Go to Post I'll do my best, but I'm this --><-- close to telling our drivers they're NASCAR styling it this season..."Sorry boys and girls, left turns only!" - Mr. Lim [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > CD-Media > Photos
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

photos

papers

everything



FRC District Growth

pchild

By: pchild
New: 05-31-2018 06:48 PM
Updated: 05-31-2018 06:48 PM
Views: 1082 times


FRC District Growth

CHS, PNW, and Indiana all seem to have plateaued.

No MAR since I couldn't think of a good way to split pre-districts PA teams. I'll probably geolocate PA teams to add MAR to v2.

There are some slight discrepancies between district team lists and the teams the script picked up for each year due to how TBA is counting teams for a given year.

Recent Viewers

Discussion

view entire thread

Reply

05-31-2018 07:01 PM

Lil' Lavery


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

The only district that has seen a notable increase in team growth rate since the switch is Michigan, which obviously has other outside factors (state funding) that contribute significantly. North Carolina has also seen a slight increase, and it will be interesting to see how that progresses into the next few years.

Ontario has at least been able to rougly maintain the rapid levels of team growth that started in under the regional format in 2013.

PNW and CHS haven't just plateud, but shown some shrinkage in teams since the switch to the district format.

Indiana has the flattest plateu I've ever seen. It's almost impressive in a way.



05-31-2018 07:50 PM

Karthik


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Very cool analysis. Just want to point out that a lot of the Ontario data from earlier years seems suspect. In 2004 there were at least 60 Ontario teams (not 19 like your data suggests), most of which competed at this event:

https://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2004on#teams


What's your data source?



05-31-2018 08:07 PM

pchild


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
What's your data source?
I'm pulling team lists for each year from TBA and checking the state_prov field, I must have missed some in Ontario. I'll check it when I add MAR.

Yep, looks like some of the Ontario teams have ON instead of Ontario for that field. Whoops.



05-31-2018 08:11 PM

TheBoulderite


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I get the feeling that Michigan will never stop growing when it comes to the FRC. Even if that means schools start having five or six FRC teams.



05-31-2018 08:33 PM

Lil' Lavery


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

If Michigan's growth continues, there will be more teams in FiM within the next few seasons than there were in all of FRC when I first started.



05-31-2018 09:06 PM

Adithya Balaji


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I've been working on a huge TBA data science project and there are quite a few irregularities with the data... I'd be sure to look for both the state abbreviation and the state name itself.

for example... here are some events with missing state fields
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007az', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'AZ'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007ca', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'CA'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007fl', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'FL'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007br', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'Brazil'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007ct', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'CT'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007ga', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'GA'
events_df.loc[events_df.EVENT_ID == '2007co', 'STATE_PROVINCE'] = 'CO'



05-31-2018 09:06 PM

tjf


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by pchild View Post
I'm pulling team lists for each year from TBA and checking the state_prov field, I must have missed some in Ontario. I'll check it when I add MAR.

Yep, looks like some of the Ontario teams have ON instead of Ontario for that field. Whoops.
The state_prov field changes formatting depending on the year / what FIRST published at last update. Older teams whose data hasn't been updated follow state codes "NY, ON", etc. while teams w/ updates localize to a full name of a state / province.

It's annoying but it's at least known to be an issue.



05-31-2018 10:22 PM

pchild


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adithya Balaji View Post
I'd be sure to look for both the state abbreviation and the state name itself.
Yeah, I just didn't for Canada because I'm dumb apparently.

Ontario now lists 62 teams for 2004, which seems about right based on what Karthik said.

I've also made at least an attempt at including MAR. The Mid Atlantic Robotics Bylaws Article 1 Section 2 established that MAR included 'the counties of Pennsylvania including Harrisburg, eastward', so I defined -77 degrees longitude as the western boundary for MAR and geolocated all teams in PA to figure out whether they would have been in MAR or not. This seems to have been fairly accurate, I added a check to make sure that no current MAR team got listed as being an out-of-MAR PA team.

Here's an interactive version of the chart, and here are pics:







06-01-2018 12:21 AM

Jim Zondag


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

In order to achieve growth, there are 2 main things that need to be done.
1. improve the underlying economics of FRC.
2. aggressive marketing of the program to the proper audience.

In Michigan, we have done both.
Doing one or the other is not enough, you need to do both, and do both well.
This is why we have had the growth we have seen thus far in FiM.
This is not easy, but also not impossible.

The underlying economics of FRC is not affordable enough.
FiM has underwritten these costs with government dollars.
This is a local solution which we have been able to achieve but will not be a solution for every region. There are strong political dependencies.

