2013 NE FIRST District Rankings

Competition Regional Competitions
1

Special thanks to Brian Smist from 229 for doing half the work. As always, this is done by hand, please bring up any corrections.

Points:

This uses the most recent NE proposal from their site. 

Qual Win: 2 pts
Qual Tie: 1 pt
QF: 5 pts
SF: 10 pts
F: 20 pts
W: 30 pts
Awards: 5 (Except RCA, EI, RAS)

Also, despite NE saying they will count the top two events, I did the first 
two events for everyone.

Rankings with NY teams from Capital District should Conference Model be adopted:


1	20	108
2	125	89
3	2648	85
4	1519	75
5	3467	72
6	2791	69
7	126	67
8	2168	67
9	1100	66
10	3609	66
11	230	63
12	155	59
13	172	58
14	195	55
15	176	54
16	175	53
17	69	51
18	2067	51
19	228	50
20	1991	49
21	177	47
22	3958	46
23	558	46
24	3280	44
25	1153	44
26	3930	44
27	133	44
28	95	44
29	3044	43
30	4055	39
31	78	38
32	3525	38
33	58	36
34	2877	35
35	1071	35
36	4134	35
37	61	34
38	88	34
39	1073	33
40	839	32
41	157	32
42	1831	32
43	1517	32
44	885	31
45	571	29
46	1735	28
47	4473	28
48	4546	28
49	3205	26
50	236	26
51	509	25
52	181	25
53	3780	24
54	190	24
55	4564	24
56	1922	24
57	250	24
58	3182	24
59	138	23
60	4761	22
61	1058	22
62	121	21
63	1027	21
64	319	21
65	131	21
66	151	21
67	1512	21
68	1277	20
69	3566	20
70	173	20
71	3146	20
72	2370	20
73	3466	19
74	2423	18
75	1350	18
76	2349	18
77	4508	18
78	999	18
79	246	17
80	3236	17
81	1687	17
82	1784	17
83	4812	17
84	3499	17
85	3654	17
86	1493	17
87	1973	16
88	1699	16
89	2876	15
90	97	15
91	1761	15
92	1965	15
93	3585	15
94	4557	15
95	4097	14
96	4609	14
97	3464	14
98	237	14
99	2170	13
100	178	13
101	1768	12
102	2871	12
103	3479	12
104	238	12
105	3323	12
106	3104	12
107	716	12
108	663	12
109	3718	12
110	4176	11
111	2064	11
112	2836	11
113	23	10
114	2079	10
115	2084	10
116	3927	10
117	1289	10
118	4042	10
119	348	10
120	213	10
121	1665	10
122	3687	10
123	4311	9
124	4410	9
125	3597	9
126	4793	9
127	2342	9
128	1474	8
129	1757	8
130	2713	8
131	4041	8
132	1247	8
133	3634	8
134	501	8
135	2523	8
136	4048	7
137	1099	7
138	2262	6
139	4151	6
140	4474	6
141	2104	6
142	2621	6
143	467	6
144	3451	6
145	4555	6
146	166	6
147	1307	6
148	4034	6
149	4254	6
150	1740	6
151	3461	6
152	4628	6
153	1754	4
154	4796	4
155	529	4
156	811	4
157	1729	4
158	1124	4
159	2785	4
160	4572	4
161	1721	4
162	3555	3
163	3623	2
164	3719	0

And rankings without NY teams:


