View Single Post
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-06-2007, 11:04
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,608
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: [FVC]: Analysis Shows Improvement Possible in Ranking System

My point was not saying that it would work in FRC, but to merely reference the results of non-random schedules in FRC. After the Week 1 regionals, the problem with facing the same team every match was fixed (although high rates of repeat match-ups still occurred), the other non-random features still existed. In short, the algorithm sorted teams by age and grouped them to (theoretically) create more competitive matches. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=55622
Once again, the FIRST community reacted with disgust to the non-random features, and the inability to play against a wide variety of different opponents. While I recognize you aren't doing the "social experimenting" of organizing teams by age, you are still lowering the amount of different teams each participant interacts with. In an average Vex tournament, each team would only get to interact with either 3 or 6 other teams during the entire qualification rounds with your system. With the current system, they could get 3x that number of different opponents.
My general point about defense is that the defender's "ranking" within the group would vary depending on their opponents. They cannot negate more points than the opponent can score, and therefor cannot have a higher ranking than the combined rankings of their opponents. Thus, they change each and every match, and a ranking assigned for the entire tournament for them would not be accurate. (Regardless of whether or not defense should be played, at this time, we have to assume it will be).
Everyone has a problem with "false" captains ranking in the Top 8, but I don't believe that this is the solution. Even if it creates more accurate rankings (which I debate the accuracy of due to defensive variables), you sacrifice too much in interaction with other teams to make it worth it. The most reliable way, under any format (and your data shows this too) to increase the accuracy of the rankings is to play more matches. I think our efforts would be better focused on how to make competitions more streamlined and quicker running in order to have more qualification matches. I assume you attended the Farmville competition, given your location in Virginia and relationship with Blake, where there were only three qualification matches for each team. Most other competitions got more than this, causing more accurate results.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.
Reply With Quote