The real solution is program price reduction from HQ.
The fact that HQ still have not acted on this after 10 years of compelling data indicates that they do not actually want growth.
If they did, they would make changes.



06-01-2018 05:25 AM

hardcopi


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Exactly, Michigan has so many teams because even poorer schools have a fighting chance to compete in FRC. In Indiana no one can afford to start a new FRC team. Schools can afford FTC but First often treats FTC as a lesser program and trust me, the kids get it. I know a lot of kids who love FTC because they can do it. In return they feel like they are almost looked down on by First in general.

It has to be made more affordable, or they need to upgrade the more affordable program they do have. Teams are starting to look at alternative programs they can actually afford to do.



06-01-2018 06:19 AM

wgorgen


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcopi View Post
Exactly, Michigan has so many teams because even poorer schools have a fighting chance to compete in FRC. In Indiana no one can afford to start a new FRC team. Schools can afford FTC but First often treats FTC as a lesser program and trust me, the kids get it. I know a lot of kids who love FTC because they can do it. In return they feel like they are almost looked down on by First in general.

It has to be made more affordable, or they need to upgrade the more affordable program they do have. Teams are starting to look at alternative programs they can actually afford to do.
FIRST is actually quite up on FTC as far as I can tell. The problem with FTC is that the game play is not as exciting as FRC - especially for the audience. It is really sad that the teams walk away from a given match without knowing whether they won or lost and have to wait for a few matches to be played before they can see the score. FIRST is working to fix that, but has a long way to go. The FTC Scores app helps. The teams can monitor the website and see their scores a few minutes after the match is over. But that is really not exciting in the same way that FRC matches end with a winner being displayed on the screen, Here in NC, a couple of FIRST alums (who have been active as refs since graduating) wrote a real time scoring program. It worked well here in NC. They took it to SSR and had some difficulty given the number of fields and the number of volunteers needed to sit field-side and do the scoring. They tried to use it at Houston for the finals in MMP, but they had not used it all tournament and the scorekeepers struggled a bit leading to the embarrassing result we all saw. However, despite the fumble at Houston, I think the real time scoring made it a lot more interesting to watch the FTC game this year than previous years. I think this year, they will get a lot of those bugs worked out and this may be ready to deploy to all of FTC, which would really be a big win for the program.

I'll be interested to see what happens to FTC growth now that they are shutting down the super-regionals. For the vast majority of teams, the State championships will be the final tournament for the year. Here in NC, we had 90-something FTC teams last year and we are thinking by the math that maybe 2 or 3 will advance to Houston next year (meaning that only the winning alliance captain will advance based on gameplay unless they also win the inspire award). Our club has had one team go to worlds the past 2 years and another that has gone each of the past 3 years. This is unlikely to happen again, so the relationships that our teams have built with the perennial teams that make it to championships will fade and we will only really "know" the other teams in our state. FTC, as a program, will shrink back to a feeling of a science fair rather than a competitive sport.

FIRST will need to figure out a way to increase the size of the FTC tournament at Worlds if they want to keep that program growing. FIRST works because it is a sport. Yes, it is more than robots, but without the robots and the sport aspect of it, I don't think you will be able to keep the students inspired. If the sport stops at the state championship level and the teams that advance beyond that have to do so based on the inspire award, then I think you have really lost something important. The alliance system is a core element to the ethos of FIRST that keeps GP alive. If only the winning alliance captain stands a chance of winning their way to worlds on the field, GP is going to break down and you are going to see an every-team-for-themselves attitude creep into the competition which will destroy the program. Then the students will leave FTC and come over the FRC in much bigger numbers than currently and FTC will be relegated back to a sort of Junior Varsity status. That would be sad.



06-01-2018 07:42 AM

marshall


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
In order to achieve growth, there are 2 main things that need to be done.
1. improve the underlying economics of FRC.
2. aggressive marketing of the program to the proper audience.

In Michigan, we have done both.
Doing one or the other is not enough, you need to do both, and do both well.
This is why we have had the growth we have seen thus far in FiM.
This is not easy, but also not impossible.

The underlying economics of FRC is not affordable enough.
FiM has underwritten these costs with government dollars.
This is a local solution which we have been able to achieve but will not be a solution for every region. There are strong political dependencies.

The real solution is program price reduction from HQ.
The fact that HQ still have not acted on this after 10 years of compelling data indicates that they do not actually want growth.
If they did, they would make changes.
But Jim... 4 out of 5 strategic pillars indicate that FIRST wants growth!

Iíd like to point out that you are talking about sustainable growth and not just growth, which is what HQ seems focused on. They donít seem to care about attrition or sustainability.

