What Does "Our Team Really Needs Funding" Mean To You?

[thefro526]

It seems to me that "have's and have not's" seem to be based on the Current Standard for most teams in FIRST. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of teams now compete in at least two events and it's not really that uncommon to see a team compete in three or more.

In some cases I've also seem some smaller teams compare themselves to some of the larger, more well funded teams saying that they don't have the money, resources, etc to build a robot and compete on the caliber of larger teams. Personally I try to make sure to explain that teams like them aren't the norm in FIRST.

My Personal Definition of a Have or a Have not would be:

Have Not: Can barely afford to compete at one event, no money for off-seasons, minimal to no Engineering &/or School Support, basic tools, and a minimal Robot Construction Budget. I would consider this team to really need funding.

Have's: Can afford to compete in one regional without too much difficulty, has money for at least one off-season competition, has the support of their school, at least some level of Engineering or Technical Support, decent tool setup, and has a decent robot budget. Teams like this can always use funding, but I don't think they're in dire need of it except to expand their program.

Well Off: Can afford to compete in two or more regionals, has plenty of money in the off-season, School and Engineering support, good tooling, and a good/great robot budget. These teams could use more funding, but it would most likely be to expand their program.

Really Well Off: Consistently Competes in 3 or more events a year, competes in multiple off-seasons, excellent School and Engineering Support, a great tool setup, and a great robot budget. These teams seem to be extremely well funded and are usually the ones with the largest sponsorship base.

[Brandon Holley]

It is important, I think, to keep in mind that teams with large budgets or are "well off" are there for a reason. These teams have worked hard to develop their team and make it a program that companies want to invest in and form partnerships with.

As the teams grow larger, and make more connections, it allows for even more fundraising. Maybe your team is able to start a small lego program with some surplus of money after one season. This allows you to insert another feather into your cap to sell your team, and in turn brings in more money to allow you to start more lego teams. More companies are now supporting your team with more money each year and the program continues to grow. After several years, you now are supporting a whole network of teams and in turn your team has grown from a borderline have/have not team, to a really well off team.

The above example is one of the ways my high school team was able to evolve from a 1 competition/year team to a several tens-of-thousands of dollars financial powerhouse.


The point of the example is that its easy to sit back and say, "well you only really NEED enough money for 1 competition", and that may be so. However, I applaud any team who has put themselves in a situation where they are a financial machine, capable of supporting several initiatives at any point in time. Yes, technically for these teams to participate in FIRST, they only need enough money for a robot and 1 competition, but this is not the attitude we should take. Some teams have become so ingrained in their communities, that for them to take any steps back financially would actually hurt the people they support.

In conclusion, I think a team pursuing any kind of monetary donation through fundraising, sponsorship, donations, whatever it may be is just in doing so. Every team has the same opportunity to get out there and raise some money. Some teams may have a better starting point than others, and some teams may have better conditions for growth to occur, thats just life. Not every team will be able to reach that point where they can self-sustain year to year, and thats ok. The point I'm making is that what isn't okay is for a team to stop trying to become self-sustaining.

-Brando

[Carol]

Where do you put the cost of travel in these calculations? Travel can be one of the major costs. And how teams pay for travel varies a lot. On some teams, such as ours, the students and mentors pay for almost all of their travel themselves - if they need help, they can participate in various fundraisers to help pay for the travel. Other teams have their travel totally paid for by either sponsors or by the school.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Carol

Where do you put the cost of travel in these calculations?

I would put travel with competition in this case. If you can pay the registration fee but cannot get the team to the venue and cover the expenses that are incurred with the stay - then you can't afford to compete without securing the needed funds. That's why it is important to figure out the costs of competing at an event as far in advance as possible, create a budget, and be realistic in setting the goals for the season.

Jane

[rsisk]

I see a lot of definitions saying that a "Have" team means more than one competition. So where does this put Michigan teams who get 2 or more competitions for the price the rest of the world gets one? Do off-season competitions count towards the goal of the "Have"s.

I think my definition of a "Have" team would be a team that is well rounded and stable. Good mentor support. Competes well both on and off the field. Has a season that is more than just Jan-Mar. Has a strong student base that doesn't collapse because of a graduation ceremony.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by rsisk

I think my definition of a "Have" team would be a team that is well rounded and stable. Good mentor support. Competes well both on and off the field. Has a season that is more than just Jan-Mar. Has a strong student base that doesn't collapse because of a graduation ceremony.

Well said! I want to expand on the "well rounded and stable." Teams that are just building a robot and go to events while money is hand to mouth are the Have Nots. Teams that have a business plan and are executing that plan, along with doing all the other things that are not directly tied to building a robot (Media, outreach, etc) are the Haves. The teams that have their 2011 money either in the bank or committed are Haves and I'd bet are working on their 2012,13 funding now. (Grants have a long lead time)

Small cost robotics (VEX,FLL,FTC,Best,Firefight,Airbots,SeaPerch,etc) can be covered by small fundraising / grants and parents. FRC is very expensive in time and money. The "powerhouse" Have teams have deep multi-year partnerships in the community and business. The Have teams are working on making those partnerships be multi-year.

But moving from a Have to Have Not can happen in a blink if the team management gets distracted.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Foster

Small cost robotics (VEX,FLL,FTC,Best,Firefight,Airbots,SeaPerch,etc) can be covered by small fundraising / grants and parents.

That's painting with a little too wide of a stroke. BEST takes a lot of effort and a lot planning in order to compete well on local and regional level. Now, with the National Championship as an added incentive/opportunity - it takes careful budget planning and team preparation. It is also wise to have skilled technical mentors and non-technical mentors working with the team.

Same thing with FLL and FTC. Careful planning has to be a part of the competition package. If your point is that it can be on a smaller scale because of no registration fees or less expensive registration fees compared to FRC - I would agree with that part of it to some extent. The business plan, organization, team development, and financial stability is part of the package of being a competitive robotics team.

Jane

[Foster]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

That's painting with a little too wide of a stroke. BEST takes a lot of effort and a lot planning in order to compete well on local and regional level. Now, with the National Championship as an added incentive/opportunity - it takes careful budget planning and team preparation. It is also wise to have skilled technical mentors and non-technical mentors working with the team.

Same thing with FLL and FTC. Careful planning has to be a part of the competition package. If your point is that it can be on a smaller scale because of no registration fees or less expensive registration fees compared to FRC - I would agree with that part of it to some extent. The business plan, organization, team development, and financial stability is part of the package of being a competitive robotics team.

Sweeping generalizations are one of my hallmarks. It takes team planning effort, budgets, skills to be successful in any robot competition. But those events don't require it at a level that FRC does. For $1200-1500 I can put together an amazing VEX team, go to a few competitions and be very happy. For another $500 I can go to Worlds (if the robot is good enough). That money does not scratch the surface of FRC. I can build a robot team with a few roboteers and another parent, not happening with FRC.

I don't want to derail your thread to get into a cost thing, I wanted to expand on rsisks its more than building a robot. Because of the cost in time and money FRC is a full time "business" effort. The Have are haves because they recognize that and work on it.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Foster

I don't want to derail your thread to get into a cost thing, I wanted to expand on rsisks its more than building a robot. Because of the cost in time and money FRC is a full time "business" effort. The Have are haves because they recognize that and work on it.

I wouldn't consider any of this a derailment. It might be interesting to see a cost comparison which could include the travel costs of the team. Your example of taking the FLL team to Worlds is a good example.

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to this thread.

Jane

[maltz1881]

I used to think of us as a Have Not team.. I have realized though that I was giving my kids that impression as well. Not the best impression to give your team or think of another team in those perimeters. Yes there are teams who have more money than us but there are also teams who have less. Our team has helped both and will continue to offer teams from both sides our assistance.

I have come to realize that when we "label" those teams as "Have Nots" we are deflating thier spirit. Ex. Why bother giving our best when we know we will never be in the same place as say Hot Team or Killer Bees. When I asked my kids now that I have changed my attitude, they say why can't we compete with them?

What is wrong with fund raising? Six of my kids got together and raised $1,200.00 in 2 weeks selling candy bars. To us that is a lot of money and I know to others it is the difference between being able to buy extra parts for there robot or using the kit. Those kids have begged me to sell them again in Janurary. I finally agreed to it.

The Michigan District Events have made us a stronger team. We used to do 1 event and were grateful for that. Two events though have helped us more than you can imagine. We are all Haves because we are able to build robots and teach these kids that they are capable of anything!! Most of the world can't say that unfortunetly.

[onecoolc]

I've never considered our team a "Have Not", as we have a very large and very generouse sponsor in our area (LCF) that pays our registration fees every year (I believe they also pay the registration fees for two other local FRC teams, as well as sponsor dozens of FLL and FTC teams, but don't quote me on that). We also have two committed engineering mentors who live at the shop with us for build season, as well as a teacher acting as our coach who gives us free reign in his machine shop. But I wouldn't consider our team a "Have" team, either. In the past we haven't had the focus to put together a business plan, and because of that there have been times it's been a close call on covering our expenses, and we'll only be attending one regonal this year.

But enough about us.

I firmly believe the "Have" teams deserve every cent they have, because they had to earn it. It takes innitiative to go out and get the fund raising and sponsorships required to be a "Have" team, and they deserve recognition for their efforts.

[Tom Ore]

On a bit of tangent, we might define "have" and "have not" by state rather than by team. The following list is ranking of FRC teams per capita. The "have nots" would be the teams at the bottom, with very few teams per capita.

# State Per Capita
54 Maine 24413
33 New Hampshire 40139
127 Minnesota 41466
14 Washington, D.C. 42833
25 Hawaii 51807
172 Michigan 57964
53 Oklahoma 69567
42 Connecticut 83769
79 Washington 84357
35 Oregon 109304
13 Idaho 118908
50 Missouri 119752
65 Virginia 121271
37 Colorado 135804
7 Montana 139284
62 New Jersey 140447
20 Kansas 140937
19 Utah 146556
126 New York 155091
41 Arizona 160873
34 Maryland 167632
141 Texas 175761
32 Wisconsin 176712
3 Wyoming 181423
25 South Carolina 182450
35 Indiana 183518
24 Louisiana 187170
3 Vermont 207253
5 Rhode Island 210642
3 North Dakota 215615
171 California 216150
49 Ohio 235564
11 Nevada 240280
49 Pennsylvania 257240
36 North Carolina 260580
11 Mississippi 268363
35 Georgia 280835
45 Illinois 286898
59 Florida 314203
13 Kentucky 331855
2 Alaska 349237
5 West Virginia 363955
11 Alabama 428064
2 Delaware 442561
14 Tennessee 449732
4 Arkansas 722363
8 Massachusetts 824198
3 Iowa 1002619
2 New Mexico 1004836
0 Nebraska #DIV/0!
0 South Dakota #DIV/0!

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

On a bit of tangent, we might define "have" and "have not" by state rather than by team. The following list is ranking of FRC teams per capita. The "have nots" would be the teams at the bottom, with very few teams per capita.

# State Per Capita
54 Maine 24413
33 New Hampshire 40139
127 Minnesota 41466
14 Washington, D.C. 42833
25 Hawaii 51807
172 Michigan 57964
53 Oklahoma 69567
42 Connecticut 83769
79 Washington 84357
35 Oregon 109304
13 Idaho 118908
50 Missouri 119752
65 Virginia 121271
37 Colorado 135804
7 Montana 139284
62 New Jersey 140447
20 Kansas 140937
19 Utah 146556
126 New York 155091
41 Arizona 160873
34 Maryland 167632
141 Texas 175761
32 Wisconsin 176712
3 Wyoming 181423
25 South Carolina 182450
35 Indiana 183518
24 Louisiana 187170
3 Vermont 207253
5 Rhode Island 210642
3 North Dakota 215615
171 California 216150
49 Ohio 235564
11 Nevada 240280
49 Pennsylvania 257240
36 North Carolina 260580
11 Mississippi 268363
35 Georgia 280835
45 Illinois 286898
59 Florida 314203
13 Kentucky 331855
2 Alaska 349237
5 West Virginia 363955
11 Alabama 428064
2 Delaware 442561
14 Tennessee 449732
4 Arkansas 722363
8 Massachusetts 824198
3 Iowa 1002619
2 New Mexico 1004836
0 Nebraska #DIV/0!
0 South Dakota #DIV/0!

California is broke apparently, we are in debt... A really big one

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

California is broke apparently, we are in debt... A really big one

Hasn't stopped us for raising plenty for two regionals, champs, all associated student travel, money to remodel our shop, and plenty for the robot budget.

Hard work pays off, our team works hard to fund-raise, so we get results.

We don't live in an affluent community, and we have few sources of income greater than $500. It's just hard work and LOTS of fund-raisers.

When I joined the team, 973 was not a "have". They often used what they already had versus what was optimal for the design, they didn't build two robots, they didn't budget a lot for robots, they didn't budget for two regionals + champs. I helped reform the team, and through the hard work as a group the team is now a "Have" team.

I have little sympathy for people that whine about insufficient funding, etc... If you want to be a "Have", you have to put the work in.

[Ivan Helmrich]

Good topic.

I don't usually think in terms of Haves and Have Nots, more like Haves and Have Mores. If students are getting the chance to participate in FRC, they are doing pretty well compared to most students. But, thinking in terms of Haves and Have Nots, the thing that makes the most difference in my view is not the money. It has a lot more to do with support for the team.

It's really hard to have a good team experience if the team does not have support from the school, parents, engineering mentors, and other mentors. A good mentor, whether an engineering mentor or non-engineer, is worth way more than a $5000 grant to cover an entry fee. So is being based in a school (or other organization) that has a real interest in having a team. I'd be happy to trade a couple thousand budget dollars for a group of parents who show up and feed the team, help organise fundraising, transport kids to outreach functions, etc. If your team has this kind of support, it is a lot easier to put forward the effort to do the things that will make your team a Have.

Ivan