[NE FIRST] District Championship point cutoff

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

They are "scored" in a sense. However, they don't count towards qualifying. However, those teams are 'taking points' from teams that they could count for effectively removing points from the overall system. A good team competing at 3+ event acts as a sponge concentrating points to them and lowering the threshold for everyone. (Those points are effectively lost)

While a team competing in it's 3rd/4th event is likely reducing the points available to the teams at that event, it also has the effect of decreasing the cutoff threshold for district championships so it benefits teams not at that event.

So from a purely strategic point of view a team should go to the earliest and smallest events possible, all other things being equal.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MikeE

While a team competing in it's 3rd/4th event is likely reducing the points available to the teams at that event, it also has the effect of decreasing the cutoff threshold for district championships so it benefits teams not at that event.

So from a purely strategic point of view a team should go to the earliest and smallest events possible, all other things being equal.

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said.



And there are multiple reasons to go to 3+ events. For example - One of our events is geared towards training the next generation of folks without worrying about hurting our chances at qualifying. It's a fun chance that we feel is well worth the extra cost.

And for those who said we shouldn't be allowed to be picked - That would actually hurt the higher seeded points as teams that do 3+ events tend to have more on field experience and perform well. This would mean that #8 would be able to pick the best 3+ event team which would defeat one of the main benefits of being #1 (being able to pick whoever you want)... Plus that's like saying teams shouldn't be allowed to play in multiple events...

[Jay O'Donnell]

I know that teams don't get points for qualifying in their third or fourth event, but theoretically could they qualify for NE champs by winning the chairman's award at their third or fourth event?

[loyal]

Originally Posted by loyal

Teams playing in more than two events become spoilers. This is like most all play offs. When they win they take points away from other teams denying an advancement. This is all cool. But some thing I was thinking of is this. Teams playing more than two events should not be pickers or first round picks. Only last round. This would give the second event teams an opportunity to advance in the points. Make sense?

When I wrote the word "should" that seems to be a strong word. But the sentence before it said "some thing I was thinking about". Perhaps I should oh wait could have been clearer.
I'm just thinking again. So an example, team xxx is a power house and at a third event with 3 other power house teams. They rank 1,2,3,4. If 1 picks 2 and 3 picks 4 that's 64 points going nowhere. Of course this is hypothetical. I understand what Jess said. A team could decline. But it is a viable strategy. Couldn't it happen this way?

[loyal]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

I know that teams don't get points for qualifying in their third or fourth event, but theoretically could they qualify for NE champs by winning the chairman's award at their third or fourth event?

Yes

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by MikeE

Choosing the top 54 robots of 163 teams in New England means we are selecting the top third of teams. In each of the 4 events so far the top tercile (I had to look up that word too) is between 26 and 36 points, averaging 32, so a simple answer is that championship threshold will be twice that.

My current estimate is that the threshold will be slightly lower, probably 57 or 58pts, but in a few days the Week 4 events will be concluding. At that point every team will have played at least one event and a third of teams will have competed in both events, so we should have a far better idea of where the threshold will fall.

It looks like your analysis looks only at the points awarded at events... not the rookie and 2nd-year points also. This will be 10 points for each rookie and 5 points for each 2nd year team... which, if there were 10 of each in NE would actually only amount to 150 points. Averaged out, this would probably affect the threshold by less than a point.

Given where the cut-off was in MI in 2013 (I don't recall off the top of my head; I think it was around 52-54) the prediction of 57 to 58 seems reasonable given the various changes from FiM 2013 to NEFIRST 2014 (rookie/second year points, different percentage of teams making DCMP, higher point values for many awards in 2014, etc.).

As Jess said though, the cut-off won't be solid... a fair number of teams will likely decide not to go to DCMP for a variety of reasons, even if they are above the threshold. This will shift the effective threshold downwards by some to-be-determined amount.

Agreed that predictions should be far better after this week, when all the teams will've played their first event and a larger percentage will've played their second event.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said.

You're welcome, although I was clarifying that the impact is different on teams attending vs not attending the same event.

[Deke]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

It looks like your analysis looks only at the points awarded at events... not the rookie and 2nd-year points also. This will be 10 points for each rookie and 5 points for each 2nd year team... which, if there were 10 of each in NE would actually only amount to 150 points. Averaged out, this would probably affect the threshold by less than a point.

Given where the cut-off was in MI in 2013 (I don't recall off the top of my head; I think it was around 52-54) the prediction of 57 to 58 seems reasonable given the various changes from FiM 2013 to NEFIRST 2014 (rookie/second year points, different percentage of teams making DCMP, higher point values for many awards in 2014, etc.).

As Jess said though, the cut-off won't be solid... a fair number of teams will likely decide not to go to DCMP for a variety of reasons, even if they are above the threshold. This will shift the effective threshold downwards by some to-be-determined amount.

Agreed that predictions should be far better after this week, when all the teams will've played their first event and a larger percentage will've played their second event.

Last year in FiM the cutoff was 76, that was with ~205 teams and an average of 47 points per team. This year there are 278 teams with an average of 54 points a team because of the new award and rookie and soph point bonuses. It looks like they are projecting low 80s as the cutoff. So most teams would need to at least advance to the finals once and win one round of the elims in the other district to advance. Otherwise they would need alot of qual wins and high pick points with award wins to advance to state.

[MikeE]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

It looks like your analysis looks only at the points awarded at events... not the rookie and 2nd-year points also. This will be 10 points for each rookie and 5 points for each 2nd year team... which, if there were 10 of each in NE would actually only amount to 150 points. Averaged out, this would probably affect the threshold by less than a point.

Given where the cut-off was in MI in 2013 (I don't recall off the top of my head; I think it was around 52-54) the prediction of 57 to 58 seems reasonable given the various changes from FiM 2013 to NEFIRST 2014 (rookie/second year points, different percentage of teams making DCMP, higher point values for many awards in 2014, etc.).

As Jess said though, the cut-off won't be solid... a fair number of teams will likely decide not to go to DCMP for a variety of reasons, even if they are above the threshold. This will shift the effective threshold downwards by some to-be-determined amount.

Agreed that predictions should be far better after this week, when all the teams will've played their first event and a larger percentage will've played their second event.

That's correct, I didn't include the impact of age bonus. From the teams that have competed so far 1st & 2nd year teams distribute in roughly the same way as veteran teams.

There are approximately ~8800 points allocated from events and just 225 from the age bonus so the overall impact on the threshold is small. Of course it will elevate some young teams who are close to the threshold, but that is expected and was the stated purpose of the age bonus.

It will have a much bigger impact in Michigan where almost 40% of teams are rookies or in their second year.

Applying the NE ratio of teams attending Championship to last year's Michigan points data (rescored with the new unified point model) would have given a threshold of 58pts. That's one of other data points that went into my 57-58pt estimate.

[Mr. B]

A quick look at statistical probability dictates a 47-48 point cutoff if factors like 90% acceptance, 20% point removal by teams that attend 3 district events ETC.
For the worlds assuming only an 85% acceptance my numbers tell me 103-108 points to get in.
So in theory, a team might qualify for worlds without going to the District championship.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Mr. B

So in theory, a team might qualify for worlds without going to the District championship.

This can't be right.
Are you factoring in that the points triple for everything at the DCMP?

[Mr. B]

Yes, Look at the average score of the teams in the 16-24 in points scored.
Say 25 x 3 + 47
Now consider all that will decline the invite
Does seem low but I believe unless the acceptance rate gets above 90%
Who knows

[Eric O]

Originally Posted by Mr. B

Yes, Look at the average score of the teams in the 16-24 in points scored.
Say 25 x 3 + 47
Now consider all that will decline the invite
Does seem low but I believe unless the acceptance rate gets above 90%
Who knows

I believe you are calculating how many points the 50th or 60th team will have. If 47 is the cutoff to get into the district championship it is not the 24the best team. The 24th team currently has 49pts (my unofficial tracking) and most teams haven't played a second event.

If you assume everyone who hasn't played 2 districts is able to repeat their performance the 24th best team will have 86 pts. before district championship. Realistically, this will be probably be closer to 80. If they repeat this at the District Championship they would have 200 pts. (80 + 3x40).

The MAR district simulation using last year’s data and this year’s ranking scheme had the 20th best team with 163pts and 24th with 134pts. Given the calculation above and the MAR data, I would expect to need between 150 and 170pts to qulify for Worlds depending on acceptance rate as well as number of auto qualify teams ending up in the top 24.

-Eric

[esquared]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Don't forget that there will be teams who will decline their invitation. So even though the cutoff may be X, the top 53 teams who want to go are in.

It's just like alliance selection - if you're on the bubble, create a pick list anyway.

Is it possible to update the NEFIRST.org rankings sheet with a column indicating the number of events each team has attended? Although a patient person could find all that information out themselves, it would at a glance give teams an idea of where the target is.

[Lil' Lavery]

It is mathematically impossible to qualify for the Championship event if you don't attend your district championship. That's the precise reason why the 3x multiplier for the district championship was selected.

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Don't forget that there will be teams who will decline their invitation. So even though the cutoff may be X, the top 53 teams who want to go are in.

It's just like alliance selection - if you're on the bubble, create a pick list anyway.

I can tell you, from a MAR perspective, this is very important. MAR has had 10+ teams that qualified for MAR CMP not attend the event in both of the previous two years. If you're anywhere near the cutoff, be prepared to go if you're invited.