Top 25: Week 1
 

It's late, but better than never. This ranking is based off of the week one regionals. Seven voters participated this time, but one list was thrown out due to extreme bias. Note that the top 10 from the preseason rankings still remain in the top 25. Also note that 111 and 968 tied for third place.

1. 254- Cheesy Poofs, (0-0-0). Last: 2
2. 45- TechnoKats, (13-0-0). Last: 35
3. 111- WildStang, (12-3-0). Last: 7
4. 968- RAWC, (0-0-0). Last: 3
5. 1625- Winnovation, (12-3-0). Last: 46
6. 1114- Simbotics, (8-3-0). Last: 1
7. 148- Robowranglers, (0-0-0). Last: 4
8. 121- Rhode Warriors, (12-2-0). Last: 23
9. 71- Team Hammond, (8-2-1). Last: 6
10. 233- The Pink Team, (0-0-0). Last: 8
11. 330- Beach Bots, (0-0-0). Last: 9
12. 217- Thunderchickens, (10-5-0) Last: 5
13. 67- The HOT Team, (0-0-0). Last: 10
14. 175- Buzz Robotics, (11-3-0). Last: 37
15. 25- Raider Robotix, (9-5-0). Last: 12
16. 2753- Team Overdrive, (13-0-0). Last: 70
17. 234- Cyber Blue, (12-1-0). Last: 53
18. 33- Killer Bees, (0-0-0). Last: 19
19. 987- High Rollers, (0-0-0). Last: 13
20. 2056- OP Robotics, (0-0-0). Last: 15
21. 365- Miracle Workerz, (4-5-0) Last: 16
22. 40- Checkmate, (12-3-1). Last: 40
23. 118- Robonauts, (8-5-0). Last: 18
24. 135- Penn Robotics, (10-4-0). Last: N/A
25. 1747- HBR, (4-0-2). Last: N/A
    

This was sent to the voters:

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

No offense but putting 254 (who hasn't played) against 45 (who dominated their regional) pretty much makes the opinions of your experts and therefor this survey very suspect.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Hehe, were we referred to as experts? :P I'm a newb at FRC still. And they're just that, opinions.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

OK let me put it another way, you guys are nuts! :)

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

I actually find these "polls" quite hilarious. There is no way to really judge a team based on past games, for this years game. Its not like basketball or football where the game is the same each year. Yes i understand that you can just about bank on most of the teams up there doing very well each year, but you can no way judge them against each other until they have all played this years game.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Although my list wasn't submitted this week (busy), I fail to comprehend why 1625 didn't end up at #1.

I'm glad you are entertained. Other than that, you're not saying much we haven't already heard and know. This has been repeated many times, these rankings are just for fun.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Voters only voted on teams based on the past if the team has not competed yet, and even then tehy were to consider that team's robot (if they've seen it).
Question to everyone in general: Can anyone think of better methods of doing this? I'm open to options.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

You could just have robots that have competed so far this year. Just IMO.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

45 & 2753 should be tied for 1st place after week 1.
End of story.

And there are PLENTY of teams who DID compete in week 1 to fill the rest of the 23 spots.

$0.02

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

If you want the best teams then you should use OPR...while not perfect they are better then these ranks. It will only take into consideration teams that have played so far.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

What is the OPR after week 1?

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

How can you make these ranking better? I'm glad you asked (some of these have been said before)

1. Only allow teams that have played the game on the list.
2. Use some sort of standardized data to base a portion of the ranking on. (It could be OPR or some other set of data)
3. Since this is a game played by humans, allow voters to rank based on intangibles EX: Experience, mental toughness and so on.

so i guess what i'm saying is that this list should be based on hard and soft facts of teams who have played the game. This would make the discussion much more interesting than, "these are hilarious" and "You guys are nuts."

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Just adding my two cents with everyone else that you only list teams that have played. Judging a team by last years performance really isn't logical.

Take 1024 Kil-a-bytes... last year they were on fire winning just about everything they entered... but this year they tanked. If they hadn't played last week they most likely would be in the top 10 of your list.

Stick to teams that have played and show what they can do this season.

