Chief Delphi - 2009 Division Algorithm

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Championship Event (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - 2009 Division Algorithm (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76632)

AdamHeard

09-04-2009 15:29

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence (Post 848080)

I like how 1114, 2056 and 1503 are in the same division.

I like it only because it's not my division :D

R.C.	09-04-2009 15:58

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 848184)

I like it only because it's not my division :D

Agreed :yikes:

Gaurav27

09-04-2009 20:48

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackG (Post 848031)

On a hunch, I added together the team numbers from each division to see if there was some pattern. Perhaps the total team numbers might be the same for all divisions?

Team No. Total
Archimedes: 116639
Curie: 110256
Newton: 106945
Galileo: 103721

Apparently, there seems to be no pattern. :(

I did something similar; an average of the team numbers in each division.

Team No. Avg.
Archimedes: 1279.42
Curie: 1074.90
Newton: 1062.10
Galileo: 1231.96

I agree there's no pattern here. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence (Post 848080)

I like how 1114, 2056 and 1503 are in the same division.

Go Canada! Sorry for the bias. :p

Nick Lawrence

09-04-2009 21:21

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Bias for the win.

TKM.368

10-04-2009 17:00

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Decided to see if it had anything to do with where teams originated from.

Code:

Ori Arc Cur Gal New Tot

AL    0   1   0   0   1

AR    0   0   0   1   1

AZ    2   3   1   2   8

BRA   0   0   1   0   1

CA    9   8   7  10  34

CAN   5   4   0   3  12

CO    0   0   1   2   3

CT    3   3   4   5  15

DE    0   0   0   1   1

FL    7   1   4   3  15

GA    4   1   1   2   8

HI    0   1   2   1   4

IA    0   0   1   0   1

ID    0   1   0   1   2

IL    1   1   3   1   6

IN    2   2   4   3  11

ISR   0   1   2   2   5

KS    0   1   1   0   2

KY    0   0   0   1   1

LA    0   1   0   0   1

MA    3   3   0   3   9

MD    0   1   1   4   6

MEX   0   0   0   1   1

MI    9  16   9   9  43

MN    3   1   0   1   5

MO    4   2   0   3   9

MS    1   2   0   1   4

NC    1   0   2   0   3

NH    1   2   3   1   7

NJ    5   4   9   2  20

NV    1   1   1   0   3

NY    3   8   8   9  28

OH    3   1   2   1   7

OK    3   0   2   2   7

OR    1   2   3   0   6

PA    6   1   2   0   9

PHI   0   1   0   0   1

PR    0   1   1   0   2

RI    0   0   0   2   2

SC    1   2   1   0   4

TN    0   0   1   0   1

TX    5   3   5   1  14

VA    0   2   3   6  11

WA    2   1   2   1   6

WI    2   3   0   3   8

WV    0   1   0   0   1

Tot  87  87  87  88 349

Guess not...

Alex Golec

10-04-2009 18:16

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

If I may suggest one other factor, for your entertainment:

Perhaps it is by time of registration, in a 1-2-3-4 fashion?

I say this because one fateful day, back in whenever (2005-2007ish), the team list for the championship was unsorted and showed the order of signing up... teams like 47, 16, 190 were up top.

Anyways, that data is (as far as I know) not viewable.

-Alex "twocent" Golec

XXShadowXX

10-04-2009 19:11

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

I'm gonna say random. So i can get sleep tonight.

Nawaid Ladak

10-04-2009 23:58

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Added totals of each teams Lat/Long Location? in a serpentine order?

ScottOliveira

11-04-2009 00:01

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 848852)

Added totals of each teams Lat/Long Location? in a serpentine order?

Have fun calculating that....

JackG

11-04-2009 22:12

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex469 (Post 848740)

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

Mike Schreiber

13-04-2009 20:57

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackG (Post 849326)

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

Not necessarily, I know for a fact we were already registered for Atlanta before we qualified, same with 217 and 33 and I'm sure there were many others.

Alex Golec

13-04-2009 21:14

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackG (Post 849326)

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

While there were 18 teams that qualified that day, I don't know how many of them accepted the invitation. In addition, there were another (up to) 12 qualifiers at the two Minnesota events that could skew this, along with the opening of the wait list if there were more spots available at that time.

I suppose we'll never truly find out.

Jared Russell

14-04-2009 07:37

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex469 (Post 848740)

Checked it based on the last handful of teams (whose registration order we know from watching the CMP "who's going" page on the FIRST site). No (simple) pattern to be found.

The Lucas

15-04-2009 01:23

Re: 2009 Division Algorithm

1 Attachment(s)

I know I said it was "clumpy" (6 teams in a row) but I did some analysis and the 6 in a row should happen ~1/3 of the time in random (with 348 teams). Other than the 6 in a row it fits well to expected (spreadsheet attached). I am going to say it was simply random.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page