[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/30/99 7:33 PM MST


In Reply to: agree w/ that posted by colleen on 8/30/99 7:13 PM MST:



I know that I am going to lose a lot of folks here, but let me give it a shot anyway.

I think that there is a wide spead feeling that defensive teams did not get enough credit in the seeding matches given the current qualifying point scoring system.

So...

I propose a system where high scoring teams and tough defensive teams have a more level playing field.

So here goes:

Let's suppose that a teams qualifying points were comprised of 2 parts,

The first part would be your team's (or alliance's) score whether or not your alliance won or not

The second part would be a winning bonus based on either how statistically 'outstanding' your offense or your defense was that won the match.

Perhaps this bonus could be calculated as follows:

Teams would get a bonus equal to the average score scored in the seeding matches multiplied by:

1
+ the number of standard deviations your score was above the average score
(no negative bonuses so enter 0 if you scored below the average)
+ the number of standard deviations your opponent's score was below the average score
(no negative bonuses so enter 0 if your opponent beat the average)

This formula would give high scoring teams lots of bonus points and also give great defensive teams lots of points.

An example (good offense):

Suppose after round 1 the average score is 100 points and the standard deviation (look it up if you don't know what it is) for the scores is 33.3 points.

A team that wins a match 200 to 199 would get

200

+100 (the average score) X
(1
+3 (the number of standard deviations 200 is above the 100)
+0) (their opponent scored more than the average so they get a 0 for their defense)
-------
600 points - not bad


Another example (good defense):

same average and standard deviation as above

A team that wins a match 20 to 0 would get

20

+100 X

(1
+0 (they failed to beat the average score)
+3) (they held their opponents to a score 3 standard deviations below the average)
------
420 points - pretty good compared to last year's score of 60 points

A final example (good offense and defense):

same average and standard deviation as above

A team that wins a match 166 to 34 would get

166

+100 X

(1
+2 (winning score is 2 standard deviations above the average)
+2) (they held their opponents to a score 2 standard deviations below the average)
-------

666 (a wicked score by all accounts)


Complex: yes, but not beyond the typical FIRST team to deal with

Fair: I guess that it is more fair than the current system because it rewards good offense and good defense (though offense still has an edge but not as big of one)

I think that it would make teams more conscience of where their team is scoring compared to the average. I think that that is a better measure.

Thoughts?

Joe J.