My top picks... 1625,111,1114,& 254 in any order you like. IMO

-p :cool:

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

I completely agree that these are entirely fun for some, emphasized by the fact that teams that haven't had their mettle tested this year are within the top 5. I personally think 254/968 might be hindered by their narrower pickup, but this will not stop them from being excellent competitors

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Because 121, 45, and 2753 all did very well too. How none of those four seeded #1 and why 234 is only #17 is beyond me. 234 was very close to 45 in many respects, just without that big fan.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Hmmm, I find is laughable how 25 ended up a place ahead of us even though we beat them in NJ. :P

I like to see a ranking list like this based off the OPR data.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Numbers don't tell the full story. All you have to look as is the BCS ranking systems to know the truth in that.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

These results make no sense. I do not agree with allowing a team who hasn't played yet in the top 25. Like someone said earlier, there are plenty of teams to fill the top 25 that played in week one. Also, I don't see how two robots that got beat in the quaterfinals are still in the top 10. I guess they have the namesake of a team like Ohio State or Texas in the AP football polls :rolleyes:. Eventually, namesakes will fall, and true contenders (maybe the "namesakes" will be a contender) will rise to the top.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Your biggest issue is your sample size, set up a website where anyone can vote on their top 25 teams every week and use that as your data. Compare it against real scouting data (i.e. average points scored per match) and you should be able to get a more accurate list. If you have 40+ people voting on their top 25 (and ignore the ones that are obviously biased) you will see better data. There are major flaws in that list that just show me that its not a good representation of the top 25 at all.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

I don't think just sample size is the problem. You could have 1,000 people who didn't watch any regionals but read who one and you probably wouldn't get much better results.

Instead, if we really wanted to make this something worthwhile and cool, we could nominate say 25 people to be the voters. Each person could nominate 3 people and the top 25 people who recieved the most votes (and would be willing to vote each week), would be designated the voters. Everyone would know who they were and they would be credible voters.

PS: how is 1625 not in the top 3? I only saw Midwest, but they were clearly the best team there.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

That sounds like a good idea, basically 7 'credible' people is not a large enough sample size you need 20+. The simple fact that 1625 and 121 are not in the top 3 while 111 is, means that who ever voted this week simply got it wrong. It was pretty clear in week 1 that 1625, 45, and 121 were the best robots last week.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Everyone,
This is not the "top 25 Lunacy robots" thread, this is the "top 25 in FRC" thread, pleace try rememering that, and thus said, with all due respect, it's hard for me to see why 2753 is in that list, no rookie should be there, maybe only one who wins the Chamiponship all star.

People keep thinking that this list is supposed to somehow "predict" who wins, or rank teams by how well they perform in Lunacy - well, it's not the purpose of this list, and i can say that i had "performance", as a less important consideration than others.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Pretty sure this IS the Top 25 Lunacy robots thread. At least that's what I thought when I read it. Doesn't make much sense to arbitrarily rank FRC teams without regards to this year's game.

That being said, this list is very flawed. Don't put teams on it that haven't competed yet.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

111 did win a regional week 1, and they do have a long history behind them. I can see why people might have voted for them. I can also see why people might expect to see 1625 or 121 at the top. We can disagree about what criteria makes a team "the best". This list is by no means a scientific determination of who are "the best" 25 teams. I think we can all agree on that. It's just for fun... don't take it so seriously.

Edit: Just curious, how did you determine what "extreme bias" was?

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

I, like many others, take issue with this thread.

You say that the current game has no bearing on the rankings, yet this list is apparently based off week 1, hence the title of this thread.

Also, if this list has nothing to do with performance, then what criteria is being used? The Championship Chairman's Award is given to the "best" team, but many of those teams are not frequent competitors on Einstein or in regional finals. Which definition of "best" are you using? The definition applying only to robot performance, or the one applying to the team's impact on FIRST as a whole?

Assuming that you are using the former definition, are the people submitting these lists from various regions? People tend to always think that their region is better, due to both familiarity with the teams in question, as well as general regional pride (a quick example--when watching college sports, I always root for Big East in nonconference games). Since I'm from NJ and was at that regional, I'd probably tend to rank teams like 2753 higher than other teams from other week 1 regionals because I watched them perform firsthand.

I know you said that this list was "just for fun," but you can't expect people not to question the integrity of the list. We don't expect anybody to be all-knowing, but we'd at least like to see some fact-based evidence for the placement of the teams on the list.

Also, a side note, you may want to reconsider your thoughts on 2753. They are a rookie to FRC, but not to FIRST. They won the FTC championships last year. There is nothing in your explanation of this list indicating that rankings are solely based on FRC involvement.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Everyone,
These replies are all AMAZING! The website idea sounds like an awesome way to get a better polling base. I'm still undecided about ranking teams that haven't played yet, but it sounds like most people think it's a bad idea. I'm all for developing a way to factor OPR into these rankings. I'll sleep on thes ideas tonight. Thanks again. (keep 'em comin'!)

