World Rankings 2014

[Joe Ross]

I calculated the rankings of all teams using the FRC District Standard Points Ranking System (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Resources/FRC_District_Standard_Points_Ranking_System.pdf) as shown below. Since everyone does not have a standardized 2 events per team or 12 matches per event, I made the following modifications: Win points are normalized based on 12 matches per event. The first two events are counted. If a team has participated in less then 2 events, their first event is doubled (as a result, every team has their points doubled this week).

POINT CATEGORY POINTS POINTS
Win-Loss Record in Qualifying Rounds
Win 2
Tie 1
Loss 0
Alliance Selection Results
Alliance Captain Equal to 17 minus the Alliance Captain Number [e.g.: 14 points for Alliance #3 Captain]
Draft Order by Acceptance Equal to 17 minus the Draft Order Acceptance Number [e.g.: 12 points for the Team that is 5 th to accept an offer of Alliance]
Elimination Round Performance 5 points for every match won in which a Team ’s robot participated,
Awards
Chairman’s Award 10 Points for
Engineering Inspiration and Rookie All Star Awards 8 Points
all other judged Team awards 5 points
Team Age
Rookie Teams 10
Second-year Teams 5


Here are the top 25. Full rankings are attached. The full rankings show all factors, as well as the rankings without normalizing for matches or number of events.
Rank Team Events Points
1 624 1 170
2 33 1 156
3 1310 1 152
4 1986 1 152
5 399 1 152
6 3824 1 150
7 118 1 150
8 138 1 150
9 1678 1 150
10 525 1 146
11 2590 1 142
12 2046 1 142
13 610 1 140
14 2907 1 140
15 75 1 140
16 107 1 138
17 1261 1 130
18 177 1 126
19 3393 1 126
20 1403 1 126
21 341 1 124
22 2468 1 124
23 294 1 120
24 2557 1 118
25 1241 1 118


I have compared the results with the FiM, MAR, and PNW rankings, and they agree. I used Ed Law's standings for Centerline.

[Citrus Dad]

I calculated the rankings of all teams using the FRC District Standard Points Ranking System (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Resources/FRC_District_Standard_Points_Ranking_System.pdf) as shown below. Since everyone does not have a standardized 2 events per team or 12 matches per event, I made the following modifications: Win points are normalized based on 12 matches per event. The first two events are counted. If a team has participated in less then 2 events, their first event is doubled (as a result, every team has their points doubled this week).

Since this system may be instituted for all District events in the future, it's worth discussing this calculation. Several thoughts:

- Since this is a World Ranking (which has no real consequence) vs District qualifying (which needs to have clear, fair and balanced rules), I think you should use the LAST 2 events to reflect how a team evolves during the season and best reflects how they are doing going into the Champs. (I understand why Districts uses the first 2 events and agree with that.)
- Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1.
- Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that.
- Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It's more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn't give full credit for that.

[Hoover]

You have the MAR rankings? They are not on the MAR site that I can find.

In the spreadsheet, if you add the district name, a sort on this should be equivalent to the source rankings, no?


EDIT: I found them in MAR forum thanks. I don't know why they didn't come up in my search...

[DonRotolo]

Thanks for this Joe.

I watched Team 75 play (and win) this weekend, and they were astounding. It is right they are ranked so highly...I think this may be another great year for them. And the nice thing is, they bring their own crowd...:D

[KCmoon]

I watched Team 75 play (and win) this weekend, and they were astounding. It is right they are ranked so highly...I think this may be another great year for them. And the nice thing is, they bring their own crowd...:D

Thank you Don for your nice comments! It was nice having your team as an addition to our stands as well. Congrats again on Chairmans!

[Joe Ross]

- Since this is a World Ranking (which has no real consequence) vs District qualifying (which needs to have clear, fair and balanced rules), I think you should use the LAST 2 events to reflect how a team evolves during the season and best reflects how they are doing going into the Champs. (I understand why Districts uses the first 2 events and agree with that.)

...

- Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It's more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn't give full credit for that.


If I was trying to do rankings that reflected teams going into champs, I would not be using anything close to this system. Instead, this is a way for teams not in districts to see how they stack up. The word rankings is simply because that is what Michigan uses.

Normalization on non-integer basis has the effect of number of matches acting as the first sorting criteria. When I first starting playing with California rankings last year, I did play around with integer and non-integer normalization (as well as no normalization). I was much happier with integer normalization.


- Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1.
- Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that.

These are probably better discussed either at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121132 or http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121362

[Clinton Bolinger]

Joe,

Do you plan to release Week 2's Results?

Thanks for putting this together.

-Clinton-

[Conor Ryan]

Just checking to make sure I followed what Joe Did

So I really want to Normalize for number of events played, and for the size of certain events. Its not fair to compare a smaller, 30 team district with a with a 42 team district with a 58 team 3 day regional.

My idea: separate out these different categories as appropriate. Qualification wins is pretty self explanatory, it should normalize for the number of chance you have for a win. The middle section of the formula should be adjusted for the number of times you get to be picked, judged and play in eliminations. The last section should only be awarded once per season *before district champs*, I'm open to suggestions, especially for the last segment of the formula.

My Proposed Formula, point values follow District Standard Points Ranking, hopefully it lines up with Joe's.
Normalized World Rankings=
[(Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) / (Qualification Matches Played)]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) / (Number of Events Participated In)]
+
[Team Age + Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star]


Edit: I completely realize this makes it really difficult to figure out ties. Probably should just prioritize the second part of the formula.

[Joe Ross]

Do you plan to release Week 2's Results?

Yes, I'm error checking and formatting the results.

J
My Proposed Formula, point values follow District Standard Points Ranking, hopefully it lines up with Joe's.
Normalized World Rankings=
[(Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) / (Qualification Matches Played)]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) / (Number of Events Participated In)]
+
[Team Age + Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star]


It's close to what I do.

Normalized World Rankings=
Round[((Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) of first 2 events) / (Qualification Matches Played in first 2 events) * 24]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) of first 2 events / Min(Number of Events Participated In,2)*2]
+
[Team Age + (Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star) of first 2 events]

[Joe Ross]

Here are the top 25 after week 2. I've attached the full spreadsheet.

Rank Team Events Points
1 624 1 170
2 4488 1 161
3 33 1 156
4 2175 1 156
5 1817 1 156
6 4967 1 156
7 1310 1 152
8 2337 1 152
9 1986 1 152
10 399 1 152
11 3824 1 150
12 118 1 150
13 138 1 150
14 1678 1 150
15 1108 1 150
16 525 1 146
17 254 1 146
18 16 1 146
19 3467 1 144
20 4911 1 144
21 2590 1 142
22 2471 1 142
23 2046 1 142
24 1266 1 142
25 2468 2 141

[Tyler2517]

It makes me happy seeing a second year team in 2nd place.

[BrendanB]

Wow top 20 after some teams we look up to every year!

[Citrus Dad]

If I was trying to do rankings that reflected teams going into champs, I would not be using anything close to this system. Instead, this is a way for teams not in districts to see how they stack up. The word rankings is simply because that is what Michigan uses.


So this is better described as "World District Scoring" rather than "Ranking" since it's not really relevant to non-District teams?

[Boe]

Wow tied for third, I didn't think I'd ever see my team so high on some type of FIRST wide ranking. :)

[Tim Lehmann4967]

It is really cool to see our team number on that list in our rookie season!

[Jimmy Nichols]

I am doing something similar to score the Ohio teams for our State Event this year. Question on your week 2 results. 4269 came into Q3-3 as a back up bot at Crossroads, won 5 matches, why do they not have any elimination points?

[Joe Ross]

I am doing something similar to score the Ohio teams for our State Event this year. Question on your week 2 results. 4269 came into Q3-3 as a back up bot at Crossroads, won 5 matches, why do they not have any elimination points?

I have to correct backup teams points manually. I remember doing that for 5188 and 4269, but probably overwrote those values when fixing something else. Attached are corrected rankings.

[Jimmy Nichols]

I have to correct backup teams points manually. I remember doing that for 5188 and 4269, but probably overwrote those values when fixing something else. Attached are corrected rankings.

Thanks!

