New Vs Old Qualification 2010

[fuzzy1718]

No michigan... why are we always left out of statistics?

[rwood359]

There is a problem with the San Diego data. Team 691 shows 10 matches at 9-1-1 in first place using old method. Also, all the teams that show less than 10 matches have a w-l-t sum equal to 10. Do all of the missed matches show as loses? Or is the number of matches wrong, Blue Alliance shows team 100 with 10 matches.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

No michigan... why are we always left out of statistics?

The last time I looked at Michigan the FRC standings or match data was incomplete. I will look again and see if its updated and get that out tomorrow.

Originally Posted by rwood359

There is a problem with the San Diego data. Team 691 shows 10 matches at 9-1-1 in first place using old method. Also, all the teams that show less than 10 matches have a w-l-t sum equal to 10. Do all of the missed matches show as loses? Or is the number of matches wrong, Blue Alliance shows team 100 with 10 matches.

This is one reason I wanted to get the data out there, to find any errors. I will look at this regional with the data you've provided tomorrow and see if I can find a satisfactory answer.

Thanks everybody for your comments. I hope to have this fully functional and in our pits at the Nationals.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

The last time I looked at Michigan the FRC standings or match data was incomplete. I will look again and see if its updated and get that out tomorrow.



This is one reason I wanted to get the data out there, to find any errors. I will look at this regional with the data you've provided tomorrow and see if I can find a satisfactory answer.

Thanks everybody for your comments. I hope to have this fully functional and in our pits at the Nationals.

Michigan was left out because I forgot to look in the District events category. I am as about as far south as you can get from you so I tend to forget Michigan's on a different system. The Michigan District data is now in the file if you want to look at it.

The reason the match numbers are wrong in San Diego (its also wrong in Finger Lakes) is because it is wrong in the standings from FIRST. I calculate all my stuff correctly in the old data, but when it comes time to print out the data I just use the FIRST match data column from the new system. FIRST is doing something wrong in their code when calculating number of matches. I have fixed my code to use my own match counting system for future iterations but I am not going to rerun all the regionals for a misprint. The calculations are right as they stand, that one column maybe wrong depending on FIRST.

[JamesBrown]

The WPI Data is also incorrect for some reason the last match is not included in the rankings on the FIRST website. They had this problem at the reginal and had to redo the first round of selections because some of the teams were not seeded correctly.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

The WPI Data is also incorrect for some reason the last match is not included in the rankings on the FIRST website. They had this problem at the reginal and had to redo the first round of selections because some of the teams were not seeded correctly.

I certainly remember that, and the overexcited trip to Pit Admin as it was happening...

For what it's worth, the match was I believe 7 - 3 pre penalty.