Didn’t see a thread on this so I decided to make one.
Event runs from October 20-21 the top 30 teams in Arizona were invited.
Teams are listed in order of their rank.
AZ Champs was my first FRC event last year and I had a ton of fun. Good luck to everybody competing!
Out of curiosity, how do you determine your ranking?
If I recall correctly, The rankings were determined off a district ranking system based off first two regionals.
District ranking system. I don’t have the details of it.
From the email that I got about it:
The rankings (based on district model, from 1st event only)$@#from 2017 FIRST® SteamworksSM are calculated.
So it looks like it’s based on a district point system from your first event only.
Yeah it’s a bit of a weird ranking system, and I would question the order of teams but it doesn’t really matter and I (at least off the top of my head) can’t really think of any teams that should have gotten invited that got left out.
Unlike the District system where a team is guaranteed to be playing at 2 events, many Arizona teams only do 1 Regional. I haven’t seen the calcs for this year yet, but I remember something about a couple of awards (or maybe just presenting/winning Chairman’s itself) that give points for the 2nd event too.
What about the ranking order do you question? 2403’s ranking is from the Utah Regional where they were semifinalists and won Excellence in Engineering. I’m trying to locate any that are out of where I think they should be, but not seeing any out of place.
Taken from the Mountain Man’s data from district ranking of the mountain area, I have the rankings of the top 30 for the first event, Both events averaged, and best event. For the average event points, I took the average if there was a second event and just the first if there was no second event. That being said, there may be errors from the Mountain Man’s data or errors on my part in how I extracted the data. Feel free to double check me.
First Event Average Events Best Event
6530 76 6530 76 6530 76
6314 62 6314 61 1011 71
60 60 1011 57.5 6314 62
2403 51 2486 48 2486 61
842 45 842 40.5 60 60
1011 44 2403 40 2478 54
4146 43 60 39 4841 54
996 42 2662 38 2403 51
6413 39 6352 38 842 45
2662 38 3019 37.5 3019 45
6352 38 2478 37.5 4146 43
6674 36 6674 36 996 42
2486 35 498 36 498 41
6479 34 6413 35.5 1726 40
1492 33 1492 35.5 6413 39
698 32 1726 35 4183 39
498 31 6479 34 2662 38
3019 30 4841 33 6352 38
1726 30 698 32 1492 38
4565 26 4183 29.5 6674 36
6518 26 996 29 6479 34
5465 25 4565 28.5 698 32
6372 23 4146 26.5 4565 31
6683 23 6518 26 3187 30
991 22 5465 25 1165 27
2478 21 6372 23 6518 26
6656 21 6683 23 5465 25
3577 21 991 23 991 24
4183 20 6656 21 6372 23
6482 20 6482 20 6683 23
You’re data shows 4841 and 2375 both not qualifying when they did, and 3577 and 6482 qualified when they did not. Is that an error on your end or is it something else they look at when choosing teams?
3577 did qualify, they are 23rd on the original invite list.
Wow, I can’t believe the district point spreadsheet actually had a practical use. Thanks for giving me credit!
District Ranking Points for 1st event only.
Rookie and Sophomore Team bonus cut in 1/2 to reflect only 1 event. (This is reflected on Mountain Man’s spread sheet, but not at the time Rangel copied it.
The only errors I see at this time are the Award points for 6530 and 60. They are 5 points too high. My guess is they got credit for their Finalist Award, but shouldn’t since it is not a judged award. (If that is the source of error, strange that did not happen with 4146.) That would explain why 60 is 3rd instead of 2nd.
6518 played in the semifinals at Arizona North for 1 match as a back-up replacement. The original list has them ranked higher because they were given credit for advancing to the semifinals. This is an error according to the manual. Mountain Man’s Spreadsheet is more correct in this instance. They are still in the top 30 however. (25th)
10.12.3.2 Playoff Round Performance
This attribute measures Team performance as part of an ALLIANCE.
All Teams on the ALLIANCE winning a particular playoff series, who participate in MATCHES with their
ROBOTS, receive five (5) points per MATCH won. In most cases, Teams receive ten (10) points at each
of the Quarterfinal, Semifinal, and Final levels, unless a BACKUP ROBOT is called in to play.
I don’t see tie-breakers tabulated in Mountain Man’s Spreadsheet. Could explain why 498 and 6674 are flipped?
3577 had a Quals rating of 13 for me instead of 12 for Mountain Man. May be a difference in how the formula is approximated in the spreadsheet? 4841 had 8 instead of 7 for me as well.
=IF(O3=0,0,(ROUNDUP(IF(P3<=O3,IFERROR(SQRT(GAMMA.INV(((O3-(2P3)+2)/(1.07O3)),0.5,1))(10/(SQRT(GAMMA.INV((1/1.07),0.5,1))))+12,24-(SQRT(GAMMA.INV((-(O3-(2P3)+2)/(1.07O3)),0.5,1))(10/(SQRT(GAMMA.INV((1/1.07),0.5,1))))+12)),“”),0)))
4841 was accidentally credited with an extra 5 award points. A carry-over from a hand correction when the spread sheet was used for Missouri. 3944 (on tie breakers) would be the 30th ranked team.
PS. I don’t run the Arizona Event, but I did give a consult to those who do based on my work with the Missouri State Championship.
Changes should be reflected on my spreadsheet except for the approximation differences. 6530 had an extra 5 points because highest rookie seed was being included but is not a judged award and thus removed. Thanks for clearing things up!
My fault.