The voter unwarrantedly put their team in the #1 spot and failed to list teams that should've been on their list, like 71, 1625, 121, 111, 234, 45, 2753, etc. I figured it was best to scrap the list completely.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

I have seen 2753, and they are like 1114 was last year. Just incredible to see, it seems they can do no wrong. Robot, drivers, strategy - all top notch.

Don

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

from the looks of most of these replies, almost containing votes in some way or other, your top 5 should look like this 1625(woot), 45, 121, 2753, 234, in no particular order.

thanks for all the support for 1625

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Jonathan, if that's the way you feel, contact Josh and submit a list!

That goes for everyone who doesn't like this ranking. SUBMIT A LIST if you don't like the ranking!

Every time a list like this comes out, you guys say the same thing. "So and so should be higher." "This list is messed up." Et cetera. Et cetera. Nobody submits a list! Nobody takes action to change the lists! All you guys do is complain, or that's what it seems like. So submit a list.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Tell me when and where to submit a list and I will. As far as I know there was no open thread asking for people to submit their lists. If someone makes an open invitation for people to submit lists more people will.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

In his first ever thread, it was asked that people PM the OP if they wanted to be included in voting. Feel free to PM joshsmithers with a simple "I would like to vote next time"

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

You can read the first post in this thread, it includes the exact directions that were given to each of the voters, saying each one decides his factors for considerations.

Yes, the people are from various regions, i for one, am from Israel, and have no preference of any US team, and yet my list includes no Israeli teams, although there is at least one who deserves it.

That is all based on personal opinion. My opinion is that team 71 is the best team in FIRST, and that's why they are my number one. Other people may rank 1625, as they won a regional and it's CA. Obviously, our definitions of 'best teams' are different and that's the whole point of this thread - to get the image of the average FIRSTer. If you have any problem with the rankings as a whole you are more than welcome to submit your own list when week 2 ends. I am just defending the whole idea of this list, not it's rankings.

I am not involved at all with FTC and considering the list based on FRC only. The youngest team in mu list is 2056 - and even with them i had a difficult time deciding if they are 'old' enough to be there. Their many regional wins gave them this placement. If 2753 win another regional this week, or even perform nearly as well as they did in NJ, expect them to be in the top 5 teams.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the gearbox...Teams that don't field a robot in a match will throw off the statistics. There should be some way to adjust for that. In Chicago many alliances went out with only one or two robots on Friday. Even if you are one of the teams at the top of the list, the records get skewed by these matches.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

Five of the 25 teams listed will be at the Boilermaker Regional. Are there any other regionals that are as stacked?
Bear in mind these rankings are based off one week's worth of play. There are many, many teams who won't even be visible for another couple weeks. Also, this is in chit-chat. An area of CD meant for fun, off-topic conversations. I'm all about improving the process, but there's no need to make this personal.

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

This thread is getting far too much attention considering what it is.

If people are actually getting bent out of shape out of some list made by some random people who may or may not have any clue about what they're talking about, don't you need something better to do with your life?

This is a popularity contest. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that matters is how you do out on the field and your position on this list will have no bearing on your performance on the field. I know that 254 being voted #1 this week will not make our robot any better than it always has been when we play next week. Nor will it make any robot who's not listed, or not highly listed any less good than it actually is.

If it really does bother you that much, then:

a) don't pay attention
b) submit your votes to create a larger sample size
c) work harder so that your team does better and more people vote for you.

-$0.02

Re: Top 25: Week 1
 

As far as voters go, here's my opinion: the more, the merrier. PM me! (And thanks to those that have...) For the critics of this poll: if you want it to be better, do something about it. I would LOVE to submit my own poll, to help out those teams on the list that deserve a higher ranking, but that's completely unfair to the other voters.

I'm still trying to figure out how to factor in OPR.... The problem with doing that is then this Ranking is based more upon how the teams so on the field. When I first envisioned this ranking, I wanted it to reflect the best teams in FRC, not necessarily the match-winners, but also the award winners.

It turns out that was a stupid idea. This ranking is gonna need to be based on one thing: winning. So, if anyone has any ideas to make this less subjective...

One idea I had: simply multiply the number of votes a team gets by that team's win percentage.

Maybe offer "bonus points" to teams that win regionals, or are finalists? The way this would work is you would give, say, 111 "10 points*number of people that vote."

I'll keep thinking..... Next ranking won't be til after week 3. (Sorry guys).