|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Shows how your robot seeds against the rest of the world! (Excel Spreadsheet)
This is a spreadsheet taking the seedings from all regionals. putting them together, and then ranking them. Since all regionals did not play the same amount of matches, I have divided the Overall Seeding points for the team, and divided it by the amount of matches they played. IF YOUR TEAM HAS PLAYED MORE THAN 1 REGIONAL, YOU WILL BE LISTED TWICE SEPERATELY. Hope You enjoy it. It is in no way official, or guaranteed to be 100% accurate, but it is cool to see if your team did really well. Sorry, but the Wisconsin regional is the only unlisted regional. Feel free to make any mods to your own copy, I may or may not update it depending on how many people would like to see it. Thanks
*note* this is ranked by average score per match played, there is a column to the right of that, which is the average score per match played WITHOUT COOPERTITION Bonus. It doesnt change the ranks too much, but its cool to see what you would have if the coopertition bonus was not in effect.
Overall Standings.zip
Over All Standings.pdf
Over All Standings Without Michigan.pdf
Over All Standings with Michigan.pdf
21-03-2010 10:29
samir13kThis is a revision after week 3 regionals. Enjoy!
21-03-2010 11:25
MarkoRamius1086This looks really cool! I have to comment though, most (if not all) of that is a reflection of how that alliance did, and not the specific team. I noticed that when I saw that there were a few teams (specifically mine) with hanging points... despite their lack of hanging mechanism!
21-03-2010 11:30
samir13k|
This looks really cool! I have to comment though, most (if not all) of that is a reflection of how that alliance did, and not the specific team. I noticed that when I saw that there were a few teams (specifically mine) with hanging points... despite their lack of hanging mechanism!
Scouters Beware! |
lol
21-03-2010 11:47
Chris is me|
This looks really cool! I have to comment though, most (if not all) of that is a reflection of how that alliance did, and not the specific team. I noticed that when I saw that there were a few teams (specifically mine) with hanging points... despite their lack of hanging mechanism!
Scouters Beware! |
21-03-2010 17:35
Alex Dinsmoor
No love for us up here in Michigan? 
21-03-2010 17:39
Dave ScheckThe data for Midwest is incomplete. The FIRST website is missing a partial round of matches. All teams played 10 matches and in the end, 1732 ended up first and 16 was second (I'm sure there were other such rankings changes in other places.
21-03-2010 17:44
Chris Hibner
Any chance you can save it in an older version of Excel for those of use with Excel XP?
21-03-2010 17:49
Josh Murphy
21-03-2010 18:38
sanddrag|
Any chance you can save it in an older version of Excel for those of use with Excel XP?
|
21-03-2010 19:02
Pjohn1959
|
Any chance you can save it in an older version of Excel for those of use with Excel XP?
|
21-03-2010 19:04
Chris Hibner
21-03-2010 20:58
samir13kI'm working on releasing it in a excel 97-2003 edition
also, a PDF version...
If anyone would like an Open Office Calc edition, I can do it too. I will just put all versions into a zip file since I dont have a better way to host it.
21-03-2010 21:25
samir13kOk,
I have created a version in PDF, Excel 97-2003, and Excel 2007
Hope you guys enjoy it!
30-03-2010 08:00
sv2198Sorry to be a little impatient, but when do you think the week 4 world rankings will be posted?
30-03-2010 18:00
samir13k|
Sorry to be a little impatient, but when do you think the week 4 world rankings will be posted?
|
30-03-2010 18:24
rulesall2The rankings for WPI are incorrect: because of a mistake in the data entry (Edit: Not your data, the data entry at the competition which actually caused a re-do of the alliance selection), the data you have is missing the final qualification match, which impacted the top 8 rankings.
The match can be found here: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2010wor_qm58
Overall very impressive. Thank you for posting.
31-03-2010 00:05
samir13kOk, the updated revision with week 4 has been released! Enjoy
31-03-2010 08:50
mayhemscout1519Thanks samir for posting this - interesting to look at!
31-03-2010 09:17
BrucebAre you missing the Wisconsin regional? I don't see 706 listed at all. I think that was week 3. Maybe I'm missing something.
Bruce
31-03-2010 09:43
Racer26Interesting, but not surprising that 1114 owns 2 podium spots on this list, sandwiching 2056 in second. They both played some stellar matches at WAT, including 2 matches against each other (1114 won both), and one together (against us, 24-0 [yeah, we played it 6v0]).
Also interesting is that the lowest team from WAT (854) sits at #620 on this list of 1632. Suggests that WAT was one of the most competitive regionals.
Also, what happened to 48?
31-03-2010 10:08
musicspeaks|
Seconded, Its an awesome document but it is missing everything from the Michigan districts.
![]() |
01-04-2010 09:04
bobrenjc93how is 217 seeded so low, when they've won all 3 regionals they have attended?
01-04-2010 09:14
Nuttyman54
|
how is 217 seeded so low, when they've won all 3 regionals they have attended?
|
01-04-2010 09:22
mayhemscout1519|
Also, teams that played week 1 will be artificially seeded much lower, if the seeding calculation includes the 5 point bonus for winning that was added after week 1
|
06-04-2010 14:08
Tom BottiglieriCan we get some week 5 lovin?
06-04-2010 18:59
Joe Ross
07-04-2010 00:05
samir13k
07-04-2010 22:00
musicspeaksthanks so much for your hard work!
08-04-2010 03:32
FrenchieWould it be possible to get an excel version of the "with michigan" version (or did I miss it?)