# Ranking Score

How is the Ranking Score calculated?

5.3.4 Ranking Score (RS)
Each TEAM on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the
unpenalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
Each TEAM on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final
score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating TEAMS will receive a number of ranking points equal to their
ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
The total number of ranking points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches,
divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to
two decimal places, will be their ranking score.
Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of the losing
ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and
win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible.

That means that your ranking score for a match is equal to the score of whichever alliance loses, and that amount averaged out over every qualifier match will equal your final ranking score.

Nice summaryâŚ but itâs missing something very important from the rule you quoted.

Win: Losing alliance score without penalties included.
Loss: Losing alliance score with penalties included.
Tie: Whatever the score was tied at.

Average them all out, and thatâs your ranking score.

Well, not quite. You then have to divide by 100. Not that it makes a difference in the rankings, or anything else really.

You able to show that in the rules?

The total number of ranking points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score.

Thatâs not dividing by 100. Thatâs dividing by x matches (AKA taking the average) and truncating (AKA, I donât care about anything beyond 2 decimal places).

(Now, if MI is dividing by 100, then their ranking scores will be much lower than the rest of the FIRST competitions, so all the other FIRST teams will rank much higher at Championship. :p)

Ah, I definitely read that wrong.

Interesting, it brings up the idea that a team guaranteed to lose with very few points may as well get a red card, because that will bring their Ranking score average up, because of course that match wouldnât count.

A ridiculous strategy, because RS only matters for top 12-ish teams, and those probably wouldnât be losing with so few points, but regardless a strategically sound (even if itâs not at all morally sound) strategy in that select case.

âdivided by the number of matches playedâ

I wonder if that really means, âdivided by the number of matches scheduledâ? It wouldnât be fair that a team that is 6-5 with one DQ gets a higher RP than a team that is 6-6.

In 2009, didnât they just sum up all the ranking points earned, and not bother to divide by anything?

As a member of a team on the receiving end of this in Portland, getting a red card affects your RP. It counts as a zero in the long run, so it could really mess up your RP if you get one during a high scoring match.

Matches in which teams earn a red card factor in as 0 rank score. If matches in which you earned a red card didnât affect your rank score, it would create situations in which you could benefit from getting a red card. There should never be situations in which earning a penalty is beneficial.