paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances by Swampdude

Anyone remember this?
Well I wanted something to look at for nationals, and I didn't want to put a lot of time into it. So I used the Standings data from the FIRST regional results. This was based on the seeding, win/loss, Ranking points, high score, and Winner or Finalist of the regional. There is also a sheet that shows these rankings for the teams that are currently signed up for the Championship. There are still 4 regionals that are not in the data and have not been played. It is not a great indicator of certain team’s performances as luck can have a lot to do with your results. But its something to amuse ourselves with
I'm sure many will have a problem with the formula or whatever else, feel free to tweak it. This at least puts all the data in 1 place. After this weekends regional are done I'll update it.
Unfortunately there’s no way to tell "how" these teams got these numbers (i.e. ramps, ringers, good alliance pairing etc.) Please don't get wrapped up in the results, as we all know luck has much to do with it. This is just a general indicator of performance.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Very cool spreadsheet! I have no problem with us being ranked at 67th, we can try to play the part of the sleeper turned champ!:D

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

just a quick suggestion: figure out some way of weighting the elimiation wins more. I was just looking through the rankings. my team (2106) is ranked 490th (not complaining) while the winner of VCU (540) was ranked 709th. It looks like the QP's and seeds are given too much weight. I can't believe how much work went into this. Nicely done!

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

On the "variables" sheet you can add weight to the winner/finalist (or any of the other items you want to adjust). It is currently set at 20pts. I gave finalists a multiplier of 1 and winners a multiplier of 2. Then you'll have to resort the sheet you're looking at if you change any of the variables by the rank column.
To do this you "select all" by clicking the upper left corner of the sheet where the (2) column and row headers meet. then Data>Sort>Sort by rank and descending.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Omg. We (1717) are ranked 23rd... Wow that makes me feel really good lol. Unfortunately tho, we wont be seeing any of you in Atlanta because we twice lost to the number 1 team (330) in the semifinals and finals in LA and SD repectively. Bad luck I guess.

Anyways, thanks you so much for this spread, it is awesome :)

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Ditto to what Emilio said.
Amazing spreadsheet. I can't wait to see how these teams fair in Atlanta

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Is Champs the main list saying how all teams rank that are going to Championships?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Great job with that.
I can't believe that my team (1901) is ranked 52nd overall with all the great teams ou there. How ever will take it:yikes:

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I saw several repeats and didn't see certain teams, can you expalin that?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

The data for Silicon Valley Regional, at least, is incomplete. I know that's because the data on FIRST's own site was not updated after the end of Friday's qualification matches, but it may color some of the results a bit.

Without digging into things too deeply -- how does the frequency of competition for a given team affects its ranking? That is -- some teams play 40 qualification matches in a season and others play 8. Is that considered?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

If you download the rev A - you'll see the teams highlighted in yellow, which indicates they went to multiple regionals. Each listing on the "Results" sheet are for each showing at each regional - so yea there are multiple entries for some teams.

No each listing is for each regional they went to and do not add up together. However some regionals played 10 matches per team, and some only 6, this fact does slant the results a bit as I made a factor based on wins. I suppose the better way would be to ratio a number from the win/loss.


Yes, thats a list generated from who was registered as of this morning, 302 teams. However about 15 of those registered teams still have not played in a regional yet, so they are not listed.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

The list of finalists at buckeye is incorrect.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Which of the ranks is the one I should go on, Results or Champs?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

All of the data is from the FIRST Standings pages. Is their listing wrong?
http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/events/OH/awards.html

Results is a list of overall rankings of every team from every regional.

Champs is a list of that same data but only for those teams that will be attending the Championship. But it is also reduced to (1) listing per team. So if a team went to multiple regionals, the list picking only 1 of those automatically. The purpose of Champs is to get a snapshot of the performance of teams going to the Championship.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

OHH!! i see it now, i didn't move to the right a bit and i thought the information was to the left.:o

very nice job with all of this great job it'll be very helpful!:p

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

It doesn't look like the champs list has all the teams going to the Championships. What's up with that?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Am I reading this right? By your spreadsheet 696 is ranked 4th in the country!? Sweet!

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Agreed, this really is no indicator of how teams are gonna do at Championships. I mean probably the really highly placed teams, top tens and such, will probably do good but below that everyone probably just as good a chance as everybody else as far as making it to eliminations.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I like my RPI better :p

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I would be Tom, but this has some merit as well. This shows the teams ability to win matches (granted a fair bit of that is luck, but it does show strategy and defensive ability). In addition, this weights teams that have played more matches much higher than those that haven't. Both systems suffer based on the exponential scoring system. In Tom's system, a team that places one more tube per match than another will appear to be twice as good. In this, it is not as dramatic, but a single tube can greatly alter your "top score" points (8 tubes gives you a final rating 42 points higher than 7 does). The best system would be a combination of the two (possibly including other data, and some weighting changes), or minimally a spreadsheet containing both sets of data.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Some of the individual sheets for regionals have not been sorted by rank yet (as is the case for UTC and Boston). If you could, please sort them and then check your picking order again. I'm curious if it gets any better. I had the data one way, and then tweaked variables - then did not re-sort the rest of the pages, as the individual data gets sorted on the "results" and "champs" page.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I sorted the data. I think that the problem with UTC and Boston is that in Boston some low number teams ranked much lower than they should have because of the large number of rookie and second year teams.

In Hartford some higher numbered teams were fortunate enough to be paired with 2 very good teams due to there being very few newer teams and tons of veterans. I can give you specific team numbers but in the interest of not offending any one I wont post them here. feel free to pm me if you want specifics.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

It seems that using total wins screws over teams that go to fewer regionals, I'd suggest using percentages(really wouldn't be that hard to implement).

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Hey great job on the total compiling of the results. Even though there are little things that could be improved, it is an awesome spreadsheet! Thanks for making it available to everyone.:)

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I agree that percentages is a better ranking method since some teams played in more matchs at a regional. Additionally I suggest an 80 point versus 40 bonus for the regional championship alliance since they have won 8 games. Naturally, a finalist would get 60 point versus 20 bonus for the regional 2nd place alliance since they have won 6 games. Overall it is a good effort

;) :] :) :D

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

I've added a rev B which now uses a win % x the value, so that will equalize teams with less matches with those who went to regionals with more. I also re-sorted all of the individual regionals. And a bonus I added the current team list for those in Galileo :)
( I know it will change, but now its ready for the real team lists)

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

That's great...where is it?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

so did you try to add all of the match results from every regional? or are you just basing this off of each team's most recent regional?

because I only see the match results from the San Diego regional that my team just played in. We also competed in the LA regional which was a few weeks ago...

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

You have seperate scores for each regional you attend. Your rating for LA is rated #138.

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Nice spreadsheet, thanks for uploading all that work. Has anybody looked at using it to rate the quality of play at the different regionals? For example, 501 is ranked 2nd for its performance at one regional and 768th for its performance at another. Was this a matter of inconsistency of play of the team, a difference in difficulty of the regionals, inconsistent luck in the match draws, or some other factor I haven't considered?

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

i don't think any notice was given to QP and RP if those were deciding factors my team would be about in the top 10 not 37

Re: paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
 

Uhm, for the champs, I dont think a 4-4 record would have given us a 9th seed? Hehe. We were 6-1 during the championship seedings.