New Vs Old Qualification 2010

[sircedric4]

I put together a small program that went over very well at the Bayou Regional this year, which computed how each team would have fared under the old qualification system of win/loss/rank vs this year's new coopertition system. At the Bayou we had a monitor with this data available being fed real-time. Several teams were using this program for scouting purposes.

Our team intends to have the same system running on a monitor in the pits at the Nationals this year. It took me a bit to reprogram it from using Twitter to using the FIRST raw data, but now that it is fixed, I thought I would go ahead and run all the regionals so far, and put the data up here.

If any team is interested in the program send me a PM and I'll send you a copy. It is written in Excel and requires a web connection to run. I don't want other teams using my same file in their pits at Nationals, so you gotta ask. :-)

The attached Excel (inside the .zip) file contains all the data from the Regionals so far.

Here's the data for the Bayou:

Bayou Regional:

NEW TEAM RANKING SYSTEM							LAST YEAR'S TEAM RANKING SYSTEM						
PLACE	TEAM	PLAYED	SEED	COOP	HANG		PLACE	TEAM	PLAYED	WIN	LOSS	TIE	RANK
1	1912	10	94	54	2		1	1912	10	8	0	2	1.7
2	1421	10	74	26	0		2	2078	10	8	1	1	1.2
3	2587	10	72	34	2		3	1421	10	7	1	2	1.4
4	2078	10	72	28	0		4	2992	10	6	1	3	1.4
5	2992	10	71	34	2		5	1927	10	7	2	1	1.2
6	2091	10	68	32	2		6	2221	10	6	1	3	1.1
7	3411	10	68	22	2		7	1477	10	6	1	3	0.6
8	2920	10	67	24	2		8	1339	10	6	3	1	1.4
9	1927	10	66	24	12		9	3039	10	5	2	3	0.8
10	1339	10	63	18	4		10	2080	10	5	3	2	1.4
11	2221	10	59	30	0		11	2587	10	5	3	2	1.2
12	2080	10	58	18	0		12	3337	10	4	2	4	1
13	2190	10	54	14	4		13	2091	10	3	2	5	1.6
14	231	10	54	14	4		14	3411	10	4	4	2	1.7
15	2206	10	52	10	2		15	2817	10	4	4	2	0.8
16	364	10	51	8	0		16	1398	10	4	4	2	0.6
17	1398	10	50	18	2		17	231	10	3	4	3	1.7
18	57	10	49	14	0		18	2556	10	3	4	3	1.1
19	3337	10	45	16	2		19	2920	10	4	5	1	1.1
20	2973	10	44	10	4		20	2206	10	4	5	1	0.8
21	2242	10	44	10	0		21	3364	10	3	4	3	0.6
22	1477	10	42	20	0		22	57	10	3	5	2	1.4
23	2817	10	42	12	2		23	2190	10	3	5	2	1.2
24	3228	10	41	12	2		24	364	10	3	5	2	1
25	2815	10	41	6	0		25	3228	10	3	5	2	1
26	2183	10	40	6	2		26	1348	10	1	3	6	0.7
27	2173	10	37	10	0		27	2242	10	3	5	2	0.7
28	3039	10	36	12	0		28	462	10	2	4	4	0.3
29	1818	10	36	4	2		29	2173	10	2	5	3	0.9
30	1348	10	34	8	2		30	1304	10	2	5	3	0.5
31	3364	10	33	10	0		31	2183	10	2	6	2	0.9
32	462	9	33	8	0		32	1818	9	2	6	2	0.2
33	2975	10	33	0	0		33	2973	10	1	6	3	1.2
34	1304	9	29	8	0		34	1920	9	1	6	3	0.7
35	1920	10	29	0	0		35	2815	10	1	6	3	0.6
36	2556	9	25	0	4		36	2975	9	1	7	2	0.3

It's interesting to see some of the swings from top to bottom depending on which ranking system is used. I think last year's is easier to understand for a layman, but I guess we'll see how this year's plays out.

[Chris is me]

Does the program properly calculate the old Ranking Point score?

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Does the program properly calculate the old Ranking Point score?

Yes, Using 2009 Rules for Ranking Score

[JamesBrown]

Data for WPI I am not sure if RP and QP were the right terms from last year but RP is from wins/ties, and QP is from opponents scores.

This information was pretty useful in my evaluation of my teams performance, I thought we seeded low for what we did in qualifications. This shows that my gut feeling was right. My mistake was assuming that we could play the same way my teams have in years past and still be successful, that is clearly not the case. Now we can reevaluate our strategy before Boston.

Team	Wins	Loss  Ties     RP       QP	Games Played
3280	9	2	1	19	13	12
230	8	2	2	18	20	12
20	9	3	0	18	14	12
2370	8	3	1	17	13	12
190	7	3	2	16	17	12
1735	7	4	1	15	18	12
2621	6	3	3	15	16	12
172	6	3	3	15	12	12
195	6	4	2	14	18	12
2791	5	4	3	13	15	12
2079	5	4	3	13	11	12
358	6	5	1	13	10	12
348	4	3	5	13	9	12
2877	5	5	2	12	21	12
2104	5	5	2	12	16	12
2523	5	5	2	12	6	12
3273	4	5	3	11	12	12
663	5	6	1	11	8	12
3125	4	6	2	10	21	12
1687	3	5	4	10	13	12
1124	4	6	2	10	6	12
1995	4	7	1	9	20	12
529	3	6	3	9	11	12
716	3	6	3	9	9	12
157	3	6	3	9	8	12
3205	3	8	1	7	15	12
228	2	7	3	7	12	12
839	1	7	4	6	15	12
571	1	8	3	5	5	12

[Chris is me]

Your WPI data is at least partly incorrect. Look at 2791 versus 172. Why do they have the same amount of RP?

[sircedric4]

From Last Year's Tournament Rules:

9.3.4
Match Qualifying Points
At the completion of each qualification match, each team will receive a win, loss or tie depending on the final score:
•
Each team on the winning ALLIANCE will receive two (2) qualifying points.
•
Each team on the losing ALLIANCE will receive zero (0) qualifying points.
•
In the event of a tied score, all six teams will receive one (1) qualifying point.

9.3.5
Match Ranking Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

9.3.7
Qualifying Score
The total number of qualifying points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their qualifying score. © FIRST 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Manual, Section 9 – The Tournament, Rev A Page 3 of 10

9.3.8
Ranking Score
The total number of ranking points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of MATCHES played (excluding any surrogate matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score.

Basically you get 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 points for a loss. The Ranking Score is the average of all of your opponents scores. In theory the ranking score is based on unpenalized scores to a degree, but since FRC doesn't have the penalties and hanging bonuses listed anywhere except on Twitter (which is incomplete since it is missing matches), I just used the final scores of the opponents.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Your WPI data is at least partly incorrect. Look at 2791 versus 172. Why do they have the same amount of RP?

My program counted the last match twice, a win for 2791 I thought I had fixed the problem but apparently I missed that, it is updated and correct now.

[sircedric4]

Will not let me edit the original post anymore. Attached is the latest Regional Summary of all regionals played so far.

The file at the top had an error in some of the regionals. That error has been corrected and all the new regionals from this weekend are in the new file.

I intend to update this after every weekend from here through Nationals so look for your regional soon if you haven't played it yet.

[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.