Seeding Calculations [Archive]

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/28/99 8:23 PM MST

At the team forum someone suggested what I think is a great idea for calculating seeding points:

Tossing out the highest and lowest seeding point scores prior to calculating the average seeding points per match.

One slight variation on this theme would be to only toss out the lowest score in order to prevent a team from losing the benefit of a perfect score.

I LOVE these ideas.

Tossing out the highest and the lowest is the best method in my opinion (actually, I propose that an even better method would be to toss out the top and bottom 1/6th of matches, counting only the middle 2/3rds of matches in the seeding calculation).

My reasoning is that the middle scores are much more likely to reflect a team's actual contribution to an alliance than atypically high or low score.

But, 'Our team would have lost our best score!!!' you say. Well yeah, but then you would lose your worst one as well.

Beyond this, If your robot has a lousy run, you have a chance to make it up.

To counter the idea that a perfect score wouldn't count, I argue that it would 'count' because then your next highest score would count whereas without the perfect score that next highest score would have been tossed out. In addition to this I would say that a perfect score (or even a very high score) would not be wholly in vain in any case because it would get your team noticed. This notice would likely translate into an invitation to the elimination matches even if it did not mean you qualified outright.

It would be much more difficult for a team to have a single monster score put them into the elimination rounds. Equally good in my opinion, a single 0 score would not drop a team from the standings.

The rankings would be much more stable as a result.

Better seeding calculations would be better for FIRST.

What do others think about this idea?

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 8/29/99 8:40 PM MST

In Reply to: Seeding Calculations posted by Joe Johnson on 8/28/99 8:23 PM MST:

yes! i like this idea... the 1/6ths part is still sinking in, but it's like a statistical approach... you always take out the best and worst in order to get a more realistic number...
that'd be cool... true, if people had only one perfect round it would take it out, but i'd help pull the chaff from the wheat (is that how the expression goes?)

jonathan

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by colleen.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team Actually, I'm a FIRST-aholic from an undecided team for the year 2000 formerly of Team #126 sponsored by Nypro and Clinton High School.

Posted on 8/29/99 10:05 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Seeding Calculations posted by Jon on 8/29/99 8:40 PM MST:

i'm thinking hard on this one, and not really sure which way to vote for good reason to do with how my team ranked this year..

first, at regionals, we won all 8 of our qualifying matches yet only ranked 5th...after playing 6 matches, we weren't even close to being in the top 8, and it was only after a perfect score and a 432 in our last matches that we made it.. our scores had been all over the board, going as low as 16 points but still winning- we had no real consistency or average score because we weren't consistent with our partners ability to perform.. in the case of taking the average scores.. we probably never would have made the top 8, and hey, we won that regional, chances are that wouldn't have happened

the nationals: get this, we lost, i believe, 3 of our 6 matches (it may have only been four, but i'm pretty sure it was 3- don't quote me) yet we ranked 2nd, and 2nd to TJ2 but not all that much.. there we had a perfect score as well, but the rest of our scores were pretty balanced in the ranges from 100-300... had an average been taken there, i'm sure we still would have made the top 16, maybe not ranked as highly, but our scores were more consistent and it would've been a more fair ranking..

so maybe that's it, the definition of fair.. after driving our robots for 3 years, i feel this year we had the most efficient and consistent robots of any of our past years, little problems and constant performance of what we wanted to do... we were as consistent, scores weren't, and that kind of scoring of seeding at the regionals would've killed us, and at nationals probably put us in an more appropriate seed in regards to the amount of matches we won..who knows..

what's my point? i guess if you change the way you score, maybe something else should be done about the multipler for winning the match..although i liked the idea that you don't have to win every match to rank high, it seems like there could be more of a balance between scores and matches in order to seed teams.. i don't know.. that's what i'm thinking..

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/30/99 5:16 PM MST

In Reply to: Agree and disagree.. posted by colleen on 8/29/99 10:05 PM MST:

Colleen,

The situation you discussed is not necessarily a fair comparison.

Don't forget that ALL teams would have had their top and bottom scores tossed out.

This means that you can't say things like '...it was only after a perfect score and a 432 in our last matches that we made it...'

I would venture that you would have made it because there could not have been very many teams with two scores above the 400 mark.

But even that is conjecture.

Unless FIRST (or someone else with all the scores in a database somewhere) recalculates ALL the seeding using the new formula, it is very difficult to say.

I really believe that the rankings would have been much more reflective of each team's 'true rank'

If anyone has all the scores from the Nationals in an Excel spreadsheet or an Access database, I would love to post a round by round comparision of the top 30 teams.

It would be very instructive.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST

In Reply to: agree w/ that posted by colleen on 8/30/99 7:13 PM MST:

I know that I am going to lose a lot of folks here, but let me give it a shot anyway.

I think that there is a wide spead feeling that defensive teams did not get enough credit in the seeding matches given the current qualifying point scoring system.

So...

I propose a system where high scoring teams and tough defensive teams have a more level playing field.

So here goes:

Let's suppose that a teams qualifying points were comprised of 2 parts,

The first part would be your team's (or alliance's) score whether or not your alliance won or not

The second part would be a winning bonus based on either how statistically 'outstanding' your offense or your defense was that won the match.

