Re: Best year for teams?
 

I always thought it was cool that these 4 awesome teams had consecutive numbers. Just a random meaningless thought. :D

Re: Best year for teams?
 

I'm sure it's just coincidence... :p

Re: Best year for teams?
 

The only prob I have with polls like this is everyone tends to over look some of the west coast teams; i.e. 330,60,254 etc. now granted FIRST started on the east coast but I believe theres plenty of very strong teams from the west coast that get simply passed by.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

I AGREE!!

edit>>
I actually vote to get rid of this thread. There are two many variables that make any team better than another team.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

Performance wise I would have to say 1996 because a lot of those teams have been very dominant since they became started. Every year has produced a few strong teams but the class of 96' would have to be the best so far.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

You know what would be an interesting statistic? The number of teams still in FIRST that were rookies each year, divided by the total number of rookie teams that season. I've had some interesting discussions with Karthik, among others, about how the economy and levels of funding affected the retention rates of rookie teams in a given year (particularly 2002). In the same discussions, we also talked about how such factors could affect team performance; the rationale being that teams started in a year where funding was tight, they would possibly not get as strong of a start, and were less likely to return the following year. I'd also be interested to see if retention rates decrease over time (the "lifespan" of a team).

So, anyways... if anyone knows where to find such data, it might prove to be an interesting comparison...

Re: Best year for teams?
 

Didn't one of Wildstang's schools have a team in '92? Are any of the people from that original team on today's Wildstang (or where at some point)?

My vote goes for '98, becuase it saw the formation of Hyper, who has been a champion or finalist at every regional they have attended since 2001! Not to mention they went undeafeated in '04 (didn't go to Atlanta). And in 2004 and 2005, they won every event they went to. Hyper is the Poofs (254) of New England, but they have only been to the Championships three times, so they go widely unnoticed.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

I agree with you about Hyper, they contiually build amazing robots, in 2004 and 2005 they won regionals on both coasts, they would have been powerful national contenders either year.

My vote goes to 1996, there are to many powerful teams that came out of that year.

Based only on team numbers 65-71 is a powerful strech of teams, 173-177 is also bery respectable (I couldn't figure out who 178 was but that list could probably be extended to include 179 and 180)

Re: Best year for teams?
 

178 are the Second Law Enforcers, Engineering Inspiration Winners at New England and Greater Toronto this year. 181 are the Birds of Prey, a frequent finalist at East Coast Regionals (I am not sure if they have a continuous history back to 1996 though).

I voted for 1996 because it was our rookie year and we still seem to play with and against a lot of the same teams :)

Re: Best year for teams?
 

*Borrows Baker's Soapbox*


I vote, to just ignore it, if you don't like reading about threads like this, I, The author, Brandon/Mike Martus, or anyone else isn't making you read this thread,
Just don't vote, don't reply, don't subscribe, ignore it and like most other threads on this forum, it goes away.
*Returns Baker's Soapbox*

Re: Best year for teams?
 

I also voted for 1996, and not just because it was my teams rookie year. You said it, teams 33, 47, 71, 111, and of course 85 B.O.B. have been good through the years. 71 and 111 are always going to be good just about every year. They might have an off year every once and a while, but don't drop far and come back the next year. But don't forget about the others I've named. 33, 47 and 85 are what I like to call "just under the radar" teams. They are good but don't always get the same attention as 111 or 71, that is until they win a regional.

I also quoted the 1997 year because there are teams from there that are good. 11, 25, 27, 65, and 67, 27 is an awesome team, so is 67. I'm not saying that other teams aren't, but I remember from 2005 that we were with 67 for a qualifying match. They were organized with how they wanted to play the match with us and our other teammate. 27 was the same way at the 2004 Kettering Kickoff in the fall. They had a plan on where and what they wanted to do in the match. I also think they are both well organized teams, at a competition they look good as a team together and must have good plans for the rest of the year.

This is just going to get harder and harder every year with more teams joining. I just might be talking about a rookie team from this year, like a I might about 71 or 111, in ten or more years down the road. Then we might be getting close to or even already passed the 5000 team number mark. Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see. :)

Re: Best year for teams?
 

Yes, in 1992 Motorola partnered with Wheeling high school and competed in the original FIRST competition. Only a few engineers from Motorola worked with the team and I don't know how many students and teachers there were. But I know it was a lot smaller than our team is now. I have no idea why, but the team didn't return in 1993. In 1996, Motorola partnered with Wheeling and Rolling Meadows high school to create Wildstang and one of the engineers Bruce from the original team, Bruce, returned to help with the team. Bruce stopped working with the team a few years later and focused on volunteering at the Midwest regional and coordinating FLL in Illinois. Some years later, another engineer from the 1992 team, Dan, returned and has helped us on & off. Some years he's too busy with other commitments so he takes the year off, other years he helps design parts for the robot.

Even though Motorola & Wheeling had a team in 1992, we still consider 1996 to be Wildstang's rookie year. It was a new team with almost completely new members and a new school.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

for the reasons stated above....1996. hands down.

i know i'm a FRESHMAN on a ROOKIE team this year. but i've been a super longtime observer of FIRST
[example. the manchester gym, 1992....that was my first FIRST experience. which is the reason for the rookie year in my profile.]


and i must admit 1996 and 1997 were definitely great years.

all teams are great, though. anyone who does FIRST is great.

Re: Best year for teams?
 

may i add [thanks for writing to me about it lil' lavery]

I WAS NOT CONSCIOUSLY THERE IN 1992. there are pictures, but i was only one year old.

the first FIRST i remember was 1995.

=]