1	125	89
2	2648	85
3	1519	75
4	3467	72
5	126	67
6	2168	67
7	1100	66
8	3609	66
9	230	63
10	155	59
11	172	58
12	195	55
13	176	54
14	175	53
15	69	51
16	2067	51
17	228	50
18	1991	49
19	177	47
20	3958	46
21	558	46
22	3280	44
23	1153	44
24	3930	44
25	133	44
26	95	44
27	4055	39
28	78	38
29	3525	38
30	58	36
31	2877	35
32	1071	35
33	61	34
34	88	34
35	1073	33
36	839	32
37	157	32
38	1831	32
39	1517	32
40	885	31
41	571	29
42	1735	28
43	4473	28
44	4546	28
45	3205	26
46	236	26
47	181	25
48	509	25
49	3780	24
50	190	24
51	4564	24
52	3182	24
53	1922	24
54	138	23
55	4761	22
56	1058	22
57	121	21
58	1027	21
59	319	21
60	131	21
61	151	21
62	1512	21
63	1277	20
64	3566	20
65	173	20
66	3146	20
67	2370	20
68	3466	19
69	2423	18
70	1350	18
71	2349	18
72	999	18
73	246	17
74	3236	17
75	1687	17
76	1784	17
77	4812	17
78	3654	17
79	3499	17
80	1973	16
81	1699	16
82	2876	15
83	97	15
84	1761	15
85	1965	15
86	4557	15
87	3585	15
88	4097	14
89	4609	14
90	3464	14
91	237	14
92	2170	13
93	178	13
94	1768	12
95	2871	12
96	3479	12
97	3104	12
98	716	12
99	238	12
100	3323	12
101	663	12
102	3718	12
103	4176	11
104	2064	11
105	2836	11
106	23	10
107	2079	10
108	2084	10
109	3927	10
110	1289	10
111	4042	10
112	348	10
113	213	10
114	4311	9
115	4410	9
116	3597	9
117	4793	9
118	2342	9
119	1474	8
120	1757	8
121	2713	8
122	4041	8
123	3634	8
124	1247	8
125	501	8
126	2523	8
127	4048	7
128	1099	7
129	2262	6
130	4151	6
131	4474	6
132	2104	6
133	2621	6
134	467	6
135	3451	6
136	4555	6
137	1740	6
138	3461	6
139	4628	6
140	166	6
141	1307	6
142	4034	6
143	1754	4
144	4796	4
145	529	4
146	1124	4
147	2785	4
148	4572	4
149	811	4
150	1729	4
151	1721	4
152	3555	3
153	3623	2
154	3719	0
2

Jack (and Brian), nice work putting this together. I was wondering where we would stand in a district points structure.

3

You know, there’s supposed to be a post by one of the NE folks who created a district points simulator so that you could play with all the values ::coughKylecough::…just haven’t seen it yet :slight_smile:

4

I’ll remind him…:cool:

5

Just so I can tell if I’m understanding this. The points were calculated as if the regionals in N.E. were district events. They would then determine invitation to the proposed district championship, viz. the top 80, right? NE District championship to be played “this” weekend from which 30 or so teams being invited to CMP in St. Louis. Have I got it right?

Now can we discuss why this points summary may, or may not, be slightly misleading? First, there is the number of events attended by many of the teams. That is, not enough opportunity for the one-event teams to get points for their Q-wins in this summary. A supposed advantage to the district model is that teams will get more matches played as a result. Perhaps the points for single regional event teams could be amplified a bit to reflect this. E.g., the scores from 9 Q-matches at CT regional might get a multiplier of 14/9ths to predict performance in two district events with 7 Q-matches each.

Second, the relative size of regionals to district events would change the dynamics of those competitions somewhat. Not sure about what the effect on points would be, but I’m sure it would be there.

Then there’s the even more nebulous effect of the possibility of 8 hours “out of bag” preceding 2-day district events. Is this a factor? At present, teams attending 2-day events get to schedule a sort of “virtual Thursday” by logging time with their robot out of its bag before the competition. Will we allow this in the NE District?

6

My only questions is does this factor in teams that only attended one even? If so was anything done to factor the fact that they attended one event?

While obviously this is a very rough sketch and many of the metrics in Districts won’t apply, I think it’s a great way to see how things would play out.

7

So NE sends 30 teams, and according to the model, 11 teams will be from the champions, chairmans, rookie all-star, etc.

So would that mean the top 22 in this list would be guaranteed to qualify for championships, regardless of wins/awards?

8

What would be the disappearing regionals?