Perhaps this bonus could be calculated as follows:

Teams would get a bonus equal to the average score scored in the seeding matches multiplied by:

1
+ the number of standard deviations your score was above the average score
(no negative bonuses so enter 0 if you scored below the average)
+ the number of standard deviations your opponent's score was below the average score
(no negative bonuses so enter 0 if your opponent beat the average)

This formula would give high scoring teams lots of bonus points and also give great defensive teams lots of points.

An example (good offense):

Suppose after round 1 the average score is 100 points and the standard deviation (look it up if you don't know what it is) for the scores is 33.3 points.

A team that wins a match 200 to 199 would get

200

+100 (the average score) X
(1
+3 (the number of standard deviations 200 is above the 100)
+0) (their opponent scored more than the average so they get a 0 for their defense)
-------
600 points - not bad

Another example (good defense):

same average and standard deviation as above

A team that wins a match 20 to 0 would get

20

+100 X

(1
+0 (they failed to beat the average score)
+3) (they held their opponents to a score 3 standard deviations below the average)
------
420 points - pretty good compared to last year's score of 60 points

A final example (good offense and defense):

same average and standard deviation as above

A team that wins a match 166 to 34 would get

166

+100 X

(1
+2 (winning score is 2 standard deviations above the average)
+2) (they held their opponents to a score 2 standard deviations below the average)
-------

666 (a wicked score by all accounts)

Complex: yes, but not beyond the typical FIRST team to deal with

Fair: I guess that it is more fair than the current system because it rewards good offense and good defense (though offense still has an edge but not as big of one)

I think that it would make teams more conscience of where their team is scoring compared to the average. I think that that is a better measure.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 8/30/99 8:04 PM MST

In Reply to: statistical bonus points posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST:

#1 Now this is what i like to see...a truly SIMPLE scoring system.. ;)
no..really..i like it...its got lots of good ideas....but.....

#2 it's nice and easy to look back and say...ok...the average at nationals was 112.3 pts with a standard deviation of
34.2 pts....and start calculating away...but...lets rewind...we're sitting at nationals....you just completed your first match
and you won 112-36...you say great...we got....uhh...uhmmm...well...i guess we won't know how many qp's till the end of
all the matches on saturday...great...we have no idea where we rank among all teams...none at all...

i'd also like to repeat your request for a spreadsheet with allt he scores from nationals in it...heck...even if its not in a
spreadsheet...just anyone with all the scores..i tried to get them right after nationals and no one seemed to respond...
but if we had that we could do all kinds of possible scoring systems and see what teams come up where, etc...wanna
talk about some real math fun.. :)

my two cents
Tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/30/99 8:19 PM MST

In Reply to: well..... posted by Tom Vanderslice on 8/30/99 8:04 PM MST:

Tom,

Yeah, I never said it was simple :(

As to what teams are scoring, doubt that the average would change much after several rounds into a tourney (or if it did, it would change pretty gradually).

FIRST could recompute the scores with every match. Recomputing the new average score and the new point totals that all teams have.

As long as teams keep watching the leader board, I think that teams could deal with it.

Most teams leave the point calculations to FIRST anyway, so what difference would it make to a team how complex the FIRST spreadsheet was, as long as it was 'fair'?

All that teams would have to focus on would be the fact that keeping your opponent's score as low as possible is good and that scoring as much as possible is also good.

One thing I fear is that teams would be tempted to slaugher a weak team in order to maximize their points.

Can you imagine the carnage if teams had an even greater incentive to pull teams off the puck!?!? It might have been too brutal to watch.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 8/30/99 9:10 PM MST

In Reply to: running averages... posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 8:19 PM MST:

we really need last years scores...please...anyone...shouldn't FIRST have them somewhere...even if its a computer stored
back somewhere that they have forgotten about...b/c with those...we could take the average after 2-3 rounds and just see
what happened...run a simulation under that scoring system or whatever...

but if you think about it...after say 100 matches...a score over or under the average by 100 pts would affect teh average a
full point...at 200 matches...half a point... (approx)...i don't think there would be a problem with computing running averages
as long as all teams understood what it meant and it was fully explained to everyone...b/c i can see some teams getting
very confused...and also...FIRST couldn't have their scoring system crash in the middle of the last round (or whenever that
was late inte h competition)...b/c the score is a lot more important than...well did this team that was ranked 14th win
they're match...waht did they get...how bout the teams around them...but anyway...i think doing a running average has
potential...

tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 8/31/99 2:24 PM MST

In Reply to: running averages posted by Tom Vanderslice on 8/30/99 9:10 PM MST:

Don't get too wound up with a new scoring system, chances are things will change quite dramatically as Dean and Woodie refine the alliance idea (I'm assuming it will reappear in some form.) Imagine trying to develop scoring solutions two years ago with no idea that alliances would be formed the next year. And besides, any process of refining a scoring system until the teams you think should be in the top 10 are there doesn't hold a lot of scientific merit.
I agree though, something needs to change.
:-Dan

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/31/99 7:35 PM MST

In Reply to: liking it.. posted by colleen on 8/30/99 9:03 PM MST:

As to alliances, I think that qualifying points would go to both (or all?) teams in the alliance, just as was the case in 99.