It is only a matter of time before a competitor to FRC comes along and has solutions for these problems baked into its foundation.



06-01-2018 08:05 AM

Billfred


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
The fact that HQ still have not acted on this after 10 years of compelling data indicates that they do not actually want growth.
If they did, they would make changes.
I think Michigan has done wonderful things and wish their counterparts down here in the Shadow Realm (because apparently that's what we're calling South Carolina now) would do the same.

That said, perhaps it's not a case of "HQ doesn't actually want growth", but rather "HQ doesn't actually want more growth than they're getting naturally already"? When we're adding hundreds of teams a year, that is a certain increased load on all the moving parts--KoP distribution, finance receiving all those checks, more events requiring more fields, more team support calls, more exasperated emails to Frank about this or that...you get the idea. Despite what Dean says each year on that Championship stage those Championship stages, I think FIRST would have to make some significant changes to cope with high-three-digit team growth--otherwise you're just going to burn out more people that are already on the Adam Savage "Am I missing an eyebrow?" tier.



06-01-2018 08:06 AM

amesmich


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I hope First does not sacrifice quality for growth in order to control expense. FTC is less expensive but like others have said its not the same experience even though it may require the same amount of knowledge, learning, and skill sets.



06-01-2018 08:19 AM

Kevin Leonard


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
In order to achieve growth, there are 2 main things that need to be done.
1. improve the underlying economics of FRC.
2. aggressive marketing of the program to the proper audience.

In Michigan, we have done both.
Doing one or the other is not enough, you need to do both, and do both well.
This is why we have had the growth we have seen thus far in FiM.
This is not easy, but also not impossible.

The underlying economics of FRC is not affordable enough.
FiM has underwritten these costs with government dollars.
This is a local solution which we have been able to achieve but will not be a solution for every region. There are strong political dependencies.

The real solution is program price reduction from HQ.
The fact that HQ still have not acted on this after 10 years of compelling data indicates that they do not actually want growth.
If they did, they would make changes.
I think the bigger question implied by the OP is:
If districts help address the underlying economics of FRC (they don't fix it, but they do help), why are we seeing 3-4 of the district areas plateauing instead of growing?

I can think of multiple answers to this, but I want to hear from people who are more knowledgeable than I am about this.



06-01-2018 09:08 AM

cbale2000


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
The underlying economics of FRC is not affordable enough.
FiM has underwritten these costs with government dollars.
This is a local solution which we have been able to achieve but will not be a solution for every region. There are strong political dependencies.
Jim,

Is FiM concerned about how the proposed changes to "House Bill 5576" / "Senate Bill No. 863" this year will affect growth and team funding, especially for new teams? It appears that FiM will likely have to share funding with other Robotics programs now (like Vex), while at the same time the overall "pot of money" has not expanded to cover the additional programs.

Thoughts?



06-01-2018 09:20 AM

Zflash


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Growth AND Sustainability…
The areas where it is plateauing are likely benefiting by the district model simply by sustaining team numbers.
I am in a state that is in the regional model bordered by two district states. We are located an hour from both of those state lines. I am not knowledgeable about competing in the district model, but would very much like to be. We asked FIRST if we could be an SC team that got adopted by a neighboring district essentially becoming a district team. We were told No. We didn’t care which district it was NC/PCH/even CHS/IN would have worked for us. Our current state leaders do not want to put the effort into moving to districts.

I know that if SC went to districts there are defunct teams that would come back. There are teams that struggle to raise money each year to compete at 1 60+ team event held in SC. They are discouraged each year when they cannot compete at a second one. One of those being 1102 who packed up and jumped the border into Georgia. From 2011 to 2017 they only competed at 1 event each year. Look up their 2018 story on TBA if you do not know it already https://www.thebluealliance.com/team/1102/history . If SC was in the district model they would have been a team that would have stayed and sustained our numbers. Instead we had to rely on Georgia to keep this team going.

In short districts may not grow all areas but they certainly sustain them. IF you don’t believe that ask the teams in the district models what they would do if they were forced to compete in the regional model again.



06-01-2018 09:21 AM

Jon Stratis


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
In order to achieve growth, there are 2 main things that need to be done.
1. improve the underlying economics of FRC.
2. aggressive marketing of the program to the proper audience.
Jim, do you see a point where other considerations outweigh these ones? I'm thinking of very small rural schools and communities. Some of these schools get so small that even getting 10% of the 9-12 graders is 5 students or less, and the available mentor pool is very slim and often transitory (parents that mentor until their kids are out of the program). I'm wondering if we could put a rough number of the school and community size where FRC just isn't viable, regardless of financial considerations.



