paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances

[JamesBrown]

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

[MasterChief 573]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

Agreed, this really is no indicator of how teams are gonna do at Championships. I mean probably the really highly placed teams, top tens and such, will probably do good but below that everyone probably just as good a chance as everybody else as far as making it to eliminations.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I like my RPI better

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I like my RPI better

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?

I would be Tom, but this has some merit as well. This shows the teams ability to win matches (granted a fair bit of that is luck, but it does show strategy and defensive ability). In addition, this weights teams that have played more matches much higher than those that haven't. Both systems suffer based on the exponential scoring system. In Tom's system, a team that places one more tube per match than another will appear to be twice as good. In this, it is not as dramatic, but a single tube can greatly alter your "top score" points (8 tubes gives you a final rating 42 points higher than 7 does). The best system would be a combination of the two (possibly including other data, and some weighting changes), or minimally a spreadsheet containing both sets of data.

[Swampdude]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

Some of the individual sheets for regionals have not been sorted by rank yet (as is the case for UTC and Boston). If you could, please sort them and then check your picking order again. I'm curious if it gets any better. I had the data one way, and then tweaked variables - then did not re-sort the rest of the pages, as the individual data gets sorted on the "results" and "champs" page.

[JamesBrown]

I sorted the data. I think that the problem with UTC and Boston is that in Boston some low number teams ranked much lower than they should have because of the large number of rookie and second year teams.

In Hartford some higher numbered teams were fortunate enough to be paired with 2 very good teams due to there being very few newer teams and tons of veterans. I can give you specific team numbers but in the interest of not offending any one I wont post them here. feel free to pm me if you want specifics.