When will Divisions be released?

[Joe Ross]

Every year, people ask when will Divisions be released? FIRST typically doesn't provide advance notice. Here's when they have been released in the past.

In 2002 through 2004 the divisions were released the Tuesday 9 days before the beginning of the championship. That ended up ranging anywhere from before the last regional ended (2003) to 10 days after the last regional ended (2002).

In 2005, the divisions were released on a Monday, 10 days before the beginning of the championship (9 days after the end of the last regionals).

In 2006, the divisions were released on a Friday, 13 days before the beginning of the championship (13 days after the end of the last regionals).

In 2007-2009, the divisions were released on a Wednesday, 8 days before the beginning of the championship (3-4 days after the end of the last regionals).

In 2010, the divisions were released on a Thursday, 7 days before the beginning of the championship (4 days after the end of the last regionals)

In 2011, the divisions were released on a Friday, 13 days before the beginning of the championship (6 days after the end of the last regionals)

In 2012 and 2013, the divisions were released on a Wednesday, 8 days before the beginning of the championship (4 days after the end of the Michigan and MAR championships).

[Jon Stratis]

http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/

[Thad House]

http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/

Do they keep that out year round? I've never actually looked at that site other then right before champs. But it's pretty awesome to have.

[dodar]

I wish TBA had their old page up where you could "look at divisions" using a couple different algorithms. It always made thinking about possible divisions so fun because it actually showed what a possible division's "power" could be.

[EDesbiens]

http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/
Wow! Best site ever! But still... Do you guys know if there is a king of algoritm to make the divisions or if it's only a giant randomiser with all the teams in it?

[dodar]

Wow! Best site ever! But still... Do you guys know if there is a king of algoritm to make the divisions or if it's only a giant randomiser with all the teams in it?

Some algorithm is used, but no one has ever figured it out. Most believe that they use different algorithms each year.

[cadandcookies]

Some algorithm is used, but no one has ever figured it out. Most believe that they use different algorithms each year.

Whatever it is, somehow it's put the winners in Galileo more often than not.

[JohnSchneider]

Whatever it is, somehow it's always put the winners in Galileo more often than not.

Even when it's not the strongest division

[Abhishek R]

Whatever it is, somehow it's always put the winners in Galileo more often than not.

And never in Curie.

[DampRobot]

Whatever it is, somehow it's always put the winners in Galileo more often than not.

And kept the Curie Curse alive.

[dodar]

And never in Curie.

Its either Newton or Galileo. Archimedes gets a gift every leap year. And Curie...well no one cares.

[engunneer]

At least when they were in Atlanta, I had heard that they pick the two strongest/best divisions for Galileo and Archimedes (IIRC) because those were the two fields facing the VIP area. The algorithm for determining "strongest/best" is unknown to me.

[cadandcookies]

At least when they were in Atlanta, I had heard that they pick the two strongest/best divisions for Galileo and Archimedes (IIRC) because those were the two fields facing the VIP area..

Source?

[dodar]

At least when they were in Atlanta, I had heard that they pick the two strongest/best divisions for Galileo and Archimedes (IIRC) because those were the two fields facing the VIP area. The algorithm for determining "strongest/best" is unknown to me.

How could they both be in front of the VIP area if they are in opposite corners?

[PayneTrain]

If I recall correctly, back in ye olden days the divisions were set by a count off of 1, 2, 3, 4 from Team 1 all the way down until everyone figured it out.

[dodar]

If I recall correctly, back in ye olden days the divisions were set by a count off of 1, 2, 3, 4 from Team 1 all the way down until everyone figured it out.

That must have been way before 2007 then. Its been some weird algorithm since Ive been a part of FIRST.

[engunneer]

Source?

"Had Heard" = Rumor. - I got to visit the VIP area once and they weren't watching many matches.

the IIRC is because I couldn't remember which field is next to Galileo.

In hindsight, I didn't add much to the discussion, my apologies.

[Yipyapper]

If 2056 or 254 are in Curie this year, or even both, I would bet a lot of money that the Curie curse would end. I don't know why, but I feel like they're going to wind up in the same division and team up, win champs and finally get that championship win that 2056 deserves—all in the same year where, at the start of Waterloo, a lot of people gave them doubts.

I would also bet money that a Canadian team or two (maybe even three) wins champs. I just don't see the alliance that wins it all not having a Canadian team, there are so many of them in every category (top pick, first pick and second pick). I'm not a big fan of this year for numerous reasons, but I think the field will be incredibly interesting and that history will be made in the 2014 World Champs field.

I also think that, unless they're in the same division as 2056 and 254, that 610 will make Einstein again. They were simply amazing all season, perhaps even better compared to other robots than they were last year.

[Dominick Ferone]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

[Caleb Sykes]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

I have never heard this before. I suppose it is possible. My team last year (2052) ended up in the same division as one of our 4 winning partners (3244) in Newton last year, but maybe it is not possible to perfectly separate all of the alliance members since teams attend multiple events. If I have time this weekend (ha!) I will try to compare winning alliances with divisions for last year, to see if there is any validity in this theory.

[Abhishek R]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

Nope, in 2012 624 and 1477 were in the same division despite winning Bayou and being finalists at Lone Star together.

[kevincrispie]

Nope, in 2012 624 and 1477 were in the same division despite winning Bayou and being finalists at Lone Star together.

2012 was a weird year. 971 was with both 1678 and 254, both alliance partners for regional wins. 1717 was also with 330, their alliance partners from Central Valley. 2056 and 1114 were also in the same division. There were probably others, but that's all I can remember offhand. That situation doesn't happen that often, it seems, but it certainly did in 2012.

[MrTechCenter]

2012 was a weird year. 971 was with both 1678 and 254, both alliance partners for regional wins. 1717 was also with 330, their alliance partners from Central Valley. 2056 and 1114 were also in the same division. There were probably others, but that's all I can remember offhand. That situation doesn't happen that often, it seems, but it certainly did in 2012.

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

[Abhishek R]

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

I think it would be interesting to actually have as many regional pairs or trios in the same division as possible (while maintaining some sort of evenness among divisions) since teams have to work together, they would already know each others' weaknesses or strengths better and be able to build upon those.

[EricH]

That must have been way before 2007 then. Its been some weird algorithm since Ive been a part of FIRST.

Not so far as you might think. Folks on Chief got pretty good at predicting WHAT the divisions would be (just not necessarily which was which); lasted up until around '07 or so, then someone realized that the algorithm was being seen through...and hit the random number generator. Nobody's been able to predict divisions since.

[kevincrispie]

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

Very true. And both 1717 and 971 had communications issues as well ironically enough. Though a lot of teams had those...

Anyway, while it's interesting to see some regional pairs, that year was kind of strange. It's actually quite fun to meet teams from all over. It's not a bad thing at all that you have some unfamiliar faces. It just means you get to meet more people. :cool:

It'll be certainly interesting for this year though, with cooperation so important. Teams that have seen each other before could have some amount of advantage. The dynamics between teams will be interesting.

[themccannman]

I've heard the same rumor that galileo used to be stacked purposefully since it faced the VIP booth in Atlanta. In recent years however comparing the relative OPR's of each division they have been much closer. Galileo was actually one of the weaker divisions last year according to OPR whereas curie and archimedes were relatively strong.

[Max Boord]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

Nope. How would 469 and 33 end up in the same division last year.

[geomapguy]

I've heard the same rumor that galileo used to be stacked purposefully since it faced the VIP booth in Atlanta. In recent years however comparing the relative OPR's of each division they have been much closer. Galileo was actually one of the weaker divisions last year according to OPR whereas curie and archimedes were relatively strong.

