Is FIRST's data right?

[Billfred]

A bunch of folks (myself included) are going to be looking for competition data for various reasons (Fantasy FIRST, anyone?)

That said, is the data on FIRST's site for week one correct (or in the process of being correct)?

BAE: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NH/awards.html

NJ: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NJ/awards.html

VCU: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/VA/awards.html

PNW: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/OR/awards.html

Edit: I just realized that the rankings on FIRST's site are sorted by team number, not by rank. (Seeing 116 as #1 seed when they didn't make eliminations kinda threw up the red flag.) FFers, hold your proverbial horses.

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by Billfred

A bunch of folks (myself included) are going to be looking for competition data for various reasons (Fantasy FIRST, anyone?)

That said, is the data on FIRST's site for week one correct (or in the process of being correct)?

BAE: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NH/awards.html

NJ: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/NJ/awards.html

VCU: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/VA/awards.html

PNW: http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Eve.../rankings.html and http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/OR/awards.html

Edit: I just realized that the rankings on FIRST's site are sorted by team number, not by rank. (Seeing 116 as #1 seed when they didn't make eliminations kinda threw up the red flag.) FFers, hold your proverbial horses.

On first pass (no pun intended), when RANK is sequential and in order of TEAM number, you have to ASSUME something "ain't quite right". Let's hope these just need to be adjusted/corrected. Currently the rankings hold no water.

[Nuttyman54]

You can still get some idea of which teams a leading by looking at the W-L-T section, but that's not going to give you the complete story. Is the "Average" category their QP or just average score?

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

You can still get some idea of which teams a leading by looking at the W-L-T section, but that's not going to give you the complete story. Is the "Average" category their QP or just average score?

I'm thinking its QP, as I saw team numbers of -1 and team scores of 0 for the early matches.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by billbo911

On first pass (no pun intended), when RANK is sequential and in order of TEAM number, you have to ASSUME something "ain't quite right". Let's hope these just need to be adjusted/corrected. Currently the rankings hold no water.

I wouldn't take any of the regional competition data on the FIRST website as accurate yet. Team 125's first match was #3, not #1 as the match results indicate.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

For BAE, after you sort the teams by Win/Loss, the rankings are correct.

[Wetzel]

The match results and awards from VCU are correct. I entered the awards and we checked the match results as they posted. The ranking issue is a known and being worked on, but the QP and RP data are correct, we spot checked multiple teams.

Wetzel

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

The match results and awards from VCU are correct. I entered the awards and we checked the match results as they posted. The ranking issue is a known and being worked on, but the QP and RP data are correct, we spot checked multiple teams.

Wetzel

Double check Qual Match 11, I think something went wrong there.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

Double check Qual Match 11, I think something went wrong there.

The first 32 Q matches are from Thursday. If you look, after the elim matches, it goes from Q1-32, then back to Q1. Those 32 should really not be listed, or have a P in front of them. This is another known issue.

Wetzel

nope, both the ranks and some of the awards for the PNW is wrong

we won the indsutrial design award yet on the usfirst site it says team 849 won and they weren't even in the regional

[Lil' Lavery]

The average column is the RP column (average loser's score in the team's match).

[soap108]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

The match results and awards from VCU are correct. I entered the awards and we checked the match results as they posted. The ranking issue is a known and being worked on, but the QP and RP data are correct, we spot checked multiple teams.

Wetzel

I entered the data of VCU and get the same rankings. A couple times I had to reverse engineer the score, especially match #8 where the red alliance had 12 minus 35, not 0 minus 35 as the overlay had shown.
Also, match 53 was shown as 48-19, but the website states 53-29.
While I have the same ranking order, a few teams have different Ave RP than first does.

It would really help if the first website included 1) penalty / dq info 2) "extra match" / surrogate info 3) hi score 4) coinflip result.

When it comes to "Hi Score"... Is it the highest un-penalized or penalized score? It seems it can not be the highest Ranking Point score, since teams like 1731 are listed at 99.

Also, If 1731 had been DQ in that 99 pt match, would their Hi Score have been the next highest, 76 in match 1? ... would make sense, right?

Thanks,
KA-108

[Wetzel]

I've attached the final rankings for VCU for those that are interested. This was generated straight from the scoring software version that we ran on Saturday.

Wetzel

[114Klutz]

Not for PacNw at least, Alliance #8 made finals - it shows us losing in the semifinals.

[KarenH]

Just curious--
How did you find this information at all? Without the links you provided, there's no way anyone could find it on the FIRST website. What would someone tell friends who are unfamiliar with FIRST, if they want to look up a team's scores for a given regional?

(Assuming, of course, that the data would be meaningful to anyone not acquainted with the scoring system.)