Highest ranked team not picked?

[Steve Compton]

Anyone have data for each subdivision on the highest ranked team (after quals) that was not picked for an alliance?

We were part of that cohort, I think, and my kids will want to take a look at why were were passed over as they plan for next year.

Thanks for any help you have to offer, and congratulations to all the teams there for making it to the event.

[EricLeifermann]

Rank =/ robot abilities

Good teams scout and rank doesn't factor in picking teams.

[AquaMorph]

Rankings are not a good indicator for skill. Sometimes, good teams have a lower ranking because they had a tough schedule. Other times, the reverse happens and a team gets a higher ranking than they deserve. When this happens a lot of times they will have a ranking that would lead to being picked if everyone is just picked based off of ranks. However, teams scout and that team is normally not picked. Another thing that can happen is a robot being good at a select task but non of the alliances need that skill set when it comes around for their second or third pick.

[Ed Law]

Some of what I said here may apply.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=36

[lovelj]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Some of what I said here may apply.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=36

Ed, thanks for posting this. This is some of the best advice I've seen on CD, especially in terms of marketing your team. What is your opinion on the rate of low ranked teams being picked so high this year? I've seen this before, but don't recall it at such extremes in each division. Am I wrong or was there something about this year's game that amplified this effect.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by lovelj

Ed, thanks for posting this. This is some of the best advice I've seen on CD, especially in terms of marketing your team. What is your opinion on the rate of low ranked teams being picked so high this year? I've seen this before, but don't recall it at such extremes in each division. Am I wrong or was there something about this year's game that amplified this effect.

Before I say anything else, I want to say the GDC did a great job. I really like this game.
Ranking is usually not a good indicator of robot ability especially with 10 matches and 75 teams. It is not enough to bubble up the best robots. On top of that the ranking point system is not just based on wins and losses. I really don't mind it too much. It is just a different objective function to try to maximize. It makes the strategy more interesting. However the RP rewards teams for things other than just robot ability.
This year the main reason for the ranking system to fail in bubbling up the best robots is because of the game. In many games, one exceptional robot or two good robots can carry the whole alliance regardless of who their partners are. This year that is not the case. That makes the match schedule the primary determining factor of the outcome. Teams that have a "lucky" draw will rank higher than if they had an average draw. There are many teams who can contribute to the scoring and very few robots can completely dominate the game on their own.

[Gogoyogert]

Agreed. Especially in this game, there is so much more to a robots ability than seed. We, team 5940, seeded 69th, but were still picked as back up for the 4th alliance.

[FRC_498]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

Rankings are not a good indicator for skill. Sometimes, good teams have a lower ranking because they had a tough schedule. Other times, the reverse happens and a team gets a higher ranking than they deserve. When this happens a lot of times they will have a ranking that would lead to being picked if everyone is just picked based off of ranks. However, teams scout and that team is normally not picked. Another thing that can happen is a robot being good at a select task but non of the alliances need that skill set when it comes around for their second or third pick.

This was true for our team on Archimedes, by Friday we had our 20 pt auto working and were averaging 5-6 Teleop high goal boulders per match but didn't get picked. I feel teams don't do enough scouting or at least get only a few top picks but when those are taken they are stuck. We knew we were in trouble when around teams 2nd pick they were looking up at the board for numbers.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by FRC_498

This was true for our team on Archimedes, by Friday we had our 20 pt auto working and were averaging 5-6 Teleop high goal boulders per match but didn't get picked. I feel teams don't do enough scouting or at least get only a few top picks but when those are taken they are stuck. We knew we were in trouble when around teams 2nd pick they were looking up at the board for numbers.

That's too bad that was happening. Teams that get to Champs should have some sort of scouting system in place just in case.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

That's too bad that was happening. Teams that get to Champs should have some sort of scouting system in place just in case.

We were scouting up until late Friday, when we knew for sure we couldn't crack top 30.

Did notice that several other scouting operations shut down well before the replay of Galileo Q120 (played after the last match).

[lovelj]

Originally Posted by FRC_498

This was true for our team on Archimedes, by Friday we had our 20 pt auto working and were averaging 5-6 Teleop high goal boulders per match but didn't get picked. I feel teams don't do enough scouting or at least get only a few top picks but when those are taken they are stuck. We knew we were in trouble when around teams 2nd pick they were looking up at the board for numbers.

You definitely were overlooked and it's very frustrating for the team. I've seen this happen at almost every event. Mistakes happen and it can be disheartening for the students. If you are not doing so already, consider having one of your scouts devoted to self scouting and a small group of your best communicators using that data to market your team to the top teams in your division. Networking is good for both getting visibility at the competition as well as fostering long term relationships with other teams.

[dradel]

Rank may not tell the entire story. Perhaps during quals you had strong partners or were matched against teams that had mechanical issues. There is way more to picking alliance partners than rank.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Steve Compton

Anyone have data for each subdivision on the highest ranked team (after quals) that was not picked for an alliance?

Archimedes:
3932 at rank 12

Carson:
1137 at rank 14

Carver:
1262 at rank 12

Curie:
5279 at rank 19

Galileo:
4499 at rank 15

Hopper:
686 at rank 13

Newton:
2035 at rank 15

Tesla:
2522 at rank 13

[lovelj]

On the inverse, what was the lowest ranked team picked first?

[sdangelo]

Originally Posted by lovelj

On the inverse, what was the lowest ranked team picked first?

1986 on Archimedes was Rank 16.