Average OPR doesn't seem to be representative of how good of chances the division champs will go onto win Einstein. Especially this year when we could easily see a lower seed take out powerhouse alliances

[themccannman]

Average OPR doesn't seem to be representative of how good of chances the division champs will go onto win Einstein. Especially this year when we could easily see a lower seed take out powerhouse alliances

I wouldn't say they are either. But last year there was a very significant difference in OPR's for the top 25% of teams in each division last year. Just thought that was a notable piece of information.

[qzrrbz]

And kept the Curie Curse alive.

another explanation for 2010? :)

[Racer26]

The Curie curse is the ONLY explanation for 2010. (I know, I know, it was crappy luck that 2041 got stuck in the goal)

I was there. I watched it, and was absolutely gobsmacked by what I was seeing. Not to put 67/177/294 down, but 469/1114/2041 was all but unstoppable, going undefeated right up until they were eliminated in Einstein Finals. (1114 was undefeated all SEASON until Championship, losing Curie Q100 [intentional 6v0 loss against 111 to guarantee themselves #1 seed] and Einstein F1/F2) Brilliant strategy on the part of 67/177/294 to capitalize on the bad luck and park one of their robots blocking the other goal when 2041 got stuck. Karthik has always said that winning championship is mostly about being well positioned to take advantage of luck going your way.

If 1114 had played Q100 to win, they may have, but they ran the risk of a narrow loss, which would have allowed 111 to seed higher than them, and 469 was all but guaranteed to be the #1 pick.

[DampRobot]

The Curie curse is the ONLY explanation for 2010. (I know, I know, it was crappy luck that 2041 got stuck in the goal)

I was there. I watched it, and was absolutely gobsmacked by what I was seeing. Not to put 67/177/294 down, but 469/1114/2041 was all but unstoppable, going undefeated right up until they were eliminated in Einstein Finals. (1114 was undefeated all SEASON until Championship, losing Curie Q100 [intentional 6v0 loss against 111 to guarantee themselves #1 seed] and Einstein F1/F2) Brilliant strategy on the part of 67/177/294 to capitalize on the bad luck and park one of their robots blocking the other goal when 2041 got stuck. Karthik has always said that winning championship is mostly about being well positioned to take advantage of luck going your way.

If 1114 had played Q100 to win, they may have, but they ran the risk of a narrow loss, which would have allowed 111 to seed higher than them, and 469 was all but guaranteed to be the #1 pick.

Personally, I belief that getting 2041 stuck in the goal was a brilliant strategy on 294's part. But the Curie Curse works too.

[BrennanB]

Personally, I belief that getting 2041 stuck in the goal was a brilliant strategy on 294's part. But the Curie Curse works too.

Pretty sure 2041 got stuck in auton. I could be wrong though...

[kaliken]

So to help everybody's memory in that finals.. As i was there too...basically we knew it would be a dog fight with the 469 cycle with 1114 putting in misses. Adding 2041 to play counter defense made our life difficult. the goal was not to react to the cycle but to force the cycle direction. This allowed us to clear enough balls to enable our alliance to catch up. Obviously it worked as we won match one...Winning match two we took lessons we learned from our regional win, as we were always looking for a robot to pin in the goal. So you will see we took the opportunity to intentionally push 2041 deeper into the goal after the auto period. Then blocking the other goal made the best sense. Luck or curse you can believe what you want.

[Adam Freeman]

The Curie curse is the ONLY explanation for 2010. (I know, I know, it was crappy luck that 2041 got stuck in the goal)

I was there. I watched it, and was absolutely gobsmacked by what I was seeing. Not to put 67/177/294 down, but 469/1114/2041 was all but unstoppable, going undefeated right up until they were eliminated in Einstein Finals.

I seem to remember them only getting stuck in the goal in one match. I guess we didn't beat them straightup the other match...

The ONLY explanation is that we were better in those two matches!

[PriyankP]

Anyone know of a way to get the schedule of events in a CSV format (other than doing it manually)?

[lucas.alvarez96]

You could use the TBA API and save the necessary data as CSV...Python has support for requests, JSON and CSV, so you could check those modules out

[cadandcookies]

I seem to remember them only getting stuck in the goal in one match. I guess we didn't beat them straightup the other match...

The ONLY explanation is that we were better in those two matches!

Because we all know that 67, 294, and 177 never build competitive robots, I mean they only have what, 60 blue banners between them?

[Basel A]

I seem to remember them only getting stuck in the goal in one match. I guess we didn't beat them straightup the other match...

The ONLY explanation is that we were better in those two matches!

I hate to quote you to you, Adam, but your tone sounds a bit different a few years later:

With regards to the final matches....just because we won the first two matches, doesn't mean that 1114, 469, and 2041 would not have been able to beat us if we kept playing. We were very fortunate in the last match that 2041 was stuck in the goal for half the match.

1114 was a scoring machine. 469 has a robot design that will go down in history as one of the most awesome designs ever. Not to mention both are great teams with awesome strategists. Given more time (one more match?), they would have figured out how to win. Then we would have had to adjust to those changes.

[snip]

I'd like to say both alliances were evenly matched, but I'm not sure I can say that. I have been trying to figure out how we defeated them for 5 days now, and there isn't one thing that really jumps out at me. I think we suprised them in the first match and had some luck in the second one. After that it was over.

Two matches is not a lot. I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that luck COULD have tipped the balance of the series (though the assertion that it MUST have been luck doesn't hold water).

[PriyankP]

You could use the TBA API and save the necessary data as CSV...Python has support for requests, JSON and CSV, so you could check those modules out

Thank you!!

[themccannman]

I hate to quote you to you, Adam, but your tone sounds a bit different a few years later:



Two matches is not a lot. I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that luck COULD have tipped the balance of the series (though the assertion that it MUST have been luck doesn't hold water).

I think adam dropped this on his way out > /s

[waialua359]

I wanted to comment on the 2010 World Finals matches as a team that played front Bot at IRI with 469 and 330 and 399.
We had to play countless HOF, former WC, and Powerhouse teams on the way to barely winning IRI that year.
Playing the front is not as easy as it would seem.
Having to score soccer balls, maneuver around a defender, box out a defender in order to keep balls cycled into goals, staying out of the way of a cycled ball, drive and steer with only a 1 CIM/1 FP AM Planetary setup per transmission was really tough.
I believe our record in elims was 6-2-1, having to score at least 20 balls in some matches just to barely win.

Off the top of my head, we played against 1086,1114,2056,1625,67,148, 910, 343, etc.

[Don Wright]

I wanted to comment on the 2010 World Finals matches as a team that played front Bot at IRI with 469 and 330 and 399.
We had to play countless HOF, former WC, and Powerhouse teams on the way to barely winning IRI that year.
Playing the front is not as easy as it would seem.
Having to score soccer balls, maneuver around a defender, box out a defender in order to keep balls cycled into goals, staying out of the way of a cycled ball, drive and steer with only a 1 CIM/1 FP AM Planetary setup per transmission was really tough.
I believe our record in elims was 6-2-1, having to score at least 20 balls in some matches just to barely win.

Off the top of my head, we played against 1086,1114,2056,1625,67,148, 910, 343, etc.

Man...that was an amazingly fun and difficult run... I still have the videos online...

Q1.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CE-q1T7KWA)
Q1.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVprR7LzbIM)
SF1.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNNhLAcHPBQ)
SF1.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz4Vy6t0Kho)
SF1.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOoMCJuAdsA)
F1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0ylbC5WLI)
F2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svw1lFt-eiA)
F3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeaEyz1qX0)
F4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkJpor1K7Fs)

I think it felt even better after the disappointment from Einstein.