06-01-2018 09:27 AM

marshall


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Jim, do you see a point where other considerations outweigh these ones? I'm thinking of very small rural schools and communities. Some of these schools get so small that even getting 10% of the 9-12 graders is 5 students or less, and the available mentor pool is very slim and often transitory (parents that mentor until their kids are out of the program). I'm wondering if we could put a rough number of the school and community size where FRC just isn't viable, regardless of financial considerations.
Strangely - this is a problem NC is having to tackle and it's leading to a lot of "community based" teams - I think we have more than any other region within FRC. Granted, with them comes their own challenges. It's fostering a lot of resentment from the FRC community for public schools and administrations rather than compassion and reasoned understanding of the complexities on the other side of the office wall.



06-01-2018 09:31 AM

Akash Rastogi


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

An aside - but when people make Tableau charts can you please use the color pallette for the colorblind? These charts aren't very easy for folks like me.

Thanks



06-01-2018 09:50 AM

marshall


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred View Post
I think FIRST would have to make some significant changes to cope with high-three-digit team growth--otherwise you're just going to burn out more people that are already on the Adam Savage "Am I missing an eyebrow?" tier.
As predicted here:
http://andymarkup.com

China FRC be like:



06-01-2018 10:20 AM

Bryan Herbst


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
In order to achieve growth, there are 2 main things that need to be done.
1. improve the underlying economics of FRC.
2. aggressive marketing of the program to the proper audience.
I just want to point out that when talking about point #1, we should be talking about more than cost. When i think of the "underlying economics of FRC" I think about value-per-dollar, not just the number of dollars spent.

In that regard, I think FIRST has made some good steps in the right direction. The field quality (regardless of your opinions on the games themselves) has gone up astronomically, particularly starting with Stronghold. From a participant, spectator, and field volunteer standpoint, the fields have gotten significantly better.

There is certainly a lot of work that FIRST could still do to decrease costs, but I believe the value is still increasing.



06-01-2018 10:41 AM

Lil' Lavery


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard View Post
I think the bigger question implied by the OP is:
If districts help address the underlying economics of FRC (they don't fix it, but they do help), why are we seeing 3-4 of the district areas plateauing instead of growing?

I can think of multiple answers to this, but I want to hear from people who are more knowledgeable than I am about this.
Districts are of great economic benefit for the bulk of teams, but often may end up being an economic hardship on rural, urban, and other "outlier" teams. In particular, it can have severe impacts on the travel budget of teams who are currently single regional event competitors and/or exist near the district borders. Every time a discussion of a new area switching to districts comes up, we've seen some of these teams indicate how the additional travel costs could impact their operations. Think back to the Upper Peninsula Michigan teams in the early years of FiM districts, or the threads about New York districts and the struggles of NYC teams to compete outside of NYC, or 3072 declining to attend a relocated Southwest VA event and their district championship due to travel concerns, or the non-trivial amounts of district teams that opt to only attend one district event each season. While the well-funded teams and teams in densely populated portions of the district enjoy significant economic rewards of the district format, the loss of the outlier teams due to the increased travel costs may end up curbing team growth.



Also, given that this thread has explicit discussion of FTC, VRC, and the high registration costs of FRC, it is worth noting that First in Michigan employs a non-standard definition of the age brackets for each FIRST program. FiM does not allow high school aged students to compete in FTC, leaving only FRC as an option for them.



06-01-2018 10:48 AM

Andrew Schreiber


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Herbst View Post
I just want to point out that when talking about point #1, we should be talking about more than cost. When i think of the "underlying economics of FRC" I think about value-per-dollar, not just the number of dollars spent.

In that regard, I think FIRST has made some good steps in the right direction. The field quality (regardless of your opinions on the games themselves) has gone up astronomically, particularly starting with Stronghold. From a participant, spectator, and field volunteer standpoint, the fields have gotten significantly better.

There is certainly a lot of work that FIRST could still do to decrease costs, but I believe the value is still increasing.
Are you sure you're not confusing quality with quantity? There's certainly been a lot MORE field. I'm not sure I'd agree with the claim it's been better. I can count on one hand the number of times major field components failed to work between 2008 and 2015 at events I was at (they mostly involve Pedestals in 2014) but in 2016 countless defenses broke, 2017's Springgate as well as the lovely hopper falling on 900, and at the single event I attended in 2018 I saw multiple breakages of the Scale...



06-01-2018 11:29 AM

MikLast


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard View Post
If districts help address the underlying economics of FRC (they don't fix it, but they do help), why are we seeing 3-4 of the district areas plateauing instead of growing?
Realistically, PNW may of hit a limit on where it can expand without much resistance.

