California Rankings
 

As of Week 2, there are 94 California teams that have competed. I used the FiM ranking calculation and applied it to California teams.

I hope to do this each week. Because teams compete in different number of events, I plan to include both the team's highest event and their average number of points. At this point, no CA team has competed in more then one event, so it's not necessary. I'm including any team from CA, even if they compete in event(s) outside CA.

Here's the scoring system, from the FiM Rules Supplement
Congratulations to 1678 to being the highest ranked team in California after week 2. Here are the results:

Let me know if you find any errors.

Re: California Rankings
 

This is cool stuff. Though I've looked at it in the past, I'm not too familiar with the FiM scoring system. Is there no point value associated with RCA, EI, and RAS?

Re: California Rankings
 

Nope. Those awards send the team to MSC, but without the robot (unless the robot qualifies too, which often happens).

Re: California Rankings
 

I think that was the case in the first year of districts, but at this point District Chairman's award teams compete at states with their robot, regardless of other points. Engineering Inspiration and Rookie All Star at district level don't automatically qualify a team for states with their robot, but only district winners are eligible to win the state level award.

Re: California Rankings
 

This seems strange, it almost seems more advantageous to win the Rookie Inspiration Award than the Rookie All Star Award.

Re: California Rankings
 

This is really cool, thanks for putting this together Joe! I'm excited to see 1678 in the #1 spot, they've come a long way and have a bright future ahead of them!

Also, I haven't seen this mentioned on CD, but California FIRST is posting a California Top 20 after each week of regionals. You can check it out here. These rankings are poll-based, but kind of fun nonetheless.

Getting pumped for the week 4 CA events!

-Mike

Re: California Rankings
 

Well dang this is cool. Helps me see what it would be like if California changed to FiC. It's also interesting comparing the opinion polls posted by Mike Corsetto with the FiM rankings.

Big thumbs up for this!

Re: California Rankings
 

I considered adding in points for those awards, but ultimately decided not to, so that the results can be compared to FiM/MAR.

Re: California Rankings
 

There are those who feel very strongly that assigning some sort of point value to these awards, particularly the Chairman's Award, would go against everything FIRST stands for. To say that the Chairman's Award is equivalent to X matches won defeats the intent of the award.

Re: California Rankings
 

When not if :)

Coming next year or the year after, I don't recall off the top of my head.

Re: California Rankings
 

Not next year.

Re: California Rankings
 

It would be FiNC, and FiSC. (Southern and Nothern)

Re: California Rankings
 

Ok. I didn't make it to the meeting that was held so I just got the cliff notes.

Re: California Rankings
 

I'm not so sure they'd split California, I've imagined the whole state would be lumped with Nevada and Hawaii.
And when CA gets the district model do you imagine the championships would be held at Silicon Valley or somewhere else?

Re: California Rankings
 

I don't believe the plan involves NV or HI right now, at least as FIRST sees it. I know the Hawaii teams want to be able to play here (and the Nevada teams too I'm sure). The teams in our area seemed to support making that happen, but HQ did not seem too keen on that plan.

Re: California Rankings
 

Aren't there a handful of teams from Australia that go to Hawaii? If there was a CA-NEV-HA system, they would have to be included as well, which is one reason that an integrated system might be complicated.

Re: California Rankings
 

Looking forward to the day when district points are interchangeable from region to region (you go where ever you want to and the points you accumulate add up regardless).

Re: California Rankings
 

Only one team from California played in week 3, team 1836 traveling all the way to Israel. Here are the updated rankings.

Re: California Rankings
 

I started to do this for MO & KS teams but gave up because I didn't have time to slog through all of the various places I'd need to get all of the information. Do you have a convenient source of data all in one place, or reasonably automatic?

Re: California Rankings
 

Joe,

In Michigan, we only count the first two district events for points.

Re: California Rankings
 

I used the FIRST website team search to find all of the California teams. I then used Ed Law's 2013 Regionals/Districts Teams are Attending to figure out what events they were attending.

I use the FIRST rankings page for event the W/L/T points. I then use the 2013 Alliance selection thread for the elimination results. That is 24 different manual assignments for pick position, and 12 different manual assignments for elimination finish. Then I do the awards manually, which probably takes the longest, but isn't too bad. It's not more then half an hour per event.

Next week will be the hardest, 2 CA events and CA teams attending 3 regionals outside CA.

Re: California Rankings
 

So you basically did what I started; darn. Mine failed on step 1; the search for Missouri teams did NOT include every one. Team SCREAM from Sedalia (Rookie All Star in GKC) didn't show up on the list returned by my search; since we know them the omission was obvious. I was able to find them by using Sedalia's ZIP code in the FRC Teams search but I'm not going to spend the time to do 50-mile circles across the entire state to make sure I get them all.

Did you build a spreadsheet with lookup tables for the points, or did you calculate manually? If the former, care to share? I might try again now that I'm recovered (mostly) from the weekend. It'd be a great excuse not to start on our taxes....

Re: California Rankings
 

Interesting, I just searched Missouri, and they showed up (team 4522, right?). I did notice when I did it for CA that the order was somewhat weird. It was nominally based on team number, but there were a few teams that were not in order. I had the opposite problem, there were 3 teams that showed up that are not registered for an event in 2013. No one's complained yet of not being included, but maybe I'll find out later...

Manual. At this point, I'm not sure that it would be much faster to put in lookup tables, as the slow part would be getting the data from the different sources and putting it in the format the lookup tables expect. I'm not sure what FiM does, it's either manual, or it's done in another spreadsheet and then only the values are posted.

Re: California Rankings
 

I copied the data from the search results & pasted into a spreadsheet; I only noticed 4522 (you're correct) was missing when I'd sorted the data by team number (I had both KS & MO in the same spreadsheet). I then went back & looked at the search results & didn't find them; that's when I did the specific search to make sure they are in the system. Maybe FIRST was tired on Sunday too. :)

I have the prgrammer's "it's far better to spend extra time to make something automatic, even if all the times you do that work manually would still be quicker" attitude. :ahh: I was thinking of having columns to specify each point type, and putting the number of times the team got that in the appropriate cell. Then have lookups do the math. But maybe manually would be the right way to go for this. It would be interesting to know how FiM & MAR do this; if they have a good way it only makes sense to let the rest of the soon-to-be-districized regions know.

Re: California Rankings
 

Made a spreadsheet that should help you (possibly Joe and/or others). Shows the events all teams are attending with location filtering. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2798

I have no experience with web scraping so here's the automatic approach I thought of first: Because 2834 scouting databases include event results, you could grab qual W-L-T records automatically. But differentiating 1st pick from 2nd pick is problematic to do automatically in any fashion. Awards seems impossible to do automatically without scraping, but I can't imagine it'd be complicated. The awards are always in the same order and the tables are formatted pretty regularly.

Re: California Rankings
 

oh ha, ha, ha... be very careful before you go down that rabbit hole. As anybody that has scraped the FIRST website can tell you, there is no such thing as consistenancy or regularity about the FIRST results web pages. ::ouch::

Re: California Rankings
 

I do the Results and Rankings for FiM so I can tell you how it is done. MAR did their own last year but I also did theirs at their request because they want to make sure we have the same numbers. This year MAR has a new person doing the Results and Rankings and I have been in touch with him to make sure we do things the same way.

I have another spreadsheet that I use to get all the data prepared and then copied to a separate file for publication. Nothing is done manually because it is so easy to introduce errors. But it is not just pressig one button either.

Award points are calculated automatically by getting data from FIRST website and through a converter (Excel lookup table) it will put the team number into the correct awards. However some events award no judges awards and some award 2 judges awards so I still have to double check. I also use a pivot table to take care of teams winning more than one award so there is no manual adding of award points.

