Chief Delphi - Lopsided Divisions

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Lopsided Divisions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147675)

Re: Lopsided Divisions

If FIRST really cared about a perfect setup for the Championship based on ranking, OPR, etc., they wouldn't invite so many teams in the first place. It is hugely watered down by some mediocre teams. 600 is too many.....

The district championships have higher level quality play (on average) unfortunately, other than the final eliminations.

If all they want is a lot of participation and enjoyment, then a randomized approach is fine. If you put too much reliance in OPR or other metrics, teams will act differently in the districts and regionals and make it a stat-based goal versus a win-based goal.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by FiMFanatic (Post 1578321)

And they would only have ONE championship...

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hadi379 (Post 1578323)

And they would only have ONE championship...

Agreed!

Re: Lopsided Divisions

You guys did read the reasoning behind ChampionSplit, right?

It's to maximize inspiration.

At least, that's HQ's take on the matter. So they aren't exactly caring about the competition part being good (I mean, it is a Championship, so they have to, but it's a lower priority than inspiration).

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1578331)

Agreed!

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1578282)

Ok, let's do it by school size... or budget... or student count... or mentor count? Who wants to be in the mentor built division?

Aren't all the good teams in that division? ;)

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1578307)

So FIRST Championship needs to become Fantasy FIRST. Each division is given a leader in STEM and those Division Leaders then draft the teams they want to see play.

This would be cool, dibs on team Andrew Schreiber

More seriously, the current system, assuming that the "registration dates" method is actually how it works, is perfectly fine to an extent. Personally, I don't think there should be any sorting based on perceived "powerhouse" nature of the team. There's plenty of top-tier teams who aren't well known, and there's plenty of big-name teams whose strength is overestimated because they're "that big-name team." Yeah, Newton's top-heavy, but the current methodology is random and considers every team without bias based on reputation. I feel bad for those top-tier teams who won't get a well-deserved trip to Einstein, but there's plenty of deserving teams every year who don't get to go. The only difference is that this year, most of them are in the same division.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Code:

Rank Year Division, OPR STDVs away from CMP mean

1 2016 new 1.8792818365030972

2 2015 cars 1.5303350085259413

3 2005 arc 1.4719431806316507

4 2008 arc 1.275903384248631

5 2013 gal 1.216209400652486

6 2010 arc 1.193897925865034

7 2009 new 1.0851114986838635

8 2006 new 1.0248700734203415

9 2014 arc 1.0038012569280608

10 2004 arc 1.0012622874746064

11 2012 arc 0.9280026009838416

12 2011 cur 0.8605362826161431

13 2007 new 0.811482461068815

14 2012 new 0.791654392743334

15 2011 gal 0.723890899467247

16 2004 cur 0.6810947735598231

17 2006 cur 0.6086265070047694

18 2009 cur 0.5683687825075886

19 2014 new 0.5614091258588676

20 2007 gal 0.5525768854103231

21 2016 hop 0.5380374488668379

22 2016 cars 0.408018860269447

23 2010 cur 0.3624233446672217

24 2016 carv 0.33274494055516757

25 2015 hop 0.24442033949382544

26 2013 arc 0.2390748663971342

27 2015 tes 0.23375807978480515

28 2008 new 0.17118024613308042

29 2015 new 0.1671052847394964

30 2015 cur 0.14696320018600914

31 2007 arc 0.06155154314818187

32 2015 carv -0.08427736320166529

33 2015 gal -0.12364688580536025

34 2005 cur -0.24293216111580532

35 2013 cur -0.2777800696315326

36 2016 arc -0.2968187516006284

37 2011 new -0.302185773307164

38 2014 gal -0.30707335292203575

39 2008 cur -0.33900159574861066

40 2010 gal -0.43743412228260514

41 2006 gal -0.4667057439069076

42 2005 gal -0.5166965248897325

43 2009 gal -0.5693576991292799

44 2004 new -0.597846349430966

45 2005 new -0.7123144946261157

46 2012 cur -0.7304368298598461

47 2016 cur -0.7416191862759174

48 2016 tes -0.9674409454187557

49 2012 gal -0.9892201638673295

50 2009 arc -1.0841225820621547

51 2004 gal -1.084510711603477

52 2008 gal -1.108082034633088

53 2010 new -1.118887148249653

54 2016 gal -1.1522042028992627

55 2006 arc -1.166790836518207

56 2013 new -1.1775041974180875

57 2014 cur -1.2581370298648897

58 2011 arc -1.2822414087762262

59 2007 cur -1.4256108896273216

60 2015 arc -2.114657663723039

This is a fairly rough metric, with some possible bias towards the 8-divisional format due to a larger n and therefore a smaller standard deviation, but I think it's a good way to compare across years.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

I'm a little confused how the registration date sorting works. Most of the teams from New England did not qualify until district championships, yet there are three divisions that have 8-9 New England teams and two that only have 2. Given that 90% of those teams qualified on the same date and would likely register within a short time frame, I would expect to see them more evenly distributed.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by lkg9999 (Post 1578432)

As did all the teams from MAR and FiM...

