Another CG Book, so sorry... (For the truncated version, just read between the lines, look at paragraphs 5~8). And do your own search).
Compiling results and doing some math / team comparisons...I just noticed something quite unique...That must affect comparisons of Regionals / Teams /Results / And Q Point Averages / OPR's / etc. across the board this year, and it can be either good or bad...Depending on your team's specific situation.
Under the new format this year (everything up until the Final 3 matches is all Points Avg. Based, then best 2/3). Many Regionals conducted so far have had (between 8 and 12 Q Matches per team
after comparing ranking sheets), so Q Point Avg's. are better or worse for each team depending of course, on how they personally performed individually, and amongst their own competition field only.
We had 12 Q Matches, so comparing the field from this Regional to another (this year), cannot actually reliably be done w/ any real certainty, if paying strict attention to the Q Avg. Scores (we completed 20% more Q Matches than some others having 10, much higher for those having only 8 -33% higher).
There are Regionals w/ even less. Ck. Dallas (Week 1), rankings for comparison. (Though they had a weather related issue on Friday as I remember, so did they just truncate & drop the last set of Q Matches Saturday morning? It appears so looking at the Q Schedule results, but they only completed 10 each).
_____________________________
Then ck. Virgina (Week 4 -8 Q Matches), and AZ E. Phx (Week 4 -12Q). 1/3rd or 33% more Q matches? (That's 33% more chances to shine / or, to screw up!) So, it all does not necessarily come out in the wash. (The Playoff Point Avg's. can be compared w/ fair certainty). There are fewer playoff matches though 7~8 max. (2+3+2~3) vs. 9 possible.
Q Point Avg. disparity is very evident between Regional/District competitions, and not all is due to the actual robots/teams building/operating them (it's a basic math issue also). It was before, now I know exactly why.
Go look;
http://frc-events.usfirst.org/ Click on a few regionals, and click Rankings, look @ the rt column for total Q Matches played.
Anyone know if later published OPR results actually compensates in any way for that wide disparity? (If that is possible....How exactly is it done?)
_________________________
I realize comparisons across the board, are somewhat foolish in a way (as "competitions are what they are," just a snapshot in time & place & circumstances...w/ real life rewarded accomplishments or bloody toe-stubs attached,...(Nobody possibly fails if they actually play!). But, we all do them (Comparisons). Especially in FIRST!
Personally it helped our team a lil' bit, as we scored our highest Q Match score in Q79 our 12th (Q High of 155), and 76 in our 11th (1 Way up above & 1 Below our final avg.). There is enough disparity between Avg. Q Scores, and actual Playoff Scores, as is when you can somewhat attempt to design/pick your own alliance (within reason, LOL).
Maybe it has always been like this, and I just never noticed it? (But, the change from Win/Loss/Tie format, to Q Avg's. format for seeding, certainly changes things when comparing 1 competitors regional/district rankings results, to anothers, FRC wide).