Lowest Number

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by EddieMcD

I searched an hour and a half for this list I made ages ago (it got to the point where I probably would've been better off searching for my ancient yearbooks). It's 100% accurate up to and including 2002 (proof that I made this list ages ago ). Everything 2003 and beyond has been addended to the list through the years a few times, and therefore may not be 100% correct (it's still pretty accurate though).

• Teams #1-#208 were rookies in or before 1998 (this is due to FIRST giving teams new numbers every year previously).
• Teams #209-#335 were rookies in 1999.
• Teams #336-#491 were rookies in 2000.
• Teams #492-#716 were rookies in 2001.
• Teams #717-#999 were rookies in 2002 (semi-pointless fact: the reason they stopped at 999 was because the IFI controllers then weren't configured to display more than three digits; if any numbers were ever reissued, it would've happened in this year becasue of that).
• Teams #1000-#1238 were rookies in 2003.
• Teams #1239-#1497 were rookies in 2004.
• Teams #1498-#1709 were rookies in 2005.
• Teams #1710-#1980 were rookies in 2006.
• Teams #1981-#2287 were rookies in 2007.

Also, keep in mind that there were times if a team switched sponsors, FIRST would issue a new number. There were also teams that took a year off getting a new number on their return. Finally, there were teams that disbanded, returned, or merged with another team either getting a brand new number, of one of their old numbers. But for the most part, this is how FIRST's numbering is.

Now: ::Copies, Pastes, Saves, goes to bed::

Corrected later year splits (bold).

[EddieMcD]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

Corrected later year splits (bold).

• Teams #1000-#1238 were rookies in 2003.
• Teams #1239-#1497 were rookies in 2004.
• Teams #1498-#1709 were rookies in 2005.
• Teams #1710-#1980 were rookies in 2006.
• Teams #1981-#2287 were rookies in 2007.

Yeah, I could've sworn I saw a 1999 last year, but it turns out, I'm crazy . So you're right on the 1980/1981 change (and the saved list now reflects that). I'm not so sure on the other two changes though. I could've sworn they stopped at 1500 intentionally in 2004, therefore begining in 2005 at 1501. My list also gets a bit muddy on the 2003 cutoff/2004 start; I believe I tacked that on the year after the fact, and haven't been able to find anything more accurate since (we've apparently lost a lot of teams from that year). If you could show me a source or something on those two changes, it'd be appreciated.

We WILL get this list accurate!

[GaryVoshol]

See team data from the FIRST site. For example, https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index....info&team=1498

Just change the team number at the end of the line, and you'll get any team you want.

I knew 1999/2000 wasn't the current split, and thought the 1500/1501 was a little too "convenient", if you know what I mean, so I went looking.

[Schnabel]

Huh, when I went to that link, it showed two team #4s. Now that is funny!

[EddieMcD]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

See team data from the FIRST site. For example, https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index....info&team=1498

Just change the team number at the end of the line, and you'll get any team you want.

I knew 1999/2000 wasn't the current split, and thought the 1500/1501 was a little too "convenient", if you know what I mean, so I went looking.

Huh... if only that had existed when I was making and addending that list over the years (or even when I spent all that time searching for the list last night)... Anyhow, thanks for the source (though I still could've sworn they cut off the 2004 teams at 1500 intentionally, but thenagain, I could possibly be crazy). So this should be all 100% accurate now:

• Teams #1-#208 were rookies in or before 1998 (this is due to FIRST giving teams new numbers every year previously).
• Teams #209-#335 were rookies in 1999.
• Teams #336-#491 were rookies in 2000.
• Teams #492-#716 were rookies in 2001.
• Teams #717-#999 were rookies in 2002 (semi-pointless fact: the reason they stopped at 999 was because the IFI controllers then weren't configured to display more than three digits; if any numbers were ever reissued, it would've happened in this year).
• Teams #1000-#1238 were rookies in 2003.
• Teams #1239-#1497 were rookies in 2004.
• Teams #1498-#1709 were rookies in 2005.
• Teams #1710-#1980 were rookies in 2006.
• Teams #1981-#2287 were rookies in 2007.

Also, keep in mind that there were times if a team switched sponsors, FIRST would issue a new number. There were also teams that took a year off getting a new number on their return. Finally, there were teams that disbanded, returned, or merged with another team either getting a brand new number, of one of their old numbers. But for the most part, this is how FIRST's numbering is.

At least I'll have more sleep tonight...

[Madison]

Originally Posted by EddieMcD

Teams #717-#999 were rookies in 2002 (semi-pointless fact: the reason they stopped at 999 was because the IFI controllers then weren't configured to display more than three digits; if any numbers were ever reissued, it would've happened in this year).

To my knowledge, no team numbers were reissued to rookies for the 2002 season.

Registration in 2001 stopped at 716, but began for 2002 with 800. When new registrants reached 999, FIRST began assigning numbers between 717 and 783. Team numbers 784-799 have never been assigned, as far as I'm aware.

[Mike Schroeder]

that would have to be negative infinity. yup defiantly the lowest number


(wonder about the randomness i decided to just post based on title alone without reading what the actual thread was about.)

[EddieMcD]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

To my knowledge, no team numbers were reissued to rookies for the 2002 season.

Well, that's why I used the word "if". I heard a few rumors at the time of older numbers being given out, but nothing concrete. But I put that subnote in there just in case. I'm fairly certain no earlier numbers were reissued to the 2002 rookies as well, but it's possible something slipped through the cracks.

[Taylor]

Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule....I'm not sure on the particulars but I believe the Martians (494) team is more "experienced" than the More Martians (70) .... both are MI teams (and very good ones at that) and I'm sure somebody on CD can support/completely contradict me.

[raymaniac]

Originally Posted by "Big Mike"

that would have to be negative infinity. yup defiantly the lowest number


(wonder about the randomness i decided to just post based on title alone without reading what the actual thread was about.)

There are teams with negative numbers?!?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by boiler

Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule....I'm not sure on the particulars but I believe the Martians (494) team is more "experienced" than the More Martians (70) .... both are MI teams (and very good ones at that) and I'm sure somebody on CD can support/completely contradict me.

Technically 70 has been around longer than 494. 70's rookie year was 1998, and functioned as an independent team until 2006, when 494 (2001 rookies) "adopted" them learning that they were falling apart. in 2006, 70 became the "More Martians".
Your concept is still true. When older teams split, the new rookie is given a low number. 22 split in 2006, forming teams 22 and 4. 64 was "retired" in 2006, and team 39 was born. Etc.