paper: FIRST Championship History Results

[akeisic]

lol...I guess we're the "Go Big or Go Home" team of FIRST!

2 Elimination appearances...2 World Championships

This sheet is awesome! Thank you for putting in the effort to compile the information. I especially like the weighting factor - it really levels the playing field between "rookies" and vets.

[Peter Matteson]

Looking through the data some interesting things struck me.

All 4 #1 seeds have never made it to Einstein, however in 2007 no #1 seeds made Einstein.

2007 Also produced the lowest seed champion with #8, also the only 8 seed to ever advance to Einstein.

In general it looks like 1 and 2 seeds are most successful at advancing from their division.

7 teams have been in 10 consecutive elimination rounds at the championship.

6 Teams now have 2 or more championships during this decade where as only1 team had multiple wins for the first 18 years of FIRST. All multiple champions other than 71 have won their second since 2008.

2 Teams have won back to back championships.

3 Teams have at least 3 consecutive appearances on Einstein.

Teams with multiple trips to Einstein teams that have won are bolded:
6: 177
5: 67, 217
4: 71, 233
3: 25, 60, 111, 175, 254, 469
2: 33, 64, 144, 173, 294, 494, 503, 968, 1114, 1126, 1218

~0.66% of FRC Teams registered each year make the Championship.
~1.26% of all FRC Teams registered this year have made Einstein more than once.
~.678% of all teams ever registered has made Einstein more than once.

58 teams have made Einstein once for a total of 81 unique team numbers appearing in the "Final Four" meaning ~2.39% of all teams have made the final field at some point since the current format for the championship started in 2001.

I'm amazed you able to collect all this great data, thanks for posting it.

[Jim Zondag]

I have updated this championship history database with the 2011 Results.
Congrats to Wildstang for moving into 1st place overall on the weighted history scale.

[Adam Freeman]

Jim,

Thank you! I alway love looking into this data and trying to determine which team is #1. Congratulations to Wildstang for taking over the title....for this year.

One error I noticed was, in the data for Archimedes you have 2106 instead of 2016.

Also, I am not exactly sure how the weighted data is calculated but we seem to be taking a significant dive in value compared to other past year champions, even though we had similar performances. I guess when you pull ahead by so much, the expectations are that much higher.

Interestingly enough 217 is showing a decline, even though they did better this year than last year. Yet, 469 shows an improvement even though they declined compared to last year.

Interesting, thanks.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Jim,

Thank you! I alway love looking into this data and trying to determine which team is #1. Congratulations to Wildstang for taking over the title....for this year.

One error I noticed was, in the data for Archimedes you have 2106 instead of 2016.

Also, I am not exactly sure how the weighted data is calculated but we seem to be taking a significant dive in value compared to other past year champions, even though we had similar performances. I guess when you pull ahead by so much, the expectations are that much higher.

Interestingly enough 217 is showing a decline, even though they did better this year than last year. Yet, 469 shows an improvement even though they declined compared to last year.

Interesting, thanks.

I think that 67 ran into the problem of not having room to improve, appearances in the Einstein finals in a row is tough to top, 217 benefits from having a down year last year (if you can call division finalist a down year).

If I wanted to calculate 78's ranking including when they were part of 121 can I just add their 11 year derated points? I assume I can because there is no overlap in the years they made eliminations (121 made it 220-the split, 78 made it the two years since the split), including results before the split 78 jumps up to 13/14 with 33 and 330.

[thefro526]

Thanks for posting such an interesting database.

I noticed a few mistakes though, it seems that the database has us (816) listed as the 11th pick in the Curie 09 draft, when we were the 6th Alliance Captain. Also I believe the draft position of 1771 is wrong as well. Probably won't change anything, but it caught my eye.

[Robby Unruh]

Really nice paper.
I guess 111 is up there in the ranks with 67, 3-time world champs. Congrats again, guys.

[SIIENGINEER]

Jim...Thanks for putting this together. I only have a ??? it shows that 16 was a QF last year 2012. Should that not show them as WC?

Again...Thank you very much for taking the time to gather and present these #'s for us.

[James Tonthat]

I'm wondering, do WC's count less in 2013 (looking at the Elimination Points Table on the 13 Year History Result)?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by James Tonthat

I'm wondering, do WC's count less in 2013 (looking at the Elimination Points Table on the 13 Year History Result)?

James, Thanks, good catch. It turns out I made a mistake and neglected to give any of the teams credit for Einstein this year . I reviewed the whole thing and reposted. Serves me right for trying to do this on a plane.

[Navid Shafa]

I've become a huge fan of all of your stats over the years. I keep gravitating towards your spreadsheets whenever I'm doing any research of my own. Just today, I noticed the 2013 tab of the newest spreadsheet seems to have a team and location mismatch. I noticed this first when I saw 1718 is next to Goleta, CA. I thought it might be an Off by One error, but there are some other funky things going on here...

While I have you here, I presume you are responsible for this?

As I mentioned over here, I was mulling over what this would look like with MAR, PNW, NEF and Canada added to it. If I end up doing it, i'd rather not start from scratch. Heck, I might even be able to snag nearly everything I need from something the Great Zondag made

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

If I end up doing it, i'd rather not start from scratch. Heck, I might even be able to snag nearly everything I need from something the Great Zondag made

I've gotten most of the data I needed for my side projects. Do you plan on adding PNE and NE to your region data spreads this year?

Can't wait for the 2014 Championship History update!

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

Can't wait for the 2014 Championship History update!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3019?

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

I've become a huge fan of all of your stats over the years. I keep gravitating towards your spreadsheets whenever I'm doing any research of my own. Just today, I noticed the 2013 tab of the newest spreadsheet seems to have a team and location mismatch. I noticed this first when I saw 1718 is next to Goleta, CA. I thought it might be an Off by One error, but there are some other funky things going on here...

While I have you here, I presume you are responsible for this?

As I mentioned over here, I was mulling over what this would look like with MAR, PNW, NEF and Canada added to it. If I end up doing it, i'd rather not start from scratch. Heck, I might even be able to snag nearly everything I need from something the Great Zondag made

Navid,
I will scritinize this a little more and fix any errors when I get a chance. I did most of it in an airport, so it may need some additional review

Yes, I was planning to add analyses for PNW, NEF, Canada, Minnesota and a few other areas to this summary. I am a math guy and I like numeric proof over opinion. I did that analysis earlier to justify to some people that the District system helps to make teams better. It is not the only way, but it is effective. The main thing that makes teams better is playing (duh). In some regions like Ontario, we see a similar phenomenon that we see here: the culture has shifted so that many/most teams play multiple times each year and as a result, the average capability of the region increases. Districts make it cheaper, but geography is still one of the main factors. If you can get a lot of events close to lots of teams, then the region will improve compared to others which are more diffuse.

The FRC appears to finally be "over the hump" on number of plays per year.
2014 is the first year in FRC history where less than 50% only played one event.

In 2014, 2696 teams have played events according to the FRC database.

Events Played: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+

Percentage: 47%, 35%, 13%, 4%, 2%

Num of Teams: 1254, 945, 350, 106, 41

26% of the FRC is now in District Systems. (702/2696)

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Thanks Jim.
The one thing that stood out for me on the graph is how so many teams average around the 80% mark overall. I would have to say, that on average we are all doing well and about the same.