Texas Regionals

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

You're probably right, Andrew.

We'll see how things develop, team count wise, over the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons.

I'm wondering what the minimum FRC team count needs to be to move to district model in Texas?

--Michael

Doubt there is a set minimum of FRC teams needed for districts. Though if the UIL team bump had existed, it would been harder to transition to the district model. As if Texas has passed 160 teams they would have probably needed 3 fields. At their current team counts they can live with 1 to 2 events a week for 8-9 events and a state champs, which would only require FIT to get 2 fields.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Doubt there is a set minimum of FRC teams needed for districts. Though if the UIL team bump had existed, it would been harder to transition to the district model. As if Texas has passed 160 teams they would have probably needed 3 fields. At their current team counts they can live with 1 to 2 events a week for 8-9 events and a state champs, which would only require FIT to get 2 fields.

5 weeks of events, 40 teams per event, 2 events/week = 400 spots.

That's enough room for 200 teams with only 2 fields. We definitely need more teams and we need teams that will be sustainable for many years.

[jee7s]

Along the lines of what Allen says, I think the focus has to shift from raw team count to team sustainability. Texas was on a pretty good run for about 3 years from 2011 to 2014 with fairly good retention. That was after the gushing cash from JCP and others in the 2009-2010 seasons, where retention was at about 50%. It seems we are in a similar phase now, though not nearly the loss rates of 2009-2010.

What do both situations have in common? Easy money. FIRST in Texas are doing a wonderful job supporting teams by administering grants. But, I think there's an element of sticker shock when the nearly fully paid for rookie season is followed by less and less funding in the years that follow. My suspicion is that teams don't take advantage of the rookie funding to secure early sponsors and partners, instead delaying that decision until funding starts to decline. Then, it's often too late to recover and get the money to keep the team operating.

And, let's not forget the economic situation in the state. Yes, those of us in metropolitan areas see growth and jobs, but you don't have to go too far to find a once thriving Texas town with 80% of the shops shuttered and little more than a courthouse to speak of. So, when teams from places like Lazbuddie, Shallowater, and Marfa drop off the list, it could be any number of reasons. But certainly those areas are not thriving economically and the loss of grants can mean the loss of a team.

So, back to the point, until we can sustain teams over 5 or more seasons with regularity, the District question in Texas remains open. With the added pull of resources toward Championship, I think the talk of going to Districts in 2018 is as unlikely as I said the move would be for 2017. Personally, I put the over/under at 2020. Call me a pessimist, but I think the rate of turnover this year coupled with the Houston Championship resource and money draw has pushed out the timeline substantially.

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

5 weeks of events, 40 teams per event, 2 events/week = 400 spots.

That's enough room for 200 teams with only 2 fields. We definitely need more teams and we need teams that will be sustainable for many years.

You could run 200 teams on 2 fields, but that is assuming the following:

• You want to run 2 events all 5 weeks. With the size of Texas is you may want to take a week off between events and state champs to give team a chance to work out travel arrangements.
• You can get a 2 good locations every week. Schedule conflicts do and will happen.
• Every location can hold 40 teams. Many schools are not laid out in a way that is fitting FRC events, so you may end up with events that can only hold 30-35 teams.
• Teams can travel to fill every event. In a state as big as Texas, events will take place in locations that might be able to draw a full 40 (El Paso/McAllen/East Texas)
• No teams will want a 3rd event and FiT does not want the 3rd event money

Originally Posted by jee7s

So, back to the point, until we can sustain teams over 5 or more seasons with regularity, the District question in Texas remains open. With the added pull of resources toward Championship, I think the talk of going to Districts in 2018 is as unlikely as I said the move would be for 2017. Personally, I put the over/under at 2020. Call me a pessimist, but I think the rate of turnover this year coupled with the Houston Championship resource and money draw has pushed out the timeline substantially.

Why do you think that a regional model is better for sustaining teams then a district model would be?

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Why do you think that a regional model is better for sustaining teams then a district model would be?

I never said a regional model is better. My comments are directed toward what has transpired and what I know about what it takes to transition to the District model.

As I've often mentioned to people during discussions in Texas and other threads here, the problem with Texas isn't that we are short on registration slots, it's that this place is downright huge. Most teams, particularly those outside of the major cities, have travel costs that far exceed registration fees. While I haven't polled teams, I think the reason many of them fold is that they know they need 2 events to have a fighting practical chance at improvement, but they can't afford the extra travel.

