Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

I'm wondering, do WC's count less in 2013 (looking at the Elimination Points Table on the 13 Year History Result)?

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

Thanks Jim.
The one thing that stood out for me on the graph is how so many teams average around the 80% mark overall. I would have to say, that on average we are all doing well and about the same.

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

James, Thanks, good catch. It turns out I made a mistake and neglected to give any of the teams credit for Einstein this year :o . I reviewed the whole thing and reposted. Serves me right for trying to do this on a plane.

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

I've become a huge fan of all of your stats over the years. I keep gravitating towards your spreadsheets whenever I'm doing any research of my own. Just today, I noticed the 2013 tab of the newest spreadsheet seems to have a team and location mismatch. I noticed this first when I saw 1718 is next to Goleta, CA. I thought it might be an Off by One error, but there are some other funky things going on here...

While I have you here, I presume you are responsible for this?

As I mentioned over here, I was mulling over what this would look like with MAR, PNW, NEF and Canada added to it. If I end up doing it, i'd rather not start from scratch. Heck, I might even be able to snag nearly everything I need from something the Great Zondag made ;)

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

I've gotten most of the data I needed for my side projects. Do you plan on adding PNE and NE to your region data spreads this year?

Can't wait for the 2014 Championship History update!

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results
 

Navid,
I will scritinize this a little more and fix any errors when I get a chance. I did most of it in an airport, so it may need some additional review :)

Yes, I was planning to add analyses for PNW, NEF, Canada, Minnesota and a few other areas to this summary. I am a math guy and I like numeric proof over opinion. I did that analysis earlier to justify to some people that the District system helps to make teams better. It is not the only way, but it is effective. The main thing that makes teams better is playing (duh). In some regions like Ontario, we see a similar phenomenon that we see here: the culture has shifted so that many/most teams play multiple times each year and as a result, the average capability of the region increases. Districts make it cheaper, but geography is still one of the main factors. If you can get a lot of events close to lots of teams, then the region will improve compared to others which are more diffuse.

The FRC appears to finally be "over the hump" on number of plays per year.
2014 is the first year in FRC history where less than 50% only played one event.

In 2014, 2696 teams have played events according to the FRC database.

Events Played: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+

Percentage: 47%, 35%, 13%, 4%, 2%

Num of Teams: 1254, 945, 350, 106, 41

26% of the FRC is now in District Systems. (702/2696)