If only we didn’t die in three matches we would be a bit higher in the rankings
Should this not be average per regional? Since some teams went to 2 regionals their scores are much higher then that of teams that went to one regional. For example 1114 and 2056 have only gone to 1 regional, while 3387 and 3386 have went to two, making them have a higher ranking? Just a thought
Interesting to see how these rankings will stand after Waterloo and GTRWest. Those will be really entertaining to watch. My team was just commenting how Montreal would have been a fun regional, albeit expensive.
Why don’t we do this ranking process for the whole world in order to see approximatly who would be able to go to the World Championship under a “district” points system? Simply double the number of points teams that only attend one regional get; it wouldn’t be perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it would be very interesting to be able to run numbers on the prospective teams attending as compaired to the actual teams attending among other things.
While I don’t have the time to do this myself I would be very interested in seeing it if someone else wanted to take it up; I’m sure lots of people would appreciate it.
The situation is quite different in Canada to use the same ranking rules as FiM. The latter is geared towards two district events per team at a minimum; in Canada, Ontarian teams might do two or all three events in Ontario, and in Quebec, all teams but 5-6 only participate in one event, the Montreal regionals. So, if a team decides to participate in a second event, it will automatically have an edge.
Not saying that 3386 and 3387 are not good teams - you should all have seen them in the Montreal regionals last week, they were more than amazing - but it’s funny that they are ranked higher than 1114 and 2056.
We should make a ranking system for Canada just for fun!
Its understood that directly applying the FiM system to Canada doesn’t properly account for teams that don’t attend exactly two regionals.
I think calculating these rankings has become popular because it is expected that many regions will be converting to the District model (which will likely include a very FiM-like points system) in the next 1-3 years. Seeing how things might be different is an interesting exercise.
After this coming week, when 1114 and 2056 among others have played a second regional, then comparing them to 3387 and 3386 will make more sense. At this point, it really only makes sense to compare teams with the same number of regionals complete (so for 2 regionals, that would be 3387, 3386, 1075, 2809, 3360, 3985, 3530, 3550, 3988)
I see that many are crunching these numbers out in their respective regions and posting the results. For this thread, doing this provides a great deal of insight into a potential future for the District Points System to be in place across all provinces in Canada. As mentioned, we’re probably talking within the next several years. At least for now, it will be really interesting to see how all this turns out after 3/4 more weeks of competition.
After weeks 5 and 6, it looks like this. Note: I made it so that totals were calculated only on a teams first two chronological events but still showed the amount of points they would have earned at the third (unless your third was ABCA), which means that for several teams at ONTO2, and all ON teams at ABCA except 4001, those events didn’t count.
Ontario/Quebec has 105 teams. In 2008, MI had 118. MSC has historically taken the top 64. The Hershey Centre would hold 64 perfectly, so I would assume that a hypothetical Ontario/QC Region Championship would likewise hold 64.
Interestingly, several teams made the cut while only attending one event, and several more would have made the cut on a single event’s points, despite attending more than one. I suspect though, that the cutoff is artificially low due to having less events than a true district system.
I think you missed second events for both 2200 and 2386 who both attended the Pinetree Regional in Maine - week 6. Why not show the Calgary points for the other teams that attended Calgary - 771, 1305 and 1334?
I updated it to add 2200/2386 at MELE, and also added the points for 771, 1305, and 1334 at ABCA.
I noticed in checking though, that I’d screwed up all the points for 2nd picks, (inadvertently giving them the reverse of what they deserved, so #8 alliance second pick received 1 pt instead of 8, and #1 alliance second pick received 8pts instead of 1). Because of how I built my spreadsheet, fixing this isn’t easy. Working on a fix, will post again when fixed, though it shouldn’t change standings too much.