Lopsided Divisions

[nuggetsyl]

I wish First would use a point system like what the districts have to help even out divisions. You could use the points to make sure all divisions in theory are equal in power. If anyone else has an idea throw it out there.

[AdamHeard]

Thanks

[araniaraniratul]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Thanks

[itsjustjon]

Having lopsided divisions is just a side-effect of random (or, at least, semi-random) assortment.

In my opinion, splitting up and assigning teams to divisions based on their performance would make CMPs less interesting.

Champs is fun because of the challenging schedules and obstacles it imposes on the teams who make it there.

This is all my opinion, though. My word is far from factual

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Thanks

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I'll second you on that one.

[snoman]

If divisions are lopsided. ( I haven't looked at them all) what ones are the most lopsided your opinion. I assume you are looking at first time teams vs teams with world experience.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by snoman

If divisions are lopsided. ( I haven't looked at them all) what ones are the most lopsided your opinion. I assume you are looking at first time teams vs teams with world experience.

I believe OP is referring to the strong Newton division this year.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by snoman

If divisions are lopsided. ( I haven't looked at them all) what ones are the most lopsided your opinion. I assume you are looking at first time teams vs teams with world experience.

I've done some analysis that I have shared in this thread.

Long story short. Newton is stacked. Some others, not so much (Curie & Galileo for example).

Back to the point the OP was making, yes, think too think FIRST should make an effort to balance the divisions. Whether it is via OPR or a District-like point system or another metric behind door #3, I don't think that the current system is where we want to be going forward. Year after year, FIRST ends up with obviously lopsided divisions and I think that damages the integrity of the sport -- Does FIRST care about such things to fix them? A question for another day...

Dr. Joe J.

[snoman]

Yeah that looks like a tough one. How about the " weakest " if teams made it to Champs they are good but relatively speaking.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by snoman

Yeah that looks like a tough one. How about the " weakest " if teams made it to Champs they are good but relatively speaking.

There are some differences on the low end but nothing like the differences on the high end. (I will include the chart below so you can see for yourself). Also, once you get below a certain capability, it doesn't really matter very much how much below that you are. If The Poofs have an alliance partner that puts in 1 or 2 boulders in the low goal or if they have a one that puts in 3 or 4 low goal boulders it really isn't going to make much a difference to their score.

One interesting note there are teams with negative OPRs and one is going to St. Louis. FWIW.

Dr. Joe J.

[rich2202]

Group the teams by percentile (however you do that), and then assign those randomly to each division.

[GaryVoshol]

As long as they don't do something similar to that "scheduling algorithm of death" where they assumed all the low number teams were strong and the high number teams were weak.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

As long as they don't do something similar to that "scheduling algorithm of death" where they assumed all the low number teams were strong and the high number teams were weak.

I'm not sure where I read this, but I'm pretty that the way they sort the divisions is they distribute rookies evenly b/w all divisions, then next year teams, etc.

Don't quote me on that, though. I might be wrong.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

I'm not sure where I read this, but I'm pretty that the way they sort the divisions is they distribute rookies evenly b/w all divisions, then next year teams, etc.

Don't quote me on that, though. I might be wrong.

My understanding is that HQ lists teams in the order their payment for CMP is received, then deals them out to divisions in that order. This method of assigning divisions is effectively random; however, random assignments do not prevent a stacked division. Folks who have been scouting CMP for a long time can point to earlier examples. 2016 Newton is an extreme one.