The difference would be that if we toss out the high and low scores they may or may not be counted in the average qualifying points per match calculation.

For example an alliance may score 400 points for their win but this may be the highest score for one team and thus not be counted in their total while it was not the highest score for the other team and therefore was included in their calculation.

As to teams keeping track of what they need to score or what they need to hold their opponent to in order to get lots of bonus points, I propose that FIRST periodically post the current average score and the current standard deviation.

In this way teams could get a clue as to what type of scores they need. Also, I would advise FIRST to try to post the qualifying point total that that the teams scored in addition to there match total (though perhaps on another screen -- too much info already to digest).

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:55

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 8/31/99 10:05 AM MST

In Reply to: statistical bonus points posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST:

[poof!]
a: what was that noise?
b: paradigm shifting without a clutch

no disrespect to dr.j cause the idea is sound and makes sense, but whatever happened to scores that could be calculated quickly and don't need a degree in Statistics and Probability to be understood?

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/31/99 7:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: statistical bonus points posted by Jon on 8/31/99 10:05 AM MST:

I agree with you that scores must be simple to calculate at the end of a match.

This is not the same as saying that the ranking system has to be simple.

Because we have a limited sample size and because individual team performances are confounded by factors (not the least of which is the strength or weakness of you alliance partner(s)), I think that it is fair to try to get the best predictor of 'true rank' that we can.

I am not a statistical wizard, but I am concerned about finding a formula that we can all live with (and perhaps even explain in broad brush terms to our grandmas) while at the same time giving the best results we can get from our confounded, limited sample size.

Those who are statistical wizards notice that I did not propose some sort of performance index combined with a statistical correlation algorithm, which by the way I think could be an even better predictor of 'true rank' but I don't dare try to explain to my grandma ;-)

Joe J

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 8/31/99 10:43 AM MST

In Reply to: statistical bonus points posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST:

Joe,

How many digits of precision on the # of std. devs.? With tenths ot hundredths, it would probably work o.k. Whole numbers only would create an artificial difference between teams that were just one side or the other of the standar dev.

I think that you are right on the money with your prediction of what would happen if there was an incentive to keep your opponents from scoring any points in the seeding rounds. Weak teams would be punished. There would be lots of broken bots in the seeding rounds, leading to many hurt feelings.

On this discussion in general, I would like to make the following comment:
The scoring system devised by FIRST, whatever it may be, is part of the design challenge that we are given. As long as the challenge is one that can be solved by almost everyone, not just the teams endowed with the most resources, the scoring system is inherently fair. We all made decisions about our robot designs after the rules of the game were released this year. Some of us decided that a defensive robot was the way to go, even if it was clear from the rules that this would make it difficult to seed high. Some of us used drive systems that were developed in the off season that were not easily adaptable to this year's puck climbing requirement, and some built robots that could both score and play defense (Ace's High comes to mind). Robots from all three classes did very well at the competitions this year. If we want to ask FIRST for a contest that is more balanced between offense and defense, that is one thing, but I think that as long as FIRST does not change the scoring rules after the design cycle is started, they should be judged as fair.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 8/31/99 3:08 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: statistical bonus points posted by P.J. Baker on 8/31/99 10:43 AM MST:

I think PJ has it. The game's the same for everyone, and we all know what the rules are. I hope FIRST will keep their focus on the larger objectives of the program, and that requires exponential growth for the foreseeable future. We've said it here before: that means media, spectators, and lots of local competition. I personally think that transparent scoring is essential to sustain excitement for all parties. Complex scoring rewards a team with a sharp scorekeeper/strategist when the general level of robot execution competance is primitive across the field. Those days are gone. The sophistication level of many machines today is amazing, and the teams who master them can ring up perfect multiplied or exponential scores. Random elements of the game though can punish severely, too, leading to cries of unfair.

I would urge FIRST to design games that have transparent scoring and balance the incentives for robot offense and defense, while keeping the human player influence from dominating the game. I would also urge FIRST to design games and rules suitable for playing on a basketball court, without tearing it up. This would mean games with NO tipping over, and NO marking the floor - different, but just a new set of rules for everyone. With the benefit that local school on school matches could leverage off the basketball season - instant spectators and student body identification with the school's FIRST team, which I suspect is as lacking at other schools as it is at ours.

Finally, at the risk of irritating a lot of you, I think this angst over seeding is short sighted. FIRST is straining at the seams to give all the teams, especially at the Nationals, an adequate chance to play yet still manage the length of the tournament. Everybody got to play their 6 qualification matches this year, nobody got bumped for good by one match loss or two. Then the field gets narrowed for the Eliminations, with the alliance choosing correcting the process imperfections a bit. We discuss perfecting the process 4 months later, but this is a moving target. The issue doesn't change. How will FIRST adapt the competition to exponential growth in the number of teams? The answer this year, with 200+ teams in Orlando, was 4 teams on the court and downselecting for a single elimination tournament via qualiers. Can we tweak the scoring system to make it work next year with 300 teams? 400? FIRST is on the knee of its exponential. What does it look like with 2000 teams?