Ultimately, District gets them that second play, but if they qualify for District Champs, they see a $8000 increase in their budget ($4000 in registration, $4000 in travel) to get to that event. So, District model means only more costs for many teams because the travel is far larger a portion of their budget than in other areas of the country. That's a hard sell to make for most teams, in my estimation and observation. While I feel the District model would lead to more events and more teams and be a net benefit, the prospect of teams facing such additional extra costs to qualify for Houston champs makes this a very hard sell. In my opinion. that introduces major concerns about how many teams will drop when District model happens. Yes, I said drop. But, that's just an initial drop due to the transition, and ultimately I think there will be more teams, and more competitive teams, in Texas as a result of the move.

So, yeah, it's chicken and egg, but the trigger to make the transition will be the sustainability of teams and funding, both of which have been reasonably volatile in recent years and need to settle into sustainability before we make the move.

[lynca]

Texas is at 140 teams, almost back to the 141 teams from 2016.
There is still room for a few more teams.

Hub City - 41
Dallas - 49
Lone Star Central - 37
Lone Star North - 28
Brazos Valley - 37
Alamo - 46

Missing Vets:

57 Houston, TX USA
2966 Pharr, TX USA
3282 Dallas, TX USA
3305 El Paso, TX USA
3417 Austin, TX USA
3741 Rio Grande City, TX USA
4155 Houston, TX USA
4300 McKinney, TX USA
4412 San Antonio, TX USA
4570 Lubbock, TX USA
4852 Shallowater, TX USA
5241 San Antonio, TX USA
5416 Katy, TX USA
5566 Sugar Land , TX USA
5739 Dallas, TX USA
5771 Marfa, TX USA
6051 Converse, TX USA
6196 College Station, TX USA
6235 Midlothian, TX USA

[Andrew Schuetze]

Quick thoughts on UIL and Texas growth,
(TAPPS has adopted FLL and FTC now as part of their portfolio) TAPPS robotics


Texas FTC team counts has witnessed continued annual growth that once again is on track to be 10% of all FTC in North America. Texas had 400 FTC teams last season and North America FTC team count was just north of 4000. Alamo FTC, Southeast Texas FTC and the Pan Handle Plaines FTC regions all implemented league play last year. A majority of FTC teams in Texas now play in leagues. Texas FTC Championships advanced 25 teams to the FTC South Super Regional Championship in recent years which makes them 35% of the teams in the SSR.

FLL in Texas has continued to grow like weeds. We witnessed two FLL affiliate partners change to new orgs this season but we didn't drop a beat in terms of FLL team growth. Alamo FLL was 290 teams last year and will be nearly 400 teams this year. That is down to 25% growth from something close to 40-50% since the region started in 2008.

I have the opinion that Texas is doing things correctly now with a lot of great energy building the FIRST continuum that is going to translate long term in to sustained FIRST growth across the State. Building the culture of FIRST with students and parents from grade school up is going to build sustainability. It is not just something that a principal or school district admin considers as a club for the high school but rather a systemic program.

Northside ISD superintendent, Dr. Woods sees this vision and began two years ago supporting FLL teams at elementary schools with district funds. That led to an increase in Alamo FLL team counts by 75 teams. This season they are supporting middle school FLL teams so there is another 25 or so FLL teams. That is building support from the district level towards FTC and FRC at the high school. Northside ISD is hosting a half-dozen FLL qualifiers and a few FTC league meets. We are seeing that happening in more and more schools district in the area.

So get out and support FLL qualifiers in your area if you are not already. Help FTA, judge or referee at a FTC league meet or championship, these are going to lead to more sustainability and be a long term growth effort for more FRC teams and FRC district play.

Grants and funding are the fuel to growth but volunteers and mentors are the VEHICLES!

[Michael Blake]

Does anyone know total FRC teams count in Texas for seasons:

2015?
2016?
Upcoming - 2017?

And also, is there a place(s) you can go to get these valid numbers that also filters out pre-Rookies that didn't end up registering and defunct teams?

Thanks!

