![]() |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
Funding FIRST endeavors is a big deal, and I would think teams would do it all year round, including starting right after Atlanta from the previous season. I think the point made earlier is that it prevents other teams from making plans TO attend by not knowing where they are on that list.:) |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
Hence, the business sustainability plan and why it should have a greater focus in FIRST. You can easily spend more time raising funds than building and competing altogether.
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
In a perfect world, teams have all the funding in place in time. But in the real world they don't. I know it's tough to be on a wait list, but that is the system that FRC has set up. Unfortunately the system is really tough on teams trying to plan. |
Re: Registration 2010
I think the system that was in place up until a few years ago was better, where teams were not shown as being registered for the Championship until they had made a payment (or sent a P.O. or a sponsor letter). There are plenty of teams who were sitting on the waiting list the day registration opened who were capable of paying right then, and who are still presently on the waiting list.
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
Glenn, I guess teams really need to be taught more about how to run sustainable, year-round programs? Many teams are still missing the aspect of being taught how to run a sustainable program. |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
I know of several teams who signed up, knowing they did not have the money and probably weren't going to raise it. They took the spot anyways because it was available and hoped that some kind of miracle funding would just fall into their lap. |
Re: Registration 2010
As a team currently sitting on the outside looking in, it's frustrating that won't let us know now whether we are in or not. We assume based on the number of teams registering as things were happening during registration we are in the 1st 20 on the waitlist. However we will not book tickets until we are confirmed. If we booked now we would save a substantial amount of money. I would think out of consideration for the teams offering up the spots now would make sense and would help fill out the event.
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
I understand fully what you are saying. Not sure what you mean by more teams signing up on the first day? The opposite is what occured. **clicking the mouse button repeatedly from 5:59am and on-Hawaii time**;) The biggest issue I'm concerned about is why change the system several years ago in how you could register for CMP? Why "punish" teams that do their homework, plan and prepare with the same sacrifices that everyone else has to in order to compete. You would think that in the best interest of filling up CMP, those 46 slots would be open for teams on that waiting list already to decide if they can go. Our personal concern is that, coming from Hawaii, our students get a chance to meet other teams they would normally not see during regional competitions. Hence, we place an extra emphasis in raising the funds necessary to try and go. The sponsorships that we get doesnt come without some blood, sweat and tears literally.:) |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
What a great day for a birthday, almost as good as tomorrow! :-) On the off chance that you weren't kidding all round. I'm with Jenny in always being surprised that the open Championship slots don't fill up long before it opens to the teams who went last year. Registration for Championship was open for 20 days before the rest of us got our 30 second crack at the 20 slots left over for the teams that went last year. There aren't that many slots that 10% of FRC teams couldn't fill them, or desire to fill them. Most years there have been open slots left on the table at the end of registration. I only attribute the run on slots this year to a greater number of teams, static number of slots, and a registration system that is really a wish list, rather than a serious registration system. |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
Why is FIRST not letting these other 51 teams in? This will save teams tens of thousands of dollars by booking travel sooner rather than later. Does anyone know why FIRST wants teams to spend more going to championship? That is what they are doing. If I were at FIRST HQ I would be worried about filling championship at all. If 51 teams had to drop out while attempting to raise money over 3 months, how are 180+ teams going to get the money in 3 weeks? -Eric |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
My question is- when will they tell the wait list teams? (and if I do get the go ahead do I really give a $@#$@#$@#$@# about spending 4 x as much to go anyway?) :cool: |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
Happy Birthday to the wonderful, hardworking and very wise Mr. McLeod! Glenn, Eric, Pat, Jon, Peter, Akash: I agree with you. The system, as it currently exists, is enormously stressful on the teams and mentors, and it doesn't need to be. IMHO (and this is not the first time I've voiced this) it needs a major tweaking. |
Re: Registration 2010
I thought there might be some hope for an early waitlist release when I read this in a FIRST email blast:
"We do have a waitlist of teams wanting to go to the Championship, so if you do not have the funding to attend please let us know so that we can give another team the opportunity."Hope slowly dwindles... Can there be such a thing as a pyrrhic waitlist? P.S. "wist list" huh? My mind is a terrible thing to lose :) |
Re: Registration 2010
FIRST has opened up Championship to allow waitlisted teams to register.
