Most FIRST teams per capita

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

*The teams per capita represents the number of people in each state/area per each FIRST team.

This is a great list.

For clarity, though, you have provided a list of capita per team, not teams per capita. If I understand, you divided the population by the number of teams (population / # of teams).

Teams per capita would be # of teams / polulation.

(Don't like to be picky, but you would lose some points on a math or stats test. )

[Justin]

This is some pretty interesting data. NH representin'!!!! ;-) I was kinda surprised to see NH on the top of the list but it makes sense we're a small state with lots of teams so...go NH. I think this thread makes some good points particularly that it wouldn't hurt the community to get smart about creating teams this post certainly helps. Dean just keeps saying more teams more teams more teams but what this thread makes clear is what does that mean?? If the goal of FIRST is to reach as many kids as possible then it doesn't matter if we create 500 more teams in CA or Michigan, that's important certainly, but there are a lot of kids in some of the states on the bottom of the list missing out. I know that when I look back on my HS FIRST career and think about the reasons why I stay close to the program even now is that when I was on a team in HS it was probably one of the best experiences of my life. I think we could all agree that it is important that as many kids as possible get to experience that.

Justin

[Alex Pelan]

It's good to see CT (da CUTT or something of that nature) ranked high in a list besides the "Cost of living" one...

-Alex Pelan is extremely glad he doesn't have to pay taxes.

[Jverdon]

Way to go Mississippi big 34 baby.
That number suprised me I thought it would be lower with only 5 Teams.

[Nate Edwards]

We are currently working on getting Lincoln High School in Lincoln Nebraska into FIRST. I think there are several other teams looking for to start Nebraska teams.. who knows maybe they will start several next year... I am considering visiting lincoln high this summer as my uncle manages the u of nebraska bookstore. If I do take the the trip I will try and meet with the principal about FIRST, and if we have our VEX robot buy then, take that with me to show him what its all about. So there is some work being done, and I have heard some other teams mention possible work so lets get our 50th state to join FIRST and then look beyond into countries all over this world.

Nate

[KathieK]

You may wish to look at the other thread started last fall concerning number of teams per square mile. I think Connecticut ranked near the top in that listing as well. Sustaining teams becomes an issue when you have a high number of teams in a small geographical area, all competing for the same funding and mentorship. Even simple things like trying to reserve flights for groups out of the same airport on the same days to go to Atlanta become potential problems!

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by KathieK

You may wish to look at the other thread started last fall concerning number of teams per square mile. I think Connecticut ranked near the top in that listing as well. Sustaining teams becomes an issue when you have a high number of teams in a small geographical area, all competing for the same funding and mentorship. Even simple things like trying to reserve flights for groups out of the same airport on the same days to go to Atlanta become potential problems!

Aw, heck, I don't really care much about this, but teams per unit of area is a pretty poor metric. New York City or LA/Orange County could have ten times the teams per unit area of Alaska and still have an infinitely easier time finding resources. The most useful measure would probably be some measure of economic strength divided by number of teams. Connecticut, for example, has a much larger economy than Montana, which is about a zillion times larger geographically.

I'll leave the details as an exercise for the students.

As for airport scheduling, the larger the economic base, the better served you will be for airports. In Connecticut, this might be a problem if you are all trying to fly out of Hartford, but you could always fly out of La Guardia or JFK, or even Logan.

At least you have major airports handy. Consider the plight of teams in places like Bellingham, Washington, Coos Bay, Oregon, or Red Bluff, California. All of them have to schedule trips just to get to an airport capable of getting a connection through to Atlanta. (Yes, I know. Coos Bay has an airport. To fly to Atlanta they would fly to Portland, and then take a plane which would probably have to make a stop along the way. It's probably a 12-hour trip. I don't think there is a place in New England where a major airport takes longer to get to than driving from Bellingham to SeaTac. You easterners just don't understand distance...) (To not just beat a dead horse, but to beat it and then blow it up -- there are also a lot more choices for flights from major airports than small ones. There might only be one team in Helena, Montana, as a made-up example, but there might only be two flights a day out of there to a hub with connections to Atlanta.)

[KathieK]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Connecticut, for example, has a much larger economy than Montana, which is about a zillion times larger geographically.

