Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?
 

Alrite, This is something that was sort of brought to my attention in a conversation with someone. I dont have all the stats on teams who stay in FIRST and teams who have left FIRST, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

One of the main focuses of FIRST is starting new teams. Which is a super duper important deal. The rookie teams who are led in the right way catch the spirit right away... and if not then often in a second season they are hooked.
But what happens when everything gets old and becomes repetition?

How many teams were origionally in FIRST and how many of them have stayed? I know FIRST is growing, but are the teams with the experience and knowledge still around to help out the new guys?

It is VERY important to start new teams... but I think a new part of the "homework" should be maintaining old teams. And keeping the fun and spirit and excitement alive.

Yes, there are old teams that have been here forever and are still very into it. Which is awesome, but what about the teams who come love this program and fall out of it and issues come up? Shouldnt we be trying to motivate them to stay in FIRST?

I could be totally wrong on a lot of this, but this is what I have seen and how I view some of the things I have noticed in my first year.

What are your thoughts?

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=30675
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=20525
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=31067
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=22550

I used keywords 'maintaining teams' and 'new team growth'. You can probably also find past discussions in threads about yearly registration, sponsorship loss, fundraising, and mentoring new teams. I did not include those results, but thought these might be helpful.

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

The experience in the NJ region is that we have about a 95% retention rate and we add 6+ new teams per year to the region.

A lot of what keeps the teams going is the off season competitions we have nearly monthly in this part of the country. The FIRST Nationals are just the signal that the off season is about to begin.

And the NJ teams mentor the new rookies to make sure they never are alone.

I see that the largest factor involved in keeping teams is their attitude. If they have fun in FIRST and make friends in the area they want to come back. And a determined team can accomplish miracles.

WC :cool:

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

Bill Gold had a great post on here awhile ago about exactly the same thing, but in California specifically.

Basically, he came to the conclusion that we're trying too hard to start new teams, without making sure that we can sustain the old ones first. I wholeheartedly agree with him. I'd much rather see a team stick around for 5+ years, than see 5 new teams created that last 1-2 years each.

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

Well said, I could not agree with you more. Being a 3rd year team, we are still struggling to survive. It is not easy to establish yourself in the community and the school, but its not something I plan on giving up on now or ever. Gotta keep on trying!

GO 1403!!!

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

As the mentor of a fellow bay area team, 1120 in Milpitas, I agree. We've been in FIRST for 3 seasons and our budgets have never been spectacular. Probably topping out at a maximum of less than $15,000 in the bank. We had one parent who was good at fund raising but he was there only for the first two years and apparently poisoned some wells before he left. Last year, the NASA grant to go to Las Vegas made it a real difference to our funding to the point we didn't compete at Silicon Valley because the $6000 was too good to pass up.

It would be nice to land a major sponsor who would come in and fund $5k-10k a year to guarantee entering one regional and building a robot.

As an aside, I remember going to Nationals in 2003 and hearing one team complain that they had only one sponsor. But it was Chrysler and they kicked in $50k. (Enco here I come :D )

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

its going well over here.... 759 are carrying on (however not as great a number of students recruited this year )
and last year the number of teams increased 100% and probably again this year or even 200% ....
i havn't been in touch recently with the london guys so i can't comment on their progress.
However I am tempted to start one here next year (its a bit late already for this year imo)

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?
 

Well it's easier helping to get a team on their feet and start the process but interferring after the process has begun can feel like meddling and can cause discomfort on both side. So it's an awkward process.

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?
 

Ashley, this is very perceptive of you to recognize after having just completed your rookie season! This is something that everyone in FIRST recognizes as an issue. There are many, many people reaching out to veterans who are falling off the radar screen, while also trying to mentor rookie teams. I think I can say that if someone hears about a team that may be struggling (regardless of its age), either point them in the direction of your area's FIRST Senior Mentors or Regional Directors or state/regional FIRST organizations or NEMO, or let someone from one of those categories know about the team so a contact can be made.

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

So, say you're a team, and you have one month to fundraise. You can convince a company that could give you $10,000, or you could convince multiple smaller companies to give you a thousand here, a thousand there...which company do you target?

The one that will give you $10,000, of course. You've got tons of other stuff to do before Kickoff, the best short term answer is to go for the big fish.

Alternatively, from FIRST's shoes....say you have a town, and you can convince them to start only one team in 2006 before December: a FRC team, a FLL team, or a VEX team. Which makes most sense?

