So I had a thought the other day. “What division has won the championship the most?”
Some quick counting revealed that:
Galileo has won 5 times
Newton has won 4 times
Archimedes has won 2 times
Curie has won 1 time
I was surprised to see it wasn’t Newton, but I kind of also figured that it would be a mix of all 4 divisions.
You might want to check that one again.
Galileo has also won the past three years, making them 3-0 in the St. Louis era.
I think the actual numbers are G-5, N-4, A-3, C-0. (assuming there were no division before 2001, anyone who’s been around longer please correct me if I’m wrong)
Also note, Galileo has won 5 of the last 6, only to be upset by Newton in 2010.
Intiresting, where did you get these numbers?
Galileo never won a championship until 2008.
Did they really win every championship from 2008-2013 except 2010?
Yes, this is true. That’s pretty interesting.
Having been the VC for that field from 2006 - 2012, that sounds about right.
Did you get that number from not counting the division in 2001? Because that was the year Curie won.
This has Newton winning 2001.
2001:N
2002:N
2003:A
2004:A
2005:N
2006:A
2007:N
2008:G
2009:G
2010:N
2011:G
2012:G
2013:G
The BlueAlliance has no data for 2001, where did you get your information?
What would be really interesting is knowing this with the context of when FIRST changed the sorting algorithm. (I forgot)
Is the algorithm they use now known?
I remember someone saying that the divisions used to go by team number, like team 1 in Archimedes, team 11 in Galileo, 20 in Curie, 25 in Newton and then repeating. I don’t think we know for sure what it is now, but I think someone might know what year they stopped doing the old one.
I have no idea what their sorting algorithm is (I took a crack at figuring it out once and got nowhere). But I can tell you what I’d do if I had to solve that problem. I’d generate some random divisions and see if they looked approximately balanced. I’d be looking for balance in several ways: competitive teams, former champions, Hall of Fame teams, rookies, waitlist teams, etc. If it looked too imbalanced or had a division that was too similar to the previous year or two, I’d throw it out and keep doing random ones until I got one that looked good. That would make the “algorithm” pretty hard to solve.
This would never happen, but I’d like to see four experts (Karthik, Paul C, someone nominate two others?) each represent a division. They would then take turns drafting the entire division by whatever thought process they individually desired. Their own 4 teams would be not included in this draft, and then randomly assigned to the 4 after the divisions are set.
I think we’d see some incredibly balanced divisions in a way anything FIRST does could never match.
I really want to see the power alliances that come out of this.
I agree that this would be really cool.
On the other hand, I think I like a bit of randomness. Not a ton, but a bit. With randomness, there’s always the chance that the top two teams in the world will be together in the same division and then end up allying. Removing that possibility would be sort of unfortunate. And having a division that’s a little bit strong or weak (not a lot, but a little) is actually good for certain teams. A team that performs at the top of the second tier of teams would have a slightly better chance at making it to Einstein if they’re in a slightly weaker division, even if it reduces that division’s odds of winning it all. Having a strong division sets up the chance of a glorious upset. And a stronger division is, of course, better for the very best teams, because it provides a better best case scenario. This is all fun stuff to think about.
Assigning divisions by OPR would actually be incredibly easy and very balanced. Idk why they don’t just do that if they want balanced divisions.
Because then people would jump down Manchester’s throat because OPR is a useless/misunderstood/abused/biased/wrong/silly/number-based/ridiculous/old-fashioned/left-leaning/conservative/smelly/overrated metric.
But hey, who knows, maybe that’s how they do it already! It’s not like they’ve told us.
Well it’s really hard to determine the “top two teams.” Or top 4 and even 10. Maybe just creating a top tier is more appropriate.
When I was at World’s watching Galileo, I for sure thought 118 and 1114 were the “top two teams.” But sure enough, they were beaten by the likes of 1477, 610, and 1241.
Top tier teams can be beaten any day of the week (We actually played a part in giving 1477 their first match loss at LSR) and honestly Champs has a lot to do with luck (mainly the luck of the draw).