True, true. But contrary to what some people believe, many CT teams are located in rural areas (yes we have them) and the ones in urban areas ARE competing for the same dollars and mentors. Ask any of the several teams in the state who are scrambling to stay alive. (Does everyone in the country think Connecticut is full of millionaires? I've lived here for over 30 years and haven't met one yet - where are they hiding? )

As for airport scheduling, the larger the economic base, the better served you will be for airports. In Connecticut, this might be a problem if you are all trying to fly out of Hartford, but you could always fly out of La Guardia or JFK, or even Logan.

Yes, we have access to nearby major airports, but that would necessitate another $1200 or more spent on bus transfers. Because there are only a few flights that directly fly to Atlanta from Hartford each day (it's weird), it means they book up very quickly and cannot accomodate groups. So we fly to Chicago or Detroit, then to Atlanta. Expensive and it takes a while - we were at the airport at 6:30 a.m. and arrived at the hotel after 5:30p.m. Or we fly a day ahead and come home a day late - more hotel costs, food costs, more school boards to approve the trip, etc. Or we split up the group. We never thought flying to Atlanta would be so expensive and so difficult.

I guess the bottom line is that there are difficulties encountered no matter if you are in a small state (geographical or population) or a large one.

[Jessica Boucher]

I was thinking about setting the number of teams in a state vs. certain NAICS or SIC code percentages within the state (NAICS= North American Industry Classification System, SIC = Standard Industrial Classification, both define all industry types into numerical code)....but I couldnt decide on which code to use.

[Alaina]

Haha, California is smack in the middle!

[Ryan F.]

Ranking / State / Teams Per Capita* (in thousands)

1. New Hampshire - 54.1
2. North Dakota - 105. 7
3. Michigan - 108.7
4. Connecticut - 125.1
5. Virginia - 135.6
6. Alaska - 163.9
7. Washington D.C. - 177.8
8. South Carolina - 182.5
9. Montana - 185.4
10. New Jersey - 189.1
11. Colorado - 209.2
12. New York - 216.0
13. Massachusetts - 221.3
14. Kansas - 248.7
15. Oregon - 256.8
16. South Dakota - 256.9
17. Nevada - 291.9
18. Indiana - 297.0
19. Pennsylvania - 302.6
20. Hawaii - 315.7
21. Maine - 329.3
22. Arizona - 337.9
23. Ohio - 347.2
24. Rhode Island - 360.2
25. California - 362.6
26. Wisconsin - 367.3
27. Georgia - 367.9
28. Maryland - 397.0
29. Florida - 404.6
30. Missouri - 411.0
31. Washington - 413.6
32. Delaware - 415.2
33. Wyoming - 506.5
34. Mississippi - 580.6
35. West Virginia - 605.2
36. Vermont - 621.4
37. Idaho - 696.6
38. Oklahoma - 704.7
39. Alabama - 755.0
NATIONAL AVERAGE: 770.7
40. Texas - 803.2
41. Louisiana - 903.2
42. New Mexico - 951.6
43. Illinois - 978.0

44. Iowa - 981.4

45. North Carolina - 1067.7
46. Arkansas - 1376.3
47. Utah - 2389.0
48. Tennessee - 2950.5
49. Puerto Rico - 3894.9
50. Kentucky - 4145.9
51. Minnesota - 5101.0
52. Nebraska - has no teams


2,954,451 people/ ( 3 teams ) = 981354

Sticking up for Iowa!

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Ryan Forystek

2,954,451 people/ ( 3 teams ) = 981354

Sticking up for Iowa!

I'm sorry I had that wrong! To find the number of teams per state, I used the Triple Play booklet that was handed out to teams at the regionals, and the map on it only showed two teams in Iowa.

Thanks for the correction!

[AV_guy007]

Yay!!!!!!
I'm with you pelan, dam glad i dont have to pay taxes
although we our capital is the 7th most dangerous city

[artdutra04]

I'd just like to remind everyone that these were the stats for the 2005 competition. After the regionals are over I might complile a similar list for teams in the 2006 season.

[lukevanoort]

We're #44
Which is weird since #5 is our neighbor to the north and #8 is to the south, and we have a decent high tech industry. (Atleast in RTP) As well as several top schools. (Duke and UNC-Ch)