I just put in the results for Oregon awards and they should now be accounted for. There was an issue with the upload at the event, so I had to wait until I received them in an email.
Thanks for the awesome website skunks. It takes all the work out of the district model. We quickly know right were we all stand, very convenient! :] See you in Portland (I hope).
Paul and Alex did all the coding, they deserve the thanks. I’ll see you in Portland either way 
Where does the alliance selection order come from?
I get it from the FTA’s at each event. (As you probably know, there is no public posting of rank order by FMS)
There was some discussion on teams opting out of doing a third district event.
I know that our team considered this before the season and made a conscious decision to try and get students and mentors to events as volunteers (primarily video crew) rather than try and get the whole team to another event.
This is the first year of districts and we felt that support of the entire system was more important than getting another “practice” in.
A secondary consideration was the possibility of taking away points from other teams that were competing in one of their districts that “counted” for them.
I think we need to take a look at that. If our team competed in a third event and we were lucky enough to do well or to win an award, the points we scored that don’t count for us are points that a team participating for the 2nd event would not be able to get.
Yes it would be a benefit to get another practice in but at the expense of allowing other teams to get points for District qualifications.
It think this issue needs to be addressed next year. I, for one, would choose to remove 3rd play teams from the elimination rounds and also not allow them to win awards at their 3rd play. I know this seems radical but I think it is the only fair way for teams to advance to district championships.
I am in NO WAY berating teams that have chosen to do a third play this year under the rules we are playing. I am only suggesting that we need to think this through next year.
For many teams that do not have a history of success, they will see the stronger teams coming in to play for a third time as taking away their chance to score points. If we are doing it for practice… then just do it for practice…
Good luck on the fields!!
A partial fix may be to exclude 3rd play teams from winning judged awards, or alternatively finding a way to eliminate the “optional” element by having 3 events per registration and have all the points count.
I make no claims as to how easy logistically or financially the second idea would be.
It is important to understand the reasoning for 3rd plays in the district model. Michigan has been developing and using the district model for over 5 years, and none of the decisions about how the district system works have been made without significant discussion and statistical analysis on impacts to how points are distributed. There is room for discussion and adjustments in the future - but we ought to start out with a common understanding of why things are the way they are.
First - 3rd plays are not for the sole benefit of teams that decide to take them at the cost of teams who happen to attend the same event, they exist for two reasons:
- To increase participation, rather than let vacant spots go to waste.
- To make district events fair by making sure all events have the same number of teams in attendance.
The fairness of 3rd plays has been brought up and discussed throughout the development of the district model, when it began as FiM. Jim Zondag was heavily involved in the development, and addressed many common questions last year in an FAQ, including this one - it is well worth a read. I’ll include Q10 for easy reference:
Q10: “Why do you allow some teams to play a third district, isn’t this an unfair advantage?”
A10: One of our primary goals is to increase FRC team participation wherever possible. In pursuit of
this goal, we feel that offering vacant slots to teams who want them serves the goals of FIRST and FiM
better than leaving them empty. While this does give additional playing time to some teams, all teams
who wish to play at an additional event are free to enroll in the annual lottery for these available slots.
All teams have equal opportunity for these lottery slots.
Also, if we left these spots empty, we would be giving additional advantage to any team attending a
partially unfilled event. Mathematically, the system is fairer overall if the events are all fully attended.
We want all events to have the same statistical significance in our system.
We add events in units of 40 slots. Growth forces us to add events each time we add 20 new teams.
Usually the number of teams/40 leaves a remainder of 15-20 spots open. We prefer to fill these for
event balancing.
Third play is also not intended to constitute a significant portion of available spots - if the right number of events are available for the teams in the district, only a few spots should remain (1-2 dozen, ideally - roughly 5%), instead of the ~16% remaining in PNW after second registration. And teams participating in 3rd play, although earning points that don’t get counted, aren’t there simply to ‘steal’ points away from other teams at that event - they are there to make sure those teams have the same opportunity at the points as if they attended any other district event.
