Galileo - The Champion's Division

[PayneTrain]

What would be really interesting is knowing this with the context of when FIRST changed the sorting algorithm. (I forgot)

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

What would be really interesting is knowing this with the context of when FIRST changed the sorting algorithm. (I forgot)

Is the algorithm they use now known?

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Jay Money 1058

Is the algorithm they use now known?

I remember someone saying that the divisions used to go by team number, like team 1 in Archimedes, team 11 in Galileo, 20 in Curie, 25 in Newton and then repeating. I don't think we know for sure what it is now, but I think someone might know what year they stopped doing the old one.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

I remember someone saying that the divisions used to go by team number, like team 1 in Archimedes, team 11 in Galileo, 20 in Curie, 25 in Newton and then repeating. I don't think we know for sure what it is now, but I think someone might know what year they stopped doing the old one.

I have no idea what their sorting algorithm is (I took a crack at figuring it out once and got nowhere). But I can tell you what I'd do if I had to solve that problem. I'd generate some random divisions and see if they looked approximately balanced. I'd be looking for balance in several ways: competitive teams, former champions, Hall of Fame teams, rookies, waitlist teams, etc. If it looked too imbalanced or had a division that was too similar to the previous year or two, I'd throw it out and keep doing random ones until I got one that looked good. That would make the "algorithm" pretty hard to solve.

[AdamHeard]

This would never happen, but I'd like to see four experts (Karthik, Paul C, someone nominate two others?) each represent a division. They would then take turns drafting the entire division by whatever thought process they individually desired. Their own 4 teams would be not included in this draft, and then randomly assigned to the 4 after the divisions are set.

I think we'd see some incredibly balanced divisions in a way anything FIRST does could never match.

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

This would never happen, but I'd like to see four experts (Karthik, Paul C, someone nominate two others?) each represent a division. They would then take turns drafting the entire division by whatever thought process they individually desired. Their own 4 teams would be not included in this draft, and then randomly assigned to the 4 after the divisions are set.

I think we'd see some incredibly balanced divisions in a way anything FIRST does could never match.

I really want to see the power alliances that come out of this.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

This would never happen, but I'd like to see four experts (Karthik, Paul C, someone nominate two others?) each represent a division. They would then take turns drafting the entire division by whatever thought process they individually desired. Their own 4 teams would be not included in this draft, and then randomly assigned to the 4 after the divisions are set.

I think we'd see some incredibly balanced divisions in a way anything FIRST does could never match.

I agree that this would be really cool.

On the other hand, I think I like a bit of randomness. Not a ton, but a bit. With randomness, there's always the chance that the top two teams in the world will be together in the same division and then end up allying. Removing that possibility would be sort of unfortunate. And having a division that's a little bit strong or weak (not a lot, but a little) is actually good for certain teams. A team that performs at the top of the second tier of teams would have a slightly better chance at making it to Einstein if they're in a slightly weaker division, even if it reduces that division's odds of winning it all. Having a strong division sets up the chance of a glorious upset. And a stronger division is, of course, better for the very best teams, because it provides a better best case scenario. This is all fun stuff to think about.

[themccannman]

Assigning divisions by OPR would actually be incredibly easy and very balanced. Idk why they don't just do that if they want balanced divisions.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Assigning divisions by OPR would actually be incredibly easy and very balanced. Idk why they don't just do that if they want balanced divisions.

Because then people would jump down Manchester's throat because OPR is a useless/misunderstood/abused/biased/wrong/silly/number-based/ridiculous/old-fashioned/left-leaning/conservative/smelly/overrated metric.

But hey, who knows, maybe that's how they do it already! It's not like they've told us.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Because then people would jump down Manchester's throat because OPR is a useless/misunderstood/abused/biased/wrong/silly/number-based/ridiculous/old-fashioned/left-leaning/conservative/smelly/overrated metric.

But hey, who knows, maybe that's how they do it already! It's not like they've told us.

Because it's not about the Robot?

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Because then people would jump down Manchester's throat because OPR is a useless/misunderstood/abused/biased/wrong/silly/number-based/ridiculous/old-fashioned/left-leaning/conservative/smelly/overrated metric.

But hey, who knows, maybe that's how they do it already! It's not like they've told us.

It's actually not. OPR has a ~90% correlation with actual offensive scoring ability. You just need a large enough sample size to get it reasonably accurate (at least 10 matches or more). And I know for a fact that they don't use OPR to build divisions because I compared all 4 divisions and it was extremely obvious that some of them were incredibly stacked compared to the others.

[AdamHeard]

I think any attempt by FIRST to sort divisions by some sort of competitive metric will be a complete failure; FIRST simply isn't tuned into that kind of stuff.

Remember a few years ago when they tried to "balance" quals by sorting teams into three groups. The lowest 1/3rd number, the middle 1/3rd number and the highest. Each qual alliance had one from each group. This obviously hugely benefited high numbered competitive teams (2056, etc...).

[who716]

An interesting idea I was toying with the other day is if you win an event you would us thr same alliance when you get to championship I can see this mixing up the alliance selection process alot.. I know that this wont ever happen or work to many logistics and issues would arid bu it's an interesting idea

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by who716

An interesting idea I was toying with the other day is if you win an event you would us thr same alliance when you get to championship

What would you do about teams who won multiple events with different partners?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by who716

An interesting idea I was toying with the other day is if you win an event you would us thr same alliance when you get to championship I can see this mixing up the alliance selection process alot.. I know that this wont ever happen or work to many logistics and issues would arid bu it's an interesting idea

I remember ONE time when this happened. Want to say it was in 2004, but one alliance won a regional, then managed to all end up in the same division at Championship, pick the alliance together again, and make Einstein (but not win it).

As for winning multiple events with different partners, AC picks. I've seen that one too, in 2005--I want to say it was 245 pairing with 766 (Sacramento) and 217 (one of the MI regionals) to make Einstein. (Knocked out in Einstein semis.)