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1578331)

Yep, It's like they don't care about the robot competition that much.
+1

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjordan (Post 1578426)

I was thinking about what the most lopsided divisions were since the CMP split in 2000, so I wrote a script to calculate the number of standard deviations away from the CMP average for each division's average OPR, as a rough metric of relative division strength:

(Average OPRs are pre-CMP for 2016, others are during CMP)

<snip>

This is a fairly rough metric, with some possible bias towards the 8-divisional format due to a larger n and therefore a smaller standard deviation, but I think it's a good way to compare across years.

Mostly for my own sake, I went and bolded the World Champs.

Code:

Rank Year Division, OPR STDVs away from CMP mean

1 2016 new 1.8792818365030972

2 2015 cars 1.5303350085259413

3 2005 arc 1.4719431806316507

4 2008 arc 1.275903384248631

5 2013 gal 1.216209400652486

6 2010 arc 1.193897925865034

7 2009 new 1.0851114986838635

8 2006 new 1.0248700734203415

9 2014 arc 1.0038012569280608

10 2004 arc 1.0012622874746064

11 2012 arc 0.9280026009838416

12 2011 cur 0.8605362826161431

13 2007 new 0.811482461068815

14 2012 new 0.791654392743334

15 2011 gal 0.723890899467247

16 2004 cur 0.6810947735598231

17 2006 cur 0.6086265070047694

18 2009 cur 0.5683687825075886

19 2014 new 0.5614091258588676

20 2007 gal 0.5525768854103231

21 2016 hop 0.5380374488668379

22 2016 cars 0.408018860269447

23 2010 cur 0.3624233446672217

24 2016 carv 0.33274494055516757

25 2015 hop 0.24442033949382544

26 2013 arc 0.2390748663971342

27 2015 tes 0.23375807978480515

28 2008 new 0.17118024613308042

29 2015 new 0.1671052847394964

30 2015 cur 0.14696320018600914

31 2007 arc 0.06155154314818187

32 2015 carv -0.08427736320166529

33 2015 gal -0.12364688580536025

34 2005 cur -0.24293216111580532

35 2013 cur -0.2777800696315326

36 2016 arc -0.2968187516006284

37 2011 new -0.302185773307164

38 2014 gal -0.30707335292203575

39 2008 cur -0.33900159574861066

40 2010 gal -0.43743412228260514

41 2006 gal -0.4667057439069076

42 2005 gal -0.5166965248897325

43 2009 gal -0.5693576991292799

44 2004 new -0.597846349430966

45 2005 new -0.7123144946261157

46 2012 cur -0.7304368298598461

47 2016 cur -0.7416191862759174

48 2016 tes -0.9674409454187557

49 2012 gal -0.9892201638673295

50 2009 arc -1.0841225820621547

51 2004 gal -1.084510711603477

52 2008 gal -1.108082034633088

53 2010 new -1.118887148249653

54 2016 gal -1.1522042028992627

55 2006 arc -1.166790836518207

56 2013 new -1.1775041974180875

57 2014 cur -1.2581370298648897

58 2011 arc -1.2822414087762262

59 2007 cur -1.4256108896273216

60 2015 arc -2.114657663723039

5 above, 7 below. Pretty interesting.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjordan (Post 1578426)

Code:



60 2015 arc -2.114657663723039

Stop quantifying things I don't want to admit!

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 1578169)

<snip>

One interesting note there are teams with negative OPRs and one is going to St. Louis. FWIW.

Dr. Joe J.

I had to look up that particular team. Won Chairman's in a week 2 regional, didn't have a 2nd event. They may not have had the best robot then but have definitely earned their spot. I don't know what kind of improvements they'll put in their withholding, but they've had 6 weeks to prepare.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Of course the three divisions I've been on are ranked 1st, 2nd and 11th...