Registration 2016

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

And MAR/NE seems to have recently had low rookie growth partially due to the age of the region.

Mark, since you seem to be taking requests for plots, any chance you could do a visualization of team age by region? Box and Whiskers would be fine, but I think a Histogram might give more info.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I find it very interesting that Michigan continues to see 20% year-over-year growth while MAR and NE are well below the average. I am a big proponent of districts for a lot of reasons, but it seems like their introduction alone has not had a major impact on growth trends.

In addition to the state funds - MAR and NE are pretty well established regions for FIRST. The "NJ" regional started in 1997, Philadelphia started in 1999. Using # of school districts/team or # of total students/team might show a better evaluation of FRC saturation in a region.

Recipe for success: giving free money to teams in a state with a gigantic base of engineering companies, engineers, and history of vocational/practical education in schools.

Edit: Andrew beat me - here's data for MAR...

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by scottandme

Edit: Andrew beat me - here's data for MAR...

Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Hallry

Scott, thanks for the data. I'm assuming the second column is number of rookies? Is this including split-off teams (193 and 265)?

Changed the data for clarity. All data is for teams currently registered for the 2016 season. Counted split-off teams as the year they started competing, so 193 counts as a 2013 rookie. 265 doesn't exist anymore, so they're not in the data.

Column 1: Year
MAR: # of MAR teams founded that year
% of MAR: # of teams from that year / total MAR teams
% active: % of current teams that participated in that season.

The "% active" is the data to compare to Mark's statement that 40% of FRC teams are less than 4 years old. Not sure which year he's using as the cutoff - 2013 rookies and newer? A little more than 60% of current MAR teams participated in the 2008 season.

[Mark McLeod]

I did from 2013 on thinking that seniors this year would have started as freshmen for the 2013 season. Thinking that four years might be considered an "FRC Generation."

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

It would also be interesting to look at these stats aggregated for each of the district areas.

I did this analysis for all of the Districts since forming. The full analysis can be found here.

A quick analysis of the 2016 growth shows that, with the exception of Michigan, who is currently benefiting from significant state support, as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

as a district becomes more established, their growth tends to diminish.

% Growth for 2016
MI---------------17.97%
MAR------------(-4.96)%
NE---------------0.00%
PNW-------------3.95%
IN----------------2.04%
GA---------------5.00%
NC---------------4.00%
Chesapeake-----6.45%
All Districts------7.07%

I think I'm confused as to what the percents are showing? Are the decrease in growth each year or the increase in growth per year? Thanks

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Michigan's growth is almost certainly related to the state funding for teams.

It definitely doesn't hurt, but don't forget that every new team is started and mentored with the help and sometimes persistent prodding of a local veteran team. There is a strong community in Michigan that makes the growth possible. Hopefully sponsors can keep up with all this development.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Looking at rookie growth in areas that don't have many teams.
The attached chart emphasizes the rookie vs veteran team ratio (as of today's registration).

# rookies / # veterans / % growth / Country
------ 2 -------- 1 ----- 200.0% ----- Colombia
----- 17 ------ 15 ----- 113.3% ----- China
------ 1 -------- 1 ----- 100.0% ----- Taiwan
------ 8 -------- 8 ----- 100.0% ----- Turkey
----- 13 ------ 18 ------ 72.2% ------ Australia
------ 1 -------- 2 ------ 50.0% ------ Netherlands
----- 14 ------ 33 ------ 42.4% ------ Mexico
------ 1 -------- 5 ------ 20.0% ------ Brazil
----- 28 ----- 178 ------ 15.7% ----- Canada
------ 7 ------- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
---- 238 --- 2356 ------ 10.1% ----- USA
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- CzechRepublic
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Ecuador
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- India
------ 1 -------- 0 ----- 100.0% ----- Poland


