FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info

[Hallry]

Posted on the FRC Blog, 11/7/13: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...80%93More-Info

Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info

Blog Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 - 13:31

I’ve provided some clarifications and more information related to the FRC Standard District Points Ranking System below. In addition, the summary document has been updated. You may find the new version here.

Team Age

Team Age points are applied only once per season, not once per event.

If the new points system had been in place in 2013, Michigan would have had three Rookies (all Rookie All Star winners) at their Championship rather than the zero that qualified under the old system. Also, no additional second year teams, other than those already present, would have made the cutoff. As noted in the document describing the new system, the intent of awarding these points is to increase the chance that younger teams will make it to District Championships. We can’t predict the precise effect this will have in 2014, but the team members assembling this approach felt the points we are awarding will provide a reasonable boost to younger teams without unbalancing the system.

Tie Breakers

In determining advancement to the District Championship, tie breakers are applied using data from the first two district events the team attends chronologically. These are the same events considered in non-tie-breaking portion of the system. Third or later events are not considered.

In determining advancement to the FIRST Championship, tie breakers are applied using data from the first two district events the team attends chronologically, as well as data from the District Championship. With the exception of tie breakers related to Match Scores (tie breakers 7 to 9), Points earned at the District Championship in tie-breaking categories are multiplied by three to highlight the importance of performing well at the District Championship in earning advancement. The updated summary document expands and clarifies information on tie breakers.

FIRST Championship Slot Allocations for Districts

This topic is tangential to the points ranking system itself, but I did mention it in the points ranking system summary document, and it’s generated much interest, so I’d like to provide additional detail.

Historically, new Districts had been awarded a number of FIRST Championship slots equal to six times the number of Regionals from their geographic region that were eliminated during the District conversion. This approach is not sustainable, and raises questions of fairness when considering planned districts having Regionals of differing team capacities.

Our intent in the 2015 season is to move to a proportional representation system at the FIRST Championship, based on team counts. Districts will receive the percentage of available slots at the FIRST Championship, rounded up to the nearest whole slot, equal to the percentage of teams they have in their district compared to all of FRC in the current season. In calculating available slots at the FIRST Championship, pre-qualified teams will be excluded. As a reference point, you can see the list of pre-qualified teams for 2014 here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ility-criteria . There are 27 pre-qualified teams in 2014, which means with our planned 400 teams at the FIRST Championship, we’ll have 373 available slots.

These allocated slots are guaranteed to the Districts. These slots will be made up of qualifying award winners from the District Championship (for example, the Chairman’s Award winners), along with any qualifying award winners among district teams who traveled to Regionals, plus the teams on the final District ranking list, as deep in the ranking list as the district needs to go to fill their allocation. If a District team earns a slot at the FIRST Championship, but is not able to attend for whatever reason, the top ranked team who has not yet been offered a slot is given the opportunity, and so on, until all slots are filled. As noted in the summary document, District teams earning FIRST Championship slots at Regionals do count against the District allocation. Even though a District team may earn their FIRST Championship slot at a Regional, they are still from the District and can be considered part of the District contingent to the Championship. Not counting these slots against the District allocation would allow District representation to exceed their fair share of available slots at the FIRST Championship. Also, it’s important to remember that while a District team can travel to a Regional to earn a slot, it’s not possible for a non-District team to earn a slot within the District system.

Pre-qualified teams from a District do not count against their slot allocation. Districts are able to send to the FIRST Championship the number of unique teams allocated to them using the proportional representation model, plus their unique pre-qualified teams. Unlike the allocated slots, however, slots for pre-qualified teams may not be backfilled. If a pre-qualified team from a District is not able to attend the FIRST Championship, it will not be replaced with another team from the District. A pre-qualified team slot is reserved for that specific team only, not the District from which that team comes.

