|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Galileo standings
i used 1251 power system to get the ranking. The number next to the team number is where they ranked out of everyone. This will help everyones scouting but I feel if you use this system as your only way of scouting you need to learn more about how the system works.
1. 231 2 2. 56 8 3. 254 9 4. 1492 10 5. 1024 11 6. 1305 12 7. 126 20 8. 237 22 9. 356 23 10. 68 25 11. 103 28 12. 801 30 13. 1515 32 14. 25 40 15. 281 45 16. 1648 61 17. 75 63 18. 358 80 19. 272 89 20. 16 91 21. 64 94 22. 1089 106 23. 38 107 24. 1626 130 25. 1280 145 26. 1596 147 27. 178 148 28. 945 152 29. 316 154 30. 224 159 |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
I don't get this. It is incomplete, and the numbers don't make any sense
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
Quote:
i had bigger spacing between numbers but it does not show when i posted sorry |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
But what is all this based on?
|
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
Oh wow, its all based on win/losses... then it isn't that great.
That was very much luck this year, well more than previous years, because there are three teams per alliance each match, randomly selected. You should add in other factors, like in the finals... it would be a lot more accurate. EDIT: ok, it has some other factors, but it is still not the best: Quote:
Last edited by AIBob : 17-04-2005 at 13:52. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
Not to mention that some of the results are wrong... IE 294's record. But still, it is a good system. Hopefully it isn't doomed to the fate of the BCS
![]() |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
WOOOOOOOO 2nd!!!!!!!!!!!!! cant wait cheesey poofs are right behind us with an awsome bot that we got to see at the sacramento regional. our nj partners team 237 in 8th and our philly partners MOE team 365 in 9th should be a great time
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
we're not in the top 8, corey better get his act together
![]() |
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
There are several errors listing teams that are not in this division.
Would the creator please review the listing and formula used to help us all out. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm one of the creators of the 1251 RPI along with Mr.B
now we pulled in the data we could find in usfirst.org the team names we found by going into the websites and looking for the "nickname" if we didn't find it we used the name that stood out EX: ATCMHS robotics (name of 1251 school but we are the TechTigers) if you have some of the data or team names that have to be corrected please let me know and I will make sure it gets fixed now this is based on match data and we do not mean to say any bad things about other robots all we show are standings of the robots and how they did at their regionals Sebas |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
Quote:
All match information for UCF and Palmetto was obtained through first hand accounts of the regionals. For the Southern California and Arizona Regionals students attending sent us the data, and Chief Delphi had a post for Finger Lakes. Finally all other regionals were obtained from the Offical USFIRST.org site. We are aware that some data may be faulty, but it is as accurate as we could be with the limited data sets. This is not a "be-all-end-all" method of scouting, and neglects many many factors of a robot. This is a way of relatively ranking one team next to another to determine some strength attributes, and should only be used as such. Please don't turn this into "We are ranked higher than you, so we are better than you", it places no emphasis on external factors, and looks at win percentage / strength of schedule / and margin of victory to relatively rank teams competing. There are far better methods and procedures for determining this, and we at 1251 encourage you to develop your own systems and share them here on Chief Delphi. The more scouting data and representations of team performance the better we all will be at scouting. Use this as just one more tool in your arsenal. -Allen |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Galileo standings
As Kyle said it isnt even close to complete it is missing statistics for atleast the manchester regional. So you only have half of 126's record and none of 121's the data is certainly not right if there is info missing for atleast 2 regionalwinners
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Galileo Teams | omutton | Championship Event | 77 | 26-04-2005 01:28 |
| [moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo | RyanMcE | General Forum | 61 | 12-05-2004 12:37 |
| Thanks - Teams 177 and 27 - Galileo Finalists | John Larock | Championship Event | 2 | 19-04-2004 12:19 |
| Limboing through Galileo | Kris Verdeyen | Scouting | 7 | 08-04-2003 18:39 |
| Discrepency in standings | rollncoast | Regional Competitions | 8 | 08-03-2003 21:34 |