[waialua359]

Man...that was an amazingly fun and difficult run... I still have the videos online...

Q1.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CE-q1T7KWA)
Q1.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVprR7LzbIM)
SF1.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNNhLAcHPBQ)
SF1.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz4Vy6t0Kho)
SF1.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOoMCJuAdsA)
F1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0ylbC5WLI)
F2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svw1lFt-eiA)
F3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeaEyz1qX0)
F4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkJpor1K7Fs)

I think it felt even better after the disappointment from Einstein.
Thanks for posting these.
It was however painful to watch our limpy robot reaching the finals. Our kicker broke in the finals so everything had to be pushed in, our auto mode was messed up with no time to fix. I now remember trying to sit out and bring in 399. Except 330 said they were broke completely, and instead they sat out.
And yes, I remember Paul yelling at people on the mezzanine above warning them about cheating, pointing the direction that the ball would fall from your robot.

[DavidG]

In regards to the 2010 Finals... I think that 1114, 469, and 2041 lost because they implemented a strategy that didn't utilize the strengths of 1114. 1114 was the best far/mid zone robot all year long.

When they got behind, and the balls were not in 469's cycle, they should have adjusted their strategy, and put 1114 in the mid zone to collect the balls and put them back in 469's loop. There was way too many balls in the middle and far zone, with nobody on 469's alliance there to put them in the goal (and therefore put them in the loop). Of course, when 2041 got stuck in the goal there wasn't much they could do.

That's just my 2 cents. I was only in 7th grade when I watched those matches... so don't take my opinion too seriously.

[Adam Freeman]

I hate to quote you to you, Adam, but your tone sounds a bit different a few years later:

It has! Four years ago, I was just happy to get away with the victory.

Your tone would change too, if everytime an achievement of your's came up it was defined as being "lucky" or the result of the Curie Curse.

We know how much of an upset, but sometime we want credit for not rolling over an letting them walk right past us to the win.

We had a strategy, we executed it in the first match. We won. That wasn't nessecarily luck that we beat them in the first match.

In the second match, luck swung to our side, 2041 got stuck in the goal and 294 made sure they stayed there, we still had to play the rest of the match. 1114 was still scoring balls...and the match was close and not decided until the end.

A lot of matches are won and lost every year. Some are lucky others are not. But, after the initial analysis of the matches is completed, the winners are usually granted the crown and deemed the better alliance in those matches, by the majority of people. I'm not sure we have been deemed that, yet.

Or maybe I am just getting sensitive and cranky as I get older.

[Yipyapper]

It has! Four years ago, I was just happy to get away with the victory.

Your tone would change too, if everytime an achievement of your's came up it was defined as being "lucky" or the result of the Curie Curse.

We know how much of an upset, but sometime we want credit for not rolling over an letting them walk right past us to the win.

We had a strategy, we executed it in the first match. We won. That wasn't nessecarily luck that we beat them in the first match.

In the second match, luck swung to our side, 2041 got stuck in the goal and 294 made sure they stayed there, we still had to play the rest of the match. 1114 was still scoring balls...and the match was close and not decided until the end.

A lot of matches are won and lost every year. Some are lucky others are not. But, after the initial analysis of the matches is completed, the winners are usually granted the crown and deemed the better alliance in those matches, by the majority of people. I'm not sure we have been deemed that, yet.

Or maybe I am just getting sensitive and cranky as I get older.

Regardless of what happened in the finals, the fact that your alliance made it to the finals indicated that you did not get "lucky" with the championship. I certainly wish you didn't have to prove it to people who didn't think you deserved it, but that's how CD seems to be these days.

[MARS_James]

To bring this thread back to it's original purpose and not :deadhorse:

Every year, people ask when will Divisions be released? FIRST typically doesn't provide advance notice. Here's when they have been released in the past.

In 2012 and 2013, the divisions were released on a Wednesday, 8 days before the beginning of the championship (4 days after the end of the Michigan and MAR championships).

It looks like we will not be meeting this deadline this year since we are sitting at 397 teams right now

[Hallry]

It looks like we will not be meeting this deadline this year since we are sitting at 397 teams right now

I might be wrong, but IIRC Divisions were released last year (or the year before) before they were full, and teams were added on after they were announced.

[PayneTrain]

I might be wrong, but IIRC Divisions were released last year (or the year before) before they were full, and teams were added on after they were announced.

Coming from someone with firsthand experience, FIRST is adding teams up until the very last possible minute. The logistics surrounding releasing divisions don't have to fully cooperate with the logistics of plucking teams out of a lineup to ship them off to Missouri. I think they were taking teams off the waitlist last year through Friday the 19th and may actually have put in a couple more checks on the 22nd (yes, the Monday before champs). Division were released 5 days before the preliminary schedules were released

[Peter Matteson]

I might be wrong, but IIRC Divisions were released last year (or the year before) before they were full, and teams were added on after they were announced.

This has been done multiple times in the past where teams registered late for one reason or another.

They will add the late teams in at the end if there are any, but robots have to ship tomorrow so that deadline is pretty firm.

[JVN]

Your tone would change too, if everytime an achievement of your's came up it was defined as being "lucky" or the result of the Curie Curse.

Or maybe I am just getting sensitive and cranky as I get older.

As the saying goes...
"Your blue banner can keep you warm at night."

[JesseK]

As the saying goes...
"Your blue banner can keep you warm at night."

They aren't that soft and cuddly...

[PayneTrain]

As the saying goes...
"Your blue banner can keep you warm at night."

Or if you're 67, stitch them together to make a village of tents.

[Dancin103]

Your tone would change too, if everytime an achievement of your's came up it was defined as being "lucky" or the result of the Curie Curse.

Or maybe I am just getting sensitive and cranky as I get older.

Someone I know defines luck as a combination of hard work and determination. So by those metrics, yes you were lucky, and you guys work extremely hard and are determined to do very well. And I am glad you are in the hall of fame with us. :)

And I think we are all getting more sensitive and cranky. ;)

[Steven Donow]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

I believe that the winners for District Championships generally get split up.

[MARS_James]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

Last year 744 was in the same division as 1772 who together won Orlando and 180 was in the same division as 1251 who won South Florida together

[Zach O]

Bringing this thread back on topic, it sounds like divisions will be out this afternoon (https://twitter.com/FRCTeams/status/456482661192581120)

[MrTechCenter]

Bringing this thread back on topic, it sounds like divisions will be out this afternoon (https://twitter.com/FRCTeams/status/456482661192581120)

This won't be the final list. FIRST is still waiting on 3 teams' invitations to be returned.

[Abhishek R]

This won't be the final list. FIRST is still waiting on 3 teams' invitations to be returned.

It will likely be final for everyone except those three teams.

[mrwright]

Divisions are being updated as we speak!

[notmattlythgoe]

Divisions are being entered as I type this.

https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=event_teamlist&omit_searchform=1&skip_teams=0&-session=myarea:0A7D78870a28e2110CHgtg132046

[peirvine]

According to @FIRStweets
Firing up the double-secret proprietary #FRCCMP Division Team Randomizer! #omgrobots
My guess is 2pm EST...

[mrwright]

Curie for us!

[Alpha Beta]

Bringing this thread back on topic, it sounds like divisions will be out this afternoon (https://twitter.com/FRCTeams/status/456482661192581120)

We're in Newton!

[Boe]

Archimedes here we come!