[Joe Ross]

There are a few issues with week 3 events. St. Louis only posted a few awards. I don't have correct alliance selection results for Mexico City. The order posted in the 2014 Alliance Selection (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=127346) thread was not correct. When first and second pick could not be unambiguously determined, I used the higher seed as the first pick. I will update when updated data is available.

Week 3 rankings are attached. Top 25 are below.

Rank Team Events Points
1 4488 1 161
2 33 1 156
3 2175 1 156
4 4967 1 156
5 1310 1 152
6 2337 1 152
7 118 2 150
8 3824 1 150
9 971 1 150
10 138 1 150
11 1108 1 150
12 1986 2 149
13 1678 2 148
14 4125 1 148
15 525 1 146
16 254 1 146
17 16 1 146
18 107 2 144
19 3794 1 144
20 2996 1 144
21 3467 1 144
22 4911 1 144
23 1126 1 142
24 67 1 142
25 2590 1 142

[safiq10]

I'm currious is this just for week 3? because 2590 competed in week 1 and 148 not on this list?

[Joe Ross]

I'm currious is this just for week 3? because 2590 competed in week 1 and 148 not on this list?

The rankings are cumulative. 148 is ranked 50th.

[Littleboy]

Are you accounting for the fact that teams can only win Chairman's once and rookie and second year teams only get those points once? Or are you just doubling single event teams without factoring those things in?

[Joe Ross]

Are you accounting for the fact that teams can only win Chairman's once and rookie and second year teams only get those points once? Or are you just doubling single event teams without factoring those things in?

For a single event team, award points of any type are doubled (I figure that a team that wins Chairman's at their first event have a much better chance to win EI or other awards at the second event). Age bonuses are not doubled.

[Joe Ross]

Week 4 rankings are attached. I have not had time to do as much error checking as normal, but wanted to post before events really got going for Week 5.

St Louis awards were posted and affected teams were recalculated.
Mexico City and Buckeye best guess alliance selection order was used.
William Barnickel found that Wisconsin Elimination wins data was not correctly entered. This will be corrected in the next revision.
Domenic found that the Lenape Seneca Finalist and Winners were switched. This will be corrected in the next revision.

Rank Team Events Points
1 2486 1 160
2 2175 1 156
3 4488 2 154
4 1310 1 152
5 2337 1 152
6 118 2 150
7 3824 1 150
8 971 1 150
9 1501 1 150
10 1108 1 150
11 1986 2 149
12 1678 2 148
13 4125 1 148
14 254 2 148
15 2590 2 147
16 525 1 146
17 16 1 146
18 384 1 144
19 107 3 144
20 3794 1 144
21 2996 1 144
22 3467 1 144
23 1126 1 142
24 67 1 142
25 1266 1 142

[barn34]

I don't think our ranking points are correct. I'm not 100% sure what might be mixed up in the spreadsheet, but here's my best guess:

Overall record in quals is 16-5-1 = 33 points (37 QP is in the spreadsheet)
2 seed alliance captain at Wisconsin = 15 points
2nd alliance pick at CIR = 15 points
7 total wins in elim matches (1 at CIR, 6 at Wisconsin) = 35 points
1 judged award (IC at Wisconsin) = 5 points

That's 103 points, but the spreadsheet only shows 82.

I don't think our 30 points worth of elim match wins were entered for Wisconsin and our QP are at 37 instead of 33. Does that look right, or did I miss something in the scoring?

[hrench]

I just want to say 'thank you' for doing this. I know it probably takes a bunch of time, but many of us find it interesting.

[barn34]

I just want to say 'thank you' for doing this. I know it probably takes a bunch of time, but many of us find it interesting.

Yes, definitely second this.

I was curious to check out the teams at the top, hit ctrl+f to see how my team measured up to the top, and that's where I spotted the potential issues in the elim column. If there's anything I can help troubleshoot, just let me know.

I just did a little digging by looking up the teams that we've played with at competitions for some comparisons and it looks possible that the data imported for Wisconsin may be suspect. Not all, but the majority of teams I've looked at from Wisconsin have erroneous data. Not sure if that helps, but figured I would pass it along.

