Last year, when I was running district point calculations for New England and posting rankings before the official ones came out, I realized I could estimate the amount of points it would take to qualify for the District Championship using the proportion of championship capacity to total teams. Since it ended up being a decent estimate for the final cutoff by week 3 or so, I’ve developed the method more and applied it to all 5 districts for this year. I’ll be happy to answer any questions about how I got the numbers. I’ll be updating this thread each week with new projections.

Here are the numbers I came up with for the final district score of the lowest ranked team to initially qualify for the district championship:

The team counts I used to calculate these were 351 for Michigan, 53 for Indiana, 149 for PNW, 120 for MAR and 167 for New England. I’m not entirely sure about the accuracy of the team counts, so if anyone has better or updated numbers, I would appreciate it if you could share them here.

DISCLAIMERS: These are not official in any way. Teams may or may not qualify for district championships regardless of the numbers I post. Please don’t alter your competition strategy based on my projections, they are rough estimates at best.

EDIT: I reran the numbers with the team counts Mr V posted, Indiana drops to 38, while PNW and New England go up to 72.

I’d be interested in your method. I of course am hoping the number for NE drops to at least 69 (team 2876’s total)!

It surprised me that when you found there were more teams in NE than in your earlier projection, that the number went up. I would have thought that, with more teams to chew up points, it might go down from your initial estimate.

Also, are you factoring in the teams that are competing in multiple events, along with those coming in from outside the district? I realize that’s a bit of work, but just curious.

Let’s see… When you add more teams to a district, a lower percentage go to the DCMP. So the cutoff moved higher up the list, increasing the score. You can see for Indiana, decreasing the number of teams makes it easier to get to the DCMP, so the cutoff moves down, decreasing the score.

So basically what I do is apply the percentage of teams that make it to the DCMP to the number of teams that have competed, and the team at that rank in the standings becomes the “cutoff”. I then adjust the cutoff up one spot for each spot taken up by a Chairman’s winner below the cutoff. If the team at the adjusted cutoff has played 2 events, their score becomes the point cutoff I reported. If they have only played one, I assume they will get the same score at their next event(big assumption, probably the biggest flaw), and add that to their score to get the cutoff.

Extra plays don’t go into the standings, so I don’t have to worry about that. Interdistrict plays aren’t being handled correctly by the ranking system last time I checked, so for example 316 is incorrectly included in the New England standings. Now that I’m on spring break, I’ll have time to correct for that.

Okay, at least I think I understand the way you are attacking the problem and why the number went up. I know it’s not much more than a hope on my part, but I think the number will be closer to the 68-70 range, and that we are on the razor’s edge.

The current standings have fixed that problem. I believe the standings we’re seeing now include only the NE teams, and there are indeed 175 of them.

Yeah, should be around 70 by the end of the season, and remember that some teams usually can’t go and so teams that just miss the first round of invitations can still end up going.

Yep looks like they took the MAR teams out of the NE standings. I’ll have new projections up on Monday!

I just ran the numbers post-Week 3, and the new projections are ready! I believe all the district teams have now played at least one event, so the cutoffs are just the DCMP capacities. This is basically the projection after everyone’s first event. I’m not really sure why MAR’s number dropped so far. The jumps for New England and PNW were mostly due to low ranking Chairman’s teams. Next week is probably the first really accurate projection, as a significant amount of final scores will come in, giving me a much better idea of how teams perform over 2 events.

The above is mostly wrong, I did the projections without realizing there were still teams that hadn’t played yet. I reran the numbers and found the projections correctly, shown below:

I know what happened, previously the leaderboards were only showing the teams that had played an event, now they’re showing all teams. I only refreshed my Excel data queries without looking at the bottom of the standings pages. I’ll redo my math, thanks for the heads up!

I feel these suggested points thresholds are rather high.
To take the New England District as an example, 32 teams have now played both their scored events. If we just rank those 32 teams and cut the list at the same proportion that will go to District Champs (60 of 175) then we see that the 11th team has 70 points.
So if we assume that teams completing their two scoring events by week 3 are performing as a whole close to average, then the District Champ invitation threshold should be around 70 points.

However, as pointed out in previous years, teams that compete in their second event early tend to do much better than average since they are at a distinct advantage over other teams competing for the first time. We see this trend again, since the average score for all NE teams in their first event is 26.5pts, whereas the average for 2nd event teams is 36.0pts. This pattern is seen in all Districts at the end of Week 3. (There is also an argument that better teams compete early, but it has the same effect on the District Champs point threshold.)

District Event 1 Event 2
#teams #teams Average #teams Average
FiM 327 303 25.3 49 31.0
IN 49 49 27.4 15 33.6
MAR 121 98 26.3 11 35.9
NE 175 168 26.5 32 36.0
PNW 152 145 28.5 43 33.1

By the end of the season the averages for 2nd events are actually expected to be a little lower than 1st event averages, since teams are often also competing against non-point-scoring 3rd event teams at later events which reduces the points pool. So 2nd event scores will become progressively lower on average from Week 4 onward.

Therefore we can conclude that 70pts is highly likely an overestimate of the points needed to qualify for the NE District Champs. My current estimate is 63pts.

There are differences in the amount of district points teams are getting according to the blue alliance and the district ranking website. Am I correct to assume that the district ranking website would have the correct point value?

Based on the current rankings, projecting points earned Week 5 based on past performance, and the fact that there are 9 teams who will be competing who won’t be acruing points, I’m going to guess that the threshold for New England qualification is going to be 67pts, if there are 54 teams going to NE Championships. Obviously if several teams decline attendance that might come down.

I hope this is much closer to the real cutoff (we’re at 69 points) and I really think it is. Not only are there 9 teams competing whose points won’t count, as you said, but there is one team (236) who is already at 73 points, and another 4 teams who have won Chairman’s awards. That’s really 14 teams (11 in Hartford alone) whose points don’t matter for those teams trying to reach the unknown threshold (assuming that threshold is under the 73 points team 236 already has.)

By the way, I thought there were going to be 60 invitations this year.

Certainly there are several factors that may bring that cutoff down below the 70pt mark…

I have no idea what the invitation count will be… I’ve tried looking around for it but have come up empty-handed. Battlecry has gone up above 54 teams in recent years, but I figured keeping my guess based on a 54-team list would be safe. If it bumps up to 60 teams, then that obviously brings the point threshold down by probably 1-3 points from whatever it would be.

Honestly I think these are pretty useless this week, Michigan, PNW and New England all look too low and MAR looks too high. Figured I would do them anyway for continuity or something.