[Wayne Doenges]

We're in Newton!

So are we!!!!

[notmattlythgoe]

At least 4 VA teams are in Galileo.

2363, 1885, 384, and 1610

[Hallry]

Curie for us!

1676 will be joining you there. Time to break this curse ;)

[Basel A]

From https://my.usfirst.org/frc/scoring/index.lasso?page=event_teamlist&ID_event=10747

11 Curie
16 Newton
20 Archimedes
25 Newton
27 Archimedes
28 Curie
33 Archimedes
45 Galileo
51 Archimedes
58 Newton
67 Galileo
68 Curie
70 Galileo
74 Curie
75 Curie
78 Newton
79 Galileo
103 Archimedes
111 Newton
118 Curie
120 Newton
125 Curie
126 Galileo
133 Newton
135 Curie
148 Galileo
175 Archimedes
176 Galileo
177 Curie
179 Galileo
180 Curie
188 Galileo
190 Newton
191 Curie
193 Galileo
195 Archimedes
217 Galileo
222 Curie
225 Galileo
228 Galileo
229 Archimedes
230 Curie
236 Curie
254 Curie
294 Curie
303 Galileo
314 Newton
319 Archimedes
329 Archimedes
330 Newton
334 Archimedes
337 Galileo
340 Newton
341 Newton
353 Galileo
357 Archimedes
359 Curie
364 Newton
365 Galileo
368 Newton
378 Archimedes
384 Galileo
399 Archimedes
418 Curie
422 Archimedes
447 Curie
457 Archimedes
469 Curie
484 Archimedes
488 Galileo
494 Galileo
503 Archimedes
525 Newton
527 Archimedes
540 Curie
548 Archimedes
558 Galileo
573 Curie
597 Newton
604 Galileo
610 Newton
612 Newton
623 Newton
624 Curie
639 Archimedes
687 Newton
766 Galileo
771 Galileo
772 Curie
781 Archimedes
811 Newton
836 Galileo
842 Curie
846 Newton
857 Galileo
862 Galileo
865 Curie
868 Newton
869 Galileo
884 Galileo
900 Archimedes
910 Newton
932 Archimedes
955 Galileo
971 Newton
973 Galileo
987 Curie
997 Newton
1011 Galileo
1014 Newton
1023 Galileo
1086 Archimedes
1089 Archimedes
1108 Galileo
1114 Newton
1126 Newton
1138 Newton
1153 Galileo
1156 Newton
1218 Galileo
1241 Curie
1261 Newton
1266 Galileo
1285 Newton
1287 Curie
1294 Newton
1305 Newton
1310 Galileo
1311 Curie
1318 Galileo
1323 Curie
1334 Galileo
1477 Archimedes
1501 Curie
1507 Newton
1511 Newton
1515 Galileo
1519 Archimedes
1538 Archimedes
1540 Archimedes
1574 Newton
1592 Newton
1595 Curie
1610 Galileo
1625 Archimedes
1629 Curie
1640 Newton
1662 Archimedes
1671 Archimedes
1676 Curie
1678 Newton
1683 Galileo
1710 Newton
1714 Curie
1717 Galileo
1718 Curie
1723 Curie
1730 Galileo
1731 Newton
1732 Curie
1735 Newton
1756 Galileo
1775 Galileo
1806 Newton
1816 Archimedes
1817 Newton
1884 Curie
1885 Galileo
1902 Curie
1918 Archimedes
1937 Curie
1939 Archimedes
1983 Newton
1986 Newton
2013 Curie
2016 Curie
2035 Newton
2052 Galileo
2054 Newton
2056 Archimedes
2067 Archimedes
2080 Curie
2081 Newton
2085 Newton
2122 Galileo
2135 Galileo
2137 Archimedes
2158 Archimedes
2169 Curie
2175 Archimedes
2177 Galileo
2180 Archimedes
2198 Archimedes
2202 Archimedes
2227 Curie
2283 Newton
2337 Galileo
2341 Archimedes
2363 Galileo
2403 Curie
2415 Newton
2424 Galileo
2443 Curie
2444 Archimedes
2451 Curie
2468 Curie
2471 Galileo
2478 Curie
2481 Galileo
2485 Archimedes
2486 Newton
2500 Archimedes
2502 Archimedes
2522 Newton
2543 Curie
2557 Archimedes
2576 Archimedes
2590 Archimedes
2607 Archimedes
2614 Newton
2619 Curie
2626 Archimedes
2642 Galileo
2648 Curie
2655 Archimedes
2665 Galileo
2834 Archimedes
2848 Curie
2877 Newton
2907 Archimedes
2928 Curie
2959 Archimedes
2974 Galileo
2978 Archimedes
2980 Galileo
2996 Archimedes
3008 Galileo
3015 Curie
3018 Newton
3042 Curie
3065 Newton
3098 Galileo
3103 Galileo
3138 Galileo
3147 Newton
3158 Archimedes
3161 Curie
3191 Galileo
3211 Archimedes
3230 Curie
3238 Newton
3256 Newton
3260 Newton
3284 Newton
3301 Curie
3309 Galileo
3310 Galileo
3313 Newton
3316 Galileo
3318 Archimedes
3354 Archimedes
3360 Galileo
3386 Curie
3393 Archimedes
3467 Archimedes
3476 Curie
3478 Curie
3480 Galileo
3492 Archimedes
3504 Galileo
3525 Archimedes
3528 Newton
3539 Newton
3562 Curie
3602 Newton
3616 Archimedes
3620 Archimedes
3660 Curie
3683 Galileo
3692 Curie
3794 Curie
3812 Curie
3824 Newton
3843 Curie
3847 Newton
3880 Newton
3928 Newton
3932 Curie
3937 Galileo
3959 Archimedes
3990 Curie
3997 Archimedes
4010 Archimedes
4013 Archimedes
4039 Newton
4055 Curie
4060 Galileo
4061 Newton
4063 Galileo
4069 Newton
4077 Archimedes
4125 Curie
4159 Curie
4161 Curie
4171 Curie
4176 Galileo
4256 Galileo
4265 Archimedes
4269 Newton
4288 Galileo
4296 Archimedes
4334 Curie
4355 Newton
4362 Curie
4391 Newton
4464 Newton
4476 Galileo
4481 Newton
4486 Curie
4488 Galileo
4499 Archimedes
4500 Newton
4522 Curie
4531 Archimedes
4536 Galileo
4547 Archimedes
4583 Archimedes
4645 Newton
4707 Archimedes
4719 Galileo
4778 Archimedes
4819 Curie
4901 Curie
4905 Newton
4911 Archimedes
4914 Archimedes
4915 Curie
4917 Galileo
4925 Archimedes
4930 Archimedes
4933 Archimedes
4935 Curie
4940 Galileo
4941 Newton
4944 Archimedes
4945 Galileo
4946 Archimedes
4949 Newton
4950 Archimedes
4965 Galileo
4967 Galileo
4969 Curie
4977 Curie
4979 Galileo
4982 Galileo
4985 Galileo
4991 Galileo
4997 Newton
5002 Curie
5006 Archimedes
5010 Newton
5012 Galileo
5016 Newton
5019 Archimedes
5024 Curie
5030 Archimedes
5036 Curie
5041 Archimedes
5052 Newton
5057 Newton
5076 Curie
5093 Curie
5098 Galileo
5122 Galileo
5123 Archimedes
5124 Newton
5125 Curie
5134 Archimedes
5136 Newton
5137 Galileo
5145 Galileo
5148 Galileo
5171 Newton
5172 Curie
5179 Curie
5188 Newton
5190 Newton
5191 Curie
5196 Archimedes
5288 Archimedes
5291 Newton
5297 Curie
5299 Archimedes
5310 Newton
5320 Galileo
5326 Curie
5339 Newton