For Eastern Washington specifically (I know little on other parts of the region when it comes to this) many schools outside of Spokane are 1A (70-150 students per graduating class) or smaller. Its hard for these smaller schools who have enough issues funding themselves to try and start a team, and even harder to find and sustain sponsors, especially as many will need to travel for both events. These rookies will also see the $11,000 price tag to register, and id be willing to guess thats a deterrent, even after OSPI and other sponsors of FIRSTWA bring it to about half in the end.

I know of 2 teams already going on hiatus or ending just within Spokane, and while another one is trying to start, im not sure that at this rate FRC can stay out here without some serious price changes. We gained no new teams last year (a team did come back from the year off though) and we lost 4 going into 2018. The local event out here struggles to be above the 24 team minimum and if it wasn't for other PNW teams coming across the state, all of us would be going across the state for both events, killing more teams in the process.



06-01-2018 12:53 PM

BrianAtlanta


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I had some time at lunch, and did some digging.

Michigan has 1,232* High Schools
As stated before in this thread, FIM as 508 FRC teams.

In Gwinnett County, GA. 21 high schools, 5 active high school FRC teams (about 5 no longer active).

I also found this in article about a 2.5M donation this past year...

"Michigan has invested $12 million helping schools start and strengthen FIRST teams since 2014"




* I found a wiki page for high schools in Michigan, could be off by a couple.



06-01-2018 01:23 PM

pchild


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I went back and pulled data for teams lost and teams gained for districts, here's the past 10 years:


I also compared attrition rates (teams lost / total teams) for districts:


Both of these charts are really easier to view in the interactive version if anyone wants to play around with them.

Here's the data in table form (click for bigger version):



06-01-2018 01:27 PM

cbale2000


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianAtlanta View Post
Michigan has 1,232* High Schools
As stated before in this thread, FIM as 508 FRC teams.
Any idea if this is all high schools or just public schools?



06-01-2018 02:11 PM

Jon Stratis


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianAtlanta View Post
I had some time at lunch, and did some digging.

Michigan has 1,232* High Schools
As stated before in this thread, FIM as 508 FRC teams.

* I found a wiki page for high schools in Michigan, could be off by a couple.
I took a look at the wiki page for Minnesota High Schools, that comes up with 508 schools. I found an old enrollment listing from the Minnesota State High School League that lists 607 schools, but that includes a bunch of home schools. Limit it to schools with enrollment of 10 students or more, and you get 492. So using 500 schools seems like a reasonable number. And we have 215 teams.

If you take the number of teams divided by the number of schools, you get a nice percentage - 41% for Michigan, 43% for Minnesota. This isn't entirely accurate, though, as community based teams can pull from multiple schools (I can think of at least one here in MN off the top of my head), and even school based teams might pull from multiple schools within the same district (My old high school back in Ohio has such a joint team, I believe). What's really interesting, when you look at the 215th top school in terms of enrollment numbers in MN, there were just 248 students (And I even question this - I looked up the school my team is from on the list, and it appears to be including the full K-12 enrollment, not just high school enrollment. But unlike others we have it all under one roof).

That's sort of the aim of my previous question - if we want to get MN up to the sheer number of teams that MI has, we would be filling all of our high schools and some of the home schools with teams! I think it's safe to say that putting a team into a home school with 1-2 students isn't sustainable, but it's not entirely clear where to draw the line. At what point do you say "Maybe this school shouldn't be doing FRC, what about trying to get them to do FTC instead?"

Also: both of the MN lists I found contain both public and private schools, with the MSHSL one also including home schools.



06-01-2018 02:21 PM

Ginger Power


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
I can count on one hand the number of times major field components failed to work between 2008 and 2015 at events I was at (they mostly involve Pedestals in 2014)
Don't forget Gategate from 2014! I can tell you that at least the field gates have improved since 2014!



06-01-2018 02:24 PM

Richard Wallace


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post

If you take the number of teams divided by the number of schools, you get a nice percentage - 41% for Michigan, 43% for Minnesota.
I like your math.

The number of high schools in Michigan has been a mystery to me for some time.

If you do the math for all the states, provinces, and countries, I think you'll find the 40% club has very few members.



06-01-2018 02:40 PM

lbl1731


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Using pchild's values, these are the average attrition rates before and after move to districts. This is for the 2008-2018 year range.

