World Rankings 2014

[Joe Ross]

I calculated the rankings of all teams using the FRC District Standard Points Ranking System as shown below. Since everyone does not have a standardized 2 events per team or 12 matches per event, I made the following modifications: Win points are normalized based on 12 matches per event. The first two events are counted. If a team has participated in less then 2 events, their first event is doubled (as a result, every team has their points doubled this week).

POINT CATEGORY POINTS 					POINTS 		
Win-Loss Record in Qualifying Rounds 							
Win 							2
Tie 							1
Loss							0
Alliance Selection Results							
Alliance Captain				        Equal to 17 minus the Alliance Captain Number [e.g.: 14 points for Alliance #3 Captain]		
Draft Order by Acceptance  				Equal to 17 minus the Draft Order Acceptance Number [e.g.: 12 points for the Team that is 5 th to accept an offer of Alliance] 				
Elimination Round Performance 				5 points for every match won in which a Team ’s robot participated,		
Awards
Chairman’s Award				        10 Points for 
Engineering Inspiration and Rookie All Star Awards      8 Points
all other judged Team awards				5 points
Team Age                                                 													
Rookie Teams 						10
Second-year Teams 					5

Here are the top 25. Full rankings are attached. The full rankings show all factors, as well as the rankings without normalizing for matches or number of events.

Rank	Team	Events	Points
1	624	1	170
2	33	1	156
3	1310	1	152
4	1986	1	152
5	399	1	152
6	3824	1	150
7	118	1	150
8	138	1	150
9	1678	1	150
10	525	1	146
11	2590	1	142
12	2046	1	142
13	610	1	140
14	2907	1	140
15	75	1	140
16	107	1	138
17	1261	1	130
18	177	1	126
19	3393	1	126
20	1403	1	126
21	341	1	124
22	2468	1	124
23	294	1	120
24	2557	1	118
25	1241	1	118

I have compared the results with the FiM, MAR, and PNW rankings, and they agree. I used Ed Law's standings for Centerline.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I calculated the rankings of all teams using the FRC District Standard Points Ranking System as shown below. Since everyone does not have a standardized 2 events per team or 12 matches per event, I made the following modifications: Win points are normalized based on 12 matches per event. The first two events are counted. If a team has participated in less then 2 events, their first event is doubled (as a result, every team has their points doubled this week).

Since this system may be instituted for all District events in the future, it's worth discussing this calculation. Several thoughts:

- Since this is a World Ranking (which has no real consequence) vs District qualifying (which needs to have clear, fair and balanced rules), I think you should use the LAST 2 events to reflect how a team evolves during the season and best reflects how they are doing going into the Champs. (I understand why Districts uses the first 2 events and agree with that.)
- Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1.
- Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that.
- Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It's more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn't give full credit for that.

[Hoover]

You have the MAR rankings? They are not on the MAR site that I can find.

In the spreadsheet, if you add the district name, a sort on this should be equivalent to the source rankings, no?


EDIT: I found them in MAR forum thanks. I don't know why they didn't come up in my search...

[DonRotolo]

Thanks for this Joe.

I watched Team 75 play (and win) this weekend, and they were astounding. It is right they are ranked so highly...I think this may be another great year for them. And the nice thing is, they bring their own crowd...

[KCmoon]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

I watched Team 75 play (and win) this weekend, and they were astounding. It is right they are ranked so highly...I think this may be another great year for them. And the nice thing is, they bring their own crowd...

Thank you Don for your nice comments! It was nice having your team as an addition to our stands as well. Congrats again on Chairmans!

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

- Since this is a World Ranking (which has no real consequence) vs District qualifying (which needs to have clear, fair and balanced rules), I think you should use the LAST 2 events to reflect how a team evolves during the season and best reflects how they are doing going into the Champs. (I understand why Districts uses the first 2 events and agree with that.)

...

- Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It's more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn't give full credit for that.

If I was trying to do rankings that reflected teams going into champs, I would not be using anything close to this system. Instead, this is a way for teams not in districts to see how they stack up. The word rankings is simply because that is what Michigan uses.

Normalization on non-integer basis has the effect of number of matches acting as the first sorting criteria. When I first starting playing with California rankings last year, I did play around with integer and non-integer normalization (as well as no normalization). I was much happier with integer normalization.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

- Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1.
- Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that.

These are probably better discussed either at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=121132 or http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=121362

[Clinton Bolinger]

Joe,

Do you plan to release Week 2's Results?

Thanks for putting this together.

-Clinton-

[Conor Ryan]

Just checking to make sure I followed what Joe Did

So I really want to Normalize for number of events played, and for the size of certain events. Its not fair to compare a smaller, 30 team district with a with a 42 team district with a 58 team 3 day regional.

My idea: separate out these different categories as appropriate. Qualification wins is pretty self explanatory, it should normalize for the number of chance you have for a win. The middle section of the formula should be adjusted for the number of times you get to be picked, judged and play in eliminations. The last section should only be awarded once per season *before district champs*, I'm open to suggestions, especially for the last segment of the formula.

My Proposed Formula, point values follow District Standard Points Ranking, hopefully it lines up with Joe's.

Normalized World Rankings=
[(Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) / (Qualification Matches Played)]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) / (Number of Events Participated In)]
+
[Team Age + Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star]

Edit: I completely realize this makes it really difficult to figure out ties. Probably should just prioritize the second part of the formula.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Do you plan to release Week 2's Results?

Yes, I'm error checking and formatting the results.

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

J
My Proposed Formula, point values follow District Standard Points Ranking, hopefully it lines up with Joe's.

Normalized World Rankings=
[(Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) / (Qualification Matches Played)]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) / (Number of Events Participated In)]
+
[Team Age + Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star]

It's close to what I do.

Normalized World Rankings=
Round[((Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) of first 2 events) / (Qualification Matches Played in first 2 events) * 24]
+
[(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) of first 2 events / Min(Number of Events Participated In,2)*2]
+
[Team Age + (Chairman's + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star) of first 2 events]

[Joe Ross]

Here are the top 25 after week 2. I've attached the full spreadsheet.

Rank	Team	Events	Points
1	624	1	170
2	4488	1	161
3	33	1	156
4	2175	1	156
5	1817	1	156
6	4967	1	156
7	1310	1	152
8	2337	1	152
9	1986	1	152
10	399	1	152
11	3824	1	150
12	118	1	150
13	138	1	150
14	1678	1	150
15	1108	1	150
16	525	1	146
17	254	1	146
18	16	1	146
19	3467	1	144
20	4911	1	144
21	2590	1	142
22	2471	1	142
23	2046	1	142
24	1266	1	142
25	2468	2	141

[Tyler2517]

It makes me happy seeing a second year team in 2nd place.

[BrendanB]

Wow top 20 after some teams we look up to every year!

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

If I was trying to do rankings that reflected teams going into champs, I would not be using anything close to this system. Instead, this is a way for teams not in districts to see how they stack up. The word rankings is simply because that is what Michigan uses.

So this is better described as "World District Scoring" rather than "Ranking" since it's not really relevant to non-District teams?

[Boe]

Wow tied for third, I didn't think I'd ever see my team so high on some type of FIRST wide ranking.

[Tim Lehmann4967]

It is really cool to see our team number on that list in our rookie season!