Below is a list of district points each Texas team would have gotten based on their performance at Texas regionals, out of state regionals were not included. Only the first 2 regionals were used determine points. The first list is based on actual data. Second list assumes that a team with only 1 regional would do as well if they had completed in 2 regionals. Tiebreakers were use to determine the final places in a 64 team state champs.
No adjustment to data
Rank Team # Points Qualified?
1 118 143 Yes
2 624 139 Yes
3 2468 110 Yes
4 1296 109 Yes
5 1817 106 Yes
6 3310 90 Yes
7 2848 78 Yes
8 231 77 Yes
9 2881 74 Yes
10 2158 73 Yes
10 4063 73 Yes
12 57 72 Yes
13 1255 66 Yes
14 148 63 Yes
14 3005 63 Yes
16 3103 61 Yes
16 3735 61 Yes
18 1477 60 Yes
18 4587 60 Yes
20 5572 58 Yes
21 4300 55 Yes
22 457 49 Yes
22 5431 49 Yes
24 2587 47 Yes
24 5771 47 Yes
26 4641 44 Yes
26 5417 44 Yes
28 5754 42 Yes
29 418 41 Yes
29 3481 41 Yes
29 3997 41 Yes
29 3999 41 Yes
33 3335 40 Yes
34 4799 39 Yes
35 2582 38 Yes
35 2613 38 Yes
37 3728 36 Yes
38 4364 35 Yes
39 3743 34 Yes
40 3802 33 Yes
41 647 32 Yes
42 3350 31 Yes
43 704 30 Yes
43 4852 30 Yes
45 3043 28 Yes
45 5786 28 Yes
47 3366 26 Yes
47 3626 26 Yes
49 4301 25 Yes
49 4639 25 Yes
49 5411 25 Yes
49 5416 25 Yes
53 1642 23 Yes
53 5469 23 Yes
53 5503 23 Yes
53 5566 23 Yes
57 4610 22 Yes
57 5427 22 Yes
57 5639 22 Yes
57 5681 22 Yes
61 5052 21 Yes
61 5414 21 Yes
61 5739 21 Yes
64 5057 20 Yes
64 5261 20 No
66 4328 19 No
67 4076 18 No
67 4734 18 No
69 5212 17 No
69 5682 17 No
69 5780 17 No
72 2966 16 No
72 5103 16 No
72 5241 16 No
75 3305 15 No
75 3700 15 No
75 4597 15 No
75 5047 15 No
75 5726 15 No
75 5775 15 No
81 2950 14 No
81 3417 14 No
81 3561 14 No
81 3676 14 No
81 4155 14 No
81 4332 14 No
81 5320 14 No
88 2882 13 No
88 5242 13 No
90 2969 12 No
90 3028 12 No
90 3282 12 No
90 3370 12 No
90 4335 12 No
90 4670 12 No
90 4717 12 No
97 2583 11 No
97 3037 11 No
97 3545 11 No
97 3741 11 No
97 4206 11 No
102 499 10 No
102 2585 10 No
102 2897 10 No
102 3240 10 No
102 3679 10 No
102 4219 10 No
102 4295 10 No
102 4354 10 No
102 4694 10 No
102 5769 10 No
112 2789 9 No
112 3035 9 No
112 3355 9 No
112 3834 9 No
112 4412 9 No
112 4696 9 No
112 5070 9 No
119 441 8 No
119 2805 8 No
119 4045 8 No
119 4378 8 No
119 4570 8 No
124 1745 7 No
124 2833 7 No
124 4589 7 No
127 3345 6 No
128 3029 5 No
128 4192 5 No
130 3016 4 No
130 4798 4 No
132 2721 3 No
133 3847 0 No
Adjusted data
Rank Team # Points Qualified?
