has the most teams that i know of

but if someoen has all the data.. it would be nice if someone made a chart.. if someone does.. please pm me.. thank you..,

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

I love how North Dakota only has 6 teams (according to the map on the FIRST site) yet they're #2 on the list...Tells ya something about the population of ND, doesn't it? :D

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Ummm . . . They live so far apart you have to drive two days to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbors? :p

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

yea.. we looked at flying.. but when you figure adding in the bus transport to the airport.. then the bus rental on the other side to go from hotel to venue.. it got crzy.. . so we decided wed drive the 19hours :D

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Kansas is number 14, not bad. Well, we boring Kansans have to find something to do with our time, lol. Why not dedicate it to FIRST? Hmm....I'm thinking I need to make some friends in Nebraska...Kansas is right under them geographically, so it's not that far... :D

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

YAY :cool: MICHIGAN is #3 :ahh: !

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

Yay!!!!!!
I'm with you pelan, dam glad i dont have to pay taxes :D
although we our capital is the 7th most dangerous city :ahh:

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

I'd just like to remind everyone that these were the stats for the 2005 competition. After the regionals are over I might complile a similar list for teams in the 2006 season. :)

Re: Most FIRST teams per capita
 

We're #44 :(
Which is weird since #5 is our neighbor to the north and #8 is to the south, and we have a decent high tech industry. (Atleast in RTP) As well as several top schools. (Duke and UNC-Ch)