Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

I think it's pretty obvious based on the registered team list.
You're suggesting that a lot of the teams that went to Championship didn't play in a regional event beforehand, and some registered teams never played anywhere.
Two years in a row?
Doesn't seem like a terribly reasonable suggestion, but it was a small competition then.

This is what I meant about validating our data.
We have to find as many different sources as possible and reconcile them.
That will tell us what's missing and what's just wrong.
The registered team list tells us we're missing fully half of the awards given out in 1995 and 1996.
With the lists we have we know which teams might possibly still have the event results hidden away, so we can try contacting them directly to see if they have records stuffed in the bottom of a drawer someplace, or an original mentor/student who might remember some details.

Take 1995 for example:
Non-Manchester teams playing at Championship 1995:
6, MN
43, MI
45, IN
74, MI
81, IL
83, WA
98, TX
108, FL
120, OH
129, TX
141, MI
148, TX
161, MI
171, WI

(removed as irrelevant and way too bulky)

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

This was not uncommon in 1995/1996. I don't think the concept of a "regional" or "championship" really existed as far as many of us were concerned.

I was the driver for 74 in 1995, and 141 was our "cross town rival". I can confirm that both of these teams played only at the Championship at Epcot in 1995. 74 also only attended the Championship in 1996 (I'm nearly certain this is true for 141 as well). It wasn't until the Midwest Regional was formed in 1997 that it became feasible for us to attend a regional event.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

I definitely confirm this. Back in the late 90's, a few teams would show up to to the Championships without playing in a previous event. In order to make the Championships a more quality event, FIRST began to require that teams attend some Regional event. I am not sure, but I think this requirement started happening in 2000 or 2001.

Andy B.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

It sounds like Nationals was just another event back then.
Maybe we're not missing awards from '95 and '96 after all.

So do you guys think that some teams dropped out rather than travel and play anywhere?
I would have expected the enrollment to fall rather than rise the following year if teams found it so hard to reach an opportunity to play, but we do have teams in the UK, Turkey, etc. facing the same issues today I suppose.

Was it more of a science fair atmosphere in the beginning where teams might just work at home and not compete at all?
Maybe registration was only a matter of paying for the Kit rather than competing?

P.S. I love historical perspective :)

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

From my perspective as a student, it was the only event. At the time I don't know if I was even aware that there was an event in New Hampshire. The whole premise of our school's involvement was "hey, we're going to go compete at this robotics event at Disney World, want to join?" It's also important to remember that in 1995, there was only something like 38 teams at Epcot, so even the "Championship Event" was small compared to many regionals today.
I can definitely say it was not a science fair atmosphere. Really, the whole thing felt the same back then as it does today. The main difference was that there was no Chief Delphi, and most people were not "online", so the build season (at least for our team) was done in almost complete isolation (but we definitely were aware that we were working towards the goal of competing in Florida). In 1995 the very first time we saw another robot was after the build season was over and we had a demo with the other team in our city at the mall (FIRST let us keep our robot past the ship date for that event as I recall - we had to do something similar to the "bag & tag" that they have now with someone else locking our crate).

The event at Epcot even back in those years was basically the same as they are today. If anything, the atmosphere was even more fun than it is now, as everything was outside, bright & sunny. Teams had brightly-colored t-shirts, there was loud music being played, and people did the Macarena (some things never change, I guess).

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

That was true for our school all the way thru 2002. Disney was a big student draw.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

I'm pretty sure I recall that in my (and SPAM's) rookie year in 1998, if we had gone to a regional we had to ship the robot on a certain day, but since we were just going to the championship we didn't have to ship it until 2 days later. And 2 extra days was a really big deal. Does anyone else remember this?

OK I found it in the game rules on 358's website - it was actually 3 days!!! Going to a regional you had to ship on Tuesday, going to the championship only you got until Friday.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Sorry if I ever come off as rude (preemptive, if not), but I do love this perspective as well. Looking back always provides a clear thought process on what was done and how it can be done differently. Though, I may become over analytical at times and focus solely on what information is available, and act like it's a logic puzzle. That's just me.

I will definitely say one thing, though... We need loads more DATA!! Just like in Numb3rs, the more data we have, the more accurate our results/findings will become. So, looking back on what has been said, I am drawing these conclusions (Mark, correct me and add more where you see fit). We need:

• more official FIRST documentation (though we can't rely on it entirely because it is incomplete)
• more data from teams on their historic performances (preferably with written or photographic evidence)
• as many accounts of what happened as possible (I know it's been a long time) -- there's gotta be rock solid facts in there somewhere.

Would anyone like to offer up a way to collect data and sort through it all, as a group?

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Slightly off topic. Be careful with this line of thinking. Too much information can be just as bad as too little information as it can obscure trends.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Don't forget that permanent teams numbers were not used in the early years. I think they were assigned in the order that a team registered. In 1996 we attended the New Hampshire regional winning Rookie All Star and then went to Disney. In 1997 we attended the new Motorola Midwest Regional and I think our team number was 89 that year. (That robot is in the FIRST museum) We also attended Nationals. We continue to attend the Midwest Regional and Champs and generally one other regional.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Al, you make a great point. To alleviate this problem for any season prior to 1998, I've been tracking the official (long) team names instead of team numbers. I've stuck mainly with tracking the schools involved on each team, as sponsors can change radically between years. And I've even found schools that were spelt differently between years (probably correcting spelling mistakes). I've got that covered :)

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Statistical analysis, anyone? Just kidding. Thanks for bringing that up, Andrew. I'd actually rather we have too much information. I would hopefully like us to cross-examine documents to find all the similarities and differences between them. Then, if the percentages/stats are significant enough to prove the claim, take each into consideration.

Still, if you feel you have any better ideas, present them. I'm sure all of us would be more than willing to find the best approach possible.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

As I understand it, the teams were numbered alphabetically by official team name. That name started with the team's primary sponsor. The year numbers became permanent, The Juggernauts were team 1 based on their sponsorship by a company starting with a numeral rather than a letter. Delphi-sponsored teams ended up in the 40s. The X-Cats, sponsored by Xerox, got 191.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

Alan,
I do know that Motorola teams were all in the 100 range when numbers became permanent. At that time, there were three local teams numbered 111, 112, 113. 108 is another Mot team from Plantation, FL, which implies there were 109 and 110 Mot teams as well. I know there were Mot teams in Ohio and Texas at one time.
Quentin,
For the record, our team name is spelled WildStang to ID the original two schools from which the team drew students from. We use the same grammar as 'deer' so there is never WildStangs even if there are more than one.

Re: Historic FIRST data wanted
 

1998 was the year the numbers became permanent. You can see the original 1998 team list here:

http://web.archive.org/web/199805290.../teamlist.html

Clearly, numbers were assigned in alphabetical order according to sponsor at some point during the registration, but also there are a number at the bottom after X-Cats who don't fit the pattern, presumably because they registered after the initial list was sorted and numbers were assigned.