Seeding Calculations

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/6/99 1:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/6/99 12:07 PM MST:



yeah...i know...dallas won the stanley cup...and to prove that i do at least pay attention...houston (where i live) has an IHL
hockey team...and i'm pretty sure they won 'whatever the cup is' this year also...i don't remember the name...but its like
the commisioner cup or something...if they didn't win it, i know they at least went fairly far in the playoffs...

BUT..that doesn't mean i follow hockey...its hard to follow a sport closely that you can never really play...

Tom

[archiver]

Posted by Bethany Dunning.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #163, working on a new name!, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 9/7/99 5:29 PM MST


In Reply to: Yeah...i know we have hockey posted by Tom Vanderslice on 9/6/99 1:33 PM MST:



Tom - I realise it's a sport that many northerners take for granted. BTW - the Houston Aero's won the Turner Cup.
Last year's winner? The Detroit Vipers. The Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup. Last year's winner? The Detroit
Red Wings. Coincidence, or conspiracy? ;-)

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 9/7/99 7:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Yeah...i know we have hockey posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/7/99 5:29 PM MST:



The Dallas Stars beat the Buffalo Sabres this year....
The Houston Comets beat the New York Liberty in the WNBA this year...
The San Antonio Spurs beat the New York Knicks this year...


Texas represent...new york better watch out..

Tom


(by the way..i stole this stat from espn.com)

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 9/6/99 6:04 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST:




With limited numbers of contests, more discussion needs to go into
selecting a winner if the final score is a tie. Imagine this year
if your alliance scored a few hundred points and ending up losing
due to a 'tie breaker'. The hockey comparison works well for me. Teams
ending in a tie get ''2'' points each. Or something else in the ''middle'.
Unless the new game has some other factor that would be able to fairly
seclect the winner in a tie score situation.




: But as long as you are using sports as an analogy, let's take it this direction: when it comes time for seeding
: for playoffs in basketball, hockey, etc, it is your win/loss average that gets you where you want to go. Take
: the NHL (my team is snickering right now - they know my love for hockey). Wins are worth 2 points, ties are
: worth one, losses worth nothing. The team with the most points is the top seed. No opinion, no how many
: goals did you score, no penalty minutes. Just whether you won or lost.

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 9/15/99 7:32 AM MST


In Reply to: Tie Scores posted by David Kelso on 9/6/99 6:04 AM MST:



:
: With limited numbers of contests, more discussion needs to go into
: selecting a winner if the final score is a tie. Imagine this year
: if your alliance scored a few hundred points and ending up losing
: due to a 'tie breaker'.

Definitely! In my opinion, there should either be a game that eliminates the possibility of a tie somehow, or at least have the tiebreaker be something that can be easily seen. At the WMRC, one of the alliances in the semifinals literally lost the deciding match by a fraction of an inch. At first glance, it appeared that they had won, but when the height of the machine 'off the ground' was measured, they were just barely under the required 2 inches.

And that gets me off onto another slightly different rant...I feel that while multipliers will always be around in some form, as a way of rewarding a team or alliance for getting their machine to do what is considered one of the harder tasks, they should be easily determined by looking at the field.
Good Multiplier: Central goal in '98...each ball in the goal served as a multiplier...the only time you had trouble with determining if it was or not was when the ball was at the very top of the goal or had been wedged into one side
Bad Multiplier: 'On the puck' definition in '99...what looked like two inches from the player station may not have been in reality. Why not just have it be if the machine was off the ground at all?

Just my thoughts...

Nate

[archiver]

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 9/6/99 2:36 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: What if seeding wasn't solely dependent on scoring? posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:27 PM MST:



Beth, Tom, Raul and others -
All of you bring up points that indicate that win / loss record by itself doesn't really paint the
picure we would like to see. Too few matches at nationals, bad luck, 1 poor outing, 1 unplugged
battery, all can leave teams frustrated and upset. I have witnessed more than one occasion where
a student, engineer, or teacher felt far too much responsibility for failing the team (and now the
alliance as well). Seeding or Ranking teams, whether 18 or 300 should reflect how the teams respond
on average. Everyone recognizes that all of the above mentioned have happened to both great and
not so great teams, but the result is felt more by teams that are considered better, and not lesser.
In other words, I hope for a ranking system that does not put the sole emphasis on winning, or on
scoring. I think the ideal ranking system would reward winning, as well as, scoring offensively while
keeping the opponent from scoring. Whats more important, winning every match with a score of
1 to nothing, or winning half the time with a score of 100 to 99? I believe that a ranking system that
can reward all 3 aspects, is ideal. 50% of the ranking for winning, 25% for scoring, 25% for defense.
That should keep the calculators rolling, and by the way - I think that FIRST should post the rankings
as the matches are completed and the scores given. Add a column 'New' ranking! But most of all -
I still contend that simple scoring must be achieved this year! I propose 'adding only', everyone can
count and should know that the differential between the two teams (colors) will determine the winner.
Let's leave the multipliers for the seeding calculations!