Financially, the big fish, starting a FRC team, wins out every single time.

***

Every team, no matter who they are, or where they are, is financially worth at least $6000 to FIRST, whether directly or indirectly. It is the major source of revenue, and compared to FLL and VEX, it makes more financial sense to start a new FRC team, since it will take multiple FLL or VEX teams to make up for the revenue that one FRC team pulls into the organization. (Plus, multiple FLL or VEX teams can take more time to create than just one FRC team.)

Because this is an easy form of revenue (not to mention being able to claim growth looks wonderful, page 4 of the annual report can tell you that), and to add that every added team creates just that more financial independence from the national sponsors.....creating new teams looks like a great place to focus the already limited volunteer resources on, right?

However....that does not mean that I agree that the focus should always be on growth.

Last year, when I created a visual representation of the New England FRC teams, current and dormant, it shows that there are a lot of teams that are dormant. When I investigated into the reasonings as to why these teams could not always be resurrected, the reasons were varied...and all valid.
In this research, I have found there is what I call a "fallout period" - a time in which an area is harder to be convinced to resurrect a team because they still remember what happened with the last one and have non-positive perceptions of the program. The fallout period ends in various ways - administration/teachers retiring or moving to other school systems, students graduating, etc. Thus, it is important to keep an eye on the inner workings of towns to see when the period is over.

Because of this, it is crucial to make sure that teams do not go dormant and enter this period, especially because growth will eventually come to a point where an area has no new school systems to reach.

But...today there are still new school systems out there. Since the situation favors creating new rookie teams, that's where the human resources (in this instance, time) are going to be focused. It is up to us as the FIRST Community to pick up the slack and take care of each other. We are our best resource in the fight against dormancy.

How do we fight? Finding best practices. Reading and writing white papers. Talking on CD, at competitions, anywhere. This problem is very real and we are our own best defence.
-JAB

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

FIRST was particularly guilty of trying to rapidly start lots of new teams a few years ago with the NASA grants and the KPCB grants. These managed to start some teams that were barely hanging on financially and ended up with little or no technical support. I think things have improved since then, however (not that they're perfect).

The real key is to create teams that can be self-sufficient. Teams that have enough strength that they don't rely on outside help simply to make it through the season. This is something we've tried to work on in Rochester and we'll see in the coming if we've succeeded. One of the key factors is to not have team growth be larger than the community mentoring base can handle.

While I believe we should keep teams in FIRST, I think that there are times when a team needs to die. Sometimes there's too much baggage with a team currently (from teachers to mentors to students) that makes it impossible for it to really succeed. In that case, it may be better for the team simply stop competing for a few years so that the factors that were preventing them from participating successfully no longer exist.

Matt

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

I've never thought about creating new teams as a source of a revenue for FIRST, but you're definitely correct. It is vital to FIRST's survival to create new teams and I think that's why the push for new teams have been the main focus and that keep old one's alive isn't. From a business standpoint, if two new teams get created while an old one is forced to retire, you've made a profit. But seeing as FIRST is a non-profit organization, there's no reason to continually push for new teams. I'd definitely like to see FIRST address this point here.

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the
 

Thanks for all of your replies so far, its nice to see everyones points of view. And you all have really good back up for your points. So yeah, nice job you guys. And I still would like to hear more thoughts cuz its an interesting topic. :)

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?
 

I agree we really should work on keeping the older teams around with all the expierence. Yes it may be hard to keep in touch with the community and schools an fundraising you always have other teams to back you up in your support. I'd also rather see a team with expierence stay around for as many years as they can, rather then rookies who can only be here 1-2 years an let go of FIRST. More should be put into keeping the older teams.. :D

Re: Is there too much focus on starting new teams, and not enough on maintianing the old?
 

I think it's great to start new teams too, and I never thought about teams quitting because of disappointments or boredom. Our team isn't incredibly old, but I could never see us quitting. Yes, we have financial problems too, but our community has been incredibly supportive and has helped out a lot, especially for being a small town, and we have always found we could scrape up the money to go to a regional and championship. We have always found it great to start new teams, because we are incredibly enthusiastic about FIRST and it tends to spread. I could never think of a team going to a competition, then not being excited about FIRST. After my first competition, I was absolutely addicted, lol. Our team is a role model for the over 20 new teams in Kansas this year and I think it just feels really good to be spreading FIRST, and I hope that old teams remember this feeling and don't die out, even if I find that really strange and hard to believe.