rating teams (FIRSTstar) revisited

[Joe Ross]

Are you really bored now that the championship is over? Are you interested in the history of FIRST? Do you find yourself wondering which team has won the most awards, ever?

Last year, Dr. Joe proposed a rating system for teams is this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3570) and Aaron Vernon created a spreadsheet to start to do that.

Anyone feel like updating the data for this past year. Anybody feel like adding more criteria or more methods or just making the spreadsheet better?

[xavior06]

eeek Vern!?:yikes:


:p :p

[Joe Matt]

I think that the #1 position should be: Regional Chair, National Chair, Nat Winners
#2- Regional Win, Reg Chair Final, Nat Chair Final, Nat Finalists
#3- Regional Finalists, Technical awards
#4- Other Awards (excluding Judges)
#5- Judges Award

[Jeff Waegelin]

I don't think Regional Chairman's should be in the same level as National Chairman's and National Champion. It should be a "#2" level award. Other than that, your rankings look pretty fair.

[Jason Rudolph]

Also, nat chair finalists are the same as the reg chair winners.

[ChewyMasterFlex]

I just know that team 49 was the only team that have won three awards that would have single-handedly qualified them for nats.

[Wayne C.]

I dug out the formula and tried to figure it out. Category 5 is unclear as to what awards qualify.

Working with the other categories I figure team 25 rates a 4.3 if you count all our 7 years and 7.5 if you count only the last 4 "active" years.

So what does that mean? Is that good?

WC

[Bduggan04]

Originally posted by JosephM
I think that the #1 position should be: Regional Chair, National Chair, Nat Winners
#2- Regional Win, Reg Chair Final, Nat Chair Final, Nat Finalists
#3- Regional Finalists, Technical awards
#4- Other Awards (excluding Judges)
#5- Judges Award

National Technical and judged awards should be higher than the regional versions.