Code:
	Before  After
chs	2.41%	8.79%
fim	6.84%	5.48%
in	4.64%	8.67%
isr	14.73%	4.56%
mar	7.21%	4.28%
nc	7.98%	4.68%
ne	6.91%	4.43%
ont	15.02%	11.94%
pch	9.86%	7.09%
pnw	5.10%	7.30%
Better rates for fim, isr, mar, nc, ne, ont, and pch. Things got worse for chs, in, and pnw.
Average # of years in districts for the teams with better rates: 4.57
Average # of years in districts for teams with worse rates: 4



06-01-2018 03:06 PM

pufame


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by pchild View Post
... I couldn't think of a good way to split pre-districts PA teams.
As it so happens FIRST HQ is having the same trouble.



06-01-2018 03:24 PM

antman


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I agree with MikLast that PNW may be close to sustainable saturation. I'll point out that number/% of schools can be very misleading, many states have numerous small schools outside of metro areas and as others have noted it will be hard to make FRC sustainable in these schools with the current cost.

Some numbers from my area - Puget Sound but outside Seattle metro (Island, San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom counties):

-total high schools: 25, including private schools
-number of 2A/3A/4A (larger) sports schools per www.wiaa.com: 12
-number of 1A/1B/2B (small) schools per www.wiaa.com: 13
-schools with FRC: 6 (from 5 teams, 2605 has students from two schools)
-% all schools with FRC: 24%
-% 2A/3A/4A schools with FRC: 50%
-% 1A/1B/2B schools with FRC: 0%
-number of new teams since districts: 0
-number of teams lost since districts: 2 (2922 and 4654, both small schools)



06-01-2018 03:37 PM

Travis Hoffman


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
Very cool analysis. Just want to point out that a lot of the Ontario data from earlier years seems suspect. In 2004 there were at least 60 Ontario teams (not 19 like your data suggests), most of which competed at this event:

https://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2004on#teams
And what an event it was. /offtopic



06-01-2018 04:17 PM

Richard Wallace


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman View Post
And what an event it was. /offtopic
Reading the results on TBA, it appears that the Finals were truly epic. Alliances 2 and 4 were the winners and everyone else was a finalist.



06-01-2018 06:20 PM

BrianAtlanta


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbale2000 View Post
Any idea if this is all high schools or just public schools?
Here is the page I used.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ls_in_Michigan



06-01-2018 07:34 PM

Nessie


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

That spike in attrition from 2013 in Ontario is due to the teacher strike that went on.



06-02-2018 02:22 PM

chrisrin


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Not sure if data's available, but I think it would be interesting to see FTC growth (even VEX growth) overlaid with or side-by-side FRC growth in PNW & other places that seem to have plateaued. There are a couple middle school-based FTC teams that feed into our FRC team, and one of their challenges is the majority of teams against which they compete are high school-based. So is FRC's potential PNW growth now going to FTC due to reasons of cost, space, mentorship burden, etc.? And how many FRC teams that are apparently closing shop are actually just moving to FTC or perhaps VEX because it's more sustainable?

If that's happening, then it seems to validate the lower-overhead programs. A low overhead (relative to FRC) robotics program at a high school is much better than no program at all.

But it also makes one question the wide age range of FTC. If most teams are high school-based, it puts middle school-based teams at a disadvantage (assuming knowledge/experience are generally proportional with age), which could discourage some younger FTC students, leading them to lose interest & not move up to FRC at a high-school level. We're actually seeing a bit of this, and we're trying to address by moving in the direction of getting more FRC students involved with mentoring the middle school FTC teams.



06-02-2018 03:35 PM

Richard Wallace


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Spoiler for Earlier Posts in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianAtlanta View Post
I had some time at lunch, and did some digging.

Michigan has 1,232* High Schools
As stated before in this thread, FIM as 508 FRC teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
I took a look at the wiki page for Minnesota High Schools, that comes up with 508 schools. I found an old enrollment listing from the Minnesota State High School League that lists 607 schools, but that includes a bunch of home schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianAtlanta View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisrin View Post
Not sure if data's available, but I think it would be interesting to see FTC growth

All of the above got me thinking, and googling. I still don't know how to count the schools in every state, but maybe that's not what we should be counting?

It is easier, and maybe more instructive, to count schools that are members of their state's athletic associations. A school that can field sports teams should be able to field a robotics team, amiright?

Here in Michigan, the athletic association is called MHSAA. Here's a link to their FAQ, which indicates the number of high schools and middle schools that are athletic association members. MHSAA has 753 high schools, 644 public and 109 private. Also 703 middle schools, 632 public and 71 private.

The progression of FIRST programs in Michigan differs from that of the rest of the world (so far) in that FTC is exclusively a middle school program, while FRC is exclusively a high school program.

