Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

I haven't seen 1625 but I thought 2481 (at Wisconsin) was quite a bit better than 1208 (at the championship).

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

1114.
2056.
67.
548.
2410.
254.
16.
1986.
233.
1717.
1730.
1987.
111.
1625.


Of those 14 teams, which ones are nationally known as being good teams?

Or, a shorter list, which ones aren't nationally recognized as being perennially good teams? (2410, 1986, 1987, 1730)*

Now, which of those teams were at Kansas City? (16, 2410, 1730, 1986, 1987) What other teams that might have a lot of national/world recognition were there?

Take Midwest. Take Queen City. Take Central Valley. Take Orlando. Take St. Louis Regional. Who did they have on that list that was nationally recognized?

You ask why Kansas City is considered a weak regional when teams from that regional did well elsewhere too. I ask you, how many of the teams at Kansas City are known to the FRC community at large to do well, year in and year out, year after year?

The answer: One. I'll give you three more halves--I can think of at least three that were there that are what I'd call "on the way", but it might be a year or two. I'll give you one more half for some of the teams for whom it might be 4-5 years. Add them all up. In a 64-team event, 3 teams known to the FRC community at large--when a 66-team event can summon a good, solid, 5-6 teams without going into half-teams that are up and coming--is not exactly a strong regional in terms of recognition.

What are you going to do about it? Quit whining about how "our regional is as tough as yours but you say it's weak", and start getting some good solid upper-echelon robots known out there in the nation at large, and us saying it's a weak regional will take care of itself. Go beat some of the best at their home events--or better yet, at the Championship. And not just in one year, but in two or three years. How else do you think Michigan got its reputation for good teams? How about Midwest as a tough regional?


*This statment is not meant as a slight against these teams. The Fantasy FIRSTers would probably consider any one of them slipping to the second round of drafting--or worse, third round--to be a huge error on multiple people's parts, and a tremendous steal at that point in the draft, depending of course on event size and who else is there. But, there aren't that many bold enough to play the Season Long league...

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

I think what Eric is talking about is what people think are the best teams from each state from conception. But what the OP wanted was the best bots from each state this year.

But another thing I will say is that if you talk to kids on teams now, you might get differeing views from what long standing FIRST members might say as dominant or relevant teams. Now you will get alot of the same names being hailed as top teams(i.e. 1114, 67, 254, etc.) but you may also get names like 469, 1986, 548, 2056 because the kids in FIRST now, don't have the historical knowledge that older members do.

So to say that this team is better than this team because of their record, even though length of teams might be different, is irrelevant because if you asked a 2nd year team member from a team who attended OKC they might say 1986 is the best from the region because of the recent success that they have had. But if you asked someone who has been on a team for atleast 5-7 years from around FIRST, they will tell you that 16 easily rules the OKC region in terms of accomplishments.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

My point wasn't that they were easier teams, but that it was a week 1 regional. Teams typically get better throughout the competition season. Matches from a second or third regional should carry more weight than those from their first. While 1208 proved to be a good team early in the season, they didn't make eliminations at champs (where it matters most).

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

Actually, I was directly responding to the "Why do people think X regional is weak" question. This necessarily goes through the reputations of the teams present at that regional in a particular year, and reputations are built up over multiple years. (CVR was pegged as a particularly tough regional this year, as I recall, despite being a first-year event.) If I see that Magnolia Regional has 60 teams, of which very few are "known consistent contenders", and the Hibiscus Regional has 50 teams, of which 10 are "known consistent contenders", I'm more likely to say that Magnolia is a weaker regional than Hibiscus, regardless of how the teams sent to Championship do. That's just me, however.

Before that, I was responding to someone saying that X team was better than Y team on record from different events, some of which were publicly held to be weaker than other events. I simply pointed out that the different teams at each event had to be taken into account (though admittedly, I didn't quite say that in so many words) and suggested that those saying that X was better than Y put out their top 3 for the state in question, as I had seen nothing of that sort. I seem to have ignited a firestorm by suggesting that, which I had no intention of doing. Mea culpa.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

I think for CA. would be 1717, 254, and 3476

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

This is poor reasoning to determine the strength of a regional that has already happened.

The Wisconsin regional this year is a perfect example. Many people ignored Wisconsin to watch Midwest, who had 111, 71, 148, 16, and 1625. Wisconsin had 2194, 2826, 1714, 48, 1732, and 2169, less known, yet all of whom at least advanced to the semi finals in their divisions. The average qualification scores were 16.2 for Midwest, and 25.0 for WI, and the average elimination scores were 41.3 for Midwest and 56.3 for WI, which was the 4th highest among all regionals/districts this year. Needless to say, people missed some pretty awesome competition.

Relating that back to this scenario, the average qual scores at KC were 19.0, and elim scores were 43.4. compared to the 16.2 and 41.3 at Midwest.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

For CA, After being at CVR and watching Champs from home (Thanks MadStream!). I'd have to honestly say the best are:

1. 1717 - They had the highest percentage shooting/make ratio in FRC.
2. 254 - At champs really stepped it up.
3. This could go to a few teams depending on who you liked:

971, 1323, 973 are a three way tie for me. All three had different designs. 971 had one of the most efficient systems. 1323 was the highest percentage shooting robot on galileo, it was a weird looking robot but blew my mind away. 973 had one of the most beautiful systems this year. There robot could do it all.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

I'm confused. The regionals in question were 1625's Midwest and Lake Superior as compared to 1208's "watered down" Kansas City and St. Louis. On your list 2056, 67, 548, 254, 233, and 1717 attended none of those regionals and have no bearing on the comparison. Reputation is valuable before the event. In hindsight, actual performance would seem a better gauge to judge the strength of a regional. I'll grant you that 1208's St. Louis regional is probably the weakest of the 4.

