paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances

[MasterChief 573]

It doesn't look like the champs list has all the teams going to the Championships. What's up with that?

[sanddrag]

Am I reading this right? By your spreadsheet 696 is ranked 4th in the country!? Sweet!

[JamesBrown]

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

[MasterChief 573]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

Agreed, this really is no indicator of how teams are gonna do at Championships. I mean probably the really highly placed teams, top tens and such, will probably do good but below that everyone probably just as good a chance as everybody else as far as making it to eliminations.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I like my RPI better

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I like my RPI better

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?

I would be Tom, but this has some merit as well. This shows the teams ability to win matches (granted a fair bit of that is luck, but it does show strategy and defensive ability). In addition, this weights teams that have played more matches much higher than those that haven't. Both systems suffer based on the exponential scoring system. In Tom's system, a team that places one more tube per match than another will appear to be twice as good. In this, it is not as dramatic, but a single tube can greatly alter your "top score" points (8 tubes gives you a final rating 42 points higher than 7 does). The best system would be a combination of the two (possibly including other data, and some weighting changes), or minimally a spreadsheet containing both sets of data.

[Swampdude]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

Some of the individual sheets for regionals have not been sorted by rank yet (as is the case for UTC and Boston). If you could, please sort them and then check your picking order again. I'm curious if it gets any better. I had the data one way, and then tweaked variables - then did not re-sort the rest of the pages, as the individual data gets sorted on the "results" and "champs" page.

[JamesBrown]

I sorted the data. I think that the problem with UTC and Boston is that in Boston some low number teams ranked much lower than they should have because of the large number of rookie and second year teams.

In Hartford some higher numbered teams were fortunate enough to be paired with 2 very good teams due to there being very few newer teams and tons of veterans. I can give you specific team numbers but in the interest of not offending any one I wont post them here. feel free to pm me if you want specifics.

[Vogel648]

It seems that using total wins screws over teams that go to fewer regionals, I'd suggest using percentages(really wouldn't be that hard to implement).

[MariaChristineK]

Hey great job on the total compiling of the results. Even though there are little things that could be improved, it is an awesome spreadsheet! Thanks for making it available to everyone.

[Jacob Plicque]

Originally Posted by Vogel648

It seems that using total wins screws over teams that go to fewer regionals, I'd suggest using percentages(really wouldn't be that hard to implement).

I agree that percentages is a better ranking method since some teams played in more matchs at a regional. Additionally I suggest an 80 point versus 40 bonus for the regional championship alliance since they have won 8 games. Naturally, a finalist would get 60 point versus 20 bonus for the regional 2nd place alliance since they have won 6 games. Overall it is a good effort

[Swampdude]

I've added a rev B which now uses a win % x the value, so that will equalize teams with less matches with those who went to regionals with more. I also re-sorted all of the individual regionals. And a bonus I added the current team list for those in Galileo
( I know it will change, but now its ready for the real team lists)

[MasterChief 573]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

I've added a rev B which now uses a win % x the value, so that will equalize teams with less matches with those who went to regionals with more. I also re-sorted all of the individual regionals. And a bonus I added the current team list for those in Galileo
( I know it will change, but now its ready for the real team lists)

That's great...where is it?

[hayakuneko]

so did you try to add all of the match results from every regional? or are you just basing this off of each team's most recent regional?

because I only see the match results from the San Diego regional that my team just played in. We also competed in the LA regional which was a few weeks ago...

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by hayakuneko

so did you try to add all of the match results from every regional? or are you just basing this off of each team's most recent regional?

because I only see the match results from the San Diego regional that my team just played in. We also competed in the LA regional which was a few weeks ago...

You have seperate scores for each regional you attend. Your rating for LA is rated #138.