We will be easing the full transition in 2015 to the proportional representation system by taking a modified approach in 2014. To eliminate uncertainty with the number of slots being awarded, we are using 2013 season team counts rather than current season (2014) counts. Also, to make this change less sudden for existing districts, and to make the allocation more closely match early discussions FIRST HQ had with new districts being formed, I am adding a single FIRST Championship slot for each District to the allocations that were determined mathematically from the 2013 team counts. As a practical matter, these additional slots will reduce by four the number of waitlist slots available at the FIRST Championship.

Final FIRST Championship allocations for Districts are shown in the table below. Please remember that any pre-qualified teams Districts have are added to this total, assuming the pre-qualified teams attend the event:

District -----2014 FIRST Championship Allocation
FiM ---------------32
MAR ----------------18
NE ---------------24
PNW ---------------24


I’ll blog again soon.

Frank

Thanks for the great clarification, Frank! +1 to everyone involved.

[dodar]

54 regionals x 6 qualifiers per regional = 324 unique slots.

32(FiM) + 18(MAR) + 24(NE) + 24(PNW) = 98

324 + 98 = 422

They are really banking on 22 slots being double dipped. 22 seems like a lot to hope they get taken twice.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by dodar

54 regionals x 6 qualifiers per regional = 324 unique slots.

32(FiM) + 18(MAR) + 24(NE) + 24(PNW) = 98

324 + 98 = 422

They are really banking on 22 slots being double dipped. 22 seems like a lot to hope they get taken twice.

DD + teams unable to go to CMP for whatever reason

[Nathan Streeter]

Helpful update... thanks Frank & Co!

Glad they're going with a proportional allocation... definitely the logical and fair way to go. I also like that the teams that qualified for CMP before the start of season to be in addition to the calculated proportional allocation.

It mentions in the point system document under awards that the DCMP Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners auto-qualify to CMP. It doesn't mention if DCMP Winners also get an auto-qualify to CMP. Also doesn't mention how many Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners there are... I believe at MSC last year there were 3, 1, and 1 (respectively). Does anyone know more about if this element will be "regulated" or if regions are going to have to decide for themselves?

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

Helpful update... thanks Frank & Co!

Glad they're going with a proportional allocation... definitely the logical and fair way to go. I also like that the teams that qualified for CMP before the start of season to be in addition to the calculated proportional allocation.

It mentions in the point system document under awards that the DCMP Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners auto-qualify to CMP. It doesn't mention if DCMP Winners also get an auto-qualify to CMP. Also doesn't mention how many Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners there are... I believe at MSC last year there were 3, 1, and 1 (respectively). Does anyone know more about if this element will be "regulated" or if regions are going to have to decide for themselves?

I have the same question... sending only one Chairman's or EI winner from each district really limits the representation of the district for those awards at championship.

Originally Posted by AGPapa

If anything, Michigan has to few slots for Championship. They currently have 275 teams signed up. With 32 slots that's 11.6% going to Championships. Compared to other regions, this percentage is low.

New England has 24 slots for 161 teams. That's 14.9%.

MAR has 18 slots for 108 teams. That's 16.7%.

Texas has 111 teams and four regionals, for 24 slots. That's 21.6%.

Ontario has 113 teams and 5 regionals, for 30 slots. That's 26.5%!

Also not crazy about the fact that NE teams just lost 6 spots at CMP... this is based on a comparison to last year when we had 5 regionals in our area which have been replaced. From what is stated here, I agree that Michigan is not as fairly represented even based on percentages, but we are specifically losing spots that we had last year. Concerned that the transition period to the district system is going to be more difficult to sell. It would be easier if it was possible to make it more consistent for all teams.

Originally Posted by dodar

Those last 2 Texas and Ontario percentages are a little misleading. They are open regionals, not districts. Teams from other areas can win those slots.

That's true... but those teams are also allowed to travel to any other regional as well and earn slots there, further increasing their percentage. However, this is not true for teams in the districts. If they were to go outside their district and win, they lose a spot for the district.

[Jscout11]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

Also not crazy about the fact that NE teams just lost 6 spots at CMP... this is based on a comparison to last year when we had 5 regionals in our area which have been replaced.

