Team With the Most Games Played

I’m on team 2614 and we only ever go to 3 regionals in a season at most. Then I take a look at teams like 3538 in 2018 with 89 regular season games and 180 overall, only to top it this year in 2019 with 105 regular season games and who knows how many overall they will end up with. Other notable teams were 3314 in 2018 with 96 regular season and 33 with 94 games in 2017.

I don’t know if there are any other teams with more total games than 3538 in 2018, or even regular season games in 2019.

125 played 103 games in 2019. 3 district events, 1 regional, DCMP, and worlds.
1983 played 102 games in 2019. 3 district events, 1 regional, DCMP, and worlds.
125 played 107 games in 2017. 3 district events, 1 regional, DCMP, worlds, and Einstein.

If any other teams are going to match 3538, theyre going to be in districts. Good chance theyre in FIM too, since Fimstein exists.

Don’t forget 3538 played 5 finals matches on Fimstein, which helped their numbers as most other teams will only play 3 at most.

1 Like

862 is coming close to 3538 for overall matches played, they’ve got 116 to 3538’s 122, it all depends on what offseason events the 2 teams go to the rest of the year.

319 is at 109 with 3-4 more off season events

What 1ll ok building on the

33 is at 134 matches played as of now. With 4 more offseasons to go still (IRI, Kettering Kickoff, Goonette’s Invitational, Bloomfield All Girls) we expect to be around or above 200 for the year.

If you count matches from running a 33B team at our first two offseasons, that would be an additional 42 matches.

The most a team will play in a season realistically is about 117. In this hypothetical, this would be a team competing in FiM, playing 3 district events, MSC Division, MSC “FiMstein”, World’s Division, Einstein round robin, and Einstein Finals, with all elimination rounds going to 3 matches.

To hit more then 117 matches you would need something like the tiebreakers that the MSC finals this year to happen, or to go to a 4th event pre-DCMP like 125 does for example.

As original and sustaining teams, 20, 45, 126, 148, 151, 157, 190, 191, and 250 have played 28 games each.


28 this whole season for 148? That doesnt sound right

Brian means 28 seasons of FIRST

148 has played 28 GAMES, with 91 MATCHES in 2019.


I ran some quick numbers, just to see, and I thought I’d share them here.
NOTE: these counts are from all recorded matches on TBA, official or not, for a given year (basically robot abuse per year)

Row team_key matches year
1 frc3538 180 2018
2 frc225 161 2018
3 frc319 146 2018
4 frc1241 145 2018
5 frc2834 145 2018
6 frc9999 144 2018
7 frc694 141 2018
8 frc2655 141 2018
9 frc2337 140 2018
10 frc27 137 2018
11 frc2590 137 2018
12 frc865 136 2018
13 frc125 135 2014
14 frc503 135 2018
15 frc125 134 2017
16 frc3641 134 2018
17 frc33 134 2013
18 frc33 134 2019
19 frc1678 134 2018
20 frc195 133 2019
21 frc195 133 2017
22 frc195 131 2015
23 frc195 129 2016
24 frc33 129 2017
25 frc195 129 2018

There is just something wrong here. This list probably matches “Teams with most money spent” list. If we can only do 2 regionals sounds like we need to pick early weeks to keep from running up against these teams with a dramatic difference in experience in that years game. A statistical analysis of if the teams winning weeks 5 and 6 are the teams that have lots of matches under their belts.
I do have to temper this comment because many of these teams have a lot of members and the real problem in FRC is money spent per student.

So go to a district model where every teams cost per match is much lower. This is the #1 reason the district system is better then regionals imo.

There’s also a reason some students get that much better at the sport they play, because in the offseason they still do two-a-days at the gym, and go play winter league soccer, or whatever it is. Are the teams who have worked hard to gain their students the opportunity to gain more experience supposed to just not do it?

I’ll accept being criticized for a lot of different things even if I don’t agree, but I will never apologize or tolerate criticism for me and my fellow mentors doing everything we can to get our students the best and as much learning experience as possible.


Ah yes the real problem definitely isn’t the cost of events themselves outside the district model… It’s the team’s fault for spending money!

1 Like

I’m unclear what you’re trying to get at here. As a regional team, the vast majority of teams we play against are on a similar level in terms of matches played. The primary exception to this is Championship events and cross-play from districts.

I’m curious what you mean by “A statistical analysis of if the teams winning weeks 5 and 6 are the teams that have lots of matches under their belts.” Are you asking for someone to look at this? Are you making a statement about analysis you’ve done?

1 Like

Oops. That came off wrong. I don’t mean this as a criticism of the teams. I mean it as a criticism of the rules. I would probably do it too if I could afford the entry fees and time off of work. But I think FIRST would be better served if they limited teams to 3 regionals. If you want to go to more, then make 2 teams. That would serve more students and make it more fun for teams that can’t do 4 plus regionals.

Or the Kansas City / Missouri areas just need to go to the district model. Pretty sure that’s the plan, the number of events has expanded some over the past few years. You’ll immediately be able to play more matches in a season for the same money you spend today. Districts are the future and the future is now.

The teams who are playing the most matches are in districts. Instead of trying to limit them, work with your state to get districts.

Lift yourself up without pushing others down.