Chief Delphi
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Regional Competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Texas Rankings (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114974)

2789_B_Garcia 03-04-2013 19:46
Re: Texas Rankings
 
So...HYPOTHETICALLY speaking...under this model...the top 64 teams would then go to state, and then only 6 could qualify for champs?

....

I-DOG 03-04-2013 19:49
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2789_B_Garcia (Post 1256918)
So...HYPOTHETICALLY speaking...under this model...the top 64 teams would then go to state, and then only 6 could qualify for champs?

....
No. Under this model 27 teams would go to Championship.

QUALIFYING FOR THE FIRST CHAMPIONSHIP
3 spots – one for each of the three State Championship Chairman’s Award winners
3 spots – one for each of the three teams making up the winning alliance at the State Championship
1 spot – for the State Championship Rookie All-Star Award winner
1 spot – for the State Championship Engineering Inspiration Award winner
The remaining 19 qualifying spots will be filled by starting at the top of the re-computed rankings and moving down as far as is necessary to fill the nineteen spots, skipping over teams that are already eligible or scheduled to attend.

2789_B_Garcia 03-04-2013 20:05
Re: Texas Rankings
 
INteresting...

JohnSchneider 03-04-2013 20:25
Re: Texas Rankings
 
which is only 3 more than go currently (Albeit some of our spots got to visiting teams, and if by some force of weirdness 148 didnt qualify normally we'd send 25 instead of 24. )

GaryVoshol 03-04-2013 20:32
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-DOG (Post 1256919)
No. Under this model 27 teams would go to Championship.
MI gets 27 teams this year based on 207 teams registered.

TX with 140-some teams would get somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-20 teams.

I-DOG 03-04-2013 20:40
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1256954)
MI gets 27 teams this year based on 207 teams registered.

TX with 140-some teams would get somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-20 teams.
Well if I were to assume 8 spots were a given. It would end up around 20 if we do some simple math. 19/207 * 137(#of teams) and we round down for every 10 teams or something like that which would cause us to arrive at 20 Texas teams.

This year only 16 Texas teams qualified for Championship. In my opinion, 20 is better than 16 :D

2789_B_Garcia 03-04-2013 20:44
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-DOG (Post 1256958)
This year only 15 Texas teams qualified for Championship. In my opinion, 20 is better than 15 :D
Yup...Hub City and Alamo were good to the out-of-state teams lol

JohnSchneider 03-04-2013 20:44
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-DOG (Post 1256958)
Well if I were to assume 8 spots were a given. It would end up around 20 if we do some simple math. 19/207 * 137 and we round down for every 10 teams or something like that which would cause us to arrive at 20 Texas teams.

This year only 15 Texas teams qualified for Championship. In my opinion, 20 is better than 15 :D
Season isn't done ;)

I-DOG 03-04-2013 20:56
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by animenerdjohn (Post 1256962)
Season isn't done ;)
The only Texas teams left that haven't qualified and are competing this week are 1477, 3366, 3847. Therefore, even if ALL of these teams qualified for championship it would still not be greater than the amount produced by a Texas district system. 20 is still greater than a max of 19 ;)

artdutra04 03-04-2013 20:56
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1256954)
MI gets 27 teams this year based on 207 teams registered.

TX with 140-some teams would get somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-20 teams.
This is completely the wrong logic to solve this problem.

If all new areas contemplating moving to districts get stuck at the the MI ratio, most areas currently qualify more teams via regionals than they would via this district formula. If this happens, we'll probably never see more districts, because why move to districts and qualify less teams for CMP?

The correct way should be to increase the number of MI qualifying spots (IMHO MI should qualify 25-30 teams as they would currently have 4-5 regionals if they were not districts). Ideally, FIRST should create a universal formula for determining the number of Championship berths a district gets based upon number of teams in that district, so that all current and potential districts are fair and identical in # of CMP berths.

Edit: As a rough pass at a first guessing a formula, I would estimate # of CMP berths = 18% of total teams, rounded up to next integer. Using this formula, the following current and proposed districts would qualify:

MI: 38 teams
TX: 26 teams (currently qualifies 24 via 4 regionals).
CA: 39 teams

I-DOG 03-04-2013 21:04
Re: Texas Rankings
 
1 Attachment(s)
Getting to the goodies though...

Here are the teams that would have been invited to compete in the Texas State Championship IF it existed this year.