Any district that is smaller gives all teams attending a clear unfair advantage over teams attending larger districts. Already the PNW district has strayed from the intended use by having unequal event sizes (I am not looking to place blame, just stating a fact). I do not envy the job of having to determine where and how many events to host, how many teams to have attend each, and how to make sure all events fill evenly. It is far from an easy task, especially in the first year of implementation. They were planning for growth going into 2014, but instead the team count shrunk (in both states). They adjusted by decreasing district sizes from 40 to 36, but this still didn’t end up being sufficient - as 56 spots were left after second district registration. Really, we should have had 9 districts instead of 10, so only 20 3rd play spots would have remained (or 8 districts @ 40 teams each, leaving 14 3rd plays), but who would have forecasted that a year ago when planning started. Then 3rd plays were opened to top off events, but the 18 that went for it fell far short of the 56 required to fill up all the events.
Let’s take a quick look for a case study: Mt Vernon had 28 teams, that means all but 4 automatically earned some number of alliance selection points (That’s 86%, compared to 69% at Oregon City or Auburn, or 60% at a Michigan district), in addition to getting an almost de-facto chance at additional points by playing in finals. On top of that they had a better chance at winning an award since fewer teams were in attendance. This would have been even more severe if 3rd plays weren’t allowed, as the disparity between the smallest and largest event would have been even greater. 3rd plays aren’t there to steal points, they are there to make sure no team has an unfair advantage at points by attending a smaller event.
Also we need to keep the big picture in mind. We are not an island, and long term it is important that things are equal and fair not just within our district but between districts. Inter-District play will become a reality sooner rather than later, that’s why they have already standardized the district point structure - we can’t just go making our own changes to the system. By the time Inter-district hits, it will be important that our event size is the same as FiM or MAR, so that our district doesn’t offer an unfair advantage.
I know the chat in this thread changed slightly, but I wanted to point back to the website itself. Tonight we pushed version 1.2 live, and it has some great new features. We invite you to provide you feedback through the email listed on the website, PM here on CD, or just post it in the thread. We are bring new features as quickly as we can, and your feedback goes a long way in prioritizing our work.
In Version 1.1.x we introduced:
- Match Data updates “live” during events
- New layout for detail pages - highlights matches based on the team being viewed
- Fixed a bug related to match display order if replay matches happened at an event
- Administrative page changes
- Added profile bar available to logged-in users
In Version 1.2 we are introducing:
- Improved Caching for faster page loading
- Fixed a bug that was causing the alliance selection points to be correct, but text version to be backwards for round 2
- Improved the tie breaker algorithm for teams with equal district ranking points
- Clarified text on scoring, about us and contact pages
- Tie breaker values are shown on each team’s detail page
- Team names and numbers are clickable each time they appear and lead to the team detail page
- On the district ranking page, you can hover over the calendar icon next to a score to see which event it was from. Or, click for the full details from that event
We hope you will enjoy these changes for week 4. For those attending competitions, good luck!
Wow, thanks again Alex!
Any chance we can get the qualification break down posted? A lot of people at the events have been asking the big question: “Who makes it to District Champs and World Champs?”
It’s very likely that I’m off, but this is my current understanding that I’ve been sharing:
***64 teams would qualify for the PNW District Championship. 10 district Chairman winners, 54 taken from the point system ranking.
Points accrued at the District Championship are worth (3x) as much.
PNW would then send the following (24) teams to the World Championship:
-3 Chairman’s Winners
-1 Engineering Inspiration
-1 Rookie All Star
-19 Teams based off of the District Point Ranking.***
Thanks Alex, nice work!!
Navid yes you have it correct.
Only teams that won Chairman’s, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All Star at a district event will compete for those awards at DCMP.
Teams that won EI or RAS at a district event earn a spot at DCMP to compete for that award but they must qualify on points to bring their robot. If they win EI or RAS at DCMP then the team moves on to CMP with their robot as you noted.
It looks like all the teams that competed in Wilsonville and Shorewood this last weekend show 0 Qualification Performance points. This is confusing to me since the official match results are available and the teams’ pages show their match wins and losses correctly. Is this calculation not done automatically as data is available?
Also, great job on this tool and site, Paul and Alex! It is awesome 
Thanks!
I noticed the same thing. No qualification points given for Wilsonville or Shorewood. Even when you look on the Event page it shows no points for any of the teams for qualifications.