Offers are going out now to the first 50 on the list with 48 hours to accept. ...and there was much rejoicing...Yea P.S. 9 have accepted already. |
Re: Registration 2010
Wow,
I just got to work and 9 accepted already? I noticed we couldnt do it on TIMS ourselves, so just sent in an acceptance reply to email as instructed. We were lucky enough to have a credit to apply towards the cost. |
Re: Registration 2010
Back up to 147 teams registered for Championship.
22 acceptances in 24 hours. We have a partial credit from a grant that was going to be lost. We're trying to recover it now to help with the cost. The Invoice got listed in TIMS as soon as FIRST acknowledged our acceptance. It's still kind of late in our planning phase. Our fundraising cash reserves have already been allocated or earmarked, so it'll end up a more expensive trip for a fewer number of students, but the seniors are psyched. :yikes: Our pit was empty last year as we tried out a minimalist pit to see what shipping to see what cost savings we could realize on shipping and local purchases. I think we'll be doing that again this year - maybe not so barebones this time though.:) |
Re: Registration 2010
Championship is at 157 teams now.
One conclusion I draw, from the fact that FIRST set a deadline of 48 hours to accept or decline, is that the waitlist (the serious teams on it) was around 30 teams long. This doesn't count teams that may have decided not to accept due to the late notification. In the past week around 20 Regionals have gone up or down a team, so final funding still seems to be an issue with ~1% of teams. However, this is funding for extra events, not original competitions. ~26% of non-Michigan teams are attending a second event. 99% of Michigan teams get a second event of course. (Thought I'd finally shut up didn't you? :rolleyes: ) |
Re: Registration 2010
Not everyone on the waitlist was given an invite. So there is still a list of teams waiting to get in right?
|
Re: Registration 2010
If you haven't received an invite yet, then I suppose with the stated 48 hours to respond, up to an estimated 130 teams could have received invites so far.
So the waitlist must be longer than I thought. |
Re: Registration 2010
I bet some teams that got the invite are willing to go and can pay, but not in a 48 hour timeframe (commit to paying with a PO). Sort of like winning at a regional, but not being able to attend since the turnaround time for payment is short.
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
1 Attachment(s)
Championship registration is now at 344 teams.
It climbed steeply through the Regional events of course as a new set of winners qualified each week. I posted this list of where the teams are all from in the Championship sub-forum, but thought it should go here so it can be found more easily next season. I've also attached a graph of just how the Championship registration proceeded this year. FIRST didn't completely backfill from the waitlist to bring the early Championship attendees back up to the initial 175 advertized openings. They only brought it back up to 162 accepted and registered team, then left it there for a month. Championship Teams are from: # Home 35 MI 29 CA 20 NJ 20 NY 17 FL 13 CT 13 Canada 13 WI 11 TX 10 GA 10 MA 10 PA 10 VA 9 IN 9 NH 8 MD 8 MO 7 HI 7 IL 7 MN 7 OH 6 Israel 6 SC 5 CO 5 OR 4 AZ 4 ID 4 OK 4 UT 3 NC 3 RI 3 WA 2 DC 2 IA 2 KS 2 LA 2 Mexico 2 MS 2 TN 2 WV 1 AL 1 AR 1 DE 1 ME 1 MT 1 ND 1 Australia 1 Brazil |
Re: Registration 2010
Looks like someone was drawing the lower portion of Texas around January.
Why the plateau in the middle of March? |
Re: Registration 2010
It'd be interesting to compare the ratio of teams attending championship versus all teams from each state, to see who is proportionately the best represented state.
|
Re: Registration 2010
Here's the list sorted by the percentage of teams attending Championship.
