Divisions posted

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Jared341

The order doesn't seem to have anything obvious to do with team number, location, team name, or order of registration (yes, I checked by looking at the divisions of the last few teams that were added to the list this morning and yesterday ).

So it's either random, or generated by some suitably complex but deterministic function from whose obfuscated nature Dave is undoubtedly gleaning pleasure.

To me it looks like what you would get if you shuffled 4 decks (or suites) of 87 cards into each other once. It is not even close to purely random, the team numbers clump together far too much (Curie has 6 teams in a row from 236-271). It would be simple to implement, just make a program that makes 4 lists and inserts a specified number of "cuts" (to another list). Then take the resulting order (single list) of divisions and apply it to number ordered list of teams.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

Divisions are up on TBA. 87 teams per division. Team sig banners will regenerate within 24 hours.

How about update your predictions site to show the real divisions and do the color scheme?

[BurtGummer]

Archimedes for us. At least 254 or 399 aren't in there to terrorize us, lol. Sure, we could've possibly gotten teamed up, but we usually aren't too lucky, haha. Now the powerhouses in our division will be mysteries.

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by BurtGummer

Archimedes for us. At least 254 or 399 aren't in there to terrorize us, lol. Sure, we could've possibly gotten teamed up, but we usually aren't too lucky, haha. Now the powerhouses in our division will be mysteries.

You can't forget 1114 or 2056

[fredliu168]

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

You can't forget 1114 or 2056

Who are they? I've never heard of these teams

[Stu Bloom]

So I was wondering ... why 87 teams per division? Does that number seem a bit odd to anyone else?

88 seems like such a nice, even number

After doing a bit of cypherin' I think I may have figured it out ...

To entirely avoid the need for surrogate matches there would need to be either 84 teams per division, or 90 teams per division. I suppose that for any number of reasons 84 may be too few (only 336 total) and 90 too many (a WHOPPING 360 FRC teams total)?

Within that range, 87 teams gives the most options to avoid surrogates. Any even number of "rounds" (8, 10 or 12) would yield that same number of plays for each team, while any odd number of rounds would require some teams to play as surrogates for their 3rd "Q" match. Any other number of teams/divison between 84 and 90 would require either 9 or 12 "rounds" to avoid anyone having to play as a surrogate. (I know 6, 14, and 15 fit in there somewhere, but I am staying within a "reasonable" range of matches - not likely to be less than 8 or more than 12 per team)

Am I making any sense??

Anyone have any other thoughts ??

Does anyone really CARE ??

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

Who are they? I've never heard of these teams

Hmmmm, just some randoms that pwn

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Anyone have any other thoughts ??

They signed up all the teams that had to be signed up, then let in a couple to round it out to a number divisible by 4 and that's why there are 87 teams in each division.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

So I was wondering ... why 87 teams per division? Does that number seem a bit odd to anyone else?

88 seems like such a nice, even number

After doing a bit of cypherin' I think I may have figured it out ...

To entirely avoid the need for surrogate matches there would need to be either 84 teams per division, or 90 teams per division. I suppose that for any number of reasons 84 may be too few (only 336 total) and 90 too many (a WHOPPING 360 FRC teams total)?

Within that range, 87 teams gives the most options to avoid surrogates. Any even number of "rounds" (8, 10 or 12) would yield that same number of plays for each team, while any odd number of rounds would require some teams to play as surrogates for their 3rd "Q" match. Any other number of teams/divison between 84 and 90 would require either 9 or 12 "rounds" to avoid anyone having to play as a surrogate. (I know 6, 14, and 15 fit in there somewhere, but I am staying within a "reasonable" range of matches - not likely to be less than 8 or more than 12 per team)

Am I making any sense??

Anyone have any other thoughts ??

Does anyone really CARE ??

Stu, I'm sure we all care...

Most likely, there will be 102 qualification matches played in each division. Each team will play 7 matches that count and three teams in each division will play a surrogate match. So for those teams who end up with 8 matches, remember that your third match will not count in the standings (but that doesn't mean the scouts will ignore you!!)

[dodar]

what do you guys mean by "surrogate match?"

[Neal G]

Originally Posted by dodar

what do you guys mean by "surrogate match?"

It basically means that you have to play an extra match that WON'T count so that everyone else can get in 7 games. But don't blow it off, we will definitely be watching

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Stu, I'm sure we all care...

Most likely, there will be 102 qualification matches played in each division. Each team will play 7 matches that count and three teams in each division will play a surrogate match. So for those teams who end up with 8 matches, remember that your third match will not count in the standings (but that doesn't mean the scouts will ignore you!!)

Not disputing ... but why do you think 7 rounds (102 matches)? Sticking to 6 minute cycle times that would be just over 10 hours of playing time (then divisional elims, then Einstein).

Bumping up to 8 rounds eliminates surrogates and brings the total matches to 116, adding about an hour and a half ... Is that too long?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Not disputing ... but why do you think 7 rounds (102 matches)?

Every championship since at least 2004 has had exactly seven qualification rounds.

http://www2.usfirst.org/2004comp/eve.../rankings.html
http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/eve.../rankings.html
http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/eve.../rankings.html
http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/eve.../rankings.html
http://www2.usfirst.org/2008comp/eve.../rankings.html

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Not disputing ... but why do you think 7 rounds (102 matches)? Sticking to 6 minute cycle times that would be just over 10 hours of playing time (then divisional elims, then Einstein).

Bumping up to 8 rounds eliminates surrogates and brings the total matches to 116, adding about an hour and a half ... Is that too long?

i guess it is because we generally only have 7 rounds every year.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Not disputing ... but why do you think 7 rounds (102 matches)? Sticking to 6 minute cycle times that would be just over 10 hours of playing time (then divisional elims, then Einstein).

Bumping up to 8 rounds eliminates surrogates and brings the total matches to 116, adding about an hour and a half ... Is that too long?

I really wish we could play 8 matches instead of 7, too.

The agenda allows just under 10-1/2 hours of playing time for FRC, so 7 is probably going to be the deal.