As Jim and Jon put it last night, the district system is not meant to get more teams to champs, but to give the vast majority of teams who don't make it to champs a greater number of matches per season, or a greater return on investment. Keep in mind that at those 5 regionals, at least a few of the spots went to teams picked in later rounds that wouldn't qualify otherwise (although there are always exceptions). In a district system, this pretty much never happens. You have to be one of the best to get to champs. The 24th team at MAR champs, for example, was on Einstein this year.

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by Jscout11

As Jim and Jon put it last night, the district system is not meant to get more teams to champs, but to give the vast majority of teams who don't make it to champs a greater number of matches per season, or a greater return on investment. Keep in mind that at those 5 regionals, at least a few of the spots went to teams picked in later rounds that wouldn't qualify otherwise (although there are always exceptions). In a district system, this pretty much never happens. You have to be one of the best to get to champs. The 24th team at MAR champs, for example, was on Einstein this year.

I see your point... it is a paradigm shift. And for the most part I think it is a good thing. I especially think it will be a great when everyone has transitioned to districts so that we get back the ability to travel and meet teams from around the country at that level (ie. before CMP). It is just difficult to get through this intermediate phase where we still have both systems co-existing... they are each good in their way but they are not equal. As previously noted by someone in the thread about the original district point blog, the districts were built to reward different things; it is about multi-event performance rather than a single event achievement. I think this is a good goal but it will take time to adjust to that new way of thinking. And it is just a little harder with the 2 perspectives existing side-by-side and essentially competing against each other.

BrendanB - The one thing you didn't include in your analysis was the NE teams that qualified at events outside of NE regionals. I'm just curious where that number puts us. I would argue that those teams should count in your analysis because they are included in the total district spots in the current system.

I personally need to try to remember that and I will try to remind myself of that when I start thinking "it's not fair..." It's never been about fair; it is about learning and inspiring. It is about life, and everyone knows that life is not fair. At least that's what my mom always told me.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

BrendanB - The one thing you didn't include in your analysis was the NE teams that qualified at events outside of NE regionals. I'm just curious where that number puts us. I would argue that those teams should count in your analysis because they are included in the total district spots in the current system.

In 2013, a total of 28 teams went to CMP from New England. This includes people that qualified from NE, from other events, and as HOF or founding teams. I don't have the numbers, but this number was pretty consistent going back to about 2010... I think it varied between 27 and 30 teams (despite the fact that there were only 3 regionals in NE back in 2010).

While the number of District-qualifying teams from New England will be 24 next year, that doesn't include the 5 teams already qualified for CMP from New England (126, 151, 175, 190, 236)... So, New England will send 29 teams to CMP next year... right on line with our recent historical average.

Regardless of whether or not it would line up with our historical average or not, I'm glad that it's being determined by percentage of teams (although only approximately in 2014)... it's the fairest way to do it, I think.

As a side-note, a district team that qualifies for CMP by winning at a regional doesn't really take away a slot from their region... they just ensure that they're one of those teams. If 1519, 230, and 3467 all traveled to the Albany-area regional next year, and we all won, New England would still send 29 teams (24 + 5 pre-quals)... it would just guarantee that we would be 3 of those teams. I think this method is about as good as any to try to bridge the two systems... this'll all work much better when a district-like system exists for everyone!

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

As a side-note, a district team that qualifies for CMP by winning at a regional doesn't really take away a slot from their region... they just ensure that they're one of those teams. If 1519, 230, and 3467 all traveled to the Albany-area regional next year, and we all won, New England would still send 29 teams (24 + 5 pre-quals)... it would just guarantee that we would be 3 of those teams. I think this method is about as good as any to try to bridge the two systems... this'll all work much better when a district-like system exists for everyone!

