Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Ross
Oops, I forgot that a team's rating came from multiple regionals.
Midwest and Peachtree had a 4th champion as well (1850 and 1848)
|
My team-data algorithm ignores teams after 1705 for now, because it was initially made just to do year-to-year comparisons, and there were no teams after 1705 in 2005. So anything involving team seeding performance only uses early teams.
Anyway, I did the award-count ranking, and the result kinda surprised me. 1305 is the king of the awards from 2005-2007, with 15.
Anyway, here's the list of the top 10 award winners (THAT I HAVE DATA FOR, the archived 2005 data from FIRST is spotty*) from 2005-2007:
Code:
1305 15
48 13
111 13
375 13
494 13
1114 13
118 12
188 12
71 11
103 11
1305's achievements are as follows:
2 x 2005 Regional Winner #2
2 x 2005 Regional Engineering Inspiration Award
2 x 2005 Motorola Quality Award
1 x 2005 Underwriters Laboratory Industrial Safety Award
2 x 2006 Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Entrepreneurship Award
1 x 2006 Regional Finalist #1
1 x 2006 Regional Engineering Inspiration Award
1 x 2007 Website award
1 x 2007 Regional Finalist #1
1 x 2007 Regional Finalist #2
1 x 2007 Regional Chairman's Award
*An example of the spottiness: I have 961 awards for 2006, 1082 for 2007, and just 392 for 2005. I should probably ignore 2005 because it completely ignores most teams that played in the first 2 weeks of march, where almost 100% of those regionals are missing award lists. If I ignore 2005, then the top awards-given list looks like:
Code:
111 11
375 11
494 11
234 10
1114 10
103 9
114 9
188 9
469 9
1714 9
1305 drops to a still-impressive 21st since they lose their very plentiful 2005 season.
Here are 111's accomplishments in 2006 and 2007:
2 x 2006 Innovation in Control Award
1 x 2006 Regional Winner #1
1 x 2006 Regional Winner #2
1 x 2006 Regional Chairman's Award
2 x 2007 General Motors Industrial Design Award
1 x 2007 Motorola Quality Award
2 x 2007 Regional Finalist #2
1 x 2007 Regional Winner #1
Also attached is the updated awards-vs-performance rankings now using 2005 and 2006 data. I like how regional winners #1, #2, and #3 just edge out regional finalists #1, #2, and #3 in seeding on average. When you consider that most of the data is from 2006 and 2007 where the serpentine draft is in use and assume that the higher-seeded alliance tends to win (hmmm... this gives me an idea), you would think that the #3 pick for the winner would tend to be a lower-seeded team than the #3 pick for the finalists.