Rookie Entry Requirements Are Too Loose



Coming from someone speculating about what teams MIGHT do with no evidence that it ever happened.


Let’s reset here.

My issue is that posters were making claims without evidence. I laid out a bunch of assumptions that were being overlooked. My posts were never intended to claim that those things WERE happening, but rather that we have a lack of evidence to know what is and is not happening in a situation with a ton of variables.

My point is that the next step shouldn’t be pushing HQ for a solution, but rather pushing HQ (and other local entities, such as districts/RDs) to gather and release more data. Until we have that data, we’re largely operating blindly.

Is that something you’d agree with?


the number of rookie teams has held fairly constant at 400 for a few years. In California ther quality of those is about the same based on scouting since 2012.


We are not as blind as you suggest. And we answered most of your claims about lack of knowledge.


it’s your burden to prove it. That’s the scientific method.


The irony is this is what Sean has been saying all day…


I’m not going to put time into proving my hypothesis on a matter of little significance I clearly stated it was a hypothesis and even gave my simple explanation supporting it. So until I see Stats or fact to support the negative I support my hypothesis, and California is a small sample size compared to the world of frc more rookies win now then they did years ago


His burden of proof is unacceptable. He had been given data, just not afull blast consultants report unattainable by the test of us.


But your fact about more rookies is wrong.


So we had zero rookie teams this year? @Citrus_Dad


I think we are talking past each other. That there are rookies every year doesn’t prove the program is growing in aa healthy way if we are losing half of them.


Reset is good. However I don’t think we are running as blind as you think.


There will always be teams that don’t make it there no way around that most of the reasons are out of first control, and are more area related issues. But first is still growing and will continue to grow.


And that’s your assumption that others arguing against. Your points will be dismissed if you don’t offer more evidence to support your statement. That you say so wont be sufficient and you should expect the reaction you are getting until you take this a step further. We think that FIRST can grow further with amore thoughtful approach.


:joy: I’ve got to hand it to you guys, this is one of the most entertaining threads I’ve read on CD in FOREVER. Please continue


2019- 3790
2016- 3140

Shall I continue or does the math still not add up for you???


What are you trying to prove here? Or more specifically, how does your list of numbers relate to your hypothesis?

Edit: I should say, claiming that 90% of mentors are alums is pretty shady, and showing a list of teams by year doesn’t relate to that- unless you’re talking about something else which I missed.


This is the number of registered teams per year, as you can see its increasing showing there are more Rookies every year. Which isn’t my hypothesis but it’s part of the side discussion that was going on.


That shows growth, but not attrition. The concern on this topic is attrition which is a real concern amongst the posters on this thread. Attrition effects all of us as well as the overall health of the organization.