[FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)

[Oblarg]

Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.

if only we could consult the internet to find answers to life's grand mysteries

It's section 7.4.1. Good luck with the math; I find it terrifying

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.

They way the formula works, the highest ranked team, whether they are in 10 matches or 12, will get 22 ranking points. The lowest will get 4. The formula spreads the points out between those two end points. So they don't need to adjust the scores for the DC Event. We don't get per match points during quals, only during elims. Some of my mentors were worried about the same thing until I showed them the spreadsheet I built with all the calculations.

I have the DC rankings (and ONLY the DC rankings!) based on the calculations in the Admin manual. PM if you want the current rankings I have, which do differ from TBA in a few places.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

They way the formula works, the highest ranked team, whether they are in 10 matches or 12, will get 22 ranking points. The lowest will get 4. The formula spreads the points out between those two end points. So they don't need to adjust the scores for the DC Event. We don't get per match points during quals, only during elims. Some of my mentors were worried about the same thing until I showed them the spreadsheet I built with all the calculations.

I have the DC rankings (and ONLY the DC rankings!) based on the calculations in the Admin manual. PM if you want the current rankings I have, which do differ from TBA in a few places.

Thank you for the info, this is going to assuage a lot of fears on our team.

[Jeffrafa]

Looks like FIRST's District Rankings for 2016 are now live..

I haven't looked at other districts, but I noticed a discrepancy for PNW when comparing to TBA rankings . Three teams have 10 points less on the official FRC site than on TBA. All 3 were part of Auburn Mountainview Alliance 2 (2046, 2522, 5937). Each were given only 10 playoff points on the official FRC site despite finishing as Finalists. Per 7.4.1.3, they each should have been granted 20 points (10 for exiting QF, 10 for exiting SF) so long as they all participated in the QF and SF playoff matches.

Am I missing something? It seems to me TBA has it correct in this case.

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Jeffrafa

Looks like FIRST's District Rankings for 2016 are now live..

I haven't looked at other districts, but I noticed a discrepancy for PNW when comparing to TBA rankings . Three teams have 10 points less on the official FRC site than on TBA. All 3 were part of Auburn Mountainview Alliance 2 (2046, 2522, 5937). Each were given only 10 playoff points on the official FRC site despite finishing as Finalists. Per 7.4.1.3, they each should have been granted 20 points (10 for exiting QF, 10 for exiting SF) so long as they all participated in the QF and SF playoff matches.

Am I missing something? It seems to me TBA has it correct in this case.

I do believe they should have 20 playoff points as well.

My guess (based off no real evidence whatsoever) is that FIRST isn't implementing playoff tiebreakers correctly, thus their code naively assume 2046, 2522, and 5937 didn't win their QF series (since they only have one "win" based on the final score) and doesn't assign points to them. This is just a hypothesis though.

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

I do believe they should have 20 playoff points as well.

My guess (based off no real evidence whatsoever) is that FIRST isn't implementing playoff tiebreakers correctly, thus their code naively assume 2046, 2522, and 5937 didn't win their QF series (since they only have one "win" based on the final score) and doesn't assign points to them. This is just a hypothesis though.

Huh, that's an interesting observation - I think you may be on to something. I had not noticed they advanced out of quarterfinals off of a tiebreaker in match 3.

I am still finding my way around the information available on FIRST's new event results website, but I did find on this playoffs result page that it shows 2-1 for W/L on Alliance 2 in Quarterfinals. Without seeing what they are using to calculate district points, this doesn't rule out your hypothesis, just shows that they are identifying QF3T as a win based on the tiebreaker criteria.

Almost more interesting from the alliance results table on the playoffs page is the Octofinal W/L column - has there ever been a FIRST event where playoffs included Octofinals?

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Jeffrafa

Huh, that's an interesting observation - I think you may be on to something. I had not noticed they advanced out of quarterfinals off of a tiebreaker in match 3.

I am still finding my way around the information available on FIRST's new event results website, but I did find on this playoffs result page that it shows 2-1 for W/L on Alliance 2 in Quarterfinals. Without seeing what they are using to calculate district points, this doesn't rule out your hypothesis, just shows that they are identifying QF3T as a win based on the tiebreaker criteria.

Almost more interesting from the alliance results table on the playoffs page is the Octofinal W/L column - has there ever been a FIRST event where playoffs included Octofinals?

MSC has Octofinals.