Hello everyone, I’m trying to make an overall FRC rankings not just pertaining to robot performance. I like to count the big 5 (Chairman’s, EI, Winner, Woodie Flowers, and Dean’s List) and would like to know what others would weigh the categories at. This is mainly for fun and would like to know what the community thinks. Thank you
Would that mean any teams that haven’t won any of those wouldn’t be included in the ranks?
Using the other awards as well, but I was wondering what each award would be counted at
If your looking for the best teams at outreach and non robot things, but also builds good robots, I would rank it as follows:
1: Charimans
2: EL
3: Winner
4: Dean’s List
5: Woodie Flowers
Thank you, what percentage though?
60% Chairman’s
20% EL
10% Winner
5% Dean’s List
5% Woodie Flowers
Thank you
Yeah. It would be useful to hear some others opinions, I’m just one man with one opinion.
why not just use the district system? it accounts for all awards
4 Likes
I’m personally partial to the district ranking system, and I’ve been advocating for using it for more than just district qualification for a few years now. You can find my overall rankings for 2018 there, and I’m working on getting a constantly-updating version online before the end of the season.
That being said, you really need to ask yourself what you want out of this model. Robot success and awards success are generally positively correlated, but very weakly. If you want to capture both in a single model, you’re going to give up precision in both. You need to figure out what combination of the two gives you the precision you want for your application.
In a similar vein, be clear that if you use the district model, awards success will be heavily discounted relative to robot success.
W/L/T is no longer used to assign district points, but before 2015 you got 2 points for every qualification match you won. Note that DCMP points are tripled, and you’ll notice that winning two qualification matches at DCMP gave more points than winning district Chairman’s. The relationship between wins and points isn’t so direct now, but there are plenty of other examples. (Like, getting picked in the first round by alliance #6 at a district event gives you more points than winning Chairman’s.)
Thank you, the one problem I have with the district system is that it does devalue the chairman’s award as well as EI and doesn’t account for Dean’s List. I also would like to make this over history and for those of you from FIM, the point system has changed multiple times
You could use the old Season Long Fantasy FIRST scoring system. It won’t work as well for 2015, but the basics were:
W-L-T were 2-0-1 points (unless we liked negative scores, in which case a loss was -2)
Rank was scaling points for the top 15 teams
Playoff ending was 4, 10, 20, 30 as I recall for QF, SF, F, W.
Technical awards 15 points, non-technical 5 (I think? Might have been lower)
WFFA 8 points, EI 36 points, RCA 42 points
I don’t recall offhand the RAS/RI.
CMP awards were boosted a bit from that.
We’ve overhauled it a bit over the years and it’s quite a bit different now, but that worked for quite some time.
1 Like
May I suggest using Analytical Hierarchy Process to develop the weights based off of community feedback on pairwise ranks of awards?
I have a spreadsheet to do the math if anyone wants it.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.