Seeding Calculations

[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!