1 118 143 Yes
2 624 139 Yes
3 148 126 Yes
4 4587 120 Yes
5 2468 110 Yes
6 1296 109 Yes
7 1817 106 Yes
8 2587 94 Yes
9 3310 90 Yes
10 5431 88 Yes
11 5771 84 Yes
12 418 82 Yes
13 2848 78 Yes
13 4799 78 Yes
15 231 77 Yes
16 2582 76 Yes
16 2613 76 Yes
18 2881 74 Yes
18 5754 74 Yes
20 2158 73 Yes
20 4063 73 Yes
22 57 72 Yes
22 3728 72 Yes
24 3743 68 Yes
25 1255 66 Yes
25 3802 66 Yes
27 3005 63 Yes
28 3350 62 Yes
29 3103 61 Yes
29 3735 61 Yes
31 704 60 Yes
31 1477 60 Yes
31 4852 60 Yes
34 5572 58 Yes
35 4300 55 Yes
36 3626 52 Yes
37 4301 50 Yes
37 4639 50 Yes
39 457 49 Yes
40 5786 46 Yes
41 5411 45 Yes
42 4641 44 Yes
42 5417 44 Yes
44 3481 41 Yes
44 3997 41 Yes
44 3999 41 Yes
47 3335 40 Yes
47 5416 40 Yes
49 4328 38 Yes
50 5052 37 Yes
51 5469 36 Yes
51 5503 36 Yes
51 5566 36 Yes
54 4364 35 Yes
54 5057 35 Yes
54 5261 35 Yes
57 5427 34 Yes
57 5639 34 Yes
57 5681 34 Yes
60 647 32 Yes
60 2966 32 Yes
60 5414 32 Yes
60 5739 32 Yes
64 4597 30 Yes
64 3305 30 No
64 3700 30 No
64 5047 30 No
68 2950 28 No
68 3043 28 No
68 3417 28 No
68 3561 28 No
68 3676 28 No
68 4155 28 No
68 4332 28 No
75 5103 27 No
75 5241 27 No
77 2882 26 No
77 3366 26 No
79 2969 24 No
79 3028 24 No
79 3282 24 No
79 3370 24 No
79 4335 24 No
79 4670 24 No
79 4717 24 No
79 5682 24 No
79 5780 24 No
88 1642 23 No
88 5320 23 No
90 2583 22 No
90 3037 22 No
90 3545 22 No
90 3741 22 No
90 4206 22 No
90 4610 22 No
96 5242 21 No
97 499 20 No
97 2585 20 No
97 2897 20 No
97 3240 20 No
97 3679 20 No
97 4219 20 No
97 4295 20 No
97 4354 20 No
97 4694 20 No
97 5726 20 No
97 5775 20 No
108 2789 18 No
108 3035 18 No
108 3355 18 No
108 3834 18 No
108 4076 18 No
108 4412 18 No
108 4696 18 No
108 4734 18 No
116 5212 17 No
117 441 16 No
117 2805 16 No
117 4045 16 No
117 4378 16 No
117 4570 16 No
122 1745 14 No
122 2833 14 No
122 4589 14 No
125 5070 13 No
126 3345 12 No
127 3029 10 No
127 4192 10 No
127 5769 10 No
130 3016 8 No
130 4798 8 No
132 2721 6 No
133 3847 0 No
Finally based on the number of qualifying teams from PWN and FIM, Texas would have 25-27 teams qualify for worlds in a districts. Best I could figure Texas has 30 teams qualified for worlds, but 11 of those are waitlist, 1 is a champ from last year and 1 is from the events at Dallas. So Texas could have had 8-10 more teams at worlds if it was a district.
Some things you should take into consideration is that in the district model, you won’t have the large number of teams at the event like at regionals. Also you’ll get a lot more teams winning awards and rookies getting points from awards. I would also assume that dominant teams like 118, 148, and others would go to more than two events and that a lot of points would be removed from the total.
This isn’t meant to criticize, just to bring to your attention some of the other factors that can affect the way the points are distributed.
Absolutely, but given that would be hard to model this is a reasonable metric. Though it is not fair to compare these points to other districts directly for this very reason.
Going to be honest here, it’s really sad being last on that list. Who knew going out of state for both of our events would have these sorts of ramifications.
Definitely interesting to see. The District System is the future, no two ways about it, the only question is when for a given area so this gives teams a good idea what it would look like. As mentioned because the number of teams per event is lower in the district system those numbers would be skewed a little higher. I think it would mostly effect the middle of the pack teams but overall it would change things radically. The other thing is that for many teams in our area their performance improved at their second event. This will skew things slightly as well, The teams that would have attended their second event earlier would probably do a little better than the teams who attended their first event a little later.
I’ve found as the second year of the District System has come to a close there is definitely a strategy behind picking your events. Of course for next year we are thinking about switching to the “home district” event selection similar to how FiM handles things to make registration easier. Teams will still be able to opt out of their home district but they will be on their own to register for their two events and at the mercy of the popular events filling up quickly.
I do have a question though as to how you calculated those points since you show a team with 0 points and the minimum number of points that can be earned per event under this season’s qualification ranking points system is 4 per event attended.
Yes if you look at the PNW points you will see a team with zero points but that is because they did not attend any events, the lead mentor had family issues to deal with and the other mentor nor any parents were willing to step up and bring the kids and robot, despite the fact that PNW FIRST added them to an already full event so they could play at least once. Needless to say I was rather disappointed. We had another team who’s only mentor couldn’t make it to their second event but a parent stepped up, jumped through all the school district hoops and got them there. Once they arrived the first thing we did was connect them with a couple of teams with a large mentor base to ensure they had a good event and we certainly would have done the same for the other team.
The OP said that only Texas events are included in this data set, and that only Texas teams were included in the data set. 3847 received 0 points because they are a Texas team that did not attend any Texas events.
That was what my joke was about. We played in Arkansas and Bayou this year and didn’t play in any Texas events, hence the zero points. We had a pretty sub par year even if we had played in Texas events so our score wouldn’t have gone up that much. If some one wants to calculate our points from Arkansas and Bayou I wouldn’t mind knowing what it was.
1983 and 1318 chose their Districts really well and were able to do that in the PNW (mostly avoiding other OP teams from this year in the area, while being pretty darned good themselves). However, the possibly even better teams of 4488 and 955 only went to two district events. So I don’t think that every great team would have gone to more events.
We did not choose out districs do so well as it turned out, and lost to them multiple times
Alliance points are as follows. 17-n where n is either the alliance captain number or the selection number.
There 10 points awarded for each level of the elimination rounds you advance from. So making it to the Semis gives you 10 points, making it to the finals gets you 20 points and overall winner gets 30 points.
Awards are worth 5 points except for Chairman’s at 10, RAS and EI at 8.
Rookie teams get a once per season 10 point bonus and 2nd year teams get a once per season 5 point bonus.
Winning Chairman’s also qualifies the team and the Robot for DCMP while RAS and EI qualifies the team but not the robot to compete for that award at DCMP. However if the team wins RAS or EI at DCMP the team and the robot earn a slot at CMP.
With the current number of slots at CMP and the resulting increase in spots per District it is possible for a team to earn a spot at CMP w/o winning a single district event or even being selected for the eliminations round at DCMP. There were a couple of teams that did that in the PNW district this year.
Well, since I’m relocating to Texas(Dallas) in the next few weeks and I’m currently on the MAR Board, I can tell you, that championship slots are percentage based. The way it works, is the size of your district in comparison to the others.
So for an example…(This is only an example, #of teams is not accurate!)
Dallas 50 teams
FIM 200 teams
MAR 120 teams
PNW 80 teams
Total 450 teams
Of the total,
FIM gets 44% allocation of championship slots for districts
MAR gets 26% allocation of championship slots for districts
PNW gets 17% allocation of championship slots for districts
Dallas gets 11% allocation of championship slots for districts
So 11% of 50 is 5.5 teams to go to championships.
This includes the 3 winners, Chairmans, & EI.
So no extra teams based on points would get to attend.
If the Dallas area grows and adds more teams it would get more slots.
Now, if there are extra slots, Dallas teams that win outside events take away from those available slots. So if a team wins in Oklahoma, that slot is now used by a Texas team and is not available to be given out based on points.
I sincerely hope, once I get settled in the area I can get more involved with there and hopeful provide some guidance, experience and insights to the district model.
PWN had 151 teams and will qualify 31 teams or 21% of teams
FIM had 338 teams and will qualify 68 teams or 20% of teams
MAR had 122 teams and will qualify 25 teams or 20% of teams
NE had 173 teams and will qualify 35 teams or 20% of teams
Texas had 133 teams so 20% of that is 26.6 teams, but there might be some rounding up or down in there, so I gave a range.
Looks like there currently about 200 teams in Texas, according to this page on usfirst.org.
The page says 236, but some entries are for teams that did not participate in events (but still seem to be registered).
There were 136 teams in TX so they would have had 27 spots not including pre qualified teams or those that won a spot in the lottery.
The 236 number includes teams that have participated in the last few years but not this year and teams that started to register as rookies this year but did not actually complete registration or dropped for whatever reason.
Just double checked some entries on the list and it looks like you’re right about this.
What puzzles me is the ~100 difference between our two statistics. Do you remember where you found the 136 statistic or where an accurate team count is available?
I got that info from RIMS (Regional Information Management System) which only FIRST Staff including Senior Mentors like myself can access. Sorry I don’t know where the public can find an accurate team count.
About 50 of that difference is split equally between 2014 teams that didn’t return and 2015 "rookies that didn’t finish registration. The rest would be teams that dropped out before the 2015 season. I believe the system keeps the data for 3 or 4 seasons after a team had dropped out so it probably contains teams that last competed in 2012 or 2011.
I don’t know why the info displayed on the public pages does not pull its info from the RIMS page that displays only teams registered for the current season once registration has closed for that season.