Code:
Rank        Teams        Points        Tie Breakers
1        148        135       
2        118        131       
3        4063        122       
4        3310        105       
5        2587        102       
6        2468        96       
7        2936        84       
8        231        82       
9        704        81       
10        3847        80        1. Elimination Round Performance Points
11        624        80       
12        1477        79       
13        1296        77       
14        57        75       
15        2848        62       
16        2789        60       
17        3802        54       
18        3997        53       
19        4587        45       
20        1429        44       
21        1801        43        3. Draft Points
22        4589        43        1. Elimination Round Performance Points
23        647        43       
24        4610        39       
25        3335        36       
26        3355        35        3. Draft Points
27        4694        35       
28        3103        34       
29        4852        31        3. Draft Points
30        4206        31       
31        4328        30        3. Draft Points
32        3481        30       
33        3545        29        1. Elimination Round Performance Points
34        4641        29        3. Draft Points
35        4300        29       
36        441        28       
37        4354        27        1. Elimination Round Performance Points
38        1817        27        3. Draft Points
39        3735        27       
40        3741        26        3. Draft Points
41        4502        26       
42        457        25        1. Elimination Round Performance Points
43        3834        25        7. Highest Match Score- 116
44        4282        25        7. Highest Match Score- 99
45        3676        25        3. Draft Points
46        2582        25       
47        4359        24       
48        1745        22        3. Draft Points
49        418        22       
50        4570        21        4. Highest Draft/Seed Achieved
51        4552        21       
52        2158        19        2. Best Elimination Round Finish
53        3696        19       
54        3497        18       
55        4335        17       
56        653        16       
57        4378        15        3. Draft Points
58        3366        15       
59        3999        13       
60        4192        12        4. Highest Draft/Seed Achieved- 14
61        4259        12        4. Highest Draft/Seed Achieved- 17
62        3679        12        7. Highest Match Score- 76
63        2585        12        4. Highest Draft/Seed Achieved- 18
64        2966        12        4. Highest Draft/Seed Achieved- 19
It would have been fun to crown the kings of Texas. Maybe sometime in the near future... :rolleyes:

cgmv123 03-04-2013 22:08
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1256970)
This is completely the wrong logic to solve this problem.

If all new areas contemplating moving to districts get stuck at the the MI ratio, most areas currently qualify more teams via regionals than they would via this district formula. If this happens, we'll probably never see more districts, because why move to districts and qualify less teams for CMP?

The correct way should be to increase the number of MI qualifying spots (IMHO MI should qualify 25-30 teams as they would currently have 4-5 regionals if they were not districts). Ideally, FIRST should create a universal formula for determining the number of Championship berths a district gets based upon number of teams in that district, so that all current and potential districts are fair and identical in # of CMP berths.

Edit: As a rough pass at a first guessing a formula, I would estimate # of CMP berths = 18% of total teams, rounded up to next integer. Using this formula, the following current and proposed districts would qualify:

MI: 38 teams
TX: 26 teams (currently qualifies 24 via 4 regionals).
CA: 39 teams
It's supposed to be based on the number of teams Michigan has as a whole versus the number of teams in FIRST ("representation by population"). Since Michigan has 207 teams, which is ~ 8% of the total teams in FRC, they get ~8% of the slots at Championship, or 27 this year.

Texas would get ~19 slots using the same logic.

AllenGregoryIV 04-04-2013 00:50
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-DOG (Post 1256975)

It would have been fun to crown the kings of Texas. Maybe sometime in the near future... :rolleyes:
Like all of these teams registering for TRR?

Thanks for putting all this together, hopefully all three of us Texas teams can get our championship number up to where it should be.

GaryVoshol 04-04-2013 06:44
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1257019)
It's supposed to be based on the number of teams Michigan has as a whole versus the number of teams in FIRST ("representation by population"). Since Michigan has 207 teams, which is ~ 8% of the total teams in FRC, they get ~8% of the slots at Championship, or 27 this year.

Texas would get ~19 slots using the same logic.
When FiM started, we had 3 regionals so they gave us 18 slots. They totally ignored the point that had we not gone to districts, we would have had to add a 4th regional and thus would have had 24 slots.

We stayed at 18 slots until this year, despite adding about 50 teams over the first 4 years of districts - even when CMP expanded to 400 last year. This year we finally got reallocated 27 slots.

It appears that they will be allocating by representation as future areas go to districts. MAR allocation is also based on team population.

2789_B_Garcia 04-04-2013 08:03
Re: Texas Rankings
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1257077)
Like all of these teams registering for TRR?
That would be epic! However that would double the size of TRR! 2789 would be up for helping to make that happen, but that would probably mean a change of venue, more volunteers, more sponsors, etc...it would most definitely be epic, though.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi