2009 Division Algorithm

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

I like how 1114, 2056 and 1503 are in the same division.

I like it only because it's not my division

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I like it only because it's not my division

Agreed

[Gaurav27]

Originally Posted by JackG

On a hunch, I added together the team numbers from each division to see if there was some pattern. Perhaps the total team numbers might be the same for all divisions?

Team No. Total
Archimedes: 116639
Curie: 110256
Newton: 106945
Galileo: 103721

Apparently, there seems to be no pattern.

I did something similar; an average of the team numbers in each division.

Team No. Avg.
Archimedes: 1279.42
Curie: 1074.90
Newton: 1062.10
Galileo: 1231.96

I agree there's no pattern here.

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

I like how 1114, 2056 and 1503 are in the same division.

Go Canada! Sorry for the bias.

[Nick Lawrence]

Bias for the win.

[TKM.368]

Decided to see if it had anything to do with where teams originated from.

Ori Arc Cur Gal New Tot
AL    0   1   0   0   1
AR    0   0   0   1   1
AZ    2   3   1   2   8
BRA   0   0   1   0   1
CA    9   8   7  10  34
CAN   5   4   0   3  12
CO    0   0   1   2   3
CT    3   3   4   5  15
DE    0   0   0   1   1
FL    7   1   4   3  15
GA    4   1   1   2   8
HI    0   1   2   1   4
IA    0   0   1   0   1
ID    0   1   0   1   2
IL    1   1   3   1   6
IN    2   2   4   3  11
ISR   0   1   2   2   5
KS    0   1   1   0   2
KY    0   0   0   1   1
LA    0   1   0   0   1
MA    3   3   0   3   9
MD    0   1   1   4   6
MEX   0   0   0   1   1
MI    9  16   9   9  43
MN    3   1   0   1   5
MO    4   2   0   3   9
MS    1   2   0   1   4
NC    1   0   2   0   3
NH    1   2   3   1   7
NJ    5   4   9   2  20
NV    1   1   1   0   3
NY    3   8   8   9  28
OH    3   1   2   1   7
OK    3   0   2   2   7
OR    1   2   3   0   6
PA    6   1   2   0   9
PHI   0   1   0   0   1
PR    0   1   1   0   2
RI    0   0   0   2   2
SC    1   2   1   0   4
TN    0   0   1   0   1
TX    5   3   5   1  14
VA    0   2   3   6  11
WA    2   1   2   1   6
WI    2   3   0   3   8
WV    0   1   0   0   1
Tot  87  87  87  88 349

Guess not...

[Alex Golec]

If I may suggest one other factor, for your entertainment:

Perhaps it is by time of registration, in a 1-2-3-4 fashion?

I say this because one fateful day, back in whenever (2005-2007ish), the team list for the championship was unsorted and showed the order of signing up... teams like 47, 16, 190 were up top.

Anyways, that data is (as far as I know) not viewable.

-Alex "twocent" Golec

[XXShadowXX]

I'm gonna say random. So i can get sleep tonight.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Added totals of each teams Lat/Long Location? in a serpentine order?

[ScottOliveira]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

Added totals of each teams Lat/Long Location? in a serpentine order?

Have fun calculating that....

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Alex469

If I may suggest one other factor, for your entertainment:

Perhaps it is by time of registration, in a 1-2-3-4 fashion?

I say this because one fateful day, back in whenever (2005-2007ish), the team list for the championship was unsorted and showed the order of signing up... teams like 47, 16, 190 were up top.

Anyways, that data is (as far as I know) not viewable.

-Alex "twocent" Golec

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JackG

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

Not necessarily, I know for a fact we were already registered for Atlanta before we qualified, same with 217 and 33 and I'm sure there were many others.

[Alex Golec]

Originally Posted by JackG

Perhaps the teams who qualified from the Michigan State Championship would serve as a test group. If that really is the formula used, then theoretically, they'd be divided evenly among the divisions.

While there were 18 teams that qualified that day, I don't know how many of them accepted the invitation. In addition, there were another (up to) 12 qualifiers at the two Minnesota events that could skew this, along with the opening of the wait list if there were more spots available at that time.

I suppose we'll never truly find out.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Alex469

If I may suggest one other factor, for your entertainment:

Perhaps it is by time of registration, in a 1-2-3-4 fashion?

I say this because one fateful day, back in whenever (2005-2007ish), the team list for the championship was unsorted and showed the order of signing up... teams like 47, 16, 190 were up top.

Anyways, that data is (as far as I know) not viewable.

-Alex "twocent" Golec

Checked it based on the last handful of teams (whose registration order we know from watching the CMP "who's going" page on the FIRST site). No (simple) pattern to be found.

[The Lucas]

I know I said it was "clumpy" (6 teams in a row) but I did some analysis and the 6 in a row should happen ~1/3 of the time in random (with 348 teams). Other than the 6 in a row it fits well to expected (spreadsheet attached). I am going to say it was simply random.