Great job on the site by the way… it is very clear and you have several formats to look at …I like being able to look at individual events AND individual teams along with the overall rankings!!
GREAT JOB
I’m sure that they will get to it. Alex is a college student who does this on his free time that isn’t spent volunteering at an event in one capacity or another.
Thank you! Everything is up to date through week 4 now, by the way.
Thanks Alex. I was really worried about being able to see all the district points and data when it was announced that we’d be changing models. I’m so impressed by this site. Truly fantastic work!
Here are some estimates of where teams are as far as making it to the district championship.
This is by no means authoritative. In fact, it has some known flaws like assuming that anybody who hasn’t played at all yet is not very good.
Key:
in=will make it
out=won't have enought points
~in=probably will make it
~out=probably won't make it
bubble=could go either way
Best-case points to make it to district cmp: 40
Worst-case points to make it to district cmp: 100
Best estimate: 56
{'bubble': 42, 'out': 19, '~in': 33, '~out': 49, 'in': 10}
0 in 4488 - ShockWave
1 in 2522 - Royal Robotics
2 in 1425 - Error Code Xero
3 in 2046 - Bear Metal
4 in 2557 - SOTAbots
5 in 4911 - CyberKnights
6 in 4915 - Spartronics
7 in 2471 - Team Mean Machine
8 in 4077 - M*A*S*H
9 in 1318 - Issaquah Robotics Society
10 ~in 2928 - Viking Robotics
11 ~in 360 - The Revolution
12 ~in 3070 - Team Pronto
13 ~in 4918 - The Roboctopi
14 ~in 488 - Team XBot
15 ~in 948 - NRG (Newport Robotics Group)
16 ~in 4559 - FIRST DRaFT
17 ~in 492 - Titan Robotics Club
18 ~in 2412 - Robototes
19 ~in 4125 - Confidential
20 ~in 2411 - Rebel @lliance
21 ~in 2907 - Lion Robotics
22 ~in 3674 - 4-H Clover Bots
23 ~in 1540 - Flaming Chickens
24 ~in 4061 - SciBorgs
25 ~in 2903 - NeoBots
26 ~in 2002 - Tualatin Robotics
27 ~in 4131 - Iron Patriots
28 ~in 4542 - Titanium Talons
29 ~in 3393 - Horns of Havoc
30 ~in 1294 - Top Gun
31 ~in 2635 - Lake Monsters
32 ~in 2811 - StormBots
33 ~in 3131 - Gladiators
34 ~out 2374 - Crusader Bots
35 ~out 2990 - Hotwire
36 ~out 4057 - KB Bots
37 ~out 4030 - NullPointerException
38 ~out 4726 - Robo Dynasty
39 ~in 955 - CV Robotics
40 ~out 4652 - WolfTech
41 ~out 2930 - Glacier Peak Sonic Squirrels
42 ~out 1258 - SeaBot
43 ~out 3220 - Mechanics of Mayhem
44 ~out 4089 - Stealth Robotics
45 ~in 3238 - Cyborg Ferrets
46 ~out 4681 - Murphy's law
47 ~out 2733 - Pigmice
48 ~out 4654 - Mountaineers
49 ~in 4038 - Binary Robotics
50 ~in 997 - Spartan Robotics
51 ~in 2550 - Skynet
52 ~out 2093 - Bowtie Brigade
53 bubble 5085 - LakerBots
54 ~out 4205 - ROBOCUBS
55 ~in 956 - Eagle Cybertechnology
56 ~in 2521 - SERT
57 bubble 4450 - Olympia Robotics Federation
58 ~in 2923 - Aggies
59 ~out 4051 - Sabin-Sharks
60 ~out 2517 - Green Wrenches
61 ~out 3636 - Generals
62 ~in 4120 - Jagwires
63 bubble 1983 - Skunk Works Robotics
64 out 1899 - Saints Robotics
65 bubble 3588 - the Talon
66 bubble 4608 - Duct Tape Warriors
67 bubble 4513 - Circuit Breakers
68 bubble 5198 - RoboKnight Force
69 bubble 3237 - Bionic Braves
70 bubble 3663 - CPR - Cedar Park Robotics
71 out 1778 - Chill Out..!
