Quote:
Originally Posted by tindleroot
This one is going to have to be a compromise in some way. If we count inter-district plays for points, then averages could be reduced since teams are ineligible for the legacy awards at those events.If we don't count them, then inter-district teams will have a higher average than most since they will have a practice event that doesn't count for points (just like FRC). I really want to lean towards counting those teams for points at all events, but something has to be put in place if this happens in order to account for awards.
|
This has been a big point of discussion this season, and I'll link my post that starts the discussion in the main thread.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=282
I'm curious as to why you think teams should necessarily get credit for inter-district events. As you said, their 'point pool' is significantly limited, compared to teams in that district. Would you draft a team who is going to be handicapped like that? I don't think I would.
This might be fixed, like you said, by an overhaul of the district points system.
Another discussion I would like to have, since this has now come up, is the points system for scoring districts. Some teams, like 68, go to 3 or more districts. Food for thought:
Team A is a decent team, places about 15th and goes out in quarters in their events. They're a community driven team, though, and are expected to win CA each year. Team A intends to go to 3 district events this year.
Team B is from the town over, and is about as good on the field as Team A. It's well organized and makes a big difference for raising rookies in the state. As such, they are expected to win EI this year. Team B is scheduled to go to district events.
Team C is from across the state, and also is middle of the pack on the field. However, they put a lot of pride in their robot, and are expected to get a robot award at each competition. They will attend 2 district events.
Their FF points look as follows:
Team A:
((<Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score>)x3 + 42 (Chairman's)) / 3
= <Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score> + 14
Team B:
((<Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score>)x2 + 36 (Engineering Inspiration)) / 2
= <Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score> + 18
Team C:
((<Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score>)x2 + 15(Robot)) / 2
= <Qualification Score> + <Seeding Score> + <Playoff Score> + 15
It doesn't make sense to me that Team B gets more points than Team A in this situation, strictly as a result of going to one less event. Team C was provided for reference, as it does take a lot of effort, and a little luck, to get two robot awards in a year.
I propose this change to the district points system:
Field performance is normalized independently of Award points. It can be normalized to one or 2 or however many events, but it should be constant across teams.
Awards are normalized to 2 events. So, in this case, Team A would be awarded 21 points for awards, over Team B and Team C.
This can be rephrased or reinterpreted through discussion. One option to implement this is to only consider awards acquired within their district, and normalized across those events. The more I think about it, the more I like it.