Best year for teams?

[Lil' Lavery]

Well, we've seen which state is best polls, etc. Time to see which year has produced the best teams. Please also state why you think that year has the best teams.

Noteable rookies from each year include:
1992-45, 20, 126, 190, and 191
1993-Doesn't seem to be any still in existance
1994-155, 81
1995-173, 108, 177
1996-16, 33, 47, 71, 85, 111, 121, 175
1997-25, 34, 56, 65, 67, 118, 27, 11
1998 (first year of permanent numbers, but these are still alphabetical based on primary sponsor)-48, 68, 79, 179, 180, 201, 330 (then 82)
1999 (permanent numbers associated with "age" start in 1999)-217, 222, 229, 233, 234, 254
2000-343, 357, 365, 384, 388, 395, 435, 469
2001-503, 522, 571, 662, 716
2002-868, 977, 980, 968, 987
2003-1002, 1024, 1114, 1089, 1126
2004-1305, 1414
2005-1503, 1507, 1511, 1541, 1574, 1680
2006-1902, 1731, 1885, 1901

My opinion, 1996. 1996 saw the birth of 16 (The Bomb Squad), 33 (Killer Bees), 47 (Chief Delphi), 71 (Team Hammond, aka THE BEAST), 111 (Wildstang), any many others.
1997 and 1992 also make very strong cases.

[Elgin Clock]

It's kind of hard to vote on a year without some info.

Got a list of who was a rookie what year?

96 sure does sound like a good class though.

[Lil' Lavery]

Note, from some of the responses, it seems that people are judging solely on the rookie year (or not, they havn't posted their logic). This was meant to be what teams have had the most success thru their history, voted on by the year they were founded.

List of some teams from each year upcoming.

[sanddrag]

Yet another thread about a select few great teams. My oh my. Yes, they are great, but can't we give it a rest and just say all teams are great?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Yet another thread about a select few great teams. My oh my. Yes, they are great, but can't we give it a rest and just say all teams are great?

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.

[Mike Schroeder]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Yet another thread about a select few great teams. My oh my. Yes, they are great, but can't we give it a rest and just say all teams are great?

Originally Posted by bobc

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.

*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*

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Yet another thread about a select few great teams. My oh my. Yes, they are great, but can't we give it a rest and just say all teams are great?

Any team that can successfully complete a season of FRC is a good team. However, the competition tends to separate out a group of teams that performs better in certain aspects of the competition. And as long as we're only giving ups to teams and not putting anyone down, I don't see a problem doing it.

Biased as I may be towards 2004, I think 2000 really had a great crop of rookies both in quantity and quality: 337, 340, 341, 342, 343, 357, 422, 433, 435, 469, and probably quite a few more I've forgotten about.

<edit>Oh, and how could I forget 365? I think all that green warped my brain or something, making me forget them when writing the post.</edit>

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

(permanent numbers start in 1999)

The permanent numbers actually started in 1998, if I'm not mistaken.

[Karthik]

The class of 1996, hands down. What's astounding about that class is not just the legacies those teams have laid, but how quickly they did it. Granted FIRST was much smaller back then, but these teams ascended to the top of the competition in now time at all. In my first year, 1998, I learned very quickly that Team 16, 47, 71 and 111 were the teams to beat.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Yet another thread about a select few great teams. My oh my. Yes, they are great, but can't we give it a rest and just say all teams are great

Yes, all FIRST teams have made a huge accomplishment, but some teams go above and beyond. The teams listed have inspired thousands with their amazing designs. I think they deserve every bit of extra recognition we can give them.

I feel that FIRST history is something that is often neglected by our community. I'm big on telling the story of each match. Look at how sports are broadcast today, so much of the production is not about the game, but the backstory behind it. Knowing the history of the great teams makes it so much easier to appreciate the events.

For example, to many seeing the alliance of 71 & 254 was just two good 2006 robots working together. But to those who know the history, that's an alliance of profound proportions. We're talking about the two most decorated teams in FIRST history together in an alliance for the FIRST time!! They faced of in the 2001 finals. Between them they have over 20 regional wins. Beatty has 4 Championships, but the mighty Poofs have yet to climb that mountain. Just typing this sends shivers up my spine. Am I crazy, or do any of you get this way too?

Anyways, yay for a thread which exposes people to more FIRST history and the stories of our elite teams.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The permanent numbers actually started in 1998, if I'm not mistaken.

Bleh, permanent numbers in association with "age". The 1998 teams were still assigned alphabetically.

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by Billfred

great crop of rookies both in quantity and quality: 337, 340, 341, 342, 343, 357, 422, 433, 435, 469, and probably quite a few more I've forgotten about.

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

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

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

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

[Cactus_Robotics]

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.

[josh s]

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.

[Jeff Waegelin]

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...