Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Fantasy FIRST (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=128)
-   -   [FF]: Rule changes for 2007 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48435)

Greg Needel 27-07-2006 09:23
[FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
So now that most of the FF leagues are over (I know there are a few more off seasons) I would like to propose a new rule for scoring next year, But in addition to this I think this thread would be a good place to open discussion about things that should be changed in the ways leagues run, scored, etc. Now that we have been doing this for a few years it is time for us to get organized more then we are.


my rule change: I propose that every person's score in each event is divided by the number of teams they have picked for that event. Too many times I have seen people win events just because they got lucky and got the 1 winner of the chairmans and the event, but the other teams did nothing. In other Fantasy sports you get points from your entire team, not just one player. Thus by taking the average score of all of your teams it will be factoring all of your picks into the score regardless how they performed. Now in the end I feel like this will make the scores alot more fair and takes away from winning an entire league just because the random number generator likes your name.

Tim Delles 10-09-2006 16:53
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Greg great idea.

Koko Ed 10-09-2006 16:56
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Needel
So now that most of the FF leagues are over (I know there are a few more off seasons) I would like to propose a new rule for scoring next year, But in addition to this I think this thread would be a good place to open discussion about things that should be changed in the ways leagues run, scored, etc. Now that we have been doing this for a few years it is time for us to get organized more then we are.


my rule change: I propose that every person's score in each event is divided by the number of teams they have picked for that event. Too many times I have seen people win events just because they got lucky and got the 1 winner of the chairmans and the event, but the other teams did nothing. In other Fantasy sports you get points from your entire team, not just one player. Thus by taking the average score of all of your teams it will be factoring all of your picks into the score regardless how they performed. Now in the end I feel like this will make the scores alot more fair and takes away from winning an entire league just because the random number generator likes your name.
I like it.

Billfred 10-09-2006 17:40
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
One small problem--since everyone picks the same number of teams, everyone's score is divided by the same number, resulting in the same people winning whether you divide or not. (Unless I'm missing something, that is.)

Corey Balint 19-09-2006 21:40
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred
One small problem--since everyone picks the same number of teams, everyone's score is divided by the same number, resulting in the same people winning whether you divide or not. (Unless I'm missing something, that is.)
Haha. Good call. I saw that too...

Dan Petrovic 19-09-2006 22:05
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred
One small problem--since everyone picks the same number of teams, everyone's score is divided by the same number, resulting in the same people winning whether you divide or not. (Unless I'm missing something, that is.)
I think you're missing something.

let's say Person A picks teams 1,2,3 and 4.
team 1 gets 80 points, 2,3, and 4 give him 0 points

let's say person B picks teams 1,2,3, and 4
they all give him 25 points.

The average of person A's score would be 20, and the average of person B's score is 25.

The idea is to get rid of the fact that when someone gets one really lucky pick, they win.

Greg Needel 19-09-2006 22:14
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfernoX14
I think you're missing something.

let's say Person A picks teams 1,2,3 and 4.
team 1 gets 80 points, 2,3, and 4 give him 0 points

let's say person B picks teams 1,2,3, and 4
they all give him 25 points.

The average of person A's score would be 20, and the average of person B's score is 25.

The idea is to get rid of the fact that when someone gets one really lucky pick, they win.

yea but billfred is right because in your situation person be would win anyway with 125 to 80 pts

Billfred 19-09-2006 22:54
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Exactly.

I think the regional scoring is about right--a balanced team will shine, while a team strong in just one aspect will do decently. Here's my data from the Palmetto league:

