Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

How about average score?

In a year where the game had more of a defensive bent, that might not have been as good a metric, but this year it probably was.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Well we weren't allied with 254 and we won Sacramento...YAY for 245. we are thinking of going to silicon valley next year to either break 254'S streak or win it with them

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

That would be fun, we had a great time with you guys and 766 at sacto :). Im happy to see a west coast regional ranked so "high" on the list, especially with a relatively few number of teams attending.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

didnt the poofs only win sacramento once,im pretty sure svr is the one they havnt lost. but sacramento was a good regional team 56 enjoyed the competition i dont know if we will be goin back but theirs always a chance.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Poofs lost Sac in 2003 (finalists) won in 2004 lost in 2005 (finalists)

One of only three regionals they've lost since 1999

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

The only thing I will say, is the fact that many teams did go to 2 or 3 regionals this year, and from what it looks like, that was not taken into account.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

That will be a lot of fun if you guys come. In 2002, we lost the finals of the post-season Cal Games to 254. We have since sworn to defeat them at all opportunities :D . I took us 3 more years to achieve our goal at Sacramento. We have since sworn to break 254's streak at Silicon Valley. I hope 245 will come again.

Now, some think Sacramento seems to be really tough with amazing robots. We at 766 found it easy because we practiced with our robot a lot before we shipped it. So when we were at Sacramento, there was little issues that needed to be corrected. The vast majority of robots at Sacramento were driving for the first time, tinkering with their robots for the first time with an arena. Thankfully, though ironic, 254 allowed us to use their practice arena before the ship date. So robots that had significant test times dominated. Examples are 245, 254 (they had two robots built), 56, 330, 1097, 1072 and 114. You could see that the teams with practice were worlds apart from the ones without. At Silicon Valley, there were far more teams who had practice time, often from other competitions. Therefore was much more difficult.

Take 254, at Sacramento, they did not seem as tough as they were at nationals. Their drivers were new and their programs were not calibrated. In fact, their arm seemed to shaky and too quick for their arm operator. As result, their robot was capping less then our robot at times. We were happy that we were better then 254 for once. However, at silicon valley, a new end piece for their arm and a lot more practice and testing, they were far better, and easily the best robot at the Regional (kicked our butts). Still they were a an occasional quirk. Then at Nationals, from what i saw, they were flawless. My point? Teams improve over time. 254 went from good to amazing. I think, later the regionals are, the harder they get. Just going by who made it to a certain round or average score won't cut it. You have to look at the quality of the robots at the competition, a tough task indeed.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Ahhhh good ol' doctor Joe...bringing up the stats to hoist up the midwest on the grand pedestal! Well Joe, I do believe that there are about 50 or so teams from the New England area who would take those metrics, throw them to the ground, stomp on them, and then laugh at the stats.

I do not deny that the midwest has dominated the championship tourney since about 1997...however, I think that the championships actually show about 0% indication of the actual strength of the regions or regionals in the country.

Here is my case...

There are multiple styles of play in the region. The midwest and south have always been mainly offensive regions, as where the northeast and west (growing by the year) are becomming more geared towards the defensive. The fact that New England only has one team represented in the final teams of the tournement to me is just more of an indicator of population of midwestern teams representing at the championships. More teams from offensive regions mean more of an offensively geared tourney...obviously favoring the midwest.

Its as if to say...if you were to take a team out of New England, send them to the GLR, they would not stand a very good chance based simply on style of play. I think that midwestern teams (post 1998) have shared that fate in every attempt at a championship in new england for the same reason.

I think the only true way to find out who really is the toughest region around is to duke it out on an even plane. 12 of our best versus 12 of your best...winner takes takes it all home and so on. This is what made Rumble at the Rock such a great competition in its day. At the end of that competition, there was no denying who was tops when all was said and done.

In short...you can take all the stats you want, you can take the trophies and banners and all the fun things you want to flaunt...but until our regions go toe to toe...there will be no true answer to who is the best...

Well outside of the fact that everyone should already know its the New England Region ;)

Lets find a way to do this..eh?

-Andy Grady

Disclaimer: This was meant to be a good natured post to try to stir up a good ol' rivalry between regions and maybe at some good legitimate conversation to the board. Do not take this as demeaning the midwest or any other region. In other words...relax people, this is just for fun :p

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Wow Andy, you relaxed them so much that they didn't even respond to your post... (or maybe they're just using the linear view instead of the threaded)

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Hmm... let's check the data. Divide the country into Midwest, South, Northeast, and West as you said:

Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
Northeast: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia
West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming
International: non-US teams

Take the teams at the Championship this year, and with some Excel magic, count the number of teams in each region:

Midwest: 94
Northeast: 116
West: 44
South: 70
International: 16

Doesn't look to me like the Midwest dominates the Championships (in attendance, anyway)...

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to draw conclusions about what this indicates about various "regional" strategies.

.......

For those interested, I used this map to place the states into different regions since it seemed quite reasonable. Attached is the spreadsheet used, feel free to try it out and move states around between the list of regions if you like.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Let's take Andy Grady's idea of regions competing against each other. Each region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) figures out their best robots, preferably enough for two alliances. How this is done is up to the imagination. Each region decides its alliances and sends them to a competition, say somewhere in neutral territory (a state that is not represented and is not a hot contender). At the competition, you have two divisions, and each plays round-robin style. The winners advance to a best-two-out-of-three type of playoff. The winner is declared to be from the best region. If, however, the winners are from the same region, that region is instantly acknowledged the best, and the event is over, unless someone wants to see who will win.

The winners will have the toughest regionals in their area, and it may be impossible to tell from this which regional is toughest.

Re: Toughest Regional Metrics...
 

Andy, I think the only fair way to do it is to have 2 tournaments. And with two different numbers of teams. Don't worry, we can include the south, west, and all the other combinations of the cardinal directions.
Here are my thoughts on a "regional tournament"

Do it like congress and the senate. Have one tournament where there is equal representation of all regions. For instance, have 8 teams from each region. Have the other tournament with an equal percentage of teams from each region. For instance, if the midwest has 20% of the teams in all of FIRST, then they will have 20% of the teams in the regional.

The only relevance I see out of this comment is that the Northeast should have more recognition than the other regions because they have more representation at the Championship.
**Note: I am a Midwesterner, and I love corn. Please don't attack me. :-)