paper: 2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

2007 Overall Team Rank by Regional Performances
by: Swampdude

This is a ranking spreadsheet that uses the standings data from the FIRST site and assigns values to the results then ranks teams on the sum of those results.

This was created for fun, to see rankings based on the seeding, win/loss, Ranking points, high score, and Winner or Finalist of the regional. There is also a sheet that shows these rankings for the teams that are currently signed up for the Championship. There are still 4 regionals that are not in the data and have not been played. It is not a great indicator of certain teams performances as luck can have a lot to do with your results. But its something to amuse ourselves with :slight_smile:
If you disagree with the way this was made, thats great! Please tweak it, upgrade it, do your thing! - at least now all the data is in 1 place.

rankings_2007.xls (1.13 MB)
rankings_2007_A.xls (1.17 MB)
rankings_2007_B.xls (1.16 MB)
rankings_2007_c.xls (1.92 MB)

Anyone remember this?
Well I wanted something to look at for nationals, and I didn’t want to put a lot of time into it. So I used the Standings data from the FIRST regional results. This was based on the seeding, win/loss, Ranking points, high score, and Winner or Finalist of the regional. There is also a sheet that shows these rankings for the teams that are currently signed up for the Championship. There are still 4 regionals that are not in the data and have not been played. It is not a great indicator of certain team’s performances as luck can have a lot to do with your results. But its something to amuse ourselves with
I’m sure many will have a problem with the formula or whatever else, feel free to tweak it. This at least puts all the data in 1 place. After this weekends regional are done I’ll update it.
Unfortunately there’s no way to tell “how” these teams got these numbers (i.e. ramps, ringers, good alliance pairing etc.) Please don’t get wrapped up in the results, as we all know luck has much to do with it. This is just a general indicator of performance.

Very cool spreadsheet! I have no problem with us being ranked at 67th, we can try to play the part of the sleeper turned champ!:smiley:

just a quick suggestion: figure out some way of weighting the elimiation wins more. I was just looking through the rankings. my team (2106) is ranked 490th (not complaining) while the winner of VCU (540) was ranked 709th. It looks like the QP’s and seeds are given too much weight. I can’t believe how much work went into this. Nicely done!

On the “variables” sheet you can add weight to the winner/finalist (or any of the other items you want to adjust). It is currently set at 20pts. I gave finalists a multiplier of 1 and winners a multiplier of 2. Then you’ll have to resort the sheet you’re looking at if you change any of the variables by the rank column.
To do this you “select all” by clicking the upper left corner of the sheet where the (2) column and row headers meet. then Data>Sort>Sort by rank and descending.

Omg. We (1717) are ranked 23rd… Wow that makes me feel really good lol. Unfortunately tho, we wont be seeing any of you in Atlanta because we twice lost to the number 1 team (330) in the semifinals and finals in LA and SD repectively. Bad luck I guess.

Anyways, thanks you so much for this spread, it is awesome :slight_smile:

Ditto to what Emilio said.
Amazing spreadsheet. I can’t wait to see how these teams fair in Atlanta

Is Champs the main list saying how all teams rank that are going to Championships?

Great job with that.
I can’t believe that my team (1901) is ranked 52nd overall with all the great teams ou there. How ever will take it:yikes:

I saw several repeats and didn’t see certain teams, can you expalin that?

The data for Silicon Valley Regional, at least, is incomplete. I know that’s because the data on FIRST’s own site was not updated after the end of Friday’s qualification matches, but it may color some of the results a bit.

Without digging into things too deeply – how does the frequency of competition for a given team affects its ranking? That is – some teams play 40 qualification matches in a season and others play 8. Is that considered?

If you download the rev A - you’ll see the teams highlighted in yellow, which indicates they went to multiple regionals. Each listing on the “Results” sheet are for each showing at each regional - so yea there are multiple entries for some teams.

No each listing is for each regional they went to and do not add up together. However some regionals played 10 matches per team, and some only 6, this fact does slant the results a bit as I made a factor based on wins. I suppose the better way would be to ratio a number from the win/loss.

Yes, thats a list generated from who was registered as of this morning, 302 teams. However about 15 of those registered teams still have not played in a regional yet, so they are not listed.

The list of finalists at buckeye is incorrect.

Which of the ranks is the one I should go on, Results or Champs?

All of the data is from the FIRST Standings pages. Is their listing wrong?
http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/events/OH/awards.html

Results is a list of overall rankings of every team from every regional.

Champs is a list of that same data but only for those teams that will be attending the Championship. But it is also reduced to (1) listing per team. So if a team went to multiple regionals, the list picking only 1 of those automatically. The purpose of Champs is to get a snapshot of the performance of teams going to the Championship.

OHH!! i see it now, i didn’t move to the right a bit and i thought the information was to the left.:o

very nice job with all of this great job it’ll be very helpful!:stuck_out_tongue:

It doesn’t look like the champs list has all the teams going to the Championships. What’s up with that?

Am I reading this right? By your spreadsheet 696 is ranked 4th in the country!? Sweet!

First thanks for making this sheet, having all the data is great.

However as a note to every one who intends to use this. This data really holds little value for scouting, just based on the teams I have data on from Boston and UTC I can tell you that the way the teams rank here is not how they would rank for picking.

This is a great resource but using it as scouting data would be a mistake.

Agreed, this really is no indicator of how teams are gonna do at Championships. I mean probably the really highly placed teams, top tens and such, will probably do good but below that everyone probably just as good a chance as everybody else as far as making it to eliminations.

I like my RPI better :stuck_out_tongue:

I plan on putting something together right after this weekend’s regionals. Anyone interested?