1st and 2nd round picks info are not available through FIRST website even though we tried to ask for it for many years. The FTAs for each district put the Alliance Selection report in a Google doc folder that is shared with me so I can retrieve them when I run the report. Again lookup tables are used so there is no manual typing in team numbers and selection order.

I have macros and Excel formulas to detect and take care of substitutions automatically so it is not done manually but I have to feed that information in.

Tiebreak is the hardest part. It requires many sheets and formulas and is complicated. But it is fully automated.

All other information I already have in the Team2834 Scouting database. I have a macro to output the three highest match scores from each event and then use that in tiebreak calculations.

I don't mind sharing the spreadsheet with other regions with the person who has to do this job but it is not very easy to understand. You have to be very knowledgeable in Excel to figure out what I was trying to do. I wrote it for my own use and wasn't planned to be user friendly. Also if there are different number of events, different number of teams extra would require extensive reprogramming of the formulas which is very time consuming to setup although it is a one time thing each year. It would be easier if someone knowledgeable enough in Excel to develop their own spreadsheet rather than modifying mine. I would certainly be willing to help.

Re: California Rankings
 

Our team coach showed us this thread which we were very excited about, however I think there may be some minor miscalculations (unless i'm forgetting something), from our record at CVR it looks like our score should be 60, not 68.

We had 7 wins (14 points), 6th seeded alliance captain (11 points), won the regional as alliance captain (30 points), and received the innovation in control award (5 points). Please correct me if I'm wrong.::rtm::

Re: California Rankings
 

You are correct. I found an error that affected the win-loss records at Madera for all teams (but not the other events). Thanks for double checking!

Here are the corrected rankings

Week 4 Rankings
 

After week 4, 30 California teams have yet to play, 160 have played 1 event, and 26 have played 2 events.

I have added calculations of each team's maximum event score and average event score, to go along with the sum of the team's first two events.

Team 973 is has the highest after two events (43 at Madera and 57 at Los Angeles). Team 192 had the best event, 67 points from Utah. 254 has the best first event, 61 points from San Diego.

If you have the correct picking order for the LA regional, please post it here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=114555. Right now the rankings may not be exactly right for 702 and 3880 (+/- 1 point) and 4079 and 1515 (+/- 3 points)

Re: California Rankings
 

I'm loving this! Keep up the great work!

Week 5 rankings
 

After week 5, 13 California teams have yet to play, 149 have played 1 event, 53 have played 2 events, and 1 has played 3 events (399).

Team 2485 has the highest after 2 events (57 at San Diego and 69 at Inland Empire). Team 1538 has the best event (71 at Inland Empire). Team 254 is the best that only attended 1 event so far (61 at San Diego).

The average and max columns shows the result for all events (even if the team attended more then two).

If you have the correct picking order for the LA regional, please post it here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=114555. Right now the rankings may not be exactly right for 702 and 3880 (+/- 1 point) and 4079 and 1515 (+/- 3 points)

Re: California Rankings
 

To add to Joe's post, the CA FIRST Top 20 rankings for post-week 4 have been released. http://www.cafirst.org/top-20-ca-frc...t-week-4-poll/

Post-Week 5 results should be released around Wednesday.

-Mike

Re: Week 5 rankings
 

HOLY GOD!!! NUMBER ONE!!!!
This is one of the happiest days of my life right here.

Re: California Rankings
 

cant wait to see this updated again :)

Re: California Rankings
 

After week 6, all California teams have finished the season, with the exception of the Championship. 101 played 1 event, 103 played 2 events, and 7 played 3 events.

Team 254 has the highest after 2 events (61 at San Diego and 69 at Silicon Valley). Team 1538 has the best event (71 at Inland Empire), with an Honorable mention to team 701, who achieved the same score at their third regional (Colorado). Team 3970 is the best that only attended 1 event (54 at Madera). Team 973 had the highest considering all events (153, from Madera, Los Angeles, and Silicon Valley)

The average and max columns shows the result for all events (even if the team attended more then two).