Archimedes:

20 Archimedes
27 Archimedes
33 Archimedes
51 Archimedes
103 Archimedes
175 Archimedes
195 Archimedes
229 Archimedes
319 Archimedes
329 Archimedes
334 Archimedes
357 Archimedes
378 Archimedes
399 Archimedes
422 Archimedes
457 Archimedes
484 Archimedes
503 Archimedes
527 Archimedes
548 Archimedes
639 Archimedes
781 Archimedes
900 Archimedes
932 Archimedes
1086 Archimedes
1089 Archimedes
1477 Archimedes
1519 Archimedes
1538 Archimedes
1540 Archimedes
1625 Archimedes
1662 Archimedes
1671 Archimedes
1816 Archimedes
1918 Archimedes
1939 Archimedes
2056 Archimedes
2067 Archimedes
2137 Archimedes
2158 Archimedes
2175 Archimedes
2180 Archimedes
2198 Archimedes
2202 Archimedes
2341 Archimedes
2444 Archimedes
2485 Archimedes
2500 Archimedes
2502 Archimedes
2557 Archimedes
2576 Archimedes
2590 Archimedes
2607 Archimedes
2626 Archimedes
2655 Archimedes
2834 Archimedes
2907 Archimedes
2959 Archimedes
2978 Archimedes
2996 Archimedes
3158 Archimedes
3211 Archimedes
3318 Archimedes
3354 Archimedes
3393 Archimedes
3467 Archimedes
3492 Archimedes
3525 Archimedes
3616 Archimedes
3620 Archimedes
3959 Archimedes
3997 Archimedes
4010 Archimedes
4013 Archimedes
4077 Archimedes
4265 Archimedes
4296 Archimedes
4499 Archimedes
4531 Archimedes
4547 Archimedes
4583 Archimedes
4707 Archimedes
4778 Archimedes
4911 Archimedes
4914 Archimedes
4925 Archimedes
4930 Archimedes
4933 Archimedes
4944 Archimedes
4946 Archimedes
4950 Archimedes
5006 Archimedes
5019 Archimedes
5030 Archimedes
5041 Archimedes
5123 Archimedes
5134 Archimedes
5196 Archimedes
5288 Archimedes
5299 Archimedes

Curie:

11 Curie
28 Curie
68 Curie
74 Curie
75 Curie
118 Curie
125 Curie
135 Curie
177 Curie
180 Curie
191 Curie
222 Curie
230 Curie
236 Curie
254 Curie
294 Curie
359 Curie
418 Curie
447 Curie
469 Curie
540 Curie
573 Curie
624 Curie
772 Curie
842 Curie
865 Curie
987 Curie
1241 Curie
1287 Curie
1311 Curie
1323 Curie
1501 Curie
1595 Curie
1629 Curie
1676 Curie
1714 Curie
1718 Curie
1723 Curie
1732 Curie
1884 Curie
1902 Curie
1937 Curie
2013 Curie
2016 Curie
2080 Curie
2169 Curie
2227 Curie
2403 Curie
2443 Curie
2451 Curie
2468 Curie
2478 Curie
2543 Curie
2619 Curie
2648 Curie
2848 Curie
2928 Curie
3015 Curie
3042 Curie
3161 Curie
3230 Curie
3301 Curie
3386 Curie
3476 Curie
3478 Curie
3562 Curie
3660 Curie
3692 Curie
3794 Curie
3812 Curie
3843 Curie
3932 Curie
3990 Curie
4055 Curie
4125 Curie
4159 Curie
4161 Curie
4171 Curie
4334 Curie
4362 Curie
4486 Curie
4522 Curie
4819 Curie
4901 Curie
4915 Curie
4935 Curie
4969 Curie
4977 Curie
5002 Curie
5024 Curie
5036 Curie
5076 Curie
5093 Curie
5125 Curie
5172 Curie
5179 Curie
5191 Curie
5297 Curie
5326 Curie

Galileo:

45 Galileo
67 Galileo
70 Galileo
79 Galileo
126 Galileo
148 Galileo
176 Galileo
179 Galileo
188 Galileo
193 Galileo
217 Galileo
225 Galileo
228 Galileo
303 Galileo
337 Galileo
353 Galileo
365 Galileo
384 Galileo
488 Galileo
494 Galileo
558 Galileo
604 Galileo
766 Galileo
771 Galileo
836 Galileo
857 Galileo
862 Galileo
869 Galileo
884 Galileo
955 Galileo
973 Galileo
1011 Galileo
1023 Galileo
1108 Galileo
1153 Galileo
1218 Galileo
1266 Galileo
1310 Galileo
1318 Galileo
1334 Galileo
1515 Galileo
1610 Galileo
1683 Galileo
1717 Galileo
1730 Galileo
1756 Galileo
1775 Galileo
1885 Galileo
2052 Galileo
2122 Galileo
2135 Galileo
2177 Galileo
2337 Galileo
2363 Galileo
2424 Galileo
2471 Galileo
2481 Galileo
2642 Galileo
2665 Galileo
2974 Galileo
2980 Galileo
3008 Galileo
3098 Galileo
3103 Galileo
3138 Galileo
3191 Galileo
3309 Galileo
3310 Galileo
3316 Galileo
3360 Galileo
3480 Galileo
3504 Galileo
3683 Galileo
3937 Galileo
4060 Galileo
4063 Galileo
4176 Galileo
4256 Galileo
4288 Galileo
4476 Galileo
4488 Galileo
4536 Galileo
4719 Galileo
4917 Galileo
4940 Galileo
4945 Galileo
4965 Galileo
4967 Galileo
4979 Galileo
4982 Galileo
4985 Galileo
4991 Galileo
5012 Galileo
5098 Galileo
5122 Galileo
5137 Galileo
5145 Galileo
5148 Galileo
5320 Galileo

Newton:


16 Newton
25 Newton
58 Newton
78 Newton
111 Newton
120 Newton
133 Newton
190 Newton
314 Newton
330 Newton
340 Newton
341 Newton
364 Newton
368 Newton
525 Newton
597 Newton
610 Newton
612 Newton
623 Newton
687 Newton
811 Newton
846 Newton
868 Newton
910 Newton
971 Newton
997 Newton
1014 Newton
1114 Newton
1126 Newton
1138 Newton
1156 Newton
1261 Newton
1285 Newton
1294 Newton
1305 Newton
1507 Newton
1511 Newton
1574 Newton
1592 Newton
1640 Newton
1678 Newton
1710 Newton
1731 Newton
1735 Newton
1806 Newton
1817 Newton
1983 Newton
1986 Newton
2035 Newton
2054 Newton
2081 Newton
2085 Newton
2283 Newton
2415 Newton
2486 Newton
2522 Newton
2614 Newton
2877 Newton
3018 Newton
3065 Newton
3147 Newton
3238 Newton
3256 Newton
3260 Newton
3284 Newton
3313 Newton
3528 Newton
3539 Newton
3602 Newton
3824 Newton
3847 Newton
3880 Newton
3928 Newton
4039 Newton
4061 Newton
4069 Newton
4269 Newton
4355 Newton
4391 Newton
4464 Newton
4481 Newton
4500 Newton
4645 Newton
4905 Newton
4941 Newton
4949 Newton
4997 Newton
5010 Newton
5016 Newton
5052 Newton
5057 Newton
5124 Newton
5136 Newton
5171 Newton
5188 Newton
5190 Newton
5291 Newton
5310 Newton
5339 Newton

[Mason987]

Curie for 987.

