I did this last year. I found that older teams DID have an advantage in terms of scoring, if not seeding. This was based on all the week 1 and week 2 regionals in 2006.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...1&d=1142127063 - Average alliance team number versus score
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...4&d=1142139985 - Average alliance age in years versus score
And
Here's the thread, with many more charts and things.
Quote:
|
I remember seeing a thread a while back that compared '05 and '06 success at nationals. There may be some relevant data in the graphs in that thread if anyone remembers what thread I am referring to.
|
I think that was me as well. I downloaded the seed results of a bunch of teams from a bunch of regionals. I normalized them so that they were between 0 and 1, and the plotted the results. A point at (x,y) means that in 2005 a team got ranking x, and in 2006 they got ranking y. This graph shows that there is little year-to-year correlation for performance. Someone who does awful one year can get as high as the top 10% in the next year. Likewise, someone who wins regionals one year can go to the bottom 10% the next year. The powerhouse teams that win consistently from year to year aren't as widespread as people think.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...4&d=1162868157