If you have the correct picking order for the LA regional, please post it here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=114555. Right now the rankings may not be exactly right for 702 and 3880 (+/- 1 point) and 4079 and 1515 (+/- 3 points)

Re: California Rankings
 

If there was a California State Championship, I assume it would be at the location of the largest regional, Los Angeles, with 65 teams.

I used the average of the team's 1st two events, so that teams that only attended one event are not overly punished.

Here are the teams that would make the California State Championship, based on only points, and not considering chairmans:

There were 3 teams tied at position 65 (20.5 average points), 597, 1422, and 1622. 597 wins the tiebreaker based on most elimination points (finalists at Las Vegas), compared to 1622 and 1422 that were quarter-finalists at their events. I did not apply the tie breakers for any other rank.

There were two teams from outside the top 65 that won Chairmans (604 at Silicon Valley and 1515 at Los Angeles).

Re: California Rankings
 

Wow, thanks for putting this together. I notice a lot of SVR teams on that list.

Throwing this out there since you suggested the LA regional since its biggest, why not move it over a few cities to Anaheim so we could to state champs at Disneyland, maybe the arena at the convention center. Sorry, I had to suggest it since I never got to go to FIRST at epcot.

Re: California Rankings
 

I have enjoyed seeing the rankings in our state. It brings a sense of excitement that precedes the events and seems to carry on the excitement of the competition afterward. So thank you for your work.
Looking at a State Championship would certainly be an up shot to moving to the district model. I have been apprehensive of making that move. This is first year that we have competed twice with in our state and I can see doing it for years to come. I just hope we can keep the same quality of the events, but that's for another thread.

If the championship could be held in Anaheim, and it was the headliner event that I know it would be. I am sure we could gather enough excitement to get the right group of people to bring their magic to the table.
Epcot was epic, but CA wasn't the force it is now. This will be the West Coast Championship.

For those CA teams still in the game for 2013 bring home the World Championship Title!
For those of us who will be watching it was a good year of strong competition, now on to the off season for us!

Re: California Rankings
 

That championship would be intense!!!!
Thanks again for putting all this together, it was really neat and I appreciate it!

Re: California Rankings
 

Wow. Our team, 3501, had 60 points at CVR, 6 points at SVR. It's amazing how fortunes can change with a tough match schedule and a couple of bad breaks.

Re: California Rankings
 

Would you consider counting Team 100's two iterations of their robot as different robots? Our first iteration, Orangahang, had an OPR of 13 at Davis, and our second iteration, Mark II, which replaced the entire climber and shooter of Orangahang with an entirely new superstructure, had an OPR of around 40 at SVR. Those that saw our two iterations can attest to the fact that they were essentially two entirely different robots. I'd be interested to see how our two different iterations stacked up against other California teams, and each other.

Re: California Rankings
 

If you didn't already know, Disneyland is a finalist for the FIRST champs 2015. With that in mind (and several other factors) CA champs would likely be in Fresno or the silicon valley area. There were discussions on how to host 68 teams at the SJSU site this past weekend given how despised the 2 pit system was.

This is very interesting, how do you know this?

Re: California Rankings
 

I'm not aware of Disneyland having anywhere near the facilities required to host Championships.

Re: California Rankings
 

Well I am lazy enough to recommend the world champs, Cal champs and an orange county district to be all in Anaheim so I don't have to go anywhere.

Same. Anaheim Convention Center could work for a District or even State Championship but I am not aware of a facility that could handle ~400 teams.

Re: California Rankings
 

Well on the serious note, the convention center, while very large, the pits would have to have to be next the competition field like in 2011. The arena is not big enough for Einstein. It only seats 7500 max. The hockey rink is way to far away.

