Division by average
 

So with double the divisions and the way this years game works I though the idea of making divisions by your average score would be a way to have equal division strength.
Example
Highest average division 1
2nd highest division 2
3rd highest division 3
An so on.

Re: Division by average
 

Partner quality, and therefore averages, are going to fluctuate wildly between events. This would put every team at MSC at the top, even if other teams are better (I know, that's pretty unlikely </MichiganBias> ).

Using averages at one event works because the match schedule is meant to equalise partner quality. There's no good way to do that between events (OPR is meant to do it, but doesn't do it particularly well).

Re: Division by average
 

Basel,
I think he means at the CMP level. Teams would be pretty normalized there.

Re: Division by average
 

Can you please elaborate?

If you intend to have robots with similar average scores in the same division I think that is a very bad idea. It will stack (ha!) one division with very good robots and make Einstein boring because the best team in D2 will be 'worse' than the worst team in D1, it will be a gimme.

Re: Division by average
 

I'd imagine it is more of a dealing of teams type thing. Take the top 8 averages and split them between the divisions, take the next 8 and do it again, repeat until no teams left.

It would probably pretty evenly split the divisions, even if the averages aren't a spectacular way to determine quality between events.

Re: Division by average
 

My interpretation was splitting teams into their divisions by average (probably serpentine, so the 8th and 9th highest averages in the same division), rather than whatever random algorithm FIRST has been using the past few years.

Re: Division by average
 

I was the one misreading. I thought he meant as a way to compare the divisions to each other.

Re: Division by average
 

That's how I originally read it too.

Re: Division by average
 

Re: Division by average
 

That makes more sense. Although anything besides 'random' will likely result in some teams trying to throw matches in order to try and get into a particular division.

Re: Division by average
 

They would have to know the average of ever other team at every other regional/division. I doubt anybody would be able to pull this off.

Re: Division by average
 

Haha, sorry, it was an algorithm nobody could figure out for several years. I forgot they switched it up last year.

Re: Division by average
 

http://www.thebluealliance.com/

Every team would be able to pull it off given TBA's data.

Unless I'm missing something here...

Re: Division by average
 

Being able to throw a match to get your average into the exact right spot while not knowing what other teams are doing in their matches is not really an easy task to accomplish. Now add in multiple teams trying to do this and it makes it almost impossible.

Re: Division by average
 

I don't disagree with you, but that won't stop some teams from trying, which is counter-productive to the competition.

Re: Division by average
 

Ignoring the ridiculous level of luck/complexity involved that would make throwing matches to manipulate your division unrealistic (especially for anyone outside of the three events competing week 7), there's a simple "fix." You simply don't tell teams that you're sorting divisions by average score before you perform the sort.

Re: Division by average
 

You are correct.

Look, I'm not arguing that the logistics of making it happen are practical. I am only saying that if divisions were sorted this way, and they know about it, then it opens up a motivator for teams to not play fairly. It would seem counter to the recent openness of FRC to hide the sorting process.

Re: Division by average
 

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me; it seems like FIRST is probably more likely to use a different method though (like the sequential-by-registration-order method).

The obvious concern of teams trying to game the system is there... but it would be essentially impossible to succeed with. The only teams that might have a chance to do so are the ones competing week 7, but enough teams compete week 7 and there's enough uncertainty about who will actually attend CMP that has qualified, that it wouldn't be realistic. That said, some teams could still try...

Regardless, FIRST won't announce how they're doing it until after it's done... and maybe not even then. Quite potentially though Frank or someone at FIRST will come across this idea (or has already thought of it) and they may weigh it... I personally don't think they'll do anything game-specific though.

Re: Division by average
 

Is that really any different than the registration-order based system they used last year? Couldn't teams attempt to game the system that way, too? Is FIRST not telling us about this algorithm until after last season running counter to their openness?

Re: Division by average
 

There is a big difference in principle. In one case up to 5 other teams (per match) are being directly affected by one team's actions without any choice in the matter. In the other case one team is ostensibly gambling their slot in CMP to try and game the system. So, yes, there is a big difference.

I am going to let my original point stand. I acknowledge the impracticality of materially affecting match averages to game the proposed division system, but posit that the impracticality won't stop some teams from trying. It's a bad motivation that is not needed because numerous other methods to sort divisions are available.

You are free to discuss FIRST's openness in a different thread. That is not the purpose of this thread and I would be remiss if I continued that discussion here.

Re: Division by average
 

No team could possibly game the system with 8 divisions. Its statistically impossible.

Re: Division by average
 

Must I really repeat myself with a post that you quoted? What point are you trying to make that I haven't already acknowledged?

Edit: I don't mean this to come off too harsh. I would like the discussion to move forward instead of harping on the same point that all participants have acknowledged.