It also appears that the server hosting the team list has crashed or my browser is tired of me hitting refresh every five seconds.

[barn34]

We're in Newton!

Good luck to you guys! Looks like we're making a return to Galileo, so we'll just have to hope GARE-E can rub bumpers with Tusk on Einstein. ;)

[Yipyapper]

Curie is stacked. Archimedes is not (on first glance).

[Steven Donow]

I'm inclined to say the Curie Curse will be broken...but I also thought so last year...

[jlmcmchl]

Well, this breaks any proof that winning a competition with another team prevents you from being in the same division. 33 and 27 are back together in Archimedes after MSC.

[Woolly]

We're in Newton!

Man, where was this division last year? :rolleyes:

[Mason987]

Curie is stacked. Archimedes is not (on first glance).

2485 is on there, and after playing with them I'm sure they'll be very good competitors.

[dodar]

Newton is absolutely stacked!

Just something to think about, 9 teams from the FRC Top 25 in Newton; 4 from the Top 10.

[Mason987]

I'm inclined to say the Curie Curse will be broken...but I also thought so last year...

I also thought so last year. and in 2012. and in 2011. :rolleyes:

[Hallry]

Interesting, http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/ is still saying NO, and the FRC Megaphone Division Notifier texts haven't seen to gone out yet either.

[Mason987]

Interesting, http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/ is still saying NO, and the FRC Megaphone Division Notifier texts haven't seen to gone out yet either.

I'm attributing this to the fact that there are still no links (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/championship-event) under the divisions and the process isn't complete yet. We've all just been sitting here waiting and refreshing until something changed.

[Zach O]

Interesting, http://aredivisionsoutyet.com/ is still saying NO, and the FRC Megaphone Division Notifier texts haven't seen to gone out yet either.

Division Notifier texts just went out. FIRST didn't publish divisions the way I expected them to (posting to the event pages - frclinks.com/e/gal), so I was polling for a different page.

I pulled teams manually and sent out texts. The first batch of texts didn't have a field though. The second batch did. Who knew hot swapping code could lead to issues.

[Ty Tremblay]

Here's the raw data in excel format.

[iRobot_]

Archimedes is pretty stacked, just the first three teams have either won their respective district championship or was a regional winner...

[AnonymousMarvin]

I am inclined to think that this years is going to Newton. Just look at the amount of power house teams there. Newton is the one to watch this year.

[Nathan Streeter]

Curie is stacked. Archimedes is not (on first glance).

Archimedes may be light on Canadian teams, but it does have plenty of strong American teams from coast to coast!

[Yipyapper]

Archimedes may be light on Canadian teams, but it does have plenty of strong American teams from coast to coast!

The lack of Canada wasn't my implication. There are plenty of good teams in Archimedes, but it doesn't compare to the other divisions in my mind.

[Flimsor]

So are we!!!!

See you there!

[Jared]

Average OPR's for each division, given in the format average of all, average of top 20, average of top 8.

curie
47.66, 87.58, 101.53

archimedes
44.44, 81.05, 91.98

newton
50.43, 87.64, 100.35

galileo
49.24, 82.42, 90.59

[Basel A]

Threw together a quick PDF of divisional team oprs. Archimedes does look the weakest. Newton probably the strongest at the top end, with Galileo the deepest.

[jlmcmchl]

Did a graph for each division based on Team's OPR. Uses Ed Law's OPR Data.

Archimedes & Curie (http://i.imgur.com/AtdDqI2.png)
Galileo & Newton (http://i.imgur.com/iJciOOH.png)

Link to excel sheet: World OPR By Division (https://www.dropbox.com/s/rtj2vb0479u5w1c/World%20OPR%20By%20Division.xls)

[tstew]

All of the divisions on one graph:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2a7z8sw.png

[JVN]

Can you do this same OPR graph for the top 32 teams in each division?

[Aren_Hill]

All of the divisions on one graph:
http://i60.tinypic.com/2q99u90.jpg

Hey Timothy....whats the X-axis....

[plnyyanks]

Hey Timothy....whats the X-axis....

Always label your axes, it could make a huge difference...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/convincing.png (http://xkcd.com/833/)

[thatismytruck]

Curious about the x axis also; and I would like to know what OPR is.


I hate acronyms. I never recall what they are.

[plnyyanks]

and I would like to know what OPR is.


Offensive Power Rating

And the maths (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=484220&postcount=19)

[thatismytruck]

Thank you!

If I read you right OPR focuses on scoring when the main point is to assist. How do you factor in all the assists and the last team scoring the goal?

If I missed something I apologize.

[Abhishek R]

Thank you!

If I read you right OPR focuses on scoring when the main point is to assist. How do you factor in all the assists and the last team scoring the goal?

If I missed something I apologize.

OPR is basically a measure of how much a team is likely to contribute to an alliance's score as a whole. This accounts for all ways of scoring, including assist, truss, catch, and scoring. It does not differentiate between ways of getting points, so you could have two robots, each with an OPR of 100, but maybe one racks up a 100 assist points in a match, while another trusses and then scores a 100 points.

[Chris is me]

This accounts for all ways of scoring, including assist, truss, catch, and scoring.

I think it would be more accurate to say that OPR accounts for *no* way of scoring. OPR only compares total points scored to the teams in the match. OPR can't be used this year to accurately approximate the actual number of points scored by a robot in a match, due to the inseparable nature of this game and cooperative scoring. Whether or not it's a useful approximation of match contribution is the subject of much debate :)

[thatismytruck]

I think it would be more accurate to say that OPR accounts for *no* way of scoring. OPR only compares total points scored to the teams in the match. OPR can't be used this year to accurately approximate the actual number of points scored by a robot in a match, due to the inseparable nature of this game and cooperative scoring. Whether or not it's a useful approximation of match contribution is the subject of much debate :)

This is what threw me when looking at the equations for OPR. It seemed to me the game is too integrated to get a number for each team.

[Abhishek R]

This is what threw me when looking at the equations for OPR. It seemed to me the game is too integrated to get a number for each team.

Right, technically you aren't getting any numbers on the team, so it literally does not account for anything the team actually does because it is a projected statistic based off of the alliance score. So you could very well have a team who had favorable alliance partners all throughout qualifications, which results in an inflated OPR. This actually happens more often than you may think.

[thatismytruck]

Right, technically you aren't getting any numbers on the team, so it literally does not account for anything the team actually does because it is a projected statistic based off of the alliance score. So you could very well have a team who had favorable alliance partners all throughout qualifications, which results in an inflated OPR. This actually happens more often than you may think.

Having watched a bunch, it happens a LOT! Which is why I believe OPR (having just tonight been exposed to it) is not a great way to sort the teams this year. I'm not sure my preferred way to rank is better, but I would rank by assist points.

[tstew]

Can you do this same OPR graph for the top 32 teams in each division?
http://i58.tinypic.com/4zwxav.png
Hey Timothy....whats the X-axis....
It's the team's rank based on opr. I updated the graph.

[GearsOfFury]

All of the divisions on one graph:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2a7z8sw.png

Does it add to the curse if I say this proves it *has* to be the year to end the curse....? :-)

[Wayne TenBrink]

Right, technically you aren't getting any numbers on the team, so it literally does not account for anything the team actually does because it is a projected statistic based off of the alliance score. So you could very well have a team who had favorable alliance partners all throughout qualifications, which results in an inflated OPR. This actually happens more often than you may think.

Although OPR doesn't tell you anything about a team's specific contribution to the alliance score (truss, finisher, auton, etc.) it does a decent job of showing which teams bring success with them when they show up on the field. Having strong alliance partners may improve your seeding, but it does not necessarily raise your OPR since the math may "credit" the scoring to your partners instead of you. Since the scoring in this game depends so much on how the alliance works as a unit, a team could achieve high OPR by planning effective match strategies that makes their partners contribute more effectively than they might do otherwise. Having a good robot helps, too.

[JesseK]

Can you do this same OPR graph for the top 32 teams in each division?

It is interesting how this is both the quantity of teams greater than <average> + <1 standard deviation> AND the number of teams who will be in elims on Saturday.

[Bruceb]

So, does that mean the wait list spots are all taken??

[Hallry]

So, does that mean the wait list spots are all taken??

Yep, FIRST is showing that 400 teams are now registered for the 2014 FRC World Championship. The lucky 400th team was none other than Team 48, Delphi E.L.I.T.E., from Warren, Ohio. They are in the Newton Division.

[MooreteP]

It is interesting how this is both the quantity of teams greater than <average> + <1 standard deviation> AND the number of teams who will be in elims on Saturday.

Statwistics. :-)

Seriously, why is thread still so active.
This is great analysis, but shouldn't it be in the Einstein 2014 thread?

[Alpha Beta]

Yep, FIRST is showing that 400 teams are now registered for the 2014 FRC World Championship. The lucky 400th team was none other than Team 48, Delphi E.L.I.T.E., from Warren, Ohio. They are in the Newton Division.

Why would 100 teams per division be the target number? It requires 2 teams to play surrogate matches. Would much rather see them cap the event at 96, or 102. When you have a surrogate match your stats lag behind the other teams in your division in real time. Real time stats seem to be important to FIRST considering they now include current rank on the live match scoring display.

Avoiding surrogates does not appear to be a goal however. Of the 6 years we have qualified for champs, the number of teams in the division has never been divisible by 6.

Archimedes 2009 (Atlanta) = 87 teams
Curie 2010 (Atlanta) = 86 teams
Curie 2011 (St. Louis) = 88 teams
Curie 2012 (St. Louis) = 100 teams
Newton 2013 (St. Louis) = 100 teams
Newton 2014 (St. Louis) = 100 teams

[Bruceb]

anybody know for sure how many wait list slots there were?
We were finalists in two regionals and won the quality award and
the industrial design award this season.
Thought we had a pretty good shot at the wait list.

[Hallry]

anybody know for sure how many wait list slots there were?
We were finalists in two regionals and won the quality award and
the industrial design award this season.
Thought we had a pretty good shot at the wait list.

Based on these calculations (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1373519&postcount=79), it looks like there were 6 waitlist slots. A small number was expected, and a few weeks ago, Frank even said there might be none (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Record-and-Waitlist). As far as I know, the waitlist is generally first-come, first-serve, meaning that how you perform throughout the season has no effect on whether or not you'll get in off the waitlist (unless you qualify by performance, of course). It all comes down to who has the quickest trigger-finger on registration day. However, they might automatically filter out some teams, since none of the waitlist teams that got in this year attended World Champs last year. I know that 5 out of the 6 waitlist slots this year went to 4176, 357 714, 2073, and the lucky 400th team, 48. I'm unsure who the 6th waitlist team was, but they're registered in the bunch somewhere.

[Citrus Dad]

OPR is basically a measure of how much a team is likely to contribute to an alliance's score as a whole. This accounts for all ways of scoring, including assist, truss, catch, and scoring. It does not differentiate between ways of getting points, so you could have two robots, each with an OPR of 100, but maybe one racks up a 100 assist points in a match, while another trusses and then scores a 100 points.

For example, we had an OPR of 107 at SVR, but we averaged making only one high goal teleop shot each match. The OPR reflected our focus on assist scoring on the total score.

[Citrus Dad]

Right, technically you aren't getting any numbers on the team, so it literally does not account for anything the team actually does because it is a projected statistic based off of the alliance score. So you could very well have a team who had favorable alliance partners all throughout qualifications, which results in an inflated OPR. This actually happens more often than you may think.

An inflated OPR happens if you have a favorable set of alliances AND your alliance mates score at least their average amount in those matches. However, we had a favorable schedule at Curie last year but our alliance mates scored below their average (about 29 points per team) so our OPR was depressed well below our actual goal score. Another is if the entire field at a regional is scoring well above the FRC average, which could be occurring for any number of reasons, including quality of play or more fouls.

[cgmv123]

Why would 100 teams per division be the target number? It requires 2 teams to play surrogate matches. Would much rather see them cap the event at 96, or 102.

My guess is that the pits are too small to safely accommodate 408 teams, but FIRST doesn't feel it's fair to cap Championship at 384 teams.

[Citrus Dad]

All of the divisions on one graph:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2a7z8sw.png

Looking at relative ranking through the entire distribution (1,2,3,4), it looks like Newton is the strongest, never falling below 3rd and usually 1st or 2nd. Next is Galileo which is often 1st particularly in the mid-range and only at 4th for a couple short periods. Archimedes is the weakest never rising above 2nd and usually 3rd or 4th. Curie is 3rd with the strongest upper end, which may contributed most to its performance on Einstein.

[themccannman]

Looking at relative ranking through the entire distribution (1,2,3,4), it looks like Newton is the strongest, never falling below 3rd and usually 1st or 2nd. Next is Galileo which is often 1st particularly in the mid-range and only at 4th for a couple short periods. Archimedes is the weakest never rising above 2nd and usually 3rd or 4th. Curie is 3rd with the strongest upper end, which may contributed most to its performance on Einstein.

Considering that elims are played almost exclusively by the top 24 teams in each division, having a better top 25% of teams in your division seems to matter much more than how strong your division is below the 24th spot. Curie clearly has the advantage when it comes to comparing the teams in each division that will likely make elims.

[Caleb Sykes]

My guess is that the pits are too small to safely accommodate 408 teams, but FIRST doesn't feel it's fair to cap Championship at 384 teams.

My guess is that someone thought 100 teams per division was too nice of a number not to use.

[ErvinI]

Considering that elims are played almost exclusively by the top 24 teams in each division, having a better top 25% of teams in your division seems to matter much more than how strong your division is below the 24th spot. Curie clearly has the advantage when it comes to comparing the teams in each division that will likely make elims.

Top 32% this year. Unless you believe that the 3rd pick is inconsequential.

[themccannman]

Top 32% this year. Unless you believe that the 3rd pick is inconsequential.

I said top 24 because only those teams are guaranteed to play in elims. Chances are that no back up teams will be called, or only 1 - 2 at most so I figured it wasn't worth projecting elims based on robots that probably won't play.

[Laaba 80]

I said top 24 because only those teams are guaranteed to play in elims. Chances are that no back up teams will be called, or only 1 - 2 at most so I figured it wasn't worth projecting elims based on robots that probably won't play.

You may be right but just as a counterexample, we were picked for elims twice at IRI. Both times we were the final pick on the alliance. Both times we played the first match.

[GearsOfFury]

However, they might automatically filter out some teams, since none of the waitlist teams that got in this year attended World Champs last year. I know that 5 out of the 6 waitlist slots this year went to 4176, 357 714, 2073, and the lucky 400th team, 48. I'm unsure who the 6th waitlist team was, but they're registered in the bunch somewhere.