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/31/99 7:58 PM MST

In Reply to: First Principles posted by Dodd Stacy on 8/31/99 3:08 PM MST:

Dodd,

Well said as usual.

While I am not really terribly unhappy about last year's method of seeding, I am always trying to push for a better method.

I have to agree with you that the real challenges FIRST faces in the coming years have very little to do with seeding calculations.

Yet, I would like for the seeding to be better. In that spirit I have made some proposals for consideration.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Bethany Dunning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 9/1/99 2:45 PM MST

In Reply to: well said posted by Joe Johnson on 8/31/99 7:58 PM MST:

I like the general concept, except for one thing: at both competitions I went to last year,
each team only got 6 qualifying matches. Not enough. And when you drop the highest
and the lowest, you are down to 4 matches. I'd be a little apprehensive about having all
that ride on 4 matches.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 9/1/99 6:56 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: well said posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/1/99 2:45 PM MST:

But it isn't just a random 4 matches from your matches it is the middle 4.

By dropping your highest and lowest you loose both extremes, both the time you were very lucky (when your partner was great or your opponents we lame) AND the time you were very unlucky (your robot broke, your alliance parter was a box with wheels, you played Chief Delphi ;-).

The middle is much more likely to represent your team's true ranking, whether there are 6 seeding matches or 60.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 8/31/99 6:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: statistical bonus points posted by P.J. Baker on 8/31/99 10:43 AM MST:

I've been having fun messing with the scoring system (see posts below)...but i couldn't agree more...no scoring system is 'fair' or 'unfair' as long as everyone knows exactly how it is scored before they start adn it doesn't change in teh middle...that's all part of the design strategy and building...but i think the goal of making up a new one is to create a system that doesn't so blatantly favor offense or defense....

Tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/1/99 8:51 PM MST

In Reply to: statistical bonus points posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST:

After realizing...hey..i've got the scores from 2 regionals from last year...i went and jsut did some quick stats on them:

chicago:
avg = 56
st. dev = 73

detroit (that is what i have it labeled as...but i must have meant michigan...i dunno..its a big list of scores thouhg... ;)
avg = 83
st. dev = 120

so just based on this data...you can see that it would be impossible to accomplish the goal (defense gets as much credit
as offense) just b/c ther real numbers don't work out well...it would be impossible to be a full st. dev below the avg...
now i didn't run any #'s to see whether this would really benefit offense 'less'...but i think its a moot point anyway...

Tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 9/1/99 9:38 PM MST

In Reply to: A Hitch posted by Tom Vanderslice on 9/1/99 8:51 PM MST:

Please excuse my pun.

Because of all the doubling, tripling, etc. of the raw score (0-10), the distribution of scores will not be normal. Therefore you can not use the 'standard' formula for the calculation of the standard deviation. I would guess that a professional statistician could figure all of this out for us, but it would not be simple to explain to your Granny - unless she's a professional statistician.

P.J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 9/2/99 5:47 AM MST

In Reply to: That doesn't sound normal posted by P.J. Baker on 9/1/99 9:38 PM MST:

I was afraid of that.

I was pretty sure that it was going to be easier to get N standard deviations above the average than below the average (I was thinking more about the scores being clipped at the zero point rather than the non-normal distribution caused by the doubling/tripling -- but it is the same problem)

Ah well.

Perhaps we live with it and just say that it is a step in the direction toward rewarding defense or we keep looking.

How about a system where winning is worth a bonus of 2X the average score?

Jeo J

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 9/2/99 11:13 AM MST

In Reply to: I was afraid of that... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/2/99 5:47 AM MST:

Winners QP Formula: 200 + 100*(% of winning scores below yours + % of losing scores above your opponents)

Losers QP Formula: 100*(%of losing scores below yours + %of winning scores above your opponents)

Rewards Won/Loss record, offense, and defense. What do you think?

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 9/2/99 7:33 PM MST

In Reply to: How about this? posted by P.J. Baker on 9/2/99 11:13 AM MST:

Very good. I like it a lot.

It has some of the problems of not being a fixed number that folks can get ahold until the end, but it could be made to work.

FIRST would have to 'publish' the current running average of the winning and losing scores along with corresponding standard devaitions so that teams could at least estimate what sort of scores teams they would have to shoot for in the later rounds in order to make the finals (this may actually give a lot of folks a pretty good understanding of a lot of statistical ideas :)

One thing I like about your formula is that there is no shame in losing to a great offensive team 512 to 500 only the extra 200 points are at stake. Also, there is no shame in losing to a great defensive team by the score of 1 to 2 again, only the 200 points. In each case the score ends up substantially 300 for the winner and 100 for the loser.

What about the case where two teams battle to (the median winning score) to (the median losing score)? Again, this would yield a score of 300 for the winner and 100 for the loser.

What about a blowout? Highest score to zero. 400 points for the winner zero points for the loser.

I am a little bit afraid of this case. I think that too many strong teams would be compelled to embarass a week team if they got the chance.

So...