A decent gauge in my opinion would be the number of teams at a regional who make it to the elimination portion of the world championship.

KC = 5 (1 world champion, 1 division semifinalist, 3 division quarterfinalists, 11 not selected)
MW = 4 (1 world champion, 3 division quarterfinalist, 4 not selected)
LS = 3 (2 division finalists, 1 division semifinalist, 9 not selected.)
SL = 1 (1 division quarterfinalist, 8 not selected.)

Midwest has a great reputation. The level of competition this year was hurt by having Wisconsin on the same weekend. This year the KC regional had more teams qualify for the world championship, advance to the elimination rounds, and advance further in the tournament than any of the other 3 regionals in question. (Wisconsin had several metrics that outperformed both KC and MW this year and probably would have made MW much stronger if the two regionals had not conflicted.)

Again, this entire thread is about this year.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

And I never said it wasn't. However, it is the #1 most common method of determining the strength of a regional before it happens. Sorry if you don't like it that way, but that's the facts. Why else do you think Wisconsin was ignored in favor of Midwest in terms of watching? Not all of us have the numbers for average score at our fingertips.

If I were to make a prediction as for how strong Kansas City will be considered next year--no relation to how strong it will actually be, mind you--I would have to predict that it won't be considered strong. Regardless of any statistics you choose to bring up from this year, last year, the year before that... Regardless of how many good but unknown teams are there. It won't be considered a strong regional until the teams from that regional show that this year wasn't a fluke, or until multiple powerhouses show up. That's what people will think. Again, that's a prediction as to seen strength, not actual strength.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

I'm probably blinded by homerism (and I'm well aware of our poor run differential and thus pythag projections), but the O's are adding talent at this point to a roster that has played well this season. Roberts just returned from injury and was hitting well (.318) until the Mets sweep (RA Dickey is clearly some sort of wizard). Markakis should be back early July and Reimold isn't that far behind him. The bullpen has been terrific, and the rotation could be bolstered by the return of Britton and hopefully TDL acquisitions.

For the first time in a while, I'm buying the Orioles.

2481 is criminally underrated this year. One of the best teams not at CMP.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

Kind of awkward to nominate your own team in this sort of thing.

You guys were definitely solid this year, but I wouldn't put you as the 3rd best. 1323 and 971 were definitely better performers.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

Sorry I should have been clearer. I edited my post to say "This is poor reasoning to determine the strength of a regional that has already happened."

Team recognition is a legitimate thing to look at prior to the regional, but looses its effectiveness after. When comparing the strength of the regionals that have already happened, it would be silly to not consider the numbers. This thread is about top 3 robots this year, so it is best to look at the numbers instead of team speculation.

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

First, this is my LAST POST in a thread where a DIRECT REPLY to a given concern is being MISINTERPRETED (and I really hope that misinterpretation isn't deliberate). So, you better read this post right. If you don't understand this post, PM me and I'll edit it if I can. If you don't understand the quoted one, read this one.

Second, as I said, the post in question is in direct reply to a question. No part of the post is not in response to that question. The question asks, in essence, why do people say that KC (or, for that matter, any other regional) is weak when the facts say otherwise? So, I am deliberately not consulting the facts in my response to the question. This also allows the question to be treated as a general question. Do I make myself clear? (Please note: This does not mean that the facts are not important. However, for the matter at hand, they are at best irrelevant and at worst a distraction.)

The list of teams is a list of teams that have what you might call "name recognition". That is, every team on there (with certain exceptions--see original post) would be reasonably expected to be recognized by reputation, even by a second-year student on a team, in just about any part of the FRC world. These are good teams, and held up as such. I don't need to go into why--I think everyone reading this thread knows why.

The point I was trying to make, in direct response to a question about why a certain regional is considered weak, is that much of that consideration is based on the teams attending. If you get more than about 3-4 big-name teams at one regional, it's generally considered a tough regional. If you get fewer, it's generally considered a weak regional. Admittedly, this is before stats come into play, and among those who figure that the stats don't matter or ignore them. ("There are lies, d----d lies, and statistics."--Mark Twain) Look at the preseason "which regional is strongest" threads.

So, in summary: A regional can be considered weak, even when the facts show that it is not, based on the teams attending. This simply means that the teams there need to get out there more, get themselves better recognized, and let the regional strength consideration take care of itself.

[/quote]Again, this entire thread is about this year.[/quote] That's all well and good for the best 2012 robots (thread's original topic). When we're talking about perceived regional strength, sorry, everyone and their little brother is going to be factoring in about the last three years if not more. Which is what I was referencing. When we're talking about actual regional strength, then we can bring in the numbers and discuss. You'll notice that I haven't done so.



In short: I was NOT discussing facts, and never claimed to be doing so, but rather going over perceptions and why they may be held in the face of said facts. I think some basic psychology is a good thing for engineers to know, especially if they have to deal with people, but apparently half the FRC universe disagrees with me and says facts are the only way to go, in which case, sorry, I'll get back to making assumptions about certain physical effects (which is what engineers do for a living at times).

Re: Top 3 Bots in YOUR State
 

You guys completely changed the meaning of this thread. Just Stop.