Here is a larger breakdown by state and country:
# rookies / # veterans / % / State-Country
----- 2 ------ 1 ----- 200.0% ---- Colombia
---- 17 ---- 15 ----- 113.3% ---- China
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Canada-BC
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- CzechRepublic
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Ecuador
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- India
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- NE
----- 1 ------ 0 ----- 100.0% ---- Poland
----- 1 ------ 1 ----- 100.0% ---- Taiwan
----- 8 ------ 8 ----- 100.0% ---- Turkey
---- 13 ---- 18 ------ 72.2% ----- Australia
----- 1 ------ 2 ------ 50.0% ----- Netherlands
----- 3 ------ 7 ------ 42.9% ----- AL
---- 14 ---- 33 ------ 42.4% ----- Mexico
----- 1 ------ 3 ------ 33.3% ----- DE
----- 7 ---- 22 ------ 31.8% ----- LA
----- 2 ------ 8 ------ 25.0% ----- IA
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- Brazil
----- 1 ------ 5 ------ 20.0% ----- RI
---- 66 -- 341 ------ 19.4% ----- MI
----- 3 ---- 16 ------ 18.8% ----- Canada-AB
----- 2 ---- 11 ------ 18.2% ----- ID
----- 6 ---- 39 ------ 15.4% ----- Canada-QC
---- 18 -- 122 ------ 14.8% ----- Canada-ON
----- 2 ---- 14 ------ 14.3% ----- AR
----- 5 ---- 35 ------ 14.3% ----- MD
---- 15 -- 105 ------ 14.3% ----- TX
----- 7 ---- 50 ------ 14.0% ----- Israel
----- 6 ---- 45 ------ 13.3% ----- OH
----- 6 ---- 46 ------ 13.0% ----- NC
---- 29 -- 227 ------ 12.8% ----- CA
----- 1 ------ 8 ------ 12.5% ----- MS
----- 2 ---- 16 ------ 12.5% ----- UT
----- 7 ---- 62 ------ 11.3% ----- FL
----- 1 ------ 9 ------ 11.1% ----- NV
----- 6 ---- 57 ------ 10.5% ----- GA
----- 4 ---- 39 ------ 10.3% ----- OR
----- 4 ---- 40 ------ 10.0% ----- WI
----- 6 ---- 65 ------- 9.2% ----- MO
----- 9 --- 105 ------- 8.6% ----- WA
----- 4 ---- 47 ------- 8.5% ----- OK
----- 6 ---- 72 ------- 8.3% ----- VA
----- 4 ---- 62 ------- 6.5% ----- MA
---- 12 -- 186 ------- 6.5% ----- MN
----- 2 ---- 31 ------- 6.5% ----- NH
----- 3 ---- 47 ------- 6.4% ----- IN
----- 4 ---- 66 ------- 6.1% ----- NJ
----- 3 ---- 56 ------- 5.4% ----- IL
----- 1 ---- 20 ------- 5.0% ----- KS
----- 7 -- 140 ------- 5.0% ----- NY
----- 2 ---- 45 ------- 4.4% ----- AZ
----- 1 ---- 31 ------- 3.2% ----- TN
----- 1 ---- 36 ------- 2.8% ----- CO
----- 1 ---- 39 ------- 2.6% ----- SC
----- 1 ---- 46 ------- 2.2% ----- CT

This tells me two things:
Michigan is incredible, and we need to step it up in New York.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

This tells me two things:
Michigan is incredible, and we need to step it up in New York.

Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Michigan has unwavering support from their governor (he won the FIRST Make it Loud award last year). Getting Cuomo to even show up for a regional would be a huge step forward for us.

Rick Snyder at MSC

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by logank013

I think I'm confused as to what the percents are showing? Are the decrease in growth each year or the increase in growth per year? Thanks

Sorry about the confusion. The data that I ported to CD shows only the growth from 2015 to 2016. Every district with the exception of MAR had positive growth for that period.

However when you look at the overall growth of each district (again with the exception of Michigan which this data just further proves to be AWESOME) it tends to have a spike for the first year or two then start to level out. I have added a graph to the sheet that better shows this.

[Jessica Boucher]

Mark, this may not be possible, but I would love to see if the data supports my "scorched earth" theory.

I love grants for rookie teams, I do. It's obvious growth into new schools is a KPI for the organization as a whole, but it's not like we haven't seen how rookie grants play out.

I have concerns that when rookie grants run out and the team fails, the school is essentially "scorched" and won't be amenable to picking the program back up again for a period of time. We saw this in New England with the Smith Family teams - only a handful still exist and we have to wait the school out for an administration change or something similar before they are open to jumping back in again.

All I'm asking is to just be careful. Yes, there are still a ton of high schools out there, but we're picking our best shot at sustainability in these grants and I would hate to see our growth stunted because of shortsightedness.

[sciencenuetzel]

Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by sciencenuetzel

Another question for everyone... how do waitlists work? I assume rookies bump up to the front. After rookies is there a specific method for choosing teams or is it up to each regional planning committee?

Yep, rookies get priority, but after that it is usually up to the regional director discretion as to how to fill the remaining spots. I don't think the planning committees decide this. I have heard that they pay attention to local teams and how many events each waitlisted team has registered for.