Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

So out of a Twitter challenge, I went through the data from the Bayou Regional that 2815 and 1398 attended and adjusted it to reflect the five-point win bonus that will come into effect in Week 2 after Team Update 16.

The results are significant; only five of the 38 teams held the same position afterward. (Notably, 1912 retained its top seed.)

I've ignored a few things in my calculations:
-Red cards are ignored, as I don't have a good way to tell who had one when.
-2920, as you may have heard, did not pass inspection until just before their final qualification match. As that match was a 0-0 tie, the new rule addressing their situation would've resulted in no points of any sort. Net result had I accounted for it: 38th of 38.
-Ball penetration penalties, which played no small part in a lot of those 0-0 ties, are ignored simply because there's no way to divorce them from the gameplay that happened at Bayou.

The Google Docs spreadsheet is located at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...VTc Gc&hl=en; I welcome you to poke through the data yourself or crunch numbers for one of the other Week 1 events to draw your own conclusions.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

Not a public doc -- requested access though.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

Try this:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...pg&output=html

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

But teams might have played differently with the extra 5 point bonus, so I'm not sure the scores can be compared.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

You can't completely do so; there's too much different from Week 1 to Week 2 to do it purely in math. It's all a very rough approximation of the effects.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

Thank you Billfred for following through with the challenge - I, too was curious myself :)

The results are pretty staggering. Would have been nice to incorporate Red Cards - but consider it difficult and moot anyways because of the new update.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

I just added BAE into a different tab. Feel free to "do the math".

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

I've gone ahead and re-done the numbers for NJ. It's a rough estimate like the BAE and Bayou Regionals. There are a couple real big moves in there.

The excel file is here, and it is formatted a bit differently. If anyone wants to convert it into the google spreadsheet format, feel free.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

Thanks for the data, but I think you made an error. They did not get rid of the coopertition bonus. They merely added points for a winning alliance. You need to add the coopertition bonus back into the final ranking.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

My mistake on the reading of the team update.

Here's an adjustment...

There are still quite a few big moves in there, and a 2 team turnover for alliance selection.

-Jeff

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

I've gone ahead and done KC, and there are certainly some nasty jumps in there. rank changes range anywhere from +/-1 to +/-15. My own team dropped 4 spots.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am5tgDmeNTzGdE1jVFNOVUxjQnB6dmFNUGdpQW5WZ FE&hl=en

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

One of our students calculated the change for us and 2 rookie teams that were at the same competition with us that we have been helping and noticed that we would have moved up 5 slots. one of our rookie teams down 1 slot and the other up 9 slots. That was at the Kettering District event.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

From my understanding of TU-16 the winning team no longer gets double the unpenalized score of the losing team, so wouldn't you have to subtract double the Coopertition bonus out of their adjusted score?

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

Team Update 16 added 5 points to 9.3.4. It did not delete 9.3.5.

Re: Team Update 16 applied to 2010 regional data
 

All...

I noticed this with atleast the NJ regional do not know about the others, however you cannot take the Seeding Score as is from FIRST....

FIRST included the Elimination matches for some reason in the seeding score section, because I looked at our seeding score and you need to eliminate teams from elimination matches or adjust their seeding score for true calculations.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but from the points I added up this is what I gathered.

-ks