A low team number means absolutely NOTHING when it comes to predicting the team's performance in qualification rounds.
Now that I've got your attention, allow me to explain. I was inspired by discussion in this thread
"Random" match Schedules discussing the apparent lack of randomness in assigning alliances for qualifying matches. It was stated that FIRST intentionally schedules matches so that alliances have roughly equal seniority, based on the assumption (presumably) that this will lead to a more balanced match.
That didn't seem fair to me....
So I downloaded the results from the first weekend's competitions, and dropped them into excel. Based on these 270 data points there is abolutely NO relationship between team number and seeding. The teams numbered below 300 had an average seed of 26, while teams numbered above 2000 had an average seed of 27.8. Hardly an advantage (although, admittedly I didn't calculate exactly how much difference would be required to be statistically significant here). Running a correlation coefficient over the whole data set shows a .007 coefficient of correlation between team number and seeding... and in some regionals the coefficient is negative (but also insignficant.)
This leads me to three possible hypothesis:
1)
We are all mistaken about the advantage that senior teams have. Hey, I've done it... you've done it... and now it is alleged that FIRST is doing it. We're looking at a few very successful veteran teams and saying "wow... watch out for the teams with low numbers" and completely forgetting that for every veteran out there rocking the rack that there is another one struggling with their design, and a rookie team that is doing even better.
2)
Veteran teams do have an advantage, but something is being done to prevent that advantage from helping them to win matches. It is possible that a scheduling system that pits veterans against veterans removes the legitimate advantage that comes from years of hard work and development.
3)
My statistical analysis is incorrect or incomplete. I'm always willing to admit the possibility that I might be wrong. I challenge anyone, however, to prove that veteran teams have done signficantly better in qualification matches than newer teams. Math, here, please people... not anecdotes. We humans are really good at seeing relationships that don't really exist.
I'm open to suggestions, and to someone willing to examine finals matches and outcomes to see if veteran teams have any statistical advantage on Saturday afternoon... or to someone who can find some better predictor of success (perhaps previous year's rankings can be a reliable indicator) but until then.... I say that veteran teams have no advantage when it comes to winning matches and that a scheduling system that (allegedly) uses team numbers as a factor is not only unjustified, but
unscientific.
Jason
P.S. Yes, veteran teams (my gosh... we're one now, I think...) have many advantages (and challenges) that junior teams might not have... but not ones that significantly affect the outcomes of qualifying matches.