--Michael Blake

[EricH]

I believe that "place" is actually Mark Mcleod. Might want to ask in the Registration 2017 thread, too--gets his attention pretty quickly.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by EricH

I believe that "place" is actually Mark Mcleod. Might want to ask in the Registration 2017 thread, too--gets his attention pretty quickly.

Thanks Eric!

I got this link from Mark's thread... works very well...

https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso

--Michael

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Does anyone know total FRC teams count in Texas for seasons:

2015?
2016?
Upcoming - 2017?

Found the source... answering my own question:

2014 - 131 Texas FRC teams
2015 - 136 Texas FRC teams +5
2016 - 141 Texas FRC teams +5
2017 - 144 Texas FRC teams +3

ALL the upset around UIL designation causing some teams to have to radically change and some teams being excluded from UIL Texas State Championships and _all_ Texas gains is a net 3 team growth?

Granted it's the first year of UIL endorsement, but we were led to believe there'd at least be a mini-explosion out of the gate in team numbers growth driven by UIL validating/promoting FRC.

http://firstintexas.org/uil/

Maybe in the mid-term and long-term that UIL-powered growth explosion will happen, but this first year (2017 - 144 teams) number isn't encouraging.

Trying not to be negative... just being real about this UIL thingy...

--Michael Blake

[lynca]

Texas is now at 153 teams. 2017 numbers are the largest increase since 2011.

2007 - 35
2008 - 45 (+10)
2009 - 91 (+46)
2010 - 104 (+13)
2011 - 144 (+40)
2012 - 147 (+3)
2013 - 139 (-8)
2014 - 131 (-8)
2015 - 136 (+5)
2016 - 141 (+5)
2017 - 153 (+12)

Missing Vet List: (13 teams)
57 Houston, TX USA
2966 Pharr, TX USA
3305 El Paso, TX USA
4155 Houston, TX USA
4300 McKinney, TX USA
4570 Lubbock, TX USA
4852 Shallowater, TX USA
5241 San Antonio, TX USA
5416 Katy, TX USA
5566 Sugar Land , TX USA
5739 Dallas, TX USA
6051 Converse, TX USA
6196 College Station, TX USA

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by lynca

Texas is now at 153 teams. 2017 numbers are the largest increase since 2011.

2007 - 35
2008 - 45 (+10)
2009 - 91 (+46)
2010 - 104 (+13)
2011 - 144 (+40)
2012 - 147 (+3)
2013 - 139 (-8)
2014 - 131 (-8)
2015 - 136 (+5)
2016 - 141 (+5)
2017 - 153 (+12)

Missing Vet List: (13 teams)
57 Houston, TX USA
2966 Pharr, TX USA
3305 El Paso, TX USA
4155 Houston, TX USA
4300 McKinney, TX USA
4570 Lubbock, TX USA
4852 Shallowater, TX USA
5241 San Antonio, TX USA
5416 Katy, TX USA
5566 Sugar Land , TX USA
5739 Dallas, TX USA
6051 Converse, TX USA
6196 College Station, TX USA

Someone correct me on my history - was 2009 the big JC Penny grant? When did that money stop flowing...2012? What happened in 2011?

Really surprised to see that 5416 wasn't able to scrounge up a teacher. It's a shame seeing a RAS team do well 2 years in a row and definitely be building towards a strong program and then have to take a year (or more) off.

Also sort of surprised about 6051 and 6196. I know out at Alamo I talked to their teacher/coach/parent for 6051 and he was excited about learning the ropes to do it better this year (and he had a son on the team, which I would think might be enough to hobble a team a long for awhile) and 6196 has a strong BEST program and they did pretty decent at LSR last year.

[lynca]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

Someone correct me on my history - was 2009 the big JC Penny grant? When did that money stop flowing...2012? What happened in 2011?

2009 was JC Penny Grants and Dallas Regional

2011 was Alamo FIRST money and Alamo Regional

JC Penny slowed down a lot in 2013

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by lynca

2009 was JC Penny Grants and Dallas Regional

2011 was Alamo FIRST money and Alamo Regional

JC Penny slowed down a lot in 2013

Andrew... 2011 was 3481's rookie year and we started off with $6,500.00 from JC Penny paid direct to USFIRST _and_ $6,500.00 from Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) channeled through FIRST-in-Texas.

There was also 2nd year $$ from JC Penny I don't recall the amount but was substantial and I believe zero $$ from TWC.

--Michael