Arkansas and Australia win hands down...:) Total .. @Champ ........... % @ Champ 1 ............ 1 .......... -- ......... 100.0% .......... AR 1 ............ 1 .......... -- ......... 100.0% .......... Australia 4 ............ 3 .......... -- .......... 75.0% .......... RI 3 ............ 2 .......... -- .......... 66.7% .......... IA 3 ............ 2 .......... -- .......... 66.7% .......... Mexico 3 ............ 2 .......... -- .......... 66.7% .......... WV 2 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 50.0% .......... DE 31 .......... 13 .......... -- .......... 41.9% .......... WI 43 .......... 17 .......... -- .......... 39.5% .......... FL 11 ........... 4 .......... -- .......... 36.4% .......... ID 37 .......... 13 .......... -- .......... 35.1% .......... CT 3 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 33.3% .......... ND 31 .......... 10 .......... -- .......... 32.3% .......... GA 64 .......... 20 .......... -- .......... 31.3% .......... NJ 30 ........... 9 .......... -- .......... 30.0% .......... NH 24 ........... 7 .......... -- .......... 29.2% .......... HI 22 ........... 6 .......... -- .......... 27.3% .......... SC 30 ........... 8 .......... -- .......... 26.7% .......... MD 34 ........... 9 .......... -- .......... 26.5% .......... IN 16 ........... 4 .......... -- .......... 25.0% .......... UT 141 ......... 35 .......... -- .......... 24.8% .......... MI 45 .......... 10 .......... -- .......... 22.2% .......... PA 10 ........... 2 .......... -- .......... 20.0% .......... TN 5 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 20.0% .......... Brazil 66 .......... 13 .......... -- .......... 19.7% .......... Canada 52 .......... 10 .......... -- .......... 19.2% .......... MA 153 ......... 29 .......... -- .......... 19.0% .......... CA 47 ........... 8 .......... -- .......... 17.0% .......... MO 119 ......... 20 .......... -- .......... 16.8% .......... NY 18 ........... 3 .......... -- .......... 16.7% .......... NC 12 ........... 2 .......... -- .......... 16.7% .......... MS 6 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 16.7% .......... ME 6 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 16.7% .......... MT 45 ........... 7 .......... -- .......... 15.6% .......... IL 46 ........... 7 .......... -- .......... 15.2% .......... OH 66 .......... 10 .......... -- .......... 15.2% .......... VA 33 ........... 5 .......... -- .......... 15.2% .......... OR 35 ........... 5 .......... -- .......... 14.3% .......... CO 15 ........... 2 .......... -- .......... 13.3% .......... DC 51 ........... 6 .......... -- .......... 11.8% .......... Israel 17 ........... 2 .......... -- .......... 11.8% .......... LA 9 ............ 1 .......... -- .......... 11.1% .......... AL 104 ........ 11 .......... -- .......... 10.6% .......... TX 39 ........... 4 .......... -- .......... 10.3% .......... AZ 20 ........... 2 .......... -- .......... 10.0% .......... KS 49 ........... 4 .......... -- .......... 8.2% .......... OK 105 .......... 7 .......... -- .......... 6.7% .......... MN 59 ........... 3 .......... -- .......... 5.1% .......... WA 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... AK 1 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... Bosnia 1 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... Chile 1 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... Germany 6 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... KY 1 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... Netherlands 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... NM 12 ........... 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... NV 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... PR 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... Turkey 2 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... United Kingdom 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... VT 3 ............. 0 .......... -- .......... 0.0% .......... WY |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
I guess the team list doesn't like to display Australia? |
Re: Registration 2010
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Registration 2010
One last note of 2010 potential interest...
Here are the percentages of teams who attended an extra event each week. Week 1 of course no one had ever played before so that's 0% (pre-ship scrimmages excluded). Most Michigan teams appeared to play their first event in the beginning two weekends. Prior-experienced teams were not evenly distribution across competitions, so Minnesota's double blockbusters for the whole state in week 5 didn't see as high a percentage of pre-tempered robots and drive teams as other regional rich areas. Also, in week 5 a large block of teams were at the Michigan State Championship where everyone had played before - that skews the results a bit. Code:
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5Of course, one of the Einstein Champions (177) was one of those single Regional teams. The winning alliance had an average of 2.0 prior events. The runners-up had a 2.67 event average. So, you don't have to go to a lot of events, but at least two seems to make a difference. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:23. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi