Texas Regionals

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

I believe the #s in 2016 and 2015 were 142 and 136 respectively

Dang, Andrew. Lower number of FRC teams for 2017 or essentially flat for 3 seasons (2015-2017).

So the much-touted UIL effect/bump is WHERE?!

http://firstintexas.org/uil/

--Michael

[ahartnet]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Dang, Andrew. Lower number of FRC teams for 2017 or essentially flat for 3 seasons (2015-2017).

So the much-touted UIL effect/bump is WHERE?!

--Michael

I don't work in the schools, so I certainly can't say with any authority, but when I went to our current school district with 20k in sponorship (before rookie grants), 15 freshman that wanted an FRC team, 3 experienced FIRST mentors, and parents willing to start a booster club in may of 2014 - our initial district representative still didn't want the team to start until the 2016 season.

So based on my experiences it's not surprising to think it'll take a while to see a noticeable effect unfortunately.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by ahartnet

So based on my experiences it's reasonable to think it'll take more than the few months it's been to see a noticeable effect.

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

[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

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

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

Because more qual matches (double) played for the same $5,000.00... smaller competitions so greater chance to play in Saturday Elims for even more matches played... and more teams likely to achieve recognition through trophies/medals because less teams at each district competition.

More play and recognition (for some where there was _none_ before) creates a positive feed-back loop in my experience that changes a team's chemistry and appetite for future seasons and therefore they do what needs to be done to keep going... it's a beautiful thing... ;-)

--Michael Blake

[Steven Smith]

Team retention still an issue if that 13 number holds and also what's being put into place so that 2012, 2013, 2014 drop-off doesn't happen again with this BIG batch of rookies?

I know its a minor clarification, but as I noted above, one of those teams is a re-rookie. Losing 12 teams out of ~130-140 veterans in my mind isn't "ideal" but it is sustainable.

In the Dallas area, that basically leaves us with only 1 true loss, of ~50-60 teams within a 100 mile radius. We definitely suffered from a lot of "easy money" from the JCP grants in the 2009-2011 time frame, but I think the majority of the teams that were struggling have folded. I see a lot of "2nd tier/3rd tier" type teams that are gaining new mentorship, doing more in the offseason, and just generally growing.

I know they are also piloting a new grant model where they pair rookies with an established veteran, and the veteran gets a grant based on their support of the rookie. This goes from the fall (planning) into the Spring (assisting with purchasing/design/logistics/etc), and is renewable for a 2nd year. I think this type of activity, that focuses on veteran mentorship of rookies is definitely a step towards sustainability.

Finally, Plano ISD has really been stepping their support of robotics, and are pushing to get it in more schools. This has support at the superintendent level, which is trickling down. Dallas ISD is generally a bit more disjointed, but I'm continuing to sense more support for robotics. The UIL endorsement really did make a noticeable change in how I interface with the district, and the "legitimacy" of our program in the district's eyes.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

The UIL endorsement really did make a noticeable change in how I interface with the district, and the "legitimacy" of our program in the district's eyes.

Steven... it's good to hear of a team having a positive effect from UIL involvement in FRC since my own experience was so negative.

--Michael

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

I know they are also piloting a new grant model where they pair rookies with an established veteran, and the veteran gets a grant based on their support of the rookie. This goes from the fall (planning) into the Spring (assisting with purchasing/design/logistics/etc), and is renewable for a 2nd year. I think this type of activity, that focuses on veteran mentorship of rookies is definitely a step towards sustainability.

Steven... from what I've gathered this new mentoring program is starting with a small amount of teams and is called TARP... I'm not sure what the acronym stands for.

The mentoring team receives a substantial $$ sum at the _end_ of each of the 2 seasons it mentors the rookie team. I know the $$ amount paid but I'm not sure it's being shared publicly yet by FiT so I'll let them publish it when they're ready.

I think this TARP approach is a good start but may not be ambitious enough and limiting to how many rookie teams can benefit if it's one rookie at a time for each veteran team. Reality is how many Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams are there in Texas and you don't want Tier 3 and Tier 4 teams mentoring rookies IMO.

I hope they expand this TARP funding so that Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams can take on multiple numbers (at same time) of rookies _AND_ lower performing/at-risk veterans--Tier 4 (I call them wookiees--rookies and wookiees get it? LOL).

Rookies = teams with students/mentors with zero or very little FRC experience.
Wookiees = veteran teams that are lower-perfoming and/or at-risk of sustaining -- Tier 4.

The goal is to get rookies/wookiees to at least Tier 3 - Plausible to be picked for Saturday Elims.

PARR (Project Alamo Robotics Rising) https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...highlight=PARR -- last season during the entire build season we had multiple numbers of rookies/wookiees at our shop every week--some weekends we had up to 5 teams including 3481. It ALL worked out really well for those teams that traveled to our shop. Every team that came will tell you their needle was moved up-up on their performance in competition and it greatly affected their desire to keep going and going for future seasons.

I've witnessed/experienced it--consistent group mentoring does work in helping produce sustaining teams if the lead team is at least a Tier 2 performer.

--Michael