9

I believe points are still accrued through to the end of the DCMP. I think in MAR the points are tripled, so its still very much anyones ball game…

-Brando

10

No, this is just raw data. If anyone wants to normalize for different factors PM me and I can send you the excel sheet.

11

Right - the results are informative but not a good predictive model of the district.

The rankings above from this year’s Regionals primarily reflect whether a team attended 1 or 2+ Regionals, but under the district model every team would be guaranteed 2 events.

The other impacts come from having smaller events, which increase the expected points awarded in several ways:

  • increasing the number of qualification matches per team,
  • increasing the probability of being selected for eliminations (e.g. 24/34 rather than 24/65 for a big regional),
  • increasing the probability of winning an award, and
  • arguably diluting the strength of elimination alliances, hence increasing the variance
    of expected elimination points

Assuming district events average 34 teams each (155 teams attending 2 of 9 events), and a relatively gentle schedule of 12 qualification matches, then the expected point total under the proposed model would be 39.9 for competition performance only. Award points would be additional.

The average from the table above is only 23.2 including awards.

12

Its great that this conversation is happening. Please continue it, BUT also realize that this is NOT the final point structure. You are giving us good feedback on your thoughts and expectations of what the advancement criteria should look like. Encourage others to take part on this thread. Several of us are monitoring it daily.

The final rounds of meetings are taking place now among the movers and shakers of FIRST in New England to finalize a LOT of things that need finalizing before we go into negotiations with FIRST HQ. And a LOT of the things we are talking about are exctly the things you all brought up in theTown Hall meetings of last fall. So you are having an impact. Keep it up.

13

If this is true I’d like to add my two cents to the discussion.

First, I’d have preferred to see the 5/2 awards system in place in FiM and MAR. Although the point difference is kind of splitting hairs, I think it matters when a bid to CMP is on the line.

Secondly, I’d like to see the DCMP count more than a district. Frankly, a 60-80 team DCMP is way harder than a 30 team district and teams should be rewarded as such. I think the best points system for CMP qualification would be your best (or two best) district events and 2 x DCMP.

And lastly, I really like the points system for eliminations, however I have two things I’d like to see:

  1. I think the points should be bumped to 10/15/25/35 because NE does not award points for selection the same way that FiM and MAR do. This rewards teams for making eliminations more than it did before, but not quite as much
  2. I think that the points should also be adjusted to be lower for the third robot on an alliance similarly to how selection points are distributed in FiM. Maybe the first two robots on an alliance get 10/15/25/35 while the third robot gets 5/10/20/30.
14

I was actually planning on doing this during this week. Thanks for saving me a few days of work!

It seems that only the teams attending two regionals have a legitimate chance of doing really well. There are teams ranked below my own who I know are better than us, but we’ve attended two regionals, giving us a major boost.

15

I agree with your idea that the points should be bumped up for eliminations to really help teams that earned their spot in the eliminations. But I disagree with your point on giving the third robot less points. The randomness of qualifications and the possibility of robots breaking sometimes leads to teams qualification score not matching the true power of their robot and therefore they should not be penalized for how they are picked.

16

I agree with tkell. A team that builds a support-based or defense based robot that is still phenomenal in what it is built to do (i.e. 4334 last year and 2789 this year) shouldn’t be penalized for pursuing a different strategy than the powerhouse offensive teams. Third picks often make or break alliances, especially at deeper events.

17

I agree with the logic on making the third pick worth just as many points. The serpentine in particular makes this problematic - I would hate to be the 8th seed and have to pull up on my phone which team “needs” the 1st round pick points more and which team doesn’t.