Wait list registration first opens to teams that did not attend Champs the year before. It then opens to all teams a few weeks later. So, that's the "filter".

Seems like a safe bet that we will rarely if ever get to that second group again, unless they move Champs to some location that causes a lot of invitation declines (which would be a shame).

[Wayne TenBrink]

Considering that elims are played almost exclusively by the top 24 teams in each division, having a better top 25% of teams in your division seems to matter much more than how strong your division is below the 24th spot. Curie clearly has the advantage when it comes to comparing the teams in each division that will likely make elims.

Einstein isn't decided by putting the top 25% from each division on the field at the same time (now, THAT would be interesting to watch!). Each division sends the alliance that demonstrated the best ability to win. Perhaps that was the two best robots in the division plus a sleeper, perhaps it was the combination that worked best together. Perhaps they just got lucky. Most likely it will be a combination of those. Winning alliances don't reflect the average quality of the top 25% of the division. They just reflect the ability of the 3 bots they put on the field. Any division can win it.

[PayneTrain]

400 being the target never made sense. You think you would want 408 teams, especially evidenced by the fact FRC pits last year had at least 8 empty spots in the back of Archimedes.

Anyone know if we are getting preliminary schedule this year?

[The Lucas]

Why would 100 teams per division be the target number? It requires 2 teams to play surrogate matches. Would much rather see them cap the event at 96, or 102. When you have a surrogate match your stats lag behind the other teams in your division in real time. Real time stats seem to be important to FIRST considering they now include current rank on the live match scoring display.

Avoiding surrogates does not appear to be a goal however. Of the 6 years we have qualified for champs, the number of teams in the division has never been divisible by 6.

Archimedes 2009 (Atlanta) = 87 teams
Curie 2010 (Atlanta) = 86 teams
Curie 2011 (St. Louis) = 88 teams
Curie 2012 (St. Louis) = 100 teams
Newton 2013 (St. Louis) = 100 teams
Newton 2014 (St. Louis) = 100 teams

In 2012 they played 9 qual matches so there were no surrogates. Now with 10 matches there are 2 surrogates per division in 167 matches.

If they like the 10 match format with the all day Thursday quals they may just plan for 102 per division. I don't think FIRST came into this year planning on 10 qual matches at Champs. Last year they were clearly planning on 9 matches but had to cut it to 8 due to belaying, manual disc count, etc... I think the pits can take 8 more teams, and the new schedules can take 3 more matches for an even 170 matches per division. MAR championships just did 83 qual matches on a Friday (which I am pretty sure is a record for qual matches in a day).

[Bruceb]

Well I have heard that it is not first come first serve so I dont know what is the truth on that.
We did not attend champs last year and I got on the wait list in the first 15 seconds after it opened.
But, still no luck.
Best of luck to all you attending and above all, have a great time!!!

[Nathan Streeter]

Very much agreed with those who have said that OPR is pretty flawed for comparing team strength and those who have said predicting the World Champion by comparing divisional strength is silly.

As a result, I updated the aWAR spreadsheet so I could use that to compare divisions... :-) See the plot of the top 32 here (16869).

By aWAR, the best division is almost unanimously Galileo. It doesn't matter if you look at the top 16, 32, or the entire division... aWAR strongly favors Galileo. Curie and Newton are nearly identical, regardless of which metric you look at across what population. Archimedes is the 2nd best division if you look at the top 16 or 32 (except by median), but if you look at the entire division it drops to last. The main reason for this is that it is comparable with Galileo in the top 4, comparable with Curie and Newton for the top 7-15, but then drops to last for the rest of the division.

My spreadsheet for looking at the divisions is attached here (16868).

My post with the updated aWAR spreadsheet is here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1375862&postcount=32).

[Jaxom]

I said top 24 because only those teams are guaranteed to play in elims. Chances are that no back up teams will be called, or only 1 - 2 at most so I figured it wasn't worth projecting elims based on robots that probably won't play.

I have a day job, so I haven't put the numbers together -- and someone's probably already done the analysis somewhere anyway -- but I'd be *very* surprised if the 24 teams with the top OPR in the "regular season" are always the teams in elims. Probably a large percentage of them, sure. But even if you discount high-OPR teams that break during quals & therefore aren't available for elims, not all of those teams end up in elims.

Also: I don't think that the 4th alliance robot should be considered a "backup". They're going to be a full-fledged member of the alliance, and I would expect (especially on the top 2 or 3 alliances) that there's going to be very little difference between the 2nd & 3rd pick. Seems to me that there's a lot of room for picking for varying tactics, not just emergencies. Having said that, I've never been to IRI, so I'll ask -- how often does that 4th robot not play unless one of the first 3 are broken?

[Abhishek R]

I have a day job, so I haven't put the numbers together -- and someone's probably already done the analysis somewhere anyway -- but I'd be *very* surprised if the 24 teams with the top OPR in the "regular season" are always the teams in elims. Probably a large percentage of them, sure. But even if you discount high-OPR teams that break during quals & therefore aren't available for elims, not all of those teams end up in elims.

Also: I don't think that the 4th alliance robot should be considered a "backup". They're going to be a full-fledged member of the alliance, and I would expect (especially on the top 2 or 3 alliances) that there's going to be very little difference between the 2nd & 3rd pick. Seems to me that there's a lot of room for picking for varying tactics, not just emergencies. Having said that, I've never been to IRI, so I'll ask -- how often does that 4th robot not play unless one of the first 3 are broken?

I know we rotated our 4th bot into play at the 2013 IRI even though the first three were still fully functional.

[themccannman]

Einstein isn't decided by putting the top 25% from each division on the field at the same time (now, THAT would be interesting to watch!). Each division sends the alliance that demonstrated the best ability to win. Perhaps that was the two best robots in the division plus a sleeper, perhaps it was the combination that worked best together. Perhaps they just got lucky. Most likely it will be a combination of those. Winning alliances don't reflect the average quality of the top 25% of the division. They just reflect the ability of the 3 bots they put on the field. Any division can win it.

That would be entertaining, but I think we'd need a bigger field.

My statement was not absolute at all, it's simply a trend. Robots that have a higher OPR tend to win more often, I think we can all agree this is true. Curie division has the highest OPR's in their top 24 robots between all divisions. This is also true. Therefore it follows that it is likely that curie division will on average produce the alliances most likely to win. I think it logically follows that this statement is cogent and is more likely true than untrue.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I know we rotated our 4th bot into play at the 2013 IRI even though the first three were still fully functional.

We were the 4th pick at IRI last year and played in all 3 of our QF matches. Our partners did have problems but we would have been in to block 148's full court shooting either way.

The divisions are very deep with teams that can really help an alliance. There may only be a few world class power forwards but there is no shortage of teams that can help get to three assists and play defense. The 4ths on a lot of alliances will get playing time for a variety of reasons. On the top seeds it makes sense to draft two teams with similar abilities. They can give them both a chance in the QFs and figure out which one fits better with the other two robots. Lower seeds might draft for riskier strategies such as catching or a robot with a lot of potential but lacks consistency.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Last year (IIRC) they released match schedules (with all the caveats that they were preliminary, tentative, subject to change, etc.) prior to the event. Does anybody know if they plan to do that again this year? Does anybody recall when the match schedules were released last year?

[BigJ]

Last year (IIRC) they released match schedules (with all the caveats that they were preliminary, tentative, subject to change, etc.) prior to the event. Does anybody know if they plan to do that again this year? Does anybody recall when the match schedules were released last year?

I would hazard a guess that it will happen again this year. (https://twitter.com/FRCTeams/status/457244629654462464)