How about this in stead:

Winners QP Formula: 100 + 100*MAX(% of winning scores below yours, % of losing scores above your opponents)

Losers QP Formula: 100*MAX(%of losing scores below yours , %of winning scores above your opponents)

This formula rewards a team for high scoring OR for great defense but not both at the same time. It also reduces the winning bonus so that it is on par with outstanding defense or outstanding offense

In this way a team either makes the choice to go for a high score or great defense but their is no advantage to doing BOTH.

This puts the incentives where they belong: Winning matters a lot. Outstanding performance matters a lot -- whether offense or defense.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

P.S. And one more thing that is good about your idea (and is preserved in my slight modification) is that teams have an incentive to keep playing even if they are going to loose. Even if you can't win, you still gain QP by having your opponent score less or by scoring more yourself.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/2/99 9:14 PM MST

In Reply to: not bad... not bad... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/2/99 7:33 PM MST:

Ok...doing the math/some serious excel work on the Chicago Scores

Team # Real Seed PJ Seed Joe Seed
16 1 1 1
239 2 9 9
79 3 12 8
312 4 20 11
148 5 2 3
180 6 7 5
159 7 3 2
179 8 16 20
122 9 8 10
212 10 4 4
10 11 5 7
15 12 18 14
233 13 15 18
278 14 6 6
21 15 13 17
57 16 10 12
132 17 11 13
282 18 14 16
290 19 19 15
267 20 17 22
234 21 27 26
147 22 22 21
218 23 25 25
98 24 23 23
170 25 24 24
285 26 21 19
168 27 26 27

ok...real seed would be how they were seeded at teh tourney...pj seed would be under pj baker's system...joe seed would be
under joe johnson's system...

i just did this so you can look at your team (if you were there) and say...'gee...i think we should use joe's b/c it gave us a
higher seed'...or 'gee..i like hte original way...b/c we did really bad in the toher ones'...or stuff like taht...

plus...i'd rather mess with these numbers than do homework.. :)

So have fun playing with your scores/scoring system...

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 9/5/99 12:31 PM MST

In Reply to: not bad... not bad... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/2/99 7:33 PM MST:

Joe,

I still think that I prefer mine. I think that score differential should count. That way teams are encouraged to be both offense and defense minded, rather than just picking one (probably defense). That's just my opinion though.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Bethany Dunning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, working on a new name!, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 9/5/99 9:38 PM MST

In Reply to: not bad... not bad... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/2/99 7:33 PM MST:

One of the things that has been mentioned in here is that the game last year was too complicated,
and scoring couldn't be done until the end. I'm sure we've all had people ask us to explain the game,
seeding, etc, to them, and we replied with 'sure, got 20 minutes?' if you want to open the 'sport'
of FIRST up to the masses, draw the crowds, get the following, we can't have a seeding system that
is this incredibly complicated. yeah, it makes sense mathematically. but i can't imagine trying to
explain to my grandfather, who attended regionals to see my team, that our seeding is based on a
standard deviation blah blah blah.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 9/5/99 10:57 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: not bad... not bad... posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:38 PM MST:

As long as we're throwing out ideas, I can contribute to the absurdity:

How about having specialty rounds?
Round 1: Pure offense - team with most points get most bonus points
Round 2: Pure defense - team allowing least points gets most bonus points
Round 3: Anti-defense - team that allows the most points but still wins
Round 4: Anti-offense - team that score the least points but still wins
Round 5: Largest point difference - as it says
Round 6: Smallest point difference - as it says
etc.

Just think of the variations in strategy required to do well.
For instance, in round 3 above you may need to help your opponent score points but still have more so you could win.

But of course, in all cases these would just be for tie breakers because I will always believe that
NUMBER OF WINS SHOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN ANY SCORING SYSTEM.

There is no way that a team with more wins should be ranked below a team with less wins.
If this would have been the case at the nationals, we would have had much different strategies for our matches.
We would have tried to win instead of risking losing by trying to get a big score.

It is sad that last year's scoring could rank a team with 1 win and 2 loses higher than a team with 3 wins.
Here is an example:
Team #1: lose with 18 points, lose with 24 points, win with 540 points = 1662 Q-points = 554 ave QP's
Team #2: win with 90 points, win with 150 points, win with 120 points = 1080 Q-points = 360 ave QP's

Now I'm no expert statistician, but I believe that given all the variables with alliances that it was easier for a team to get lucky and get 2 very high scores (almost ensuring them a top 16 seed at nationals) then it was for a team to get lucky and win all 6 rounds!!!

So, there it is. I tried to resist complaining about scoring systems, but I could not resist.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 9/7/99 5:50 AM MST

In Reply to: If you think that was complicated. try this... posted by Raul on 9/5/99 10:57 PM MST:

Raul,

With a 6 match schedule, I can't quite agree that won lost record should be the most important factor in seeding. I do think though, that this year it was not important enough. It probably was possible for a 2-6 team to seed ahead of a 6-0 team. That's not right.

I'm perfectly comfortable with a 5-1 team, or even maybe a 4-2 team seeding ahead of a 6-0 team. A team that should have been 4-2 is just as likely to get 2 lucky wins and go to 6-0 as a team that should have been 6-0 is to get 2 unlucky losses and slip to 4-2.

