Some statistics on year-to-year consistency, 2005-2007

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I'm somewhat surprised that Regional Winner #4 is ranked last, unless one of my assumptions is wrong.

For a team to be #4 on the alliance, they would have to be a replacement team, the highest seed to not be picked. The lowest this team could be would be 25th, if the top 8 seeds all choose within the top 24. (Typically it seems to be more in the range of 16 or even lower). If they have a performance of .7, then 70% of teams perform better then them. 25/.7=35 for a typical regional where a replacement happens. Since almost all regionals are larger then 35 and replacement teams are almost always ranked better then 25th, that number doesn't seem right.

What's regional winner #4 in that graph? It looks like it's ranked dead last.

The team in question (there was only one #4 regional winner) was team 1216, who came 20/46 (0.43) at one regional (presumably the one they went #4 regional winner at) and 34/34 at another (1.0). So their math ends up being an average placing of 0.71, which is why the regional winner #4 is so low. Since there is only one sample point, it is artifically low and I probably shouldn't have included it in the list.

All the other awards except for regional finalist #4 have at least 24 data points, and in the case of the judges award, as many as 52.

Being that I'm bored now, I'm going to update it to include 2005 and 2006, then I'll see about doing some year-to-year relationships.