72 bubble 2927 - Pi Rho Techs
73 bubble 2976 - Spartabots
74 bubble 4772 - Optimistic Skyz
75 bubble 2929 - JAGBOTS
76 out 3787 - Wild Robotocats
77 out 4060 - S.W.A.G.
78 bubble 3219 - TREAD
79 out 3586 - Pride in the Tribe-Caveman Robotics
80 out 5295 - Aldernating Current
81 bubble 4579 - RoboEagles
82 bubble 3786 - Chargers
83 out 4512 - BEAR Bots
84 bubble 4980 - Canine Crusaders
85 out 949 - Wolverine Robotics
86 bubble 2192 - YAK Attack
87 out 2660 - Pengbots
88 out 3268 - Viking Robotics
89 out 1510 - Wildcats
90 out 4309 - 4-H Botsmiths
91 bubble 2980 - The Whidbey Island Wild Cats
92 bubble 2944 - Titanium Tigers
93 bubble 3574 - HIGH-TEKERZ
94 bubble 3789 - On Track Academy
95 bubble 2147 - CHUCK
96 bubble 3826 - SkyNet Robotics North West
97 bubble 1595 - Dragons
98 bubble 4461 - RAMbotics
99 bubble 3693 - GearHead Pirates
100 out 4682 - Brave Bots
101 bubble 5111 - SaxonBots
102 bubble 3711 - Iron Mustang
103 out 3781 - 4-HPenneyBots
104 out 4132 - Scotbots
105 bubble 4127 - LoggerBots
106 bubble 957 - SWARM
107 bubble 2926 - Robo Sparks
108 bubble 3684 - Electric Eagles
109 bubble 3812 - Bits & Bots
110 bubble 2605 - Sehome Seamonsters
111 bubble 847 - PHRED
112 bubble 2149 - CV Bearbots
113 bubble 3673 - C.Y.B.O.R.G. Seagulls
114 bubble 3221 - KM Royals
115 bubble 3024 - My Favorite Team
116 ~out 4662 - Tribal Tech
117 out 2542 - Go4bots
118 bubble 3575 - Okanogan FFA
119 ~out 4457 - ACE
120 out 4683 - Full-metal Robotics
121 bubble 2906 - Spanaway Lake Botworx
122 out 4692 - Metal Mallards
123 ~out 3223 - POKER Robotics
124 ~out 4043 - NerdHerd
125 ~out 2910 - Jack in the Bot
126 ~out 3218 - Panther Robotics
127 ~out 4304 - Iron Rams
128 ~out 4469 - TJ
129 ~out 4104 - Blackhawks
130 ~out 2915 - Riverdale Robotics/Pandamonium
131 ~out 4495 - Tigers
132 ~out 2148 - Mechaknights
133 ~out 2942 - Panda Machine
134 ~out 3049 - Fluffy Robotics
135 out 3681 - Raiders FRC
136 ~out 3831 - Da Bears
137 ~out 3876 - Mabton LugNutz
138 ~out 4082 - Ranching Robots
139 ~out 2922 - RoboCon
140 ~out 3576 - Clover Park High School Warriors
141 ~out 4110 - DEEP SPACE NINERS
142 ~out 4173 - Bulldogs
143 ~out 4180 - Iron Riders
144 ~out 1432 - Mahr's Metal Beavers
145 ~out 1571 - Error404
146 ~out 3192 - Tiger Bytes
147 ~out 4105 - ChiefBotsFTS
148 ~out 753 - High Desert Droids
149 ~out 2555 - RoboRams
150 ~out 1359 - Scalawags
151 ~out 3286 - the rocket surgeons
152 ~out 3712 - RoboCats
Very cool! Someone brought me the idea of building this sort of site for FiM, but I was (and am still) too backlogged to commit to something like this.
This is the direction FIRST needs to be heading with the district system. It’s 2014. We shouldn’t be manually updating Excel spreadsheets and uploading them to tell people where they’re ranked in their district. Very nice job!
I’m glad you enjoy the site! Certainly feel free to have your FiM Leadership folks shoot us an email or PM and we would be happy to add them. The system is built to handle as many districts as we want. We’re hoping that once other districts see it in use for a year, we can all get on board and have a unified system.
Great job Alex!
This is really helpful to the district teams
thanks for the update