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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil (Post 1578447)

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.

I suspect there are 2 reasons:
1. There's a lot more randomness on Einstein, with all of the alliances there being roughly equal.
2. The powerhouse teams capable of leading an Einstein-winning alliance are more likely to be upset in stronger divisions, leaving the gap open for strong teams in fairly weak divisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evanperryg (Post 1578456)

Stop quantifying things I don't want to admit!

My (former) team was in that division, too ;)

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjordan (Post 1578515)

There are actually several interesting benefits to being in a weak and strong division. My team (3506) is in Curie, which as shown is below the mean. While Pre-Scouting, we have noticed that there are some powerful teams (maybe even enough to make an Einstein winning alliance? :yikes: ). But there are not enough teams that will clearly swing qualification rankings in their favor every game. This means that, unlike a division where the entire top 8 will probably have an average of 3 or more ranking points per game (this happened in the FiM, MAR, NE, and PNW District Champs and almost happened in Indiana State Champs), there will not always be a powerhouse team on an alliance for teams to get carried by. In any one match, there is a chance that there will only be one competitive team on the field.

In a division like Newton, there are almost too many competitive teams. You can be sure that some teams that deserve to do well will not. Also, teams that are not that competitive will have almost no control over their ranking points. For them, it will all depend on whether you are going against this powerhouse team with that powerhouse team, or if you did (not) get lucky and the powerhouses are only on one side of the field. In the NC district anyway, Qualification matches in Stronghold are a two team game. Two extremely competitive teams could be paired with a box bot, and still Breach and Win (and possibly Capture, we will have to see how teams deal with the tower strength increase) against three moderately competitive teams.

The biggest side effect of being in an extremely competitive division I could foresee is Scorched Land. You can't form your perfect alliance with your first pick, because can't let any other alliance have this or that team. Once you get up to the best-of-the-best robots in Stronghold, they can pretty much do anything, but you still might end up with, say, three high-goal robots unable to cycle through the low bar, and only one which can go over the rock wall or cheval. These high goal shooters, paired with another low-bar breacher/low-goal scorer, may have been even more competitive, but from a statistics standpoint it was the best way to rob other alliances of Offensive Power. I may be underestimating the versatility of many robots, but I can see an advantage to alliance selections being more about forming a strategically perfect alliance then a statistically perfect one.

Those are just some of the pros and cons I see of being in stacked divisions.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42 (Post 1578164)

I believe OP is referring to the strong Newton division this year.

Many of the teams in this division had participated in the Greater Pittsburgh Regional. They are some of the best teams out there. Good luck to all those competing in champs!

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Making all the divisions equal would take some of the fun away.

I can make an argument that there really isn't a top 4, more like a top 7 or 8 (considering I think people are underestimating 1241, 1519, 125, and probably 5172)

When I was doing a fantasy draft with some friends we had a really hard time picking who we thought was going to win Newton, and combination of those teams are going to make the finals really interesting. However I do see how this could be problematic. Some teams that in weaker divisions might be a great candidate for 2nd pick run the risk of going to the "backup" round.

However, when your fantasy first draft looks like that you know it's going to be a fun time.

E1: 254 4678 1640
W1: 5172 217 1477
C1: 67 179 3476
E2: 16 3620 188
W2: 1241 125 126
C2: 1519 118 1676

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Frank described how teams were assigned to divisions in 2014 in a blog post. I don't know if this process is the same process that was used this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRC Blog

How We Assigned Teams to Divisions

Wondering how we assigned teams to FIRST Championship Divisions this year? First, we assigned Rookies, taking all Rookies signed up for Championship and putting them team by team sequentially in Divisions - one team in Division 1, one team in Division 2, one team in Division 3, one team in Division 4, then back to Division 1 again - in the order in which they registered for CMP, until we ran out of Rookies. This made sure no Division was over- or under-weighted with these least experienced of all FRC teams. Then, we took the Veterans and did the same thing. That’s it.

- See more at: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...atch-Schedules

Re: Lopsided Divisions

I find it fun and interesting to be in one of the strongest divisions, but I've felt like 1519 is usually in the strongest division! We've attended CMP 9 times and 5 of those divisions are among the 9 most competitive divisions of all time (and 7 of 14)!

Our CMP divisions:

Code:

Rank Year Division, OPR STDVs away from CMP mean

1 2016 new 1.8792818365030972

2 2015 cars 1.5303350085259413

6 2010 arc 1.193897925865034

8 2006 new 1.0248700734203415

9 2014 arc 1.0038012569280608

12 2011 cur 0.8605362826161431

14 2012 new 0.791654392743334

18 2009 cur 0.5683687825075886

26 2013 arc 0.2390748663971342

Also, we've been in the most-competitive division for that year every year except for 2012 Newton, 2009 Curie, and 2013 Archimedes... when we were on the second-most competitive division. Hah!

Our division is on average 1.01 Standard Deviations above the CMP mean! Maybe we could be in a "weak" division some time just to see what it's like? ;-)

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Only 4 teams from each division make it to Einstein. Only 3 of those 4 teams on an alliance from each division are on the field at once. IMHO this just means that a non #1 seed is most likely to emerge from Newton, and that Einstein will be fairly evenly matched.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1578780)

... a non #1 seed is most likely to emerge from Newton, ...

I think this could happen, but disagree that it is most likely. The way to bet would be on a #1 alliance that includes 254 moving on to Einstein. The seven other alliances will be very strong and will do their best to achieve a different outcome, but the favorite is still the favorite.

If you are just saying the favorite's chances are less than even, I agree with that.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1578789)

My point was that if any division does not have a #1 seed advance to Einstein, it would be Newton. Not that the #1 seed from Newton was less likely than #2-#8 to win their division.

The point being that when the #1 robot picks the #2 robot in a shallow event, usually the #1 alliance will sweep.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by evanperryg (Post 1578456)

Stop quantifying things I don't want to admit!

We need a "I was a member of the weakest ever CMP division" support group! Man, imagine if Bedford hadn't been in Archi 2016. I don't even wanna think about it.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1578805)

Ok, now I see your point and agree.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil (Post 1578807)

We need a "I was a member of the weakest ever CMP division" support group!

Can we get a "I went directly from the weakest ever CMP division to the strongest ever CMP division" support group over here?

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Being in a deep division just means you have a better chance at doing well.

Being in a weak division just means it's harder to get that golden second pick steal. (Because the 3rd robot is what wins/loses championships at this level.)

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil (Post 1578807)

We need a "I was a member of the weakest ever CMP division" support group! Man, imagine if Bedford hadn't been in Archi 2016. I don't even wanna think about it.

Then it'd drop to (roughly) 2.6 standard deviations below the 2015 CMP mean, so let's not.

Re: Lopsided Divisions

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustjon (Post 1578152)

Having lopsided divisions is just a side-effect of random (or, at least, semi-random) assortment.

In my opinion, splitting up and assigning teams to divisions based on their performance would make CMPs less interesting.

Champs is fun because of the challenging schedules and obstacles it imposes on the teams who make it there.

This is all my opinion, though. My word is far from factual :D

It's important not to confuse "random" with "fair" or "balanced." Random is a description of a process, not a value statement on an outcome. I think of random in these situations more at "arbitrary" although its better for the distribution to divisions (with 600 teams) than for match scheduling (with only 10 matches).

Note that the NCAA faces the same situation in its basketball tourney and it spends substantial effort trying to balance the 4 sides of the brackets. It wouldn't take much effort for FIRST to do the same (and then we can bet on how many 12th seeds will beat 5th seeds...:cool: )