Is FIRST's data right?
 

A bunch of folks (myself included) are going to be looking for competition data for various reasons (Fantasy FIRST, anyone?)

That said, is the data on FIRST's site for week one correct (or in the process of being correct)?

BAE: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NH/awards.html

NJ: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NJ/awards.html

VCU: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/VA/awards.html

PNW: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/OR/awards.html

Edit: I just realized that the rankings on FIRST's site are sorted by team number, not by rank. (Seeing 116 as #1 seed when they didn't make eliminations kinda threw up the red flag.) FFers, hold your proverbial horses.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

On first pass (no pun intended), when RANK is sequential and in order of TEAM number, you have to ASSUME something "ain't quite right". Let's hope these just need to be adjusted/corrected. Currently the rankings hold no water.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

You can still get some idea of which teams a leading by looking at the W-L-T section, but that's not going to give you the complete story. Is the "Average" category their QP or just average score?

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

I'm thinking its QP, as I saw team numbers of -1 and team scores of 0 for the early matches.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

I wouldn't take any of the regional competition data on the FIRST website as accurate yet. Team 125's first match was #3, not #1 as the match results indicate.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

For BAE, after you sort the teams by Win/Loss, the rankings are correct.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

The match results and awards from VCU are correct. I entered the awards and we checked the match results as they posted. The ranking issue is a known and being worked on, but the QP and RP data are correct, we spot checked multiple teams.

Wetzel

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Double check Qual Match 11, I think something went wrong there.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

The first 32 Q matches are from Thursday. If you look, after the elim matches, it goes from Q1-32, then back to Q1. Those 32 should really not be listed, or have a P in front of them. This is another known issue.

Wetzel

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

nope, both the ranks and some of the awards for the PNW is wrong

we won the indsutrial design award yet on the usfirst site it says team 849 won and they weren't even in the regional

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

The average column is the RP column (average loser's score in the team's match).

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

I entered the data of VCU and get the same rankings. A couple times I had to reverse engineer the score, especially match #8 where the red alliance had 12 minus 35, not 0 minus 35 as the overlay had shown.
Also, match 53 was shown as 48-19, but the website states 53-29.
While I have the same ranking order, a few teams have different Ave RP than first does.

It would really help if the first website included 1) penalty / dq info 2) "extra match" / surrogate info 3) hi score 4) coinflip result.

When it comes to "Hi Score"... Is it the highest un-penalized or penalized score? It seems it can not be the highest Ranking Point score, since teams like 1731 are listed at 99.

Also, If 1731 had been DQ in that 99 pt match, would their Hi Score have been the next highest, 76 in match 1? ... would make sense, right?

Thanks,
KA-108 :cool:

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

I've attached the final rankings for VCU for those that are interested. This was generated straight from the scoring software version that we ran on Saturday.

Wetzel

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Not for PacNw at least, Alliance #8 made finals - it shows us losing in the semifinals.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Just curious--
How did you find this information at all? Without the links you provided, there's no way anyone could find it on the FIRST website. What would someone tell friends who are unfamiliar with FIRST, if they want to look up a team's scores for a given regional?

(Assuming, of course, that the data would be meaningful to anyone not acquainted with the scoring system.)

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

It's actually (relatively) easy to find. Go to the FRC section of www.usfirst.org, click on "Regional Events" in the side bar, and then click on the regional you want. Match Results, Standings and Awards are linked at the bottom

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

To get to the proper pages on the web.
Goto the FIRST website, http://www.usfirst.org/.
Choose FIRST Robotics Competition on the top.
Then choose Regional Events on the left.
From that page, choose the event you want.

Match Results, Standings, and Awards links are at the bottom of that page.

Wetzel

EDIT: Nuttyman beat me to it.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Thanks, both of you!
I guess FIRST just added these links in the last day or two. The links don't appear for the regionals my team is attending, even though our first one (Arizona) is less than a week away.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

I guess the page is generated directly from the scoring software. At VCU on Saturday the website was updated on within a minute of us saving the score to the database.

Wetzel

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

If the software worked so well for you at VCU do you know why the match results could be off at BAE? For instance, team 125's first match was #3, not #1 as the match results indicate.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

1089 did not win the autodesk visualization award at NJ, so that is incorrect.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

They won the website award, and either sportsmanship, or spirit award.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Right. 1089 won the Website Award and the J&J Sportsmanship Award.
I believe 1382 (from Brazil) won the Animation Award.

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

That's correct, and their animation was absolutely awesome! I've watched it like 10 times :)

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

it seems that this data is being changed still. at the competition, right before alliance selection, our team was ranked 20th. 6 hours ago we were ranked 13th. Now we (663) are ranked 14 :confused:

http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

The rankings are not correct. Your win/loss is worse then the team below you.

Are your matches correct? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pa...le&paperid=487

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

yes. we were 5-4

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Joe, I'm willing to bet that 1138 had a DQ in one of the matches that they "won."

Wetzel

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Maybe they should include that data somewhere, so we're not so confused. this is in to way Wetzel's or any scorekeeper's fault, it's simply a change that should be made to the system

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

This is now two years in a row of such a discussion about the web rankings.

Is it time to ax the hatch?

KA-108 :cool:

Re: Is FIRST's data right?
 

Did anyone else notice that the rankings and match results from the first week Regionals have now been removed from the FIRST site all together? This seems very familiar. Last year the scores and rankings were so screwed up for the first week Regionals and even some of the second week that FIRST never did post them.

This is two years in a row that FIRST isn't even posting the scores after the week one Regionals because of the scoring problems. I am not privy to the reasons behind the problems, however, the results are quite obvious. If the problems are due to Hatch then, yes, maybe it is time to give them the ax. I don't know what the scoring system cost FIRST but from what I can tell they didn't get their money's worth. Teams pay a LOT of money to compete and they at least deserve an accurate scoring system from the start. What other "sport" do you know that when you watch it you have no idea who is winning much less an accurate score? What other "sport" do you have to wait 2 or 3 matches to see the score of a previous match and then still can't believe the score you are given? Maybe FIRST should go back to a simpler game to watch and score like in 2004 that didn't even need a real time scoring system. In 2004 you may not have known the exact score but at least you pretty much knew who won because the game was easy to watch from a spectators view. I wonder if a year from now we will be seeing "This data is not yet available." on the FIRST website for this years Regionals because they really have no idea who won what!

OK, I'll get off my soap box now. Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated.