Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Trying to gauge performance based on win/loss records (or banners or anything else) is next to useless in FIRST. Even supposing that teams are ranked after qualification rounds according to their individual performance, the alliance selection process will mean that weaker teams will be "winners" over better performing teams.

I think the question to ask is "Which regional will have the most awesome/best performing robots?"

The idea of these regionals being more or less competitive depends entirely on which teams you are allied with.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

A side note: I think it would be much easier (and more accurate!) to predict the outcome of regionals appearing later in the schedule (wk 4,5,6) based on the outcomes of earlier regionals, and correlating the results of known teams, and the strengths of similar teams.

(Ie. 148/217 had identical robots in 2010. Predicting 148's future success based on 217's past success is a fairly valid comparison.)

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

494/70 have identical robots and compete at identical events and they have drastically different records. Drive team has a huge impact on performance.

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

I am aware of this fact Andrew, was merely making the point that if there is a dominant robot belonging to a set of identical robots, the likelihood of the other robots in the set ALSO being dominating is significantly increased.

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Looking at the factors that could possibly rank/determine regional performance... (just for fun :) & in NO particular order)

1. Regional Rank (especially 1-10)
It often takes some skill/strategy to get to the top, I think teams that are consistently there get the most weight... a team that is "chance carried" there by alliance partners will not get as much weight as those that make it there on their own consistently.

2. Robot Blue Banners (Regional Champion & Finalist)
Winning says a fair amount. Even if you are a third pick, you in theory learn a thing or two from your alliance partners.

3. Selection Order
I would give more weight to the teams selected 2nd or 3rd (etc) than the teams actually ranked in 2nd or 3rd... This is thrown off a bit by teams that end up in the top 10 that don't have good alliance selection lists, but often the top 8 selected teams are fairly predictable with a good list.

4. Stability
More weight should be given to recent years than past years. Plenty of teams lose critical mentors, sponsors, etc and can "fall" in the ranks due to lack of structure or support. I think this is kind of what the BBQ/SAUCE does. You could take it a step further and say the last 3 years get highest weight, up to six years next, all past next...?

5. Win-Loss Record
This is probably the lowest of my weights, but there is something to teams that "know how to win". But then again its very heavily dependent on your partners & opponents, so its not as much of a predictor. And 2010 week 1 would have to be thrown out of this since winning didnt really "matter" to all teams. But it still could be a criteria

6. Rookie Startup
This is probably the hardest to figure into the numbers, but you can sometimes tell the caliber of the Rookie team by where it came from... the FRC team that is mentoring it, or the "family tree" if you will. 1511 stood a pretty good chance because it had 7 years of FIRST family tree driving it... plus was in a region with teams like 340, 191 & 1126 and could learn from them (just as an example :)). But in general, it would probably be easiest to just omit rookies from the factoring.

I'm not exactly sure how to gather all of this data, or even exactly how to rank all of these against eachother, but I would bet with all of these metrics we could come "closer" to predicting

I didn't factor Chairmans or EI in, as I think the "awards" are a whole different "game", and that there is much less of a correlation between winning CA/EI and winning the robot part of the competition :) So in that case I sort of disagree with the BBQ/SAUCE method.

Ehh just some ideas to throw on the pile :)

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Considering 2056 has never lost a regional Greater Tornot Regional West will probably be the hardest. however they have always been with 1114 during this compeltitiona nd 1114 is in the EAsty regioankl this year. They are together in The Waterloo regional though. :eek:

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

So I hear, San Diego is pretty tough. Eh...

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Did I hear the Michigan State Championship? Winwin

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Yes you did, MSC all the way

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

*presses like button*

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

I second that.

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Yeah, you heard that it isn't being counted, simply due to being a qualify-for event. Those are inherently tougher than any normal regional. We went over that a while ago...

Need proof? Einstein, IRI, and to some extent the Championship divisions. Oh, and MSC itself. ;)

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Well, Troy district goes neck-and-neck with the top regionals in the country, and Kettering district is head and shoulders above everything else.. Or does having to be from Michigan count district competitions as "qualified" events? :P

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

i think thats what they are saying ;)

Re: toughest regional in 2011?
 

Nah, they're open other than the MI restriction (which, personally, I think should be lifted in the event of extra spots at an event and everybody already being signed up for two). Districts count; MSC doesn't.