Re: Registration 2012
 

Formatting these columns to line up and not be confusing takes more work than generating the data I swear.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Representing data in a good way is an art in its own right.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Here are charts of the areas with:

1. % Above average (>14.3%) gains this year
2. % Losses (<0%) this year
3. % Everyone
4. Raw numbers gain/loss of every area

Underpopulated areas float to the top, but of course it's also harder to start teams where there's no local support network.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Those charts are a little misleading; it would seem as if New Mexico had a huge jump in teams, while they only gained 3 new rookies, and that Puerto Rico had a large loss, while only 1 team is from there not returning.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Which shows an interesting point. Texas, having lost 30+ teams this year, is not on the graph at all. Perhaps this chart would be better as a pie chart of lost teams by area such as http://d.pr/Wv4 (CD's max upload size got me!)

Re: Registration 2012
 

I tried a pie chart first of everyone, but it sort of just looks like a colored pinwheel with too many entries.

These kinds of plots are going to mostly show areas with few teams at both the upper and lower ends of the spectrum.
They can illuminate transistion areas where team loss/gain is more critical to reaching a self-supporting mass.
Larger established areas aren't at risk of dying from loss of teams while small areas are. Loss of teams in low-density areas = a lack of experienced support.

I suppose we could generate individual charts based on FRC team population catagories, e.g.,

1. 0 to 10 teams
2. 11 to 20
3. 21 to 50
4. 51 to 100
5. 101 to 200

I'll try a chart based on absolute number rather than % that sort of factors in the size of an area. (It's posted as part of the prior post)

Re: Registration 2012
 

Some speculations on the pending new Michigan event.
Okay, so we know that Michigan must be looking for an additional District site, because they obviously don't fit right now.
That probably also means the existing event lists won't be completely straightened out until after the new event is settled.

Choice of new events depends on the mixture of overall FiM philosophy.

1. Events as drivers of future growth
2. Events in response to existing team density pressures

Contributing factors/clues include:

• FiM District map (see below too)
• FiM has the stated long-term goal of at least one event in each District. Short-term that probably doesn’t mean the UP with it’s scattering of teams and long travel times.
• New Events historically drive new growth. Team expansion areas would benefit most from a new event being closer by.
• Team density tends to drag events closer to existing teams like gravity (higher density in southern Michigan Districts). Events responding to existing teams and not trying to drive growth.
• New team growth depends on available population centers close enough to be affected by a new event and to draw from.
• Local availability of strong, established teams and thus volunteer sources to form the core support/experience for a local event
• District new team growth, 27 new FiM teams are located:
  • (6) District 14
  • (4) District 16 (has event)
  • (3) District 6 (has event)
  • (2) District 1
  • (2) District 2
  • (2) District 5 (has event)
  • (2) District 10 (has 2 events)
  • (1) District 7
  • (1) District 8 (has event)
  • (1) District 9
  • (1) District 11 (has event)
  • (1) District 12 (has event)
  • (1) District 15
  • (0) District 3
  • (0) District 4
  • (0) District 13 (has event)
• 
  

Thoughts, contributions, rumors, wild speculations, conspiracy theories all welcome...

Re: Registration 2012
 

Lansing would be a good site for a new District event.

I have no inside knowledge of FiM plans. We are a tad busy just now, getting new teams up and running out here in District 16. :)

Re: Registration 2012
 

• District 14 (Battle Creek) would be a good choice. That doesn't have an event yet, has the most new team growth, and is still close to the high team density Detroit area.
• District 7, Lansing would push the FiM center farther north and did have an event the first year when FiM was a pilot, so they'd know what's involved (or would that make Lansing shy away?).
• Kalamazoo might be a consideration based on team density and potential new team population.

Any other District teams care to jump in with opinions?

I've been busy myself running a series of rookie workshops (mechanical, pneumatics, electrical, programming, putting it all together) at two rookie sites locally.
Yesterday one rookie team finished assembling all the electronics and got a running robot, last night I took the robot apart, today another rookie team gets to put it all together (again). I feel like I'm on one of those hampster wheels.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Saginaw is likely, it has the benefit of utilizing the Flint network of volunteers and is just inside 7. Lansing is another good guess but there may be a reason that Lansing didn't hold another event (speculation).

Re: Registration 2012
 

The Tri-City area (Bay county, Saginaw county, and Midland county) has a population of roughly 400,000, but only a handful of FRC teams. FiM may target this area for a district because of the low team density, but high potential for growth.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Team 2337 attended the Lansing District in 2009 and it appeared to be well-run. I was personally disappointed the event did not come back for the following years. It's nice to have an event in the state capital as it is much easier to connect to and invite state congressmen and officials (the governor attended in 2009).

Re: Registration 2012
 

Since registration closed on December 1, FRC has:

• Gained 42 teams
• Lost 21 teams
• Net 21 (noon on 12/15/11)

A casual look at the overall registration number might not reveal that much is going on but HQ is probably a blur of activity.

More than 8 Regional lists have changed in the last day.

• 14.2% gain (293 teams) over last season
• 20% of teams are new (471) (about the same % as last year)
• -8.6% team loss

Re: Registration 2012
 

The best place for new exposure would to put a district event in Marquette Michigan (I'd say Houghton but not enough teams would actually trek that far to come to a competition) in District 1. Yes it is a drive for the teams in Lower Michigan but the UP is an awesome place and is well worth the trip also the UP is slowly growing with teams and this new competition would help speed it up. It would also help keep costs down for the teams in district 1 as they have to travel upwards of 10 hours one way to get to 1 competition and then to force them to do it twice is ridiculous. FIM was created to save teams $, get the costs of competitions down and to give teams more play for the price. All teams in District 1 don't see the benefit of it because they have to travel so far.

Re: Registration 2012
 

Anyone ever been to Sault Ste. Marie, MI?

Looks like there is an Airfield and a University. It is also 5 hours from Houghton, and 5 hours from Troy, MI.