Team 3000!

[ATannahill]

I say under, probably 2010.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

over under 2012 season when we get to team 4000?

i say under

I say 'under' as well.

[Tetraman]

any thoughts on what will happen the day they reach team 9999?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

any thoughts on what will happen the day they reach team 9999?

Hexadecimal team numbers.

[ATannahill]

Maybe they will distribut those numbers that were not used?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

any thoughts on what will happen the day they reach team 9999?

The new control system supports over 25,000 team numbers, which is also approximately the number of high schools in the US.

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Maybe they will distribut those numbers that were not used?

I'd like this to happen before we get into the HUGE numbers. So rather than break 4 digits, let's recycle until we HAVE to break 4 digits, eh?

[hallk]

While I love all the new growth, it can be kinda tough to remember all the teams and where they are from.

Can anyone actually explain why team numbers have been skipped each year? To me, it just doesn't make sense to skip the numbers like FIRST has.

[Akash Rastogi]

Even if FIRST reaches the 4000 mark next year or w/e, it doesn't matter unless those teams below the landmark are sustained...having a team 3000 means nothing in an economy that might not even be able to support the 1500 teams we have...

Landmark numbers mean nothing when the other teams are falling.

Originally Posted by lilstogi11

Even if FIRST reaches the 4000 mark next year or w/e, it doesn't matter unless those teams below the landmark are sustained...having a team 3000 means nothing in an economy that might not even be able to support the 1500 teams we have...

Landmark numbers mean nothing when the other teams are falling.

Exactly. Approximately 50% of all teams die off.

Now, this might be misinterpreted by many as being harsh and accusative. Bear in mind I mean no such thing. I'm simply musing here.

I believe that the job FIRST is doing to promote new teams is awesome, but a little misguided. Very low number, high experience teams will be motivated for the awards, contest, and recognition that stems from this push for more teams, be it selfish and intentional or totally benign. These teams will then strive to start as many teams at as many nearby schools as possible. This is a GOOD THING. However, the reams are a little irresponsible. Rather than follow up, and make sure the program is well supported and healthy, they're too buy dashing on to found the next team.

Now, this IS a generalization. There are other teams that strive to help others survive, and work on program continuation. This number pales when put next to the number that go for starting teams.

So yes, team 3000+ does herald a good thing, that being growth. The 1500 or so active teams inside of 3000+ number slots, however, signal a lack of attention to program lifetime. This isn't good. Something ought to be done about this. Be it in depth training at events, "team rescue kit in a box," or what have you, something ought to happen. So who's up to have a grant writing lesson happen on Thursdays of regionals? Heck, for all the money FIRST throws at events, there has to be a little bit left over to entice some english professors to come and speak about grant and proposal writing...

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Speedfiend

Exactly. Approximately 50% of all teams die off.

I agree with your main point but I do have to point out that this just isn't true. FIRST skipped a lot of numbers in between the Juggernauts (Team 1) and Team 3000. In addition I am sure there are teams that merged with other teams. I wouldn't say that 50% of FRC teams die off, I might put the number as high as 1/3.

That being said the support structure does not exist for these teams. I know that many of the teams in my area, while financially we can scrape by, we simply do not have the mentor force needed to inspire students. I recall Tom Bottiglieri asking me what I did on the team once, I could only respond by telling him what I DONT do. We have a grand total of 2 engineers, the rest of us are college students. Yeah, we are dedicated, but I feel we are letting our students down. FIRST was supposed to be about the engineers becoming role models for students. I mean, we are supposed to be able to sell a jersey with Karthik on the back (his last name wouldnt FIT!) just the same way we can sell a Yzerman jersey here in Hockeytown. 70 years from now we should hear stories about how Andy Baker could point to a gear box and tell you where it would fail. I feel our team is failing in that, we dont have those role models. Yea our two engineers are amazing (John, Dung, you guys are awesome!) But FIRST needs to stop making it so easy to START new teams and focus on retention.

So here is my challenge to the FIRST community, STOP starting new teams. If you are stable and have the mentors you need think of ways to help out teams that are struggling. I can't promise you that it will win you a Chairman's award, but I can tell you that by helping one team survive instead of starting another to replace them you are changing the world.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

So here is my challenge to the FIRST community, STOP starting new teams. If you are stable and have the mentors you need think of ways to help out teams that are struggling. I can't promise you that it will win you a Chairman's award, but I can tell you that by helping one team survive instead of starting another to replace them you are changing the world.

Emphasis mine.

I wouldn't necessarily put it like that but yes, I do agree to some extent.

Rather than starting a new team then letting them frolic around their 2nd year, analyze which teams in your area need the most help and when you are starting a team, analyze whether or not their area (local sponsors, shops) would allow them to be a sustainable program (IM me for an example of such a team and how we select which areas to start or support teams in). Who cares about getting chairman's???. That should not be your team's priority, although helping a struggling team would help win a chairman's. But I do believe that veteran or just strong teams need to hold back on just starting new teams for a while and take a good hard look around them and find teams that need some help. Sure its great to start a new team and have those students experience the delight that is FIRST, but I think our goal as a community should be to support those in need rather than starting another team that may not even be able to survive past their first season.

Btw, my intention was not to say that around 50% of the old teams have died out. Just a large number of them.

+$0.02

If anyone disagrees feel free to IM me to discuss an example of such a team tragedy. Perhaps this topic could use a new thread?

[SWIM]

Another thing that makes the team numbers inflated is the fact that some schools have had multiple teams. The school I'm working as an assistant coach and mentor for just got back into FIRST after a three year hiatus, and we had to "start" a rookie team since all the kids that were on the old FIRST team have graduated. Originally, we were team 1489, but this year we got assigned the number 3060. I'm sure there are all kinds of other circumstances where schools have gotten multiple team numbers over the years, and as was previously mentioned, numbers are skipped every year.

So, I'm sure that the team retention problem isn't nearly as bad as it looks based on looking at the ratio of active teams to total team numbers.

[Akash Rastogi]

Figured this should be looked at to support my earlier post.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=39

its quite sad if those veteran teams don't register this season