[quote=1902_Battery_SGT;853768]
Quote:
Originally Posted by etgrant69
Yes, the data is taken from the official FIRST data (linked to by the years) and then averaged by the number of years attending.
(2005+2006+2007+2008+2009)/Years[/Q
instead of just adding up all the ranks and dividing by the number of years, would it not be more 'accurate' if the lowest and highest rankings where thrown out? That way you could have a more accurate average?
|
I doubt this will look right here but here is the revised list based on Scott's suggestion. As you can see it does change the standings with one notable exception. 1251 is still #1.
Team 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Years Avg
1251 16 4 4 3 8
1592 7 9 8 3 8
233 5 2 18 3 8.333333333
79 8 15 6 3 9.666666667
179 13 11 13 3 12.33333333
180 8 23 8 3 13
1649 18 9 13 3 13.33333333
801 23 6 15 3 14.66666667
1341 19 16 15 3 16.66666667
1557 35 12 11 3 19.33333333
1345 10 33 2 21.5
1902 20 24 2 22
1523 32 27 10 3 23
1065 32 14 2 23
108 21 25 26 3 24
386 17 14 44 3 25
744 38 18 2 28
1144 28 28 2 28
945 14 41 30 3 28.33333333
86 21 39 2 30
168 34 35 23 3 30.66666667
408 31 31 2 31
312 37 28 2 32.5
665 47 37 17 3 33.66666667
1543 44 14 43 3 33.66666667
342 40 30 2 35
1029 16 41 49 3 35.33333333
1390 15 43 48 3 35.33333333
21 29 39 47 3 38.33333333
1875 36 46 2 41