[Joe Ross]

I don't think our ranking points are correct. I'm not 100% sure what might be mixed up in the spreadsheet, but here's my best guess:

Overall record in quals is 16-5-1 = 33 points (37 QP is in the spreadsheet)
2 seed alliance captain at Wisconsin = 15 points
2nd alliance pick at CIR = 15 points
7 total wins in elim matches (1 at CIR, 6 at Wisconsin) = 35 points
1 judged award (IC at Wisconsin) = 5 points

That's 103 points, but the spreadsheet only shows 82.

I don't think our 30 points worth of elim match wins were entered for Wisconsin and our QP are at 37 instead of 33. Does that look right, or did I miss something in the scoring?

Thanks. You are correct, Wisconsin elims were not entered correctly. The qual record discrepancy is due to the normalization for 12 matches in Wisconsin. 19QP * 12 normalize matches / 10 actual matches = 22.8, rounds to 23. You only get elimination win points if you advance, so you get 30 for Wisconsin, 0 for Central Illinois. My revised score for 2481 is 102 normalized, 98 unnormalized.

[barn34]

Thanks. You are correct, Wisconsin elims were not entered correctly. The qual record discrepancy is due to the normalization for 12 matches in Wisconsin. 19QP * 12 normalize matches / 10 actual matches = 22.8, rounds to 23. You only get elimination win points if you advance, so you get 30 for Wisconsin, 0 for Central Illinois. My revised score for 2481 is 102 normalized, 98 unnormalized.

Gotcha! That makes a lot more sense now. Again, thanks for doing this and let me know if you need any help in the future.

[Domenic Rodriguez]

Thanks for putting together these rankings! It's interesting to see how teams stack up on the global scale.

I noticed that there was a mistake in regards to elimination points for the winners and finalists at Lenape. Teams 3929, 316, and 2559 should have ten additional elim points (as we won the event), and teams 2590, 1640, and 223 currently have 10 extra elim points.

[Joe Ross]

Thanks for the corrections, I have fixed those and several others. Updated Rankings attached.

Rank Team Events Points
1 2486 1 160
2 2175 1 156
3 4488 2 154
4 3794 1 154
5 1310 1 152
6 2337 1 152
7 118 2 150
8 3824 1 150
9 971 1 150
10 1501 1 150
11 1108 1 150
12 1986 2 149
13 1678 2 148
14 4125 1 148
15 254 2 148
16 525 1 146
17 16 1 146
18 384 1 144
19 107 3 144
20 2996 1 144
21 3467 1 144
22 1126 1 142
23 67 1 142
24 1266 1 142
25 2468 2 141

[brandon.cottrell]

It doesn't seem like there is any data for anyone whom went to Waterford added in.

[Joe Ross]

It doesn't seem like there is any data for anyone whom went to Waterford added in.

Rankings are still based on the end of week 6, these were just fixes. There's still a lot of events missing in the Alliance Selection Results thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=127346) before I can update for week 5.

[iRobot_]

Doesn't make sense, 2590 was rank 15 with 147 points, now they aren't ranked? Am I missing something?

[Joe Ross]

Doesn't make sense, 2590 was rank 15 with 147 points, now they aren't ranked? Am I missing something?

As Domenic noted, Lenape's elimination results were wrong in my previous post. 2590 had 10 extra points applied. With those removed, they are 37th, as shown in the attachment. They now match the official MAR rankings.

[Joe Ross]

Only 1 week left of regular competition. Updated rankings are attached

The Buckeye alliance selection results posted yesterday matched my best guess, so no changes to rankings because of that. No one has posted correct Mexico City alliance selections, so those are still best guess.

Rank Team Events Points
1 2486 1 160
2 4488 2 154
3 3794 1 154
4 118 2 150
5 368 1 150
6 971 1 150
7 2337 2 150
8 1108 1 150
9 1986 2 149
10 1678 2 148
11 254 2 148
12 3467 2 148
13 16 2 145
14 384 1 144
15 107 3 144
16 2996 1 144
17 610 2 143
18 1266 1 142
19 2468 2 141
20 3937 1 140
21 2122 1 140
22 359 3 139
23 2522 3 138
24 2614 2 138
25 2590 2 137

[Joe Ross]

Here are the rankings after week 6.