As a fraction of Michigan schools that should be able to field a robotics team (based on athletic association membership), FRC is currently at 508/753 = 67.5% and FTC is at 434/703 = 61.7%



06-06-2018 03:27 AM

waialua359


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

We're a district ready team stuck in the wrong State too.



06-06-2018 07:56 AM

Kevin Leonard


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by waialua359 View Post
We're a district ready team stuck in the wrong State too.
Do you think there's any kind of modified district structure that would work in Hawaii?
If you could design a competition structure from scratch for the state of Hawaii to reduce costs and more consistently send your best and most deserving teams to the championship, what would that look like?

Is there a level of FRC team growth that could occur that would make something like a district competition structure more viable in Hawaii? Or is there no realistic level of team saturation that would make it work?



06-06-2018 07:57 AM

marshall


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by waialua359 View Post
We're a district ready team stuck in the wrong State too.
I can offer you a PO Box in North Carolina.



06-06-2018 08:08 AM

Zflash


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by marshall View Post
I can offer you a PO Box in North Carolina.
IF the PO Box route works count us in!



06-06-2018 09:40 AM

pchild


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I added data for Minnesota, New York, Texas, California, and South Carolina. I've updated the interactive version.

Here's a quick chart comparing team growth in a few areas:



06-06-2018 10:53 AM

Richard Wallace


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard View Post
... is there no realistic level of team saturation that would make it work?
Hawaii has 35 high school football teams, and 25 FRC teams. 71.4% saturation. State population 1.4 million.

Michigan has 753 high school football teams, and 508 FRC teams. 67.5% saturation. State population 10 million.

Hawaii is already more saturated than Michigan, assuming that any school that fields a football team should also be able to find resources for FRC.

I am wondering why Hawaii has so many fewer high school football teams per capita compared to Michigan? Factor of three lower.

Conjecture: FRC will be more popular that football on a teams per capita basis, and that will happen in Hawaii before it happens in Michigan.



06-06-2018 11:17 AM

Jon Stratis


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace View Post
I am wondering why Hawaii has so many fewer high school football teams per capita compared to Michigan? Factor of three lower.
According to Wikipedia, there are 99 high schools in Hawaii (if my count is correct). That's 2.8 high schools per football team. As established earlier in the thread, there are 1,232 high schools in Michigan, which is 1.6 schools per football team.


I wonder if the difference is one of ease of travel. How many of the football teams are clustered in one or two specific cities within the state? Here in the contiguous US, many football teams can play all of their regular season games within an hour or two bus ride. I doubt that would be the case for many schools in Hawaii.

Next, there could be a difference in population density. Sure, there are 10 million people in Michigan, but less than 1/10 are clustered in any given city. In Hawaii, 1/4 of the population is in Honolulu. So you would expect those schools in and around population clusters to be larger and able to support more activities. Elsewhere in the state, there may just not be sufficient population to support it. Just because it's a high school doesn't mean it has 2000 kids. A school with 100 kids or less would have a difficult time having diverse extracurriculars, and would likely look for smaller, cheaper activities to offer.



06-06-2018 12:06 PM

Andrew Schreiber


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by pchild View Post
I added data for Minnesota, New York, Texas, California, and South Carolina. I've updated the interactive version.

Here's a quick chart comparing team growth in a few areas:
Can I request a % growth metric instead of raw teams?



06-06-2018 12:20 PM

pkrishna3082


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace View Post
I am wondering why Hawaii has so many fewer high school football teams per capita compared to Michigan? Factor of three lower.
Demographics? I would think that Hawai'i has more retirees (and consequently, fewer high schoolers) as a percentage of population.

Edit: Michigan is 15.8% ages 5-17. Back of the napkin math shows that Hawai'i is about 16% ages 5-19. Those aren't directly comparable, or all highschoolers, but it doesn't explain a 3x difference. So maybe not.



06-06-2018 01:42 PM

Loose Screw


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

I think a big part of FiM's growth comes from how FTC and FRC interact.

Since FiM restricts FTC to middle school only, new high school teams have to go with FRC. In any other district this would be a heavily controversial issue, but because Michigan has grants and funding for teams, the major costs of FRC aren't as bad as other states.

The major difference between FRC and FTC come when FIRST spreads to the middle school in that district. A high school FTC team can't really start another middle school FTC team without losing too many resources themselves. A high school FRC, however, can start a middle school FTC team and even help share resources during the build seasons. FiM holds FTC districts and states early just for this reason.

Now that a school district has a FRC and FTC team, the two teams mutually support each other. The FRC team can provide space, tools, and other resources while the FTC team provides a steady stream of experienced students ready to go big. Neither team has to worry about their program dying due to a lack of interest or support.

