Galileo - The Champion's Division

[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.

[geomapguy]

Originally Posted by Nemo

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.

Well it's really hard to determine the "top two teams." Or top 4 and even 10. Maybe just creating a top tier is more appropriate.

When I was at World's watching Galileo, I for sure thought 118 and 1114 were the "top two teams." But sure enough, they were beaten by the likes of 1477, 610, and 1241.

Top tier teams can be beaten any day of the week (We actually played a part in giving 1477 their first match loss at LSR) and honestly Champs has a lot to do with luck (mainly the luck of the draw).

[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

[Rangel]

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.

I agree that opr isn't at all the best indicator of how good a robot is but it's probably the closest you will get for every team at championships. Heck even trying to get top strategists in FIRST to separate the teams would be hard due to not having data or video on many of the teams that compete at champs, let alone blurry webcasts that are hard to see which team is doing what at times. For the most part too, the top teams are always near the top so opr would work decent in my opinion.

[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?

[who716]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

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

Yeah I knew that there where many problems with it and that's why it will never happen. That being one of them and also the fact that if one of the three can't make it to championship

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by themccannman

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.

Fair enough. I'll give you that OPR was quite good last year. On the other hand, there were some years (like 2012) when it was absolutely terrible. Personally, I like OPR a fair bit, but it certainly can't tell you all there is to know about a team, and often tells you significantly less than what is important (at least, important for alliance selection).

I was commenting more from the perspective that there seems to be an irrational hatred of OPR among some veteran members of the FRC community, and that those people might be against a metric like OPR controlling divisions.

[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.)

[ErvinI]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.)

It was indeed 2004. 67, 1126 and 340 won the Buckeye Regional together that year, then met up again for elims on Newton, winning the division and then going on to lose in the Einstein semis.