Top 25: Week 1

It’s late, but better than never. This ranking is based off of the week one regionals. Seven voters participated this time, but one list was thrown out due to extreme bias. Note that the top 10 from the preseason rankings still remain in the top 25. Also note that 111 and 968 tied for third place.

  1. 254- Cheesy Poofs, (0-0-0). Last: 2
  2. 45- TechnoKats, (13-0-0). Last: 35
  3. 111- WildStang, (12-3-0). Last: 7
  4. 968- RAWC, (0-0-0). Last: 3
  5. 1625- Winnovation, (12-3-0). Last: 46
  6. 1114- Simbotics, (8-3-0). Last: 1
  7. 148- Robowranglers, (0-0-0). Last: 4
  8. 121- Rhode Warriors, (12-2-0). Last: 23
  9. 71- Team Hammond, (8-2-1). Last: 6
  10. 233- The Pink Team, (0-0-0). Last: 8
  11. 330- Beach Bots, (0-0-0). Last: 9
  12. 217- Thunderchickens, (10-5-0) Last: 5
  13. 67- The HOT Team, (0-0-0). Last: 10
  14. 175- Buzz Robotics, (11-3-0). Last: 37
  15. 25- Raider Robotix, (9-5-0). Last: 12
  16. 2753- Team Overdrive, (13-0-0). Last: 70
  17. 234- Cyber Blue, (12-1-0). Last: 53
  18. 33- Killer Bees, (0-0-0). Last: 19
  19. 987- High Rollers, (0-0-0). Last: 13
  20. 2056- OP Robotics, (0-0-0). Last: 15
  21. 365- Miracle Workerz, (4-5-0) Last: 16
  22. 40- Checkmate, (12-3-1). Last: 40
  23. 118- Robonauts, (8-5-0). Last: 18
  24. 135- Penn Robotics, (10-4-0). Last: N/A
  25. 1747- HBR, (4-0-2). Last: N/A

This was sent to the voters:

Voters,

Week 1 definitely defined the game. How will this affect the rankings? We’ll see.

Each voter will rank who they think are the top 25 teams in FRC. For the rankings during the competition season, please rank the teams based on these qualities: past* success**, success consistency, how you think they will do this year based on what you have seen/heard about their robot*, 2009 success, awards won, etc. If you like to use stats like opr more than (W-L-T), do it that way.

It would be great if you could get your top 25 in by the 3rd. It MUST be in by the 4th, or it won’t be included for this week. There will be rankings each week after the regionals and a post-season ranking. Each week, ALL TEAMS need to be considered in the ranking, whether they have played yet or not, or have been seen yet or not.

*Only rank teams based on their past if they haven’t competed yet.

**Success can be a number of things, so allow me to define it. Success is how likely a team is to win an award or match over any other given FRC team. This applies to all awards equally. This does not have to be carefully calculated out by the voter; it is simply subjective.

Thanks!

No offense but putting 254 (who hasn’t played) against 45 (who dominated their regional) pretty much makes the opinions of your experts and therefor this survey very suspect.

Hehe, were we referred to as experts? :stuck_out_tongue: I’m a newb at FRC still. And they’re just that, opinions.

OK let me put it another way, you guys are nuts! :slight_smile:

I actually find these “polls” quite hilarious. There is no way to really judge a team based on past games, for this years game. Its not like basketball or football where the game is the same each year. Yes i understand that you can just about bank on most of the teams up there doing very well each year, but you can no way judge them against each other until they have all played this years game.

Although my list wasn’t submitted this week (busy), I fail to comprehend why 1625 didn’t end up at #1.

I’m glad you are entertained. Other than that, you’re not saying much we haven’t already heard and know. This has been repeated many times, these rankings are just for fun.

Voters only voted on teams based on the past if the team has not competed yet, and even then tehy were to consider that team’s robot (if they’ve seen it).

Question to everyone in general: Can anyone think of better methods of doing this? I’m open to options.

You could just have robots that have competed so far this year. Just IMO.

45 & 2753 should be tied for 1st place after week 1.
End of story.

And there are PLENTY of teams who DID compete in week 1 to fill the rest of the 23 spots.

$0.02

If you want the best teams then you should use OPR…while not perfect they are better then these ranks. It will only take into consideration teams that have played so far.

What is the OPR after week 1?

How can you make these ranking better? I’m glad you asked (some of these have been said before)

  1. Only allow teams that have played the game on the list.
  2. Use some sort of standardized data to base a portion of the ranking on. (It could be OPR or some other set of data)
  3. Since this is a game played by humans, allow voters to rank based on intangibles EX: Experience, mental toughness and so on.

so i guess what i’m saying is that this list should be based on hard and soft facts of teams who have played the game. This would make the discussion much more interesting than, “these are hilarious” and “You guys are nuts.”

Just adding my two cents with everyone else that you only list teams that have played. Judging a team by last years performance really isn’t logical.

Take 1024 Kil-a-bytes… last year they were on fire winning just about everything they entered… but this year they tanked. If they hadn’t played last week they most likely would be in the top 10 of your list.

Stick to teams that have played and show what they can do this season.

My top picks… 1625,111,1114,& 254 in any order you like. IMO

-p :cool:

I completely agree that these are entirely fun for some, emphasized by the fact that teams that haven’t had their mettle tested this year are within the top 5. I personally think 254/968 might be hindered by their narrower pickup, but this will not stop them from being excellent competitors

Because 121, 45, and 2753 all did very well too. How none of those four seeded #1 and why 234 is only #17 is beyond me. 234 was very close to 45 in many respects, just without that big fan.

Hmmm, I find is laughable how 25 ended up a place ahead of us even though we beat them in NJ. :stuck_out_tongue:

I like to see a ranking list like this based off the OPR data.

Numbers don’t tell the full story. All you have to look as is the BCS ranking systems to know the truth in that.

These results make no sense. I do not agree with allowing a team who hasn’t played yet in the top 25. Like someone said earlier, there are plenty of teams to fill the top 25 that played in week one. Also, I don’t see how two robots that got beat in the quaterfinals are still in the top 10. I guess they have the namesake of a team like Ohio State or Texas in the AP football polls :rolleyes:. Eventually, namesakes will fall, and true contenders (maybe the “namesakes” will be a contender) will rise to the top.

Your biggest issue is your sample size, set up a website where anyone can vote on their top 25 teams every week and use that as your data. Compare it against real scouting data (i.e. average points scored per match) and you should be able to get a more accurate list. If you have 40+ people voting on their top 25 (and ignore the ones that are obviously biased) you will see better data. There are major flaws in that list that just show me that its not a good representation of the top 25 at all.

I don’t think just sample size is the problem. You could have 1,000 people who didn’t watch any regionals but read who one and you probably wouldn’t get much better results.

Instead, if we really wanted to make this something worthwhile and cool, we could nominate say 25 people to be the voters. Each person could nominate 3 people and the top 25 people who recieved the most votes (and would be willing to vote each week), would be designated the voters. Everyone would know who they were and they would be credible voters.

PS: how is 1625 not in the top 3? I only saw Midwest, but they were clearly the best team there.