Discrepency in standings

[rollncoast]

Here's a strange one.. I forgot to write down some info on standings and what not from Buckeye today so I went to usfirst.com to get the information when i got home. I arrived at the standings page which claims that the standings for the seeding rounds are different then the standings FIRST used to make the alliances and such. My team (695) came in 11th at the competition but the website says we came in 7th. It says all teams played their 7 matches(some 8) and in the match results page all the matches are in there. Can someone explain the difference to me? Unfortunately our team didn't make it to the elim rounds, and well, there isn't anything we can do about it now. O well. This is just a curious thing.

[Richard Wallace]

I have a similar question.

After the end of qualifying matches in St Louis, the scoreboard there showed my team as having an average of 114 QP and ranked us 17th.

We were selected for the elimination matches (thanks, 770 and 1005!) and our alliance advanced to the semifinals, but not to the final round.

I just checked the FIRST site and saw that the standings list for St Louis shows my team as having an average of 120 QP and ranks us 6th.

Does anyone know if there is a difference between the post-qualifiying standings and the standings shown on the FIRST site now? Maybe the difference is due to elimination round scores?

[AJ Quick]

I think it must be the very final standings after everything is done... teams should move due to teams that are on alliances, and how they place in the final rounds.

[Ricky Q.]

They might be not updated yet...never know about those FIRST people

[rollncoast]

Alright, I went through and added up the scores of our 7 matches, subtracted the lowest score and divided by 6. I got 117.5 which is what the website said. Unfortunately I don't remember what the regional board said we had. So strange...

[Richard Wallace]

Yes, it looks like the final posted rankings include elimination match results. I recalculated my team's QP average using the match results shown on the FIRST site and got the same result that FIRST posted.

But in the process I found something else. It appears that FIRST recorded the semifinal result for our alliance incorrectly. The scores posted are correct, but the teams are not. Match SF1.1 is shown as having been played by 770 and 1005 on the Red side, but the actual Red teams were 770 and 931 (my team). Our alliance's score was very low in that match, only 3 EP.

By attributing the low score to 1005 instead of 931, FIRST makes 931's QP average too high and 1005's too low. 931's QP average is shown as 120 but should be 110. 1005's QP average is shown as 97 but should be 106.

If the error is corrected, 931's QP rank will decrease from 6th to 11th, and 1005's QP rank will increase from 21st to 15th or higher (because there are two other teams shown with 106 QP averages.)

My team wants the error corrected, since it would not be fair for us to benefit from a higher QP rank than we earned, nor is it fair for 1005 to suffer for a lower QP rank than they earned.

My questions: (1) would the differences in QP rank that result from correcting FIRST's clerical error cause any change in the way that teams 931 and 1005 are seeded at the Championship?

(2) does FIRST provide a way to report clerical errors like this?

and (3) has anyone else noticed a clerical error in regional QP rankings?

[rollncoast]

Well there we solve the problem with the rankings. They might want to fix that on the website. I would call/e-mail them about the wrong team number though.

[Jack]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=18944

I'm parsing match data, and put the errors i found there.

The biggest one, is with the finals.

Richard, you answered my question. As I guessed, FIRST just filled the match list with teams for the finals not considering who actually was playing. I'm guessing they went something like:

Match 1: Seed & Pick 1
Match 2: Seed & Pick 2

I've looked on the site, and did not see any link directly related to fixing match results. However, I really would like this problem fixed, becuase for us who are parsing data from their site, we'll have incorrect standings on teams.

Thanks,

Jack

[Madison]

Originally posted by Richard

My questions: (1) would the differences in QP rank that result from correcting FIRST's clerical error cause any change in the way

The Championship begins with a clean slate. Regional performance is irrelevant.