World Rankings 2014

[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