This is why I think that it is important to also look at the scoring and defensive capabilities of the team. If we played lots more matches, I'd be with you 100%. With only 6 though, I think that the seeding should be based on as many measureable factors as possible (won/loss, ave. offense, ave. defense). What do you think?

P.J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 9/7/99 3:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: If you think that was complicated. try this... posted by P.J. Baker on 9/7/99 5:50 AM MST:

: Raul,

:
: With a 6 match schedule, I can't quite agree that won lost record should be the most important factor in seeding. I do think though, that this year it was not important enough. It probably was possible for a 2-6 team to seed ahead of a 6-0 team. That's not right.

: I'm perfectly comfortable with a 5-1 team, or even maybe a 4-2 team seeding ahead of a 6-0 team. A team that should have been 4-2 is just as likely to get 2 lucky wins and go to 6-0 as a team that should have been 6-0 is to get 2 unlucky losses and slip to 4-2.

: This is why I think that it is important to also look at the scoring and defensive capabilities of the team. If we played lots more matches, I'd be with you 100%. With only 6 though, I think that the seeding should be based on as many measureable factors as possible (won/loss, ave. offense, ave. defense). What do you think?

: P.J.

I agree and therefore support a system as described in a recent posting by Mike Aubry.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Austin Martus.

Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.

Posted on 9/7/99 5:56 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: If you think that was complicated. try this... posted by P.J. Baker on 9/7/99 5:50 AM MST:

why dont they just establish a win loss record from the first regional you go to and keep it with you to the very end and for those who could not attend as many reagional like give them like and even record like if the most wins you could have had if you went to most regional possible for example 10 and you would get a 5-5 record type thing mabey like either added to you established record if you only went to one regional or all of the example 10 possible if you didnt go to any regionals

this would give you a bigger base but i dont know how effective it would be

just a thought fragment thing needs work

austin

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 9/6/99 7:04 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: not bad... not bad... posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:38 PM MST:

While the games of golf and tennis are fairly easy to explain, the ranking systems in both sports are VERY complicated.

Even college football is getting a 'rocket science' ranking systems.

I think that the ranking system can be as complicated as we want to make it be. As long as we can understanding it amongst ourselves. Even if we all don't fully comprehend all aspects, all that is really required is the 10 cent version (e.g. Scoring high is good, keeping your opponent score low is good, etc.)

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/6/99 7:51 PM MST

In Reply to: try explaining rankings in tennis or golf... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/6/99 7:04 PM MST:

nascar has a wierd ranking system based on a very straightforward concept...
the point of every race is to be ahead at the end...

but the ranking system is based on how many laps you were in the lead and how many laps you actually completed
and all this other stuff...
(maybe we could look at the splits like every 30 seconds who's in the lead an you get bonus for taht.... ;)

tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 9/6/99 9:25 PM MST

In Reply to: try explaining rankings in tennis or golf... posted by Joe Johnson on 9/6/99 7:04 PM MST:

I'm afraid complicated rankings are required, and we should all be grateful for that too.
The fact is that FIRST is trying to make this as fair as possible while using a very small chunk of results. This isn't baseball where we play a hundred plus games a year, we are competing for a weekend and every effort to fairly rank us based on those results must be made. And for that reason FIRST must find and use as much information as possible. If they can step beyond 'wins' and 'losses' then they can only make things more fair.
:-Dan

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/2/99 7:37 PM MST

In Reply to: That doesn't sound normal posted by P.J. Baker on 9/1/99 9:38 PM MST:

here we go...

we take the distribution of scores...
we force fit the distribution to a bell curve... (not sure exactly how...bu ti know there's a way to do it)...
then you score qp's based on this 'normalized score'...
your person on your team in charge of watching the score board goes insane trying to figure out what the heck is happening with scores... ;)

Tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 8/31/99 6:21 AM MST

In Reply to: not a fair comparison... posted by Joe Johnson on 8/30/99 5:16 PM MST:

Joe,

I know that you guys at least have all of the match scores from Great Lakes. Why not try it out on those scores?

P.J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Jason Morrella.

Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs/Bay Bombers, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 8/30/99 2:20 AM MST

In Reply to: Seeding Calculations posted by Joe Johnson on 8/28/99 8:23 PM MST:

Joe,

I agree 100%. I think taking the highest & lowest score out of the average would provide a much more accurate seeding. My only condition would be that they find a way to go back to every team getting a minimum of 8 matches instead of 6. If each team could get 8 matches, I feel that averaging the middle 6 would provide a fairly accurate seeding.

About the final multiplier, I must recommend the system I saw used at the Anaheim Rumble held in June. Instead of the winning alliance getting a triple multiplier, each team on the winning alliance got a 300 point bonus added to their score. This made the scores much more accurate in terms of ability because it rewarded teams which consistantly won due to great defense & strategy the same as it rewarded teams which just went for high scores with no concerns for defense in qualifying rounds. I was somewhat skeptical when first told of the scoring system, but was a firm supporter of it after watching a few matches. I would highly recommend something similar if alliances are used again next year.

Hope everyone is looking forward to the start of school as much as I am!!! (really, no sarcasm there what-so-ever) Just means we're getting closer to the 2000 competition and the new & improved Chessy Poofs!