Code:
Team #        WLT        Awards        Elims        Total
11        12        10        30        52
68        34        2        10        46
16        16        2        20        38
422        26        2        10        38
1270        2        36        0        38
1398        -6        42        0        36
21        22        8        4        34
1251        -6        10        30        34
247        -6        8        30        32
95        9        0        20        29
180        16        0        10        26
818        16        0        4        20
1676        -2        0        20        18
34        9        4        4        17
343        4        2        10        16
1051        12        0        4        16
1026        9        0        4        13
1436        9        0        4        13
1885        -2        15        0        13
281        2        0        10        12
1876        4        8        0        12
1319        4        2        4        10
337        2        0        4        6
342        -2        4        4        6
1028        -10        5        10        5
1293        4        0        0        4
803        -2        5        0        3
108        -2        0        4        2
900        2        0        0        2
1249        -2        0        4        2
1284        -2        0        4        2
1959        -10        12        0        2
507        -2        0        0        -2
845        -6        0        4        -2
1102        -2        0        0        -2
1225        -2        0        0        -2
1320        -2        0        0        -2
1466        -2        0        0        -2
94        -6        0        0        -6
1287        -6        0        0        -6
1336        -6        0        0        -6
1539        -6        0        0        -6
1618        -6        0        0        -6
1715        -6        0        0        -6
1758        -6        0        0        -6
1961        -6        0        0        -6
415        -10        0        0        -10
1472        -10        0        0        -10
As you can see, 11's scoring in several areas racked up far more points than Chairman's winner 1398 did. I don't think anyone on that list is particularly out of whack. On-the-field performance will get you far, but a good balance will go all the way. Consider the three regional winners, 11, 247, and 1251. All of them scored a shiny 30 points for winning the regional, and eight more for the high match score, but 11 also had a nice seeding and an Imagery award, which was enough to propel them to the top. 1251 and 247 didn't perform as well in the qualification rounds, and that pulled them lower in relation to their alliance partner.

Note that I counted 11/247/1251's High Match Score as an award, since that's how it best fit my spreadsheet.

Some might say that the Championship Chairman's Award is high, but I think it's fine--bringing home the clock earns 80 points, while winning the Championship (which requires winning a division) scores 60 in total (25 for the division, 35 for Einstein). EI in Atlanta should be higher (45 in Preseason--I'd say add at least 20 to that number), and there needs to be a CA Honorable Mention award. (It gets you a return trip to Atlanta, so I'm inclined to make it 60 as well.) With so many great teams on that level, you're not going to have easy picking for these awards.

(dons his asbestos underwear)

Corey Balint 19-09-2006 23:01
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
See...it all comes down to one thing...you all know what im gonna say, so i wont even do it.

Alex Cormier 19-09-2006 23:26
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey Balint
See...it all comes down to one thing...you all know what im gonna say, so i wont even do it.
:p :p :p

Cory 19-09-2006 23:54
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey Balint
See...it all comes down to one thing...you all know what im gonna say, so i wont even do it.
I will.

You don't get points in fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, or auto racing for being the most inspiring player. Why do we get them in fantasy FIRST?

Corey Balint 19-09-2006 23:59
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
I will.

You don't get points in fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, or auto racing for being the most inspiring player. Why do we get them in fantasy FIRST?
Thanks big guy.

Koko Ed 20-09-2006 05:14
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
I will.

You don't get points in fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, or auto racing for being the most inspiring player. Why do we get them in fantasy FIRST?
Because I decided that all of FIRST matters as much as what happens on the field. It has long been concluded that FIRST is very different from traditional sports so why am I going to treat Fantasy FIRST as they are?
You can always make a separate field results only league if it's really that important. Fantasy FIRST is pretty free from to allow such variations but as long as I am running a league all results will matter.

Billfred 20-09-2006 06:47
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed
Because I decided that all of FIRST matters as much as what happens on the field. It has long been concluded that FIRST is very different from tradiitonal sports so why am I going to treat Fantasy FIRST as they are?
You can always make a seperate field results only league if it's really that importnat. Fantasy FIRST is pretty free from to allowe such variaitions but as long as I am running a leauge all results will matter.
Bingo.

Most teams are organized into various groups: marketing, Chairman's, website, animation, etc. Disregarding the efforts of those students, to me, is like saying that the kicker (or, given the size of some of those subteams, the whole defensive line) no longer counts in fantasy football.

edit: And, by the same token, teams that aren't going beyond the robot are fielding something like a football team with no linebackers. You might get somewhere, but not as far as with a whole team.

Corey Balint 20-09-2006 07:36
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Well if you want to avoid the problem that greg was talking about...thats the simplest way to do so. And, might I add, the best way.

Lil' Lavery 20-09-2006 15:36
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
I'm going to say why we need Chairman's in Fantasy FIRST from a different perspective. The point values is a whole different discussion, but here's why we need to keep Chairman's (and all the other awards):
In one of my Fantasy Football leagues, points (including negative) can be acheived a whopping 28 different ways. Even if you combine the different ways to score touchdowns, etc, you still have more than 20 ways to score points. If you remove awards from Fantasy FIRST, you have a mere 6. Wins, Losses, Ties, Ranking, Selection and Elimination Advancement. Some would argue your WLT could be combined into Record, and Ranking is based primarily on your record, and is effectively "double scoring" your record (which is why is typically isn't used in FantasyFIRST). Beyond that, due to the massive variables, WLT often doesn't really reflect the caliber of robot a team built (401, while a solid team in 2006, really should not have been 2nd seeded on Archimedes, for example).
Now granted, an average Football player will usually not score points in more than 3 or 4 different ways, but there are also typically 6+ different positions in Fantasy Football. There arn't any "positions" in Fantasy FIRST. By allowing awards to give points, you create more oppurtunities for participants to structure their alliances how they wish. They can go for the consistant team who should get a winning record and advance to the elimination rounds without a problem, or the team with a shakier robot, but a chance to win Chairman's (and a skilled FF participant often knows some of the Chairman's contenders). In a way, it creates "positions" for Fantasy FIRST.