18

Thanks! It’s so hard to get love for defensive play…because of our limitations (personnel, funding, etc.) and sponsor issues, it’s hard for us to crank out the robots we design and want. We’re forced to compensate with scouting and strategy. I’ve been concerned about district discussions down here in Texas because of how formulas rate defensive teams, in particular because of how the dynamics for eliminations matches are very different than dynamics for quals matches, and our strategy definitely makes a bigger impact in elims. It’s my hope that at the end of the month we’ll be able to make the point that a creative and smart team can still make a strong impact on the outcome of matches even if you don’t have the fanciest robot on the field…but needless to say, we are working on a few surprises for champs that will help us put points on the board :slight_smile:

19

I definitely do agree that the points for the 3rd robot should be adjusted… Primarily because that means that the 3rd robot on the winning alliance gets more points than any other alliance’s robots (including the first two robots on all of the other alliances). Additionally, this method of assigning points gives very few points to the quarterfinalist alliances.

Although I suspect these points were removed in NE’s proposal because it makes things a bit more complicated, I think assigning points based on alliance selection order as FiM and MAR do (16 to first 2 bots on Alliance 1; 15 to first 2 bots on Alliance 2; 14 to first 2 bots on Alliance 3… and 8 points to 3rd robot on Alliance 8, 7 points to 3rd robot on Alliance 7, 6 points to 3rd robot on Alliance 6) is the best way to assign points for eliminations (in addition to points based on finish).

Using 2013 GSR and 2013 Pine Tree as case studies (I chose these two because they’re Week 1 vs Week 6, vary significantly in size, and Pine Tree is interesting because the red alliance won each matchup):

GSR Pick Order & Results:
610-4124-3609… W
138-131-58… QF
230-1991-1153… SF
885-1519-133… SF
151-229-1277… QF
1512-1922-1517… QF
61-175-172… F
2791-3467-78… QF

GSR Points (based on current NE proposal)
30-30-30… W
5-5-5… QF
10-10-10… SF
10-10-10… SF
5-5-5… QF
5-5-5… QF
20-20-20… F
5-5-5… QF

GSR Points (NE proposal + alliance selection points)
46-46-31… W
20-20-7… QF
24-24-13… SF
23-23-14… SF
17-17-10… QF
16-16-11… QF
30-30-27… F
14-14-13… QF

Pine Tree Pick Order & Results:
2648-3467-2386… W
176-125-63… F
1153-172-1831… SF
69-133-4564… SF
4473-58-1058… QF
78-1073-1922… QF
3930-4055-157… QF
3609-1071-181… QF

Pine Tree Points (based on current NE proposal)
30-30-30… W
20-20-20… F
10-10-10… SF
10-10-10… SF
5-5-5… QF
5-5-5… QF
5-5-5… QF
5-5-5… QF

Pine Tree Points (NE proposal + alliance selection points)
46-46-31… W
35-35-22… F
24-24-13… SF
23-23-14… SF
17-17-10… QF
16-16-11… QF
15-15-12… QF
14-14-13… QF

Seems like the current NE Proposal has several weaknesses:

  • 1st and 2nd robots of each alliance get same reward as 3rd robot.
  • Winners get 6x the points that the quarterfinalists get (3x the semifinalists).
  • 1st and 2nd robots of finalist alliance (theoretically 3rd and 4th best teams) get 66% the points of the 3rd robot of the winning alliance (theoretically lower than 20th in ranking of teams).

These particular issues are improved with the inclusion of the alliance selection points. It’d be interesting to also add in the win-loss information… but I don’t really have the time for that right now.

20

The one thing I dislike about the FiM system assigning points based on Alliance Selection is that it gives points for essentially the same thing QF gives points for. The thing I do like is it is a good way to breakdown credit on an alliance.

A proposal I would support would be 8 ranking points for AC1 and First pick, and decreasing from there. This would give 3rd robots 0 extra points compared to the pack, but the difference between the last robot and the first is only 8 rather than 6. Then the NE Eliminations points could be bumped to 10/15/25/35 to make up for the point loss and emphasize results more.

Alliance Points:

8-8-0
7-7-0
6-6-0
5-5-0
4-4-0
3-3-0
2-2-0
1-1-0

Using BAE as an example: (10/15/25/35 + Alliance Points)

43-43-35… W
17-17-10… QF
21-21-15… SF
20-20-15… SF
14-14-10… QF
13-13-10… QF
27-27-25… F
11-11-10… QF