The top 8 teams will be....(2004)

[Jessica Boucher]

....with what win/loss record? ;)

Thought this was going to be a thread about actual teams, eh? hehe :D

I'm curious as to what everyone thinks will be the win/loss record of the top 8 seeded teams.

Yeah, that's the end of my question. So answer it....and tell me why!

[Tyler Olds]

great question,

I see their being 4-5 undefeated teams with the rest of the top 8 with one loss.

However I do not believe that this can be truely answered.

Mainly because teams play a differant ammount of matches at each regional, and because of the random alliances, you could have 10 teams being undefeated or you may find regionals where no teams are.

[MikeDubreuil]

Excellent thread Jessica, you definately had me fooled.

Since I am unable to find anything indicating how many qualification matches will be played I will assume there will be 10. I don't think there will actually be 10 matches, it just makes the math easier ;o)

I would bet my life that no team will seed who hasn't won half their qualifying matches. However, I also don't think a team could win every match, but that's not a good enough bet that I feel comfortable wagering my life on.

I'm going to say a team will win 80% of their matches to be seeded in the top 8 (or 8 out of 10, 4/5 for those who like to reduce).

[Jessica Boucher]

Mainly because teams play a differant ammount of matches at each regional

But you said it yourself, losing one match is losing one match at any regional, no matter how many rounds they play. I do see where things could be more varied as the number of total matches increases, but that won't affect the top 8.

and because of the random alliances, you could have 10 teams being undefeated or you may find regionals where no teams are

This is something I've also thought about. I've always been of the thought that to seed well (Im not saying to play well, or to do well at a regional, but to SEED well), you must be able to win the match on your own. Don't get me wrong, I love the alliance aspect. But with so many random alliances in a regional, to seed well you must be able to prepare for that match when your alliance is a dead hunk of metal and wiring.

[Andrew]

Most teams at all competitions will have 50% wins and 50% losses. There will be a small number of teams with no losses or one loss and a small number of teams with no wins or one win.

I suspect that it is going to be a LOT harder to go undefeated this year than in previous years, where wins and losses didn't matter. Those few undefeated teams on day two of a regional will find that the last couple of matches are "elimination style" difficult.

First of all, if you are undefeated, you have to be very mentally tough to win the next match (same as in eliminations). Many of the undefeated teams on day two will be playing "not to lose" instead of playing "to win."

Secondly, teams opposing undefeated teams are likely to experience rather a lot of tactical and engineering support from teams with one loss, whose only way to move up the rankings is for undefeated teams to lose.

Consequently, I predict that the top eight will consist of:
0-2 teams that are undefeated
0-4 teams with one loss/tie
4-8 teams with two losses/ties (decided by ranking points)

0 teams with three or more losses/ties

[Andrew]

And one more thing...

I think matches will end in ties more frequently than in past years.

There will be a lot of matches that do not have either a capper robot or a hanger robot. Or have such robots that do not successfully accomplish that objective. I think this will be true in the majority of all matches (75 out of 100).

Those matches will be decided by the small balls. Many of the small ball matches are going to play out as a shooting contest between the two alliances. I think the likelihood that alliances in these situations will be evenly matched are high. Which means that the final score will be determined by probability rather than skill.

In other words, in the matches where teams are evenly matched as to ball delivery and shooting and in which no successful capping or hanging strategy is available, the tendency will be for the match to end in a tie. I think 50 out of 100 matches will have this equilibrium.

Since a small perterbation about this equilibrium (1 10 point ball or 1 extra hit or miss) will tip the balance into a win for one team, all 50 of these matches are not going to end in a tie. However, 10-20 will.

[Joe Johnson]

This is a good question. It got me to thinking. As a result I did a quickie simulation of a tournament to answer the following question:

What effect does random Alliance Partners and Opponents have on the record of an individual team?

The simulation assumes that the number of teams is large with respect to the number of seeding matches (i.e. I don't have to worry about the affects of teams playing against eachother).

It also neglects ties.

I basically broke teams up into quartiles in terms of capabilities. I drew random teams out of a hat, determined which alliance won based on which quartiles the teams on the alliances were from. From this, I was able to estimate what percentage of matches teams from each quartile would win*.

ANYWAY, I get these results:
1st quartile teams win about 23% of their matches
2nd quartile teams win about 41% of their matches
3rd quartile teams win about 59% of their matches
4th quartile teams win about 77% of their matches

Again, my simulation is very rough, does not take into account a lot of stuff and is intended mostly to account for the effects of random alliance partners.

The implications of the above data is that with 80 team per division in Atlanta, and assuming 8 seeding rounds, there should be between 2 and 3 undefeated teams and between 7 and 8 teams with only 1 loss.

So... I make the following predictions for Atlanta:

having no losses is a lock on a drafting position
having one loss will put you on the bubble
having 2 losses will more or less seal your fate as a draftee not a drafter.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Joe J.

* This is how my model determined which alliance pair would win the match:

The model gives each team in a match a point total associated with the quartile they are in (0-25%tile teams get 1 pt, 25-50%tile teams get 2 pts, 51-75%tile teams get 3 pts, 76-99%tile teams get 4 pts). An alliances score is the sum of points in their alliance (a 52%tile team and 76%tile team would "score" 7 points). In the event of a tie score, an alliance wins half of the time and loses half of the time.

