Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesBrown
Interesting, I never realized this information was available.
For the Citrus Dad, if you notice the Algorithm rtfdnow linked to is from 2008. 2007 attempted to sort teams so the best teams would play against each other, rather than only with each other. They essentially proke the teams into 3 tiers by team age (team number) and each alliance was made up of one team per tier. Since Average team performance tends to be higher in older teams, this lead to high performing, young teams seeding well ahead of older teams with similar performing robots. This was widely seen as a disaster by just about everyone.
If memory serves FIRST actually solicited algorithm suggestions during/after the 2007 season.
If you have a good solution to the issue then write it up, and submit it to first. I am sure they would be willing to listen.
I don't think anyone thinks the algorithm is perfect, but the luck of match schedules is part of the game.
|
The ranking should be done by an actual performance measure such as district points equivalent or OPR. (We'd probably use the previous year as a reasonable proxy.) Team number isn't a particularly good metric these days.
I have an idea of how to structure this arrangement but will wait until after Champs to write it up. The problem with "luck of match schedules" is that it is arbitrary, and teams are not viewing it as unfair. I'm not sure why it should be considered "part of the game"--it's not an obvious consideration. And as I pointed out "random" doesn't equal "fair" over such a small number of opportunities. The CVR and SVR situations are not uncommon in the large regionals. I suspect that the 2007 schedule was implemented incorrectly.