|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
This is a ranking spreadsheet that uses the standings data from the FIRST site and assigns values to the results then ranks teams on the sum of those results.
This was created for fun, to see rankings based on the seeding, win/loss, Ranking points, high score, and Winner or Finalist of the regional. There is also a sheet that shows these rankings for the teams that are currently signed up for the Championship. There are still 4 regionals that are not in the data and have not been played. It is not a great indicator of certain teams performances as luck can have a lot to do with your results. But its something to amuse ourselves with 
If you disagree with the way this was made, thats great! Please tweak it, upgrade it, do your thing! - at least now all the data is in 1 place.
rankings_2007.xls
rankings_2007_A.xls
rankings_2007_B.xls
rankings_2007_c.xls
28-03-2007 15:33
Dan 1038Very cool spreadsheet! I have no problem with us being ranked at 67th, we can try to play the part of the sleeper turned champ!
28-03-2007 15:47
wilsonmw04just a quick suggestion: figure out some way of weighting the elimiation wins more. I was just looking through the rankings. my team (2106) is ranked 490th (not complaining) while the winner of VCU (540) was ranked 709th. It looks like the QP's and seeds are given too much weight. I can't believe how much work went into this. Nicely done!
28-03-2007 15:54
Swampdude
|
just a quick suggestion: figure out some way of weighting the elimiation wins more. I was just looking through the rankings. my team (2106) is ranked 490th (not complaining) while the winner of VCU (540) was ranked 709th. It looks like the QP's and seeds are given too much weight. I can't believe how much work went into this. Nicely done!
|
28-03-2007 15:59
EmilioMOmg. We (1717) are ranked 23rd... Wow that makes me feel really good lol. Unfortunately tho, we wont be seeing any of you in Atlanta because we twice lost to the number 1 team (330) in the semifinals and finals in LA and SD repectively. Bad luck I guess.
Anyways, thanks you so much for this spread, it is awesome 
28-03-2007 16:23
rsilversteinDitto to what Emilio said.
Amazing spreadsheet. I can't wait to see how these teams fair in Atlanta
28-03-2007 16:30
MasterChief 573Is Champs the main list saying how all teams rank that are going to Championships?
28-03-2007 16:52
Tyler DGreat job with that.
I can't believe that my team (1901) is ranked 52nd overall with all the great teams ou there. How ever will take it
28-03-2007 17:00
MasterChief 573I saw several repeats and didn't see certain teams, can you expalin that?
28-03-2007 17:09
Madison
The data for Silicon Valley Regional, at least, is incomplete. I know that's because the data on FIRST's own site was not updated after the end of Friday's qualification matches, but it may color some of the results a bit.
Without digging into things too deeply -- how does the frequency of competition for a given team affects its ranking? That is -- some teams play 40 qualification matches in a season and others play 8. Is that considered?
28-03-2007 18:08
Swampdude
|
I saw several repeats and didn't see certain teams, can you expalin that?
|
|
Originally Posted by M. Krass
Without digging into things too deeply -- how does the frequency of competition for a given team affects its ranking? That is -- some teams play 40 qualification matches in a season and others play 8. Is that considered?
|
|
Originally Posted by MasterChief 573
Is Champs the main list saying how all teams rank that are going to Championships?
|
28-03-2007 18:11
Alex Cormier
The list of finalists at buckeye is incorrect.
28-03-2007 18:13
MasterChief 573Which of the ranks is the one I should go on, Results or Champs?
28-03-2007 18:15
Swampdude
|
Originally Posted by MasterChief 573
Which of the ranks is the one I should go on, Results or Champs?
|
28-03-2007 18:20
Alex Cormier
|
All of the data is from the FIRST Standings pages. Is their listing wrong?
http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/events/OH/awards.html |
28-03-2007 19:16
MasterChief 573It doesn't look like the champs list has all the teams going to the Championships. What's up with that?
28-03-2007 19:42
sanddragAm I reading this right? By your spreadsheet 696 is ranked 4th in the country!? Sweet!
28-03-2007 20:35
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.
28-03-2007 20:42
MasterChief 573|
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. |
28-03-2007 20:43
Tom BottiglieriI like my RPI better
I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested?
28-03-2007 20:50
Lil' Lavery
|
I like my RPI better
I plan on putting something together right after this weekend's regionals. Anyone interested? |
28-03-2007 22:29
Swampdude
|
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.
|
28-03-2007 22:51
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.
29-03-2007 01:36
Vogel648It 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).
29-03-2007 09:07
MariaChristineKHey 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.
29-03-2007 13:39
Jacob Plicque|
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).
|
29-03-2007 18:06
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)
29-03-2007 18:48
MasterChief 573|
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) |
29-03-2007 19:29
hayakunekoso 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...
29-03-2007 19:42
Joe Ross
|
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... |
29-03-2007 21:19
CJV648Nice spreadsheet, thanks for uploading all that work. Has anybody looked at using it to rate the quality of play at the different regionals? For example, 501 is ranked 2nd for its performance at one regional and 768th for its performance at another. Was this a matter of inconsistency of play of the team, a difference in difficulty of the regionals, inconsistent luck in the match draws, or some other factor I haven't considered?
04-04-2007 19:41
Swampdude
I've added the rest of the regionals, and filled in the Championship divisions in Rev -C
05-04-2007 00:44
David|
just a quick suggestion: figure out some way of weighting the elimiation wins more. I was just looking through the rankings. my team (2106) is ranked 490th (not complaining) while the winner of VCU (540) was ranked 709th. It looks like the QP's and seeds are given too much weight. I can't believe how much work went into this. Nicely done!
|
20-04-2007 10:23
65_Xero_HuskieUhm, for the champs, I dont think a 4-4 record would have given us a 9th seed? Hehe. We were 6-1 during the championship seedings.