Corey Balint 20-09-2006 18:52
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
I still say, it should not be in Fantasy First. Cant really say anything to convince me otherwise, ive heard all the arguements.

Levin571 22-10-2006 18:11
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Also the chairmans award adds another interesting criteria to choosing your alliance.

I agree with this rule change.

P.S. anyone have any ideas how to be at a college like mcgill and still be active in FIRST since there are absolutely no teams within a 45 min radius

Alex Cormier 22-10-2006 18:16
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin571
Also the chairmans award adds another interesting criteria to choosing your alliance.

I agree with this rule change.

P.S. anyone have any ideas how to be at a college like mcgill and still be active in FIRST since there are absolutely no teams within a 45 min radius
VEX and FLL.

I have no clue where the nearest FRC team is, so i helped start FLL and FVC with the local middle and high school. It's not always about the big bots. ;)

Koko Ed 22-10-2006 18:50
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin571
Also the chairmans award adds another interesting criteria to choosing your alliance.

I agree with this rule change.

P.S. anyone have any ideas how to be at a college like mcgill and still be active in FIRST since there are absolutely no teams within a 45 min radius
Volunteer.

Dan Petrovic 22-10-2006 19:48
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Needel
yea but billfred is right because in your situation person be would win anyway with 125 to 80 pts
Yeah.. I missed that :p

Lil' Lavery 25-10-2006 15:22
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
20....1st seed
12....2nd and 3rd seed
6......4th through 8th
3......9th through 12th
2......12th through 16th

4......Quarter finalists
10.....Semifinalists
20.....Finalists
30.....Winners

42.....Chairmans
36.....Engineering Inspiration Award

15.....Rookie All-Star
10.....Rooke Inspiration
8......Woodie Flowers

2......Win(s)
-2.....Loss(es)
1......Tie(s)
8.......Highest score / Highest Rookie Seed

5....... Judges Award
2.......for every non-placement award, except previously mentioned
That was the scoring system used for most regionals, which I have no problem with.


But, for a couple off-season events:
Quote:
SCORING:
25....1st alliance captain

20....2nd and 3rd alliance captains

15......4th-8th alliance captains

Selections
picked by first round
1st...10
2nd.....9
3rd......8
4th......7
5th......7
6th......6
7th......6
8th......5
9th......5
10th.....4
11th.....4
12th.....3
13th.....3
14th.....2
15th.....2
16th.....1


5......Quarter finalists
10....Semifinalists
15....Runners Up
30....Victors

10....Awards
or a variant of that was used.

The problem with that off-season formula used is the alliance selection part. It actually penelizes you if you had a top 8 team that accepted an invitation to an even higher alliance. For instance, you had the #4 seeded team, but they were the first selection. You then receive 10 points for the #1 pick instead of 15 if they had been AC4.

Sgraff_SRHS06 18-11-2006 23:00
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
That scoring system is a good attempt, but what about if your team GETS a penalty?

It's no fair to make a selection only to find out the selection ends up taking too many penalties. After all, if we were actually on the field with the job of alliance selection, we would take a team with fewer penalties even if the other team was automatic a number of other ways.

After all, penalties (just like in football) can make or break games and championships.

Billfred 19-11-2006 09:06
Re: [FF]: Rule changes for 2007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgraff_SRHS06
That scoring system is a good attempt, but what about if your team GETS a penalty?

It's no fair to make a selection only to find out the selection ends up taking too many penalties. After all, if we were actually on the field with the job of alliance selection, we would take a team with fewer penalties even if the other team was automatic a number of other ways.

After all, penalties (just like in football) can make or break games and championships.
It's simple. If a team gets enough penalties, they'll lose the match. That swings your score by four points (from 2 to -2 for that match). In leagues where margins of victory can be tight (I won Palmetto by one point), this can be a reasonably big setback.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:19.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi