[thefro526]

It seems to me that "have's and have not's" seem to be based on the Current Standard for most teams in FIRST. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of teams now compete in at least two events and it's not really that uncommon to see a team compete in three or more.

In some cases I've also seem some smaller teams compare themselves to some of the larger, more well funded teams saying that they don't have the money, resources, etc to build a robot and compete on the caliber of larger teams. Personally I try to make sure to explain that teams like them aren't the norm in FIRST.

My Personal Definition of a Have or a Have not would be:

Have Not: Can barely afford to compete at one event, no money for off-seasons, minimal to no Engineering &/or School Support, basic tools, and a minimal Robot Construction Budget. I would consider this team to really need funding.

Have's: Can afford to compete in one regional without too much difficulty, has money for at least one off-season competition, has the support of their school, at least some level of Engineering or Technical Support, decent tool setup, and has a decent robot budget. Teams like this can always use funding, but I don't think they're in dire need of it except to expand their program.

Well Off: Can afford to compete in two or more regionals, has plenty of money in the off-season, School and Engineering support, good tooling, and a good/great robot budget. These teams could use more funding, but it would most likely be to expand their program.

Really Well Off: Consistently Competes in 3 or more events a year, competes in multiple off-seasons, excellent School and Engineering Support, a great tool setup, and a great robot budget. These teams seem to be extremely well funded and are usually the ones with the largest sponsorship base.