2015 Events By 2014 Rankings

[TheBoulderite]

I made a small note a while ago on that 2014 vs. 2015 vs. 2016 Rankings thread that I was going to see what events would have looked like in 2015 if Recycle Rush had used a win-loss-tie system. I am now happy to say that I have completed the first part of it, and I'm ready to share it with you all!

This isn't complete, and I'll keep updating it as time goes on. For now, you can what each of the eight championship divisions would have looked like at this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...t#gid=43299538

Some interesting insights from my findings are as follows:

Archimedes:

• Under the 2015 system, 360 was in 30th at the end of qualifications. Under the 2014 system, they would have been #1.
• 1023, the top seed and captain of the winning alliance, would have been fourth under the 2014 system. 2338, their first pick and fourth under 2015's system, would have been 24th.
• 1640, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 11th. Their first pick, 1310, would have been 22nd.

Carson:

• Four teams (85, 1730, 236, and 4488) put up 10-0-0 records and would have seeded above 254, the actual top seed.
• 1325, the captain of the winning alliance, would have been 18th. Their first pick, 3339, would have seeded above them at 12th.
• 4488's first pick, 67, would have remained at 20th.

Carver:

• 233 would have been the top seed, with 1717 and 3512 just behind them.
• 971, the actual top seed, would have been 8th.
• 1884 would have moved from 31st to 4th, possibly making them the first British team to captain an alliance at championships.
• 368, the captain of the winning alliance, would have been 14th. Their first pick, 359, would have been 23rd.

Curie:

• 303 put up a 10-0-0 record, which would have made them #1 in the division.
• 148, the captain of the winning alliance, would have been 6th. Their first pick, 1114, would have been just above them at 3rd.
• 3663, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 5th. Their first pick, 1574, would have been 18th.
• 3309, not chosen until the second round, would have been 4th in the division.

Galileo:

• 525 would have been the top seed.
• 2836, the actual top seed, would have been second.
• 2056, the captain of the winning alliance, would have been 3rd. Their first pick, 330, would have been 47th.
• 27, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 13th. Their first pick, 1690, would have been 11th.

Hopper:

• 987 would continue to be first with a 10-0-0 record. Out of all of the top seeds at Champs, 987 would have been the only one to seed first in their division under either the 2014 or 2015 system.
• Their first pick, 2826, would have been 13th.
• 1218, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 2nd. Their first pick, 2614, would have been 10th.

Newton:

• 118, the actual first seed and captain of the winning alliance, would have been 9th. Their first pick, 1678, would have been the top seed.
• 195, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 11th. Their first pick, 1756, would have been 16th.
• 175, 24th in reality, would have been 6th.

Tesla:

• 2481, the actual first seed, would have been 12th. Their first pick, 624, would have been 2nd.
• 2170, with a 10-0-0 record, would have been the top seed.
• 3132, the captain of the winning alliance, would have been 4th. Their first pick, 3476, would have been 17th.
• 2137, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have remained at 3rd. Their first pick, 3824, would have been 7th.
• 226, 32nd in reality, would have been 6th.
• 2122, 6th in reality, would have been 24th.

To you, what is the most interesting insight of this thought experiment? What is the most surprising finding of yours?

Once again, I'll update this list with more events as time goes on.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by TheBoulderite

Newton:

• 118, the actual first seed and captain of the winning alliance, would have been 9th. Their first pick, 1678, would have been the top seed.
• 195, the captain of the finalist alliance, would have been 11th. Their first pick, 1756, would have been 16th.
• 175, 24th in reality, would have been 6th.

We still would have picked 118...

[Cothron Theiss]

What did you use as the tiebreaker to rank teams that had the same win-loss records?

[TheBoulderite]

Originally Posted by Cothron Theiss

What did you use as the tiebreaker to rank teams that had the same win-loss records?

I used the same tiebreakers that were in place during 2015. In order, it went from highest coopertition, auto, bins, totes, noodles, random.

[TheBoulderite]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

We still would have picked 118...

I don't doubt that you all would have.

[Liam Fay]

Would you be able to create a similar report for 2016 divisions? I apologize if those exist within your sheets, I am not data savvy.

[TheBoulderite]

Originally Posted by Liam Fay

Would you be able to create a similar report for 2016 divisions? I apologize if those exist within your sheets, I am not data savvy.

I haven't done that yet. It'll take a little while, but I can do that.

[MailmanDelivers]

Looks interesting! How would the "Avg. Qualification" affect the rankings if used as a tiebreaker?

[Jay O'Donnell]

1058 would've jumped up from 48th to 16th, probably would've made that trip a little more enjoyable.

[TheBoulderite]

Originally Posted by MailmanDelivers

Looks interesting! How would the "Avg. Qualification" affect the rankings if used as a tiebreaker?

I'm not sure. I can find out.