When will Divisions be released?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

If I recall correctly, back in ye olden days the divisions were set by a count off of 1, 2, 3, 4 from Team 1 all the way down until everyone figured it out.

That must have been way before 2007 then. Its been some weird algorithm since Ive been a part of FIRST.

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Source?

"Had Heard" = Rumor. - I got to visit the VIP area once and they weren't watching many matches.

the IIRC is because I couldn't remember which field is next to Galileo.

In hindsight, I didn't add much to the discussion, my apologies.

[Yipyapper]

If 2056 or 254 are in Curie this year, or even both, I would bet a lot of money that the Curie curse would end. I don't know why, but I feel like they're going to wind up in the same division and team up, win champs and finally get that championship win that 2056 deserves—all in the same year where, at the start of Waterloo, a lot of people gave them doubts.

I would also bet money that a Canadian team or two (maybe even three) wins champs. I just don't see the alliance that wins it all not having a Canadian team, there are so many of them in every category (top pick, first pick and second pick). I'm not a big fan of this year for numerous reasons, but I think the field will be incredibly interesting and that history will be made in the 2014 World Champs field.

I also think that, unless they're in the same division as 2056 and 254, that 610 will make Einstein again. They were simply amazing all season, perhaps even better compared to other robots than they were last year.

[Dominick Ferone]

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

I have never heard this before. I suppose it is possible. My team last year (2052) ended up in the same division as one of our 4 winning partners (3244) in Newton last year, but maybe it is not possible to perfectly separate all of the alliance members since teams attend multiple events. If I have time this weekend (ha!) I will try to compare winning alliances with divisions for last year, to see if there is any validity in this theory.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

Nope, in 2012 624 and 1477 were in the same division despite winning Bayou and being finalists at Lone Star together.

[kevincrispie]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Nope, in 2012 624 and 1477 were in the same division despite winning Bayou and being finalists at Lone Star together.

2012 was a weird year. 971 was with both 1678 and 254, both alliance partners for regional wins. 1717 was also with 330, their alliance partners from Central Valley. 2056 and 1114 were also in the same division. There were probably others, but that's all I can remember offhand. That situation doesn't happen that often, it seems, but it certainly did in 2012.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by kevincrispie

2012 was a weird year. 971 was with both 1678 and 254, both alliance partners for regional wins. 1717 was also with 330, their alliance partners from Central Valley. 2056 and 1114 were also in the same division. There were probably others, but that's all I can remember offhand. That situation doesn't happen that often, it seems, but it certainly did in 2012.

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

I think it would be interesting to actually have as many regional pairs or trios in the same division as possible (while maintaining some sort of evenness among divisions) since teams have to work together, they would already know each others' weaknesses or strengths better and be able to build upon those.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

That must have been way before 2007 then. Its been some weird algorithm since Ive been a part of FIRST.

Not so far as you might think. Folks on Chief got pretty good at predicting WHAT the divisions would be (just not necessarily which was which); lasted up until around '07 or so, then someone realized that the algorithm was being seen through...and hit the random number generator. Nobody's been able to predict divisions since.

[kevincrispie]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

Ironically, 1717 lost to 330 in the Semifinals on Newton. And 971 lost to 254 in the Quarterfinals on Curie. 1114 and 2056 were the only "Power Pair" to team-up.

Very true. And both 1717 and 971 had communications issues as well ironically enough. Though a lot of teams had those...

Anyway, while it's interesting to see some regional pairs, that year was kind of strange. It's actually quite fun to meet teams from all over. It's not a bad thing at all that you have some unfamiliar faces. It just means you get to meet more people.

It'll be certainly interesting for this year though, with cooperation so important. Teams that have seen each other before could have some amount of advantage. The dynamics between teams will be interesting.

[themccannman]

I've heard the same rumor that galileo used to be stacked purposefully since it faced the VIP booth in Atlanta. In recent years however comparing the relative OPR's of each division they have been much closer. Galileo was actually one of the weaker divisions last year according to OPR whereas curie and archimedes were relatively strong.

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone

I don't remember where i heard it but memory serves the algorithm makes it so it splits up any alliance that won. So 118 and 1986 would be in different division for example. That way they don't just team up again since they know they work well together. I could be wrong and i think it had something to do with splitting up based on the week they won.

Nope. How would 469 and 33 end up in the same division last year.

[geomapguy]

Originally Posted by themccannman

I've heard the same rumor that galileo used to be stacked purposefully since it faced the VIP booth in Atlanta. In recent years however comparing the relative OPR's of each division they have been much closer. Galileo was actually one of the weaker divisions last year according to OPR whereas curie and archimedes were relatively strong.

Average OPR doesn't seem to be representative of how good of chances the division champs will go onto win Einstein. Especially this year when we could easily see a lower seed take out powerhouse alliances

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by geomapguy

Average OPR doesn't seem to be representative of how good of chances the division champs will go onto win Einstein. Especially this year when we could easily see a lower seed take out powerhouse alliances

I wouldn't say they are either. But last year there was a very significant difference in OPR's for the top 25% of teams in each division last year. Just thought that was a notable piece of information.