This is not a perfect win/loss scheme, but if you figure out what teams win which matches, it roughly seems to make sense to me.

[The Lucas]

I think 4%-6% of the teams at any regional or nationals division will stay undefeated. This means that a regional with 50 teams will have 2-3 undefeated teams, while a nat division with 80 teams will have 3-5. Also, at smaller regionals it will tend towards the 4% and at larger events it will tend toward 6% due to the lower number of matches. The rest of the 8 will be one-loss teams with maybe a 2-loss team sneaking in.

I think this year there will be a larger deviation in winning percentages, because the dominant teams will win at all costs rather than keeping the score high and risking a loss, like last year (remember collusion?). In fact, I believe it will be common place for the one-loss teams to have higher Ranking Scores than undefeated teams. This will happen because strong teams that lose a match early in the tournament will desperately try to inflate their Ranking Score, while undefeated teams will adopt a Lombardi philosophy:

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

[Crop-Circles]

I think this depends on when the regoinal is played. The first regoinals, everyone is still figuring out how to play the game. There will be much more luck involved, so I would expect to only see one or two, if any, undefeated teams. However, at the later regoinals and at nats, teams will have figured out the best way to play the game. The luck will be replaced with strategy, and whoever has the better strategy will win. So these competitions may have 4-8 undefeated teams.

[Joe Ross]

Well, data from two regionals this week.

2 teams were undefeated at Annapolis
the top teams at UTC had 2 losses each, and the 8th seed had 3 losses
1 team was undefeated at NJ

Anyone know for any other regionals?

[Guest]

At Pacific NW Regional:

In ranking order:
No undefeated
1. 492 - 1 Loss
2. 1359 - 1 loss
3. 360 - 1 DQ, 1 tie
4. 948 - 2 losses

Well, I stopped looking after my team ;)

[MisterX]

Well, data from two regionals this week.

2 teams were undefeated at Annapolis
the top teams at UTC had 2 losses each, and the 8th seed had 3 losses
1 team was undefeated at NJ

Anyone know for any other regionals?

I was pretty impressed by this at UTC with everybody saying how there would be undefeateds or 1 loss teams in the top 8, yet at UTC the top 3, each had 2 losses and from 4th to 13th teh treams were all 6-3 I guess it just goes to show what a tough regioanl UTC truly is :yikes:

[Crop-Circles]

I don't remember the exact rankings from GLR, but we finished second with one tie. The team ahead of us was the only undefeated team at the regional.

[Team311]

At SBPLI the top seeded team was 9-1-0, 2 was 8-2-0 and so was 3 and 4

[henryBsick]

I have stopped trying to guess this. As a driver, all i try to do is go undefeated. That is my only mindset. If you are the only team with an undefeated reckord you are number 1 regardless of qp's. The number of teamsn that go undefeated is impossible to tell with 100% accuracy. Variables include whn the regional is played, who is at the regional, the stategy involved, and many others. Some places have undefeated, some don't. Just shoot for the top. I don't know the # but you guys can keep guessing. Try to speculate for Philly we(222) will be there next.
See ya then!!

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

At UCF, the top 8 qualifying seeded teams before alliance selections were with the following stats:

Wins-Losses-Ties

1) 10-0-0
2) 9-1-0
3) 8-1-1
4) 8-2-0
5) 7-2-1
6) 7-3-0
7) 7-3-0
8) 7-3-0

*data collected from http://www.soap108.com/2004/events/fl/seeding.cfm

[Heretic121]

mainly undefeated and one loss teams.....two losses will rarely see the top 8 imho
are you talking about nats or regionals?? because at UTC it was not even close!!

1) 7-1-1
2) 7-2-0
3) 6-2-1
4) 6-3-0 (our team)

surprised really, but yet again the scheduling was HORRIBLE!!! we saw The Aztecks (157) 4 out of 9 of our matches (2 with 2 against i think) it was rediculous!!!

[Tyler Olds]

are you talking about nats or regionals?? because at UTC it was not even close!!

1) 7-1-1
2) 7-2-0
3) 6-2-1
4) 6-3-0 (our team)

surprised really, but yet again the scheduling was HORRIBLE!!! we saw The Aztecks (157) 4 out of 9 of our matches (2 with 2 against i think) it was rediculous!!!

This varies between each regional St. Louis has a couple undefeated teams and many with 1 loss (although we only had 6 qual matches)

[Matt]

At the Arizona Regional there was only one undefeated team and the rest had a lose. In the elimination rounds the team with 2 loses one overall. We were the underdogs.

[Joe Ross]

Over the 15 regionals played so far, the #1 seed has averaged 1.869 RP and the #8 seed has averaged 1.399 RP

Thus, in over 8 matches The average W-L for the #1 seed would be 7-0-1 For #8 seed, 5-2-1 would be the average. At nationals, with many more teams, you'll definely need better records.

[MisterX]

Over the 15 regionals played so far, the #1 seed has averaged 1.869 RP and the #8 seed has averaged 1.399 RP

Thus, in over 8 matches The average W-L for the #1 seed would be 7-0-1 For #8 seed, 5-2-1 would be the average. At nationals, with many more teams, you'll definely need better records.

I am sorry this doesn't really have to do with this as i have already posted my two cents but I just love when #s like that work out "5-2-1" is the average (though I would think our robot owuld be above ;) ) !!!!!!!