This is why Bedford has seen improvement over the years. BX had around 20-30 students when the Loose Screws started, and now has 40-50 students with 5 (maybe 6) FTC teams. This improvement is further shown with BX's 2015 run and always sending at least one FTC team to super-regionals. BX even had a 100% FTC alum drive team this year.

TL;DR: FiM has such a huge sustained growth rate because of how FRC and FTC are able to play off each other (along with financial support from the state).



06-06-2018 02:10 PM

pchild


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Can I request a % growth metric instead of raw teams?
It's not perfect since Tableau is doing some dumb stuff with discontinuities, but I did add it. Here's the regions from the previous chart compared via percent difference:



06-06-2018 02:51 PM

Matt G


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Can I request a % growth metric instead of raw teams?
It might also be helpful to have some charts where the x-axis is "years since/to district transition".

For each area, the year of their district conversion would be 0, years before would be negative, and years after would be positive. It should make it easier to see if a common feature of district transitions is an uptick at the 0 mark.



06-06-2018 02:54 PM

Richard Wallace


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Can I request a % growth metric instead of raw teams?
Maybe you wanted to see % growth relative to a base year? I chose 2008, and normalized number of teams in each region to the number that region had in the base year. Only FiM stands out by this metric. The other regions ~ doubled their number of teams over ten years, while Michigan quadrupled.

Code:
dist	#2008	%gth
nc	12	550%
fim	117	434%
pch	27	304%
ont	59	264%
ca	142	220%
chs	64	195%
isr	36	194%
in	27	181%
ne	123	170%
mar	100	127%
Can someone add the Minnesota data?



06-06-2018 03:25 PM

Andrew Schreiber


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace View Post
Maybe you wanted to see % growth relative to a base year? I chose 2008, and normalized number of teams in each region to the number that region had in the base year. Only FiM stands out by this metric. The other regions ~ doubled their number of teams over ten years, while Michigan quadrupled.

Code:
dist	#2008	%gth
nc	12	550%
fim	117	434%
pch	27	304%
ont	59	264%
ca	142	220%
chs	64	195%
isr	36	194%
in	27	181%
ne	123	170%
mar	100	127%
Can someone add the Minnesota data?
I was mostly interested in year over year percent growth.



06-06-2018 03:36 PM

Jon Stratis


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace View Post
Can someone add the Minnesota data?
I haven't added in this year's data to my spreadsheet yet, but here's our historical data through last year:
Code:
Per year stats	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
All-time Teams	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	4	18	56	87	113	140	165	194	208	220	239	246
Active Teams	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	0	1	2	16	54	81	104	131	155	182	188	196	209	207
New Teams	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	14	38	31	26	27	25	29	14	12	19	7
Retired Teams	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	4	4	1	1	2	9	4	9	9
Resurected	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	3	0
Comparing our current number of teams to 2008 is pretty unfair, since our explosion of growth really started in 2007. It's only the past few years where our new team numbers have come down to a reasonable and more sustainable level.



06-06-2018 05:06 PM

cadandcookies


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
I haven't added in this year's data to my spreadsheet yet, but here's our historical data through last year:
Code:
Per year stats	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
All-time Teams	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	4	18	56	87	113	140	165	194	208	220	239	246
Active Teams	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	0	1	2	16	54	81	104	131	155	182	188	196	209	207
New Teams	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	14	38	31	26	27	25	29	14	12	19	7
Retired Teams	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	4	4	1	1	2	9	4	9	9
Resurected	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	3	0
Comparing our current number of teams to 2008 is pretty unfair, since our explosion of growth really started in 2007. It's only the past few years where our new team numbers have come down to a reasonable and more sustainable level.
Per the Technokats history project, 93 should be 1 active team (Honeywell and North HS), 94 should be 2 (Add Alliant and Washburn HS). Honeywell/North competed until 97, Red Knights (Banner/Benhilde St. Margarets) started the next year.

So other than an off-by one, looks good

Edit: It would make sense that this was missing, because Honeywell/North dropped out before permanent team numbers were assigned and therefore wouldn't show up in TBA



06-07-2018 08:15 AM

Jon Stratis


Unread Re: pic: FRC District Growth

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadandcookies View Post
Edit: It would make sense that this was missing, because Honeywell/North dropped out before permanent team numbers were assigned and therefore wouldn't show up in TBA
Correct, my spreadsheet was made from TBA data. I was more interested in the more recent history, focused on the expansion that really started in 2007, the currently active teams, and those teams that had died out since then. I might as well add in details from the history project, though.



view entire thread

Reply
previous
next

Tags

loading ...



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi