|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
I never thought lower seeds would have more success than higher seeds, but perhaps more success than they've had in previous years. Would be interested to compare a chart like this to one from 2013 or the past few years. It'd also be interesting to look at the same results from different sizes of event, smaller vs. larger.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
There were a couple factors that caused me to want to look at this data. At MAR champs, we were on the #2 alliance, and we were eliminated by a strong 7th seed alliance. It made me wonder, how often does this happen?
I was also following the WVROX off-season, which was played by 24 teams. The #1, #3, and #4 alliances were all eliminated in quarterfinals. I was originally going to include event size data and look at that, but I thought this was plenty to look at. If you would like the event size info and maybe a graph or two, I can easily put that together. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
Jim Z compiled previous years. This data set is more favorable to the lower half of the bracket than most years. Typically #7 is an absolute dead spot and there we're 4 victories that year.
I don't think anything needs to be done to help lower alliances. #1 earns the right to first pick. And the rest makes sense. Serpentine does help add some variability. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
not that there is much skew as a result, but kind of thinking the CMP divisions are a different kettle of fish for this analysis...
the 32nd robot was a great robot at CMP -- what mattered was how the chemistry came together, not draft vagaries! ![]() |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
I don"t think that there really is a problem to fix. The #1 has earned the spot after 10 qualification matches, and eliminations aren't supposed to be a level playing field. Plus, i think that serpentine actually helps a ton, and we just can't see it. Imagine having #1 pick first in the 2nd round of selections as well! Without serpentine, #1 would probably win more like 75% of the time.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
I believe the one #8 seed that won, beat the #1 alliance in the quarter finals. In those quarter finals, the #1 seeded robot had their electronics ripped out during match play and were extremely crippled in the first or second match.
It is still a testament that once they got past the #1 alliance, the next best alliance couldn't beat them. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
At Center Line, when the number 8 alliance beat the number 1, the number 8 alliance was accumulating fouls against the number 1 alliance in every match (this was week 1 so some bugs in the fouls were present.) Such as driving underneath of appendages. The number 8 alliance gave the number 1 extensive damage, such as smashed frames, broken polycarbonate, and wrecked electronics. They had good chemistry, too, which definitely contributed to their winning alliance
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|