Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

The fact that it is affected that much by one team says something :p that division was pretty sad.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Related discussion going on over here.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

it might be the case that a stronger division makes the fickle finger of scheduling malaise that much more potent, as one star + two less stellar up against 2 stars + reasonable is more of an ambush. i'd argue that makes the "favorite" less odds on to run the table and end up as #1 seed. off to do the numbers to prove that :rolleyes:

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

It's really not all that important. The argument posed in this thread is the random process is the most fair process. You can evaluate the process and make a value statement based on that process versus other possible ways to split the teams. As even you admit the small sample size makes it difficult to assign quality scores to teams, that makes it much more difficult to find a measured solution that treats teams fairly. Without having a good system to do so, it's much more fair to remain random.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

I didn't say that the small sample size makes it difficult to assign quality scores to teams. While there is certainly some error margin around the final results in any regional, those results do a reasonable job of sorting teams from high to low. If you don't agree with that premise, then you have have to reject the notion that the Championships bring together the best teams in general and we should just simply randomly draw from all FRC teams.

If you believe that most of the best FRC teams are being qualified for Championships, then we can create the basis for ranking those teams using information from the competitions in which they qualified. The district points system, which is used to qualify teams for subchampionships, is a reasonable proxy for that ranking.

And as I stated, an equal burden of proof resides on those supporting the current random system to show that it is fair. No one has shown that's the case that I've seen so far.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Is that why we managed to be an alliance captain?

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Thinking about division assignment once again, I think I disagree with the idea that there needs to be (if I can coin the phrase) parity of ability between the teams that make up divisions.

Robots and drivers are not static through the season, let alone a single competition. I think that makes the idea that the parity of ability between divisions can be equalized ridiculous.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Well, even 2015 Archimedes let 3996 get scooped up by Bedford at the 24th pick despite being a top-15 (and possibly top-10) robot on the division. Our alliance was able to pick 4213, a reliable two-stack chute loader, at the 30th spot. They were good enough that our alliance captain graciously chose to play them in our second elim match rather than themselves, and we put up 182 points without getting any center cans.

Scout well and there will be solid robots in the later rounds of any event. Also, after watching 110+ matches of that division, I feel I should get a spot on the support group steering committee :p

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Not that we need another stat to show how stacked newton is, but through roughly 7 qual matches in all the divisions I notice that Newton has 7 teams with goal points exceeding 400 (and 1241 is pretty close to 500). The rest of the divisions have 2 teams (Hopper/Tesla/Carver) 1 team (Galileo/Carson) or 0 teams (Archimedes/Curie) that have over 400 goal points.

I'd be interesting to look at some of those stats after all the qual matches are done.

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Oh RNG how you toy with me...

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Re: Lopsided Divisions
 

Newton Out, Tesla is about to take it all, poofs got upset.

*Throws bracket out window*