Rank Team Events Points
1 4488 2 154
2 3794 1 154
3 118 3 150
4 971 2 150
5 2337 3 150
6 1108 1 150
7 1986 2 149
8 1678 3 148
9 254 3 148
10 3467 2 148
11 16 2 145
12 384 1 144
13 107 3 144
14 364 1 144
15 610 2 143
16 2056 2 141
17 2468 3 141
18 359 3 139
19 3937 2 139
20 2522 3 138
21 2614 2 138
22 2590 2 137
23 3316 1 136
24 842 1 136
25 2052 2 136

[Peter Matteson]

Are you going to update this for post District Championship weekend?

Just curious to see how points stack up between the top teams in each district.

EDIT: I just realized I could find the other districts final points listing elswhere on CD. I may compile the list and post it later showing how everyone did comparatively. Also without everyone going to a DCMP my request doesn't really work. Thats what 3 weeks of little sleep and working 12 hour day does to me...

[XaulZan11]

I understand the qualification scores are normalized to 12 matches to account for different size events. I'd be curious to see the other factors (alliance selection result and awards) normalized as well. Getting picked 5th or winning chairmans at a 30 team event (where 6 teams submitted) is a lot different than at a 60 team event (where 40 teams submitted). Then, I guess you can take it a step further and look at strength of event, too... Still a very cool ranking to browse through. Thanks, Joe.

[Joe Ross]

EDIT: I just realized I could find the other districts final points listing elswhere on CD. I may compile the list and post it later showing how everyone did comparatively. Also without everyone going to a DCMP my request doesn't really work.

Here's a combined district ranking. I did exactly that, combined the results from all 4 districts. Most districts did not give enough data to do tiebreakers.

Michigan has 8 in the top 25, while PNW, NE, and MAR each have 6. Full results attached.

Rank Team Points Distrct DRank
1 33 339 MI 1
2 4488 337 PNW 1
3 27 330 MI 2
4 2590 326 MAR 1
5 1983 305 PNW 2
6 67 304 MI 3
7 177 303 NE 1
7 195 303 NE 2
9 1718 296 MI 4
10 2337 294 MI 5
11 1318 291 PNW 3
12 230 289 NE 3
13 558 284 NE 4
13 3393 284 PNW 4
15 4911 276 PNW 5
16 314 272 MI 6
17 78 259 NE 5
18 3467 256 NE 6
19 341 253 MAR 2
20 1218 249 MAR 3
21 225 246 MAR 4
22 2137 240 MI 7
23 469 237 MI 8
24 1089 236 MAR 5
25 11 235 MAR 6
25 2907 235 PNW 6


I do plan to do updated world rankings after the Championship. I haven't figured out how to treat points. I'm thinking 3x for division results 5x for Einstein.

[Joe Ross]

I've attached rankings for the championship event only. For Einstein finalists, I gave 10 extra elim points (40 total) and Einstein Champions, I gave 20 extra elim points (50 total). Chairman's award, I gave 20 points. Top 25 below, full rankings attached.

Rank Team Points
1 254 95
2 469 88
3 1678 85
4 1114 83
5 2590 66
6 27 63
7 2848 61
8 67 61
9 973 61
10 1625 59
11 1718 59
12 4488 59
13 1153 57
14 2451 57
15 1640 55
16 2481 54
17 33 53
18 1730 51
19 971 50
20 1477 49
21 1756 48
22 2928 48
23 2907 47
24 1986 47
25 341 45

[Joe Ross]

Here are combined rankings, including the teams first two regional/districts plus 3x World Championships. The adjustments for Einstein/Championship Chairmans from the previous post apply. Full rankings attached.

Rank Team Events Points

1 254 4 433
2 1678 4 403
3 469 4 378
4 1114 4 355
5 2590 3 335
6 4488 3 331
7 67 4 316
8 27 4 308
9 971 3 300
10 973 3 291
11 1718 3 290
12 1986 3 290
13 33 4 288
14 1625 3 287
15 2848 3 284
16 118 4 273
17 2451 3 272
18 2481 3 264
19 148 4 261
20 359 4 256
21 16 3 256
22 399 4 256
23 1730 3 254
24 2907 3 250
25 2056 3 246