The more I've thought about it, the more I think people are using their own worries to throw gasoline on this fire. If a team wins a regional as a first or second team on the alliance, they are very, very likely to finish in the rankings just high enough to go to WCMP via their DCMP anyway. By the time it's all said and done, the team very well could have played upwards of 50+ matches by then and a probably also racked up a district win or at least a couple good finishes.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

The more I've thought about it, the more I think people are using their own worries to throw gasoline on this fire. If a team wins a regional as a first or second team on the alliance, they are very, very likely to finish in the rankings just high enough to go to WCMP via their DCMP anyway. By the time it's all said and done, the team very well could have played upwards of 50+ matches by then and a probably also racked up a district win or at least a couple good finishes.

As long as there are two systems functioning at the same time, there will be someone thinking they are getting the short end of the stick compared to someone else. It's human nature. Things won't be "even" until we are all in a district model. Then there will still be folks who think they are still holding the short end of the stick.

Can't satisfy everyone all the time.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

Also not crazy about the fact that NE teams just lost 6 spots at CMP... this is based on a comparison to last year when we had 5 regionals in our area which have been replaced. From what is stated here, I agree that Michigan is not as fairly represented even based on percentages, but we are specifically losing spots that we had last year. Concerned that the transition period to the district system is going to be more difficult to sell. It would be easier if it was possible to make it more consistent for all teams.

Technically this is true and technically it is not true. I've heard a lot of people saying New England should get 30 spots because we had 30 spots previously but in looking at the 2013 season of the teams who qualified for St. Louis it breaks down as follows:

29 slots were given out to teams (GSR did not have a Rookie All star).
Of the 29 only 20 teams were from New England.
Of these 20 teams only 18 attended the World Championship.
Of the teams who came to New England events 7 of them qualified for the Championship.
Of the 20 New England winners two of them double qualified (126 BOS winners and RCA & 2648 PTR winners and EI).

The way I see it you could argue that NE should be getting 30 but if every district took what they originally had you won't fix the scalability issue. If anyone thought NE our any district would keep their original number they weren't looking at the reality of FIRST moving forward.

Also looking at NE events in the past, our events have been home to many teams from outside of our borders such as Canada, New York, out the country, and many teams who traveled to New England over the years.

Technically, New England will be sending the most teams we have ever sent to the Championship in 2014 which is something I am very excited about!

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

Also not crazy about the fact that NE teams just lost 6 spots at CMP... this is based on a comparison to last year when we had 5 regionals in our area which have been replaced.

But the slots NE does have are guaranteed to be NE teams. A rough estimate (though maybe someone who has a better grasp of what actually constitutes New England... sorry, Midwesterner here), by my count at least six slots last year were taken from teams not in NE. So it might actually be a better deal to have the guaranteed spots.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by dodar

54 regionals x 6 qualifiers per regional = 324 unique slots.

32(FiM) + 18(MAR) + 24(NE) + 24(PNW) = 98

324 + 98 = 422

They are really banking on 22 slots being double dipped. 22 seems like a lot to hope they get taken twice.

There are 24 teams registered for champs currently. Unless I am mistaken these are all founding teams, HOF teams, and last year's champs winners/EI/RAS.

16, 20, 45, 51, 67, 103, 111, 126, 148, 151, 175, 190, 191, 236, 254, 341, 359, 365, 610, 842, 1114, 1241, 1538, and 3478.

I would wager 80% of these teams earn a spot this year, so that's 19 of 22 solved right there.

[Jessica Boucher]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

There are 24 teams registered for champs currently. Unless I am mistaken these are all founding teams, HOF teams, and last year's champs winners/EI/RAS.

16, 20, 45, 51, 67, 103, 111, 126, 148, 151, 175, 190, 191, 236, 254, 341, 359, 365, 610, 842, 1114, 1241, 1538, and 3478.

I would wager 80% of these teams earn a spot this year, so that's 19 of 22 solved right there.

You're missing 23, who is not competing in 2014 but could do so in the future.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

You're missing 23, who is not competing in 2014 but could do so in the future.

I only listed the teams that are already registered for champs.