Lopsided Divisions

[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.

[BBaltrusch]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

<snip>

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

Dr. Joe J.

I had to look up that particular team. Won Chairman's in a week 2 regional, didn't have a 2nd event. They may not have had the best robot then but have definitely earned their spot. I don't know what kind of improvements they'll put in their withholding, but they've had 6 weeks to prepare.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Of course the three divisions I've been on are ranked 1st, 2nd and 11th...

[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.

[Arhowk]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

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.

This method seems like it would stack divisions because theoretically the better teams are already anticipating a championship visit and are prepared to pay earlier

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Arhowk

This method seems like it would stack divisions because theoretically the better teams are already anticipating a championship visit and are prepared to pay earlier

Sorry if my description was unclear. By "deals them out" I meant that the first team to pay goes into division 1, the second team to pay goes into division 2, etc. Like dealing cards from a deck.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Arhowk

This method seems like it would stack divisions because theoretically the better teams are already anticipating a championship visit and are prepared to pay earlier

If they are dividing them up, though, that would theoretically make for an even distribution of first early payers (best teams) all the way to latest payers.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Arhowk

This method seems like it would stack divisions because theoretically the better teams are already anticipating a championship visit and are prepared to pay earlier

No, the teams are assigned across the divisions as payment/registration happens. Team 1 goes to Archimedes, team 2 goes to Borlaug, 3.... and finally 9 goes back to Archimedes.

That's done for the non-rookie teams, then the same process is followed for the rookie teams so they are evenly distributed. At least that was the process in the past.

[SenorZ]

Is this REALLY the conversation we're having right before champs is split in two?
Any proposed "fix" will be moot for the 2017 championship event(s).

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

Is this REALLY the conversation we're having right before champs is split in two?
Any proposed "fix" will be moot for the 2017 championship event(s).

Why? Just because there are two champs does not mean one division can't be more stacked than another.

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

Any proposed "fix" will be moot for the 2017 championship event(s).

False, considering any solution found can just be used individually at both events, the only difference would be 4 divisions instead of 8.