Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle
The team in question (there was only one #4 regional winner) was team 1216, who came 20/46 (0.43) at one regional (presumably the one they went #4 regional winner at) and 34/34 at another (1.0). So their math ends up being an average placing of 0.71, which is why the regional winner #4 is so low. Since there is only one sample point, it is artifically low and I probably shouldn't have included it in the list.
All the other awards except for regional finalist #4 have at least 24 data points, and in the case of the judges award, as many as 52.
Being that I'm bored now, I'm going to update it to include 2005 and 2006, then I'll see about doing some year-to-year relationships.
|
Oops, I forgot that a team's rating came from multiple regionals.
Midwest and Peachtree had a 4th champion as well (1850 and 1848)