Jason

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 8/30/99 2:53 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Seeding Calculations posted by Jason Morrella on 8/30/99 2:20 AM MST:

this is interesting... a simple bonus pointage system instead of a multiplier... small (points) victories are rewarded instead of super pointage... more like the NBA/NFL/NHL/et al

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Jason Morrella.

Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs/Bay Bombers, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 9/2/99 1:00 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Seeding Calculations posted by Jon on 8/30/99 2:53 PM MST:

: this is interesting... a simple bonus pointage system instead of a multiplier... small (points) victories are rewarded instead of super pointage... more like the NBA/NFL/NHL/et al

To clarify: the multipliers (2x, 3x, 3x) were still in effect for raised floppies, puck location, and puck control. Team could still max out with 540 points. The only difference was the final victory reward.
It evenly rewarded teams for winning with 300 bonus points instead of a 3x multiplier. A team which won with a total of 400 points would finish with 700. A team which won with a total of 70 points would finish with 370.
So in the qualifying seedings, two winning alliances with scores of 400 and 70 respectively would have 700 and 370 with this system, not 1200 and 210 with the 3x multiplier system.
I think most agree that the point is to have a good strategy, execute it, and win. It seems that in the above example, the winning teams being seperated by 1000 points is basically punishing the team which won with a defensive strategy.
It worked well at the exhibition in Anaheim and I thought it was worth throwing out for people to consider. So consider away.

Jason

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by mike aubry.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 9/5/99 2:06 PM MST

In Reply to: Seeding Calculations posted by Joe Johnson on 8/28/99 8:23 PM MST:

Joe and many others -
Sorry I joined the conversation late, but I have been thinking that maybe seeding
could be revised such that scoring (offensive points scored) would only be one factor
that would contribute to the seeding calculation. As I see it, scoring should be very,
very, easy for everyone to figure out as the game progresses along toward the final
seconds. I think that is the only way the spectators that are not as involved as some
of us lunatics will ever be able to understand the score. Every game that I have ever
seen relied on a relatively simple scoring system. Examples include: Baseball (1 score
for every person crossing home plate) Soccer and Ice Hockey(1 score for every ball or puck that
goes into the goal) Football (Touchdown equals 6 pts, extra point 1 or 2 depending on
if kicked or carried over the goal line, 3 pts for a field goal) Basketball (2 or 3 points when
the ball goes thru the hoop, 1 point for each free throw) Enough of that - you guys already
understand. Now, this is where it gets tricky! Winning a game is recorded as a win, loss, or
tie. Rankings are developed using formulas that include many variables. (Ignoring the most
obvious type - personal favorite) Seeding is just like rankings. Seeding can be a combination
of factors that include things such as: average offensive score, average defensive score, points
given for beating a higher ranked team, points taken away by losing to a lower ranked team, etc.
But whatever the seeding or ranking is determined by - as long as everyone knows the formula
at the start of the season I'm sure we will all be able to adapt. The conversation can still be
stimulating discussing the possibilities though! I do not understand the necessity to create
a scoring system that requires a calculator, mathematician, and statistician to be able to determine
the outcome of a game. You can have the multipliers for seeding factors, I say that if you want to get
the common persons attention - Keep the scoring simple ! That has always been my motto!
Seeding on the other hand can be developed to encourage or discourage offense or defense, as
well as, winning and not winning. Make as complicated algorithm as needed to - but I think the
2 issues need to addressed independently. I would develop tha seeding algorithm simularly to either
PJ's or Joe J's that were shared elsewhere. I think the issue is one of gaining a better method that
we feel will lead to a more accurate ranking, and that all depends on what one wants to weigh heavier
in the mathematical equation. That's my thoughts, I welcome others!
Thanks, Mike

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Bethany Dunning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST

In Reply to: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by mike aubry on 9/5/99 2:06 PM MST:

But as long as you are using sports as an analogy, let's take it this direction: when it comes time for seeding
for playoffs in basketball, hockey, etc, it is your win/loss average that gets you where you want to go. Take
the NHL (my team is snickering right now - they know my love for hockey). Wins are worth 2 points, ties are
worth one, losses worth nothing. The team with the most points is the top seed. No opinion, no how many
goals did you score, no penalty minutes. Just whether you won or lost.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:56

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/5/99 10:42 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST:

as good as that sounds...in hockey you are dealing with what? 20 teams...(i'm no hockey expert...i'm from texas...so bear with me...)
now...that's ok at regionals...now..fast forward to nationals...you have 300 teams...now...how many of htem are 6-0?...5-1?
how do you seed them??

tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 9/5/99 11:02 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Tom Vanderslice on 9/5/99 10:42 PM MST:

: as good as that sounds...in hockey you are dealing with what? 20 teams...(i'm no hockey expert...i'm from texas...so bear with me...)
: now...that's ok at regionals...now..fast forward to nationals...you have 300 teams...now...how many of htem are 6-0?...5-1?
: how do you seed them??

