# State championships in MI

How many district points are needed to qualify for state championships in Michigan this year?

We donâ€™t know for sure.

Last year, 6087 got in on 66 points (well, some were lower but had a DCA).

In 2017, it looks like a 62 got 5256 and 5090 into MSC.

This site will start forecasting locks as events progress: https://frclocks.com/index.php?d=fim

2 Likes

You donâ€™t advance to DCMP on district points; you advance based on district ranking.

As such, the â€śthresholdâ€ť number of district points advancing teams must have varies from year to year. In general, this threshold is usually between 60 and 75 district points, but we wonâ€™t really know until the end of week 6.

3 Likes

Thanks!

Off hand FRClocks the formula used by FRCLocks have almost nothing to do with if a team will be going to Districts.

With each having over 90 points, there is a 0.000000% chance that Raider Robotics 5561 and Electro Eagles 3536 wonâ€™t get in. And yet they are listed as 42.42% and 33.68% respectively.

Whomever came up with the formula didnâ€™t analyze how the point distributions can occur. Quite simply they canâ€™t all go to the teams that already in the top 132 (number of non-Chairmanâ€™s slots) and even if they did thatâ€™s not the definition of the percentage of lock. The percentage of lock should be the odds that based on their current score, they are in, not the odds that some one in the million event could possibly occur (which it actually canâ€™t because of the way the teams are already scheduled in the remaining 20 tournaments).

To be truthful, the teams currently 3-15 with already having over 74 points (assuming they show up for their second tournament â€“ which this formula assumes, there is zero chance they wonâ€™t get in either.

A simple rule of thumb for getting in: in both tournaments, finish in the top 15, be the captain or first pick and win a playoff round. Getting 5 points for an award helps.

I beg to differ. Iâ€™d estimate more than 90% of the teams havenâ€™t attended their second district event yet and Raider Robotics and Electro Eagles are definitely not the best teams in Michigan (sorry, you two!). Not to mention, FRCLocks doesnâ€™t calculate whether a team will be going to States (not Districts, as you said in your post); it calculates the chance a team will be tied by other teams based on the total number of points left and total number of points necessary (doesnâ€™t factor in team performance at all intentionally). In fact, although I donâ€™t know much about the performance of the two aforementioned teams, Iâ€™d venture to say that there is a high chance they will actually finish in the 20s or 30s ranking-wise because of the abundance of teams that havenâ€™t played certain events yet.

To correct you, percentage lock is NOT â€śthe odds that based on their current score, they are in;â€ť itâ€™s the odds that their current place will change based on total points left and total points necessary for a team to equal or surpass them in district points.

To clarify again, FRCLocks doesnâ€™t calculate the percent chance that a given team will not meet the cutoff; it calculates the percent chance that a given team will keep its current place based on points left.

You may want to read this thread about the site. Locked, for their purposes, is â€śmathematically impossible to be bumpedâ€ť, and anything short of that number is how close a team is to that status. You are correct that thereâ€™s no realistic way they donâ€™t make it to MSC, but right now there are enough points out there that unrealistic things could happen.

Last year, 4 teams had 65 points. 2 of them went to States. So > 65 was the magic # last year

it may be a bit high but our way of thinking about it is 45 points per district event is a 100% chance of making it to MSC. We know this is high and district points much lower move on but this is the number we aim for per event, it helps setting an expectation for us and FIM.

This is correct, points distribution isnâ€™t take into account. Once you do, you can lock in way more teams. Itâ€™s being worked on, but I donâ€™t have an ETA for you. Sorry!

In addition, the percentage has nothing to do with probabilities and is based on facts and the current state of the points. It is just representedâ€¦poorly. I donâ€™t plan on ever attempting to predict, I only plan on reporting who is currently impossible to bump out.

Impossible to bump out is pretty simple: how many teams below a given team can catch that team? Is that number greater than how far that given team can fall without going below the DCMP capacity cutoff?

Thatâ€™s not close to the math you are currently using, the flaws of which others have pointed out.

Sounds simple, now write an algorithm for it.

1 Like

Max points at a district assuming no team wins more than 2 awards is 83. So, following my logic above, for each event a team has not played, add 83 points to their district points total. Boom done.

As you mention, youâ€™re asking for â€ślocksâ€ť not likelihood. Necessarily this means there wonâ€™t be many locks early on, but thatâ€™s expected.

Between this post and my prior post, I think you have a valid algorithm. Please tell me if Iâ€™m mistaken.