I would not recommended it.

Re: California Rankings
 

I was talking with some of the key volunteers at regionals this year and they dropped it casually in conversation. There were a large list of venues that submitted bids and a fairly large list of finalists. All I know was Disneyland was among the finalists. I actually don't think it will be the actual location of championships, though I hope its someplace on the east or west coast for the sake of international teams as FIRST expands.

Re: California Rankings
 

Central Valley: 21
San Diego: 19
Silicon Valley: 19
Sacramento: 18
Los Angeles: 17
Inland Empire: 16

Re: California Rankings
 

I would love to see a California State Championship, but I do not want a district system. I like having other teams from other states or countries to our regional.

Re: California Rankings
 

Baring outsiders is an artificial barrier set up by FIRST, and not anything inherent in the district system. See the FAQs Regarding the FRC District Competition System whitepaper, question 5. Rather then saying you don't want the district system, you should lobby FIRST to get rid of their artificial restrictions.

Re: California Rankings
 

West coast is a flight (or one heck of a drive) for the majority of FRC teams. For that reason alone, I'd say that St.Louis is about as far west as worlds is going to be for a while. Houston... but how much further west is it really? East coast or Midwest is my bet.

Interesting thought, where is the geographic center of FRC? If each team is given the same amount of pull, where would that end up? I'm no engineer, but this sounds like a giant vector problem... My guess is somewhere around, well St.Louis :D

Re: California Rankings
 

IIRC Indianapolis is basically the city which the most teams in FIRST could reasonably drive to.

Re: California Rankings
 

There was a thread about potential centrally located cities, and I believe we found in it that Indy is pretty bad to fly to. Chicago was the cheapest to fly to on average (it's quite a bit better than St. Louis), but there's no venue I could find that would be appropriate for Championships...

Re: California Rankings
 

Las Vegas Convention Center can easily handle 400 teams. I know it's not in CA, but it's easy for most CA teams to get to Vegas (cheap flights, drive, etc).

Re: California Rankings
 

The California Pre-Championship Top 20 Poll has been posted.

http://www.cafirst.org/top-20-ca-frc...championships/

Re: California Rankings
 

Too bad we didn't make the list. I really do feel like we were a much better robot at SVR then 192 though...

Re: California Rankings
 

Ouch bro. Ouch.

Re: California Rankings
 

I wasn't at SVR so maybe that is the case but 192 won the Utah regional and certainly deserve the respect that comes with that.

Re: California Rankings
 

Dude. It'd be one thing if they weren't actually successful, but they were. At SVR, they seeded higher than us and did better in elims. At Lone Star they made it to semifinals. In Utah they seeded 2nd and won.

They're one of our favorite teams and best friends.

Re: California Rankings
 

If I could, I'd give you our spot. We're thrilled to be on it, but that list is based on public opinion and quite literally means nothing beyond a slight nod of approval. The utter transformation you guys performed at SVR by all rights should have earned you a slot. And if your comment were based on our elimination matches or our match against you at the beginning of Saturday, I would be inclined to agree. I am still ashamed by how badly we let our alliance partners down.


However, 2013 is one of the best robots we have ever built, and as mentioned above, there is a reason we were able to upset the 2nd seed in Lone Star, earn our place as 359's first pick in Utah, and achieve one of the highest teleop scores in SVR. Consistency is still a thorn in our side, but that is what we hope to improve for Championships.

Be wary of what you say about those who consider you a friend.

Re: California Rankings
 

We had our own problems in eliminations too. In the first match, we got stuck on a frisbee, which either makes us completely stuck or just drive terribly, because of a poorly designed drivetrain (happened a few times during SVR). It's funny how the bad parts of the new robot are everything left over from the old one. In the second match, a frisbee somehow entered our hopper upside-down, which our feeder can't work with. We thought we completely fixed that after practice matches, but apparently not.

Even with consistency issues, you still were a top California team.