: tom

Use points for the tie-breaker. You could use the same system for QP's, but make won-loss record the first criteria.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Bethany Dunning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, working on a new name!, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 9/6/99 12:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Tom Vanderslice on 9/5/99 10:42 PM MST:

I'm not saying use the system they use in hockey, basketball, etc. But there has to be something simpler than some of the ideas posted here.
And Tom, you do realise that there is hockey in Texas? In fact, y'all have a Stanley Cup (as much as us Canadians sometimes resent that fact! :-)

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/6/99 1:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/6/99 12:07 PM MST:

yeah...i know...dallas won the stanley cup...and to prove that i do at least pay attention...houston (where i live) has an IHL
hockey team...and i'm pretty sure they won 'whatever the cup is' this year also...i don't remember the name...but its like
the commisioner cup or something...if they didn't win it, i know they at least went fairly far in the playoffs...

BUT..that doesn't mean i follow hockey...its hard to follow a sport closely that you can never really play...

Tom

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Bethany Dunning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, working on a new name!, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 9/7/99 5:29 PM MST

In Reply to: Yeah...i know we have hockey posted by Tom Vanderslice on 9/6/99 1:33 PM MST:

Tom - I realise it's a sport that many northerners take for granted. BTW - the Houston Aero's won the Turner Cup.
Last year's winner? The Detroit Vipers. The Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup. Last year's winner? The Detroit
Red Wings. Coincidence, or conspiracy? ;-)

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/7/99 7:10 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Yeah...i know we have hockey posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/7/99 5:29 PM MST:

The Dallas Stars beat the Buffalo Sabres this year....
The Houston Comets beat the New York Liberty in the WNBA this year...
The San Antonio Spurs beat the New York Knicks this year...

Texas represent...new york better watch out.. :)

Tom

(by the way..i stole this stat from espn.com)

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by David Kelso.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 9/6/99 6:04 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST:

With limited numbers of contests, more discussion needs to go into
selecting a winner if the final score is a tie. Imagine this year
if your alliance scored a few hundred points and ending up losing
due to a 'tie breaker'. The hockey comparison works well for me. Teams
ending in a tie get ''2'' points each. Or something else in the ''middle'.
Unless the new game has some other factor that would be able to fairly
seclect the winner in a tie score situation.

: But as long as you are using sports as an analogy, let's take it this direction: when it comes time for seeding
: for playoffs in basketball, hockey, etc, it is your win/loss average that gets you where you want to go. Take
: the NHL (my team is snickering right now - they know my love for hockey). Wins are worth 2 points, ties are
: worth one, losses worth nothing. The team with the most points is the top seed. No opinion, no how many
: goals did you score, no penalty minutes. Just whether you won or lost.

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 9/15/99 7:32 AM MST

In Reply to: Tie Scores posted by David Kelso on 9/6/99 6:04 AM MST:

:
: With limited numbers of contests, more discussion needs to go into
: selecting a winner if the final score is a tie. Imagine this year
: if your alliance scored a few hundred points and ending up losing
: due to a 'tie breaker'.

Definitely! In my opinion, there should either be a game that eliminates the possibility of a tie somehow, or at least have the tiebreaker be something that can be easily seen. At the WMRC, one of the alliances in the semifinals literally lost the deciding match by a fraction of an inch. At first glance, it appeared that they had won, but when the height of the machine 'off the ground' was measured, they were just barely under the required 2 inches.

And that gets me off onto another slightly different rant...I feel that while multipliers will always be around in some form, as a way of rewarding a team or alliance for getting their machine to do what is considered one of the harder tasks, they should be easily determined by looking at the field.
Good Multiplier: Central goal in '98...each ball in the goal served as a multiplier...the only time you had trouble with determining if it was or not was when the ball was at the very top of the goal or had been wedged into one side
Bad Multiplier: 'On the puck' definition in '99...what looked like two inches from the player station may not have been in reality. Why not just have it be if the machine was off the ground at all?

Just my thoughts...

Nate

archiver

23-06-2002, 21:57

Posted by mike aubry.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 9/6/99 2:36 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST:

Beth, Tom, Raul and others -
All of you bring up points that indicate that win / loss record by itself doesn't really paint the
picure we would like to see. Too few matches at nationals, bad luck, 1 poor outing, 1 unplugged
battery, all can leave teams frustrated and upset. I have witnessed more than one occasion where
a student, engineer, or teacher felt far too much responsibility for failing the team (and now the
alliance as well). Seeding or Ranking teams, whether 18 or 300 should reflect how the teams respond
on average. Everyone recognizes that all of the above mentioned have happened to both great and
not so great teams, but the result is felt more by teams that are considered better, and not lesser.
In other words, I hope for a ranking system that does not put the sole emphasis on winning, or on
scoring. I think the ideal ranking system would reward winning, as well as, scoring offensively while
keeping the opponent from scoring. Whats more important, winning every match with a score of
1 to nothing, or winning half the time with a score of 100 to 99? I believe that a ranking system that
can reward all 3 aspects, is ideal. 50% of the ranking for winning, 25% for scoring, 25% for defense.
That should keep the calculators rolling, and by the way - I think that FIRST should post the rankings
as the matches are completed and the scores given. Add a column 'New' ranking! But most of all -
I still contend that simple scoring must be achieved this year! I propose 'adding only', everyone can
count and should know that the differential between the two teams (colors) will determine the winner.
Let's leave the multipliers for the seeding calculations!