We are currently looking at how points can possibly be distributed, which would go way beyond this but it is also more complex. You may have 40 teams that could possibly score 83 points and jump team x, but what if all 40 of those teams were going to a total of 3 events? Can the points even be distributed that way? No. So youâ€™re back to the same spot we started in. So how do you distribute the points so that you generate a worst case scenario for team x while still being possible? Can team x then survive that worst case scenario? This is where it gets tricky.

What Iâ€™m saying is, itâ€™s really easy to say â€śoh just do thisâ€ť but itâ€™s not that simple. If it were, you would have done it already.

Alternatively, I feel like a number of teams whoâ€™ve already played both events and are realistically eliminated from MSC still have nonzero probabilities listed.

The point cutoff last year was 65, and FiM grew by ~40 teams, so there is a 0% chance that the cutoff will be less than 65pts this season. Yet teams like (nothing against these teams, just examples) 6093, 5562, and 7788 have positive probabilities. Common sense should tell us that these teams are out.

At a minimum, a team who has played both their events and has 54pts should not have a higher â€ślock %â€ť (7.48%) than a team that with 49pts that has only played 1 event (7.09%).

The math is bad.

So hereâ€™s a silly question.

Letâ€™s say that all of MI gets hit by lake effect snow for the next 4 weekends, enough to shut down all FRC competitions.

Whoâ€™s getting into MSC, the team with 49 points or the team with 54 points?

Obviously itâ€™ll be somewhat dependent on what if any â€śadjustmentsâ€ť are made, but smart money would say 54 points barring doublings or averagings.

Itâ€™d take a miracle, but the math isnâ€™t bad YET. [insert apology to Browns fans] It was possible for the Cleveland Browns to have won the Super Bowl with Hue Jackson as coach. Theyâ€™d have just needed an awful lot of help (you know, like their opponents not showing up at all for every game). Was it realistic? Aw, heck, naw! But it was possible.

Possible but unlikely is still possible. I would say that over the next couple of weeks the knockouts will happen pretty quickly, though.

I think youâ€™re getting lost in your own terminology.

When you have described â€ślockâ€ť both in this thread and others, you have been asking the question:

Does a scenario exist where a given team does not meet the DCMP

cutoff given any possible future event outcome?

When you start to account for point distributions you are actually asking:

What is the set of event outcomes where a given team does/doesnâ€™t make the DCMP

cutoff?

â€¦which puts you back into the â€ślikelihoodâ€ť argument.

The magic number in Baseball, or other similar sport ranking systems, asks the first question. When the magic number is 0, no future set of event outcomes exists where that given team has not won the division (or secured a playoff spot, etc).

And, I have done it already (admittedly without accounting for DCA winners):

Currently 0 locks in Texas because not enough teams have played. This coming weekend, weâ€™ll have a chunk of Houston area teams play, which will reduce the number of teams with a 164 (or 83) potential points score. There may still be 0 locks at the end of this weekend, but things will converge as a) more teams play 2 events and we see scores ~140, and b) more record actual low scores and are implicitly eliminated from DCMP

.

I am not interested in distributing points every way possible and doing probabilities. I am interested in distributing points in only one scenario - the worst possible case for team x. If team x can still hold in the top however many teams in that scenario, they are locked. I think you misunderstood.

The worst possible case being each team below team x getting the minimal amount of points to surpass team x while leaving as many points in the point pool for the next team(s) to also surpass team x.

I have a feeling your method works better early in the season, but with one or two events left in the district my method currently used on the site will lock more teams. If you could generate a lock list later in the season I would be interested in looking at it.

Feel free to PM me to work on things. It seems youâ€™re interested in the subject and Iâ€™m all for more help.

Edit again: I think both of our methods can easily be combined and if a team is a lock in either one, the team is a lock because the logic on both ends is solid. Just for fun I would like to compare results still.

This is the biggest strawman if Iâ€™ve ever seen one.

FiM would not cancel any competitions, much less 4 weeks of competitions.

1. itâ€™s not fair to the teams who havenâ€™t even competed once yet.
2. I, as a team who has competed once so far, paid for 2 events and I will get my two events.
3. The team with the higher pts/event average would get in.

Donâ€™t pull ridiculous scenarios out of thin air to defend bad algorithms. Based on historical data and any simple logic, the scenario is 100% impossible.

The math, I reiterate, is bad.

You say it is impossible. I say that it is entirely possible. However, note what I compared it to: a three-win team winning the Super Bowl. NEVER been done.

Assume that nothing is impossible, just exceptionally unlikely. Events have been canceled due to weather, or other influences, before, and that has forced some teams to play <2 district events when they signed up for 2. Never an entire state for 4 weeks, though.

1 Like