Top regional winners

[jspatz1]

Where did you come up with the teams on your list? Here are some other teams with 10 or more regional wins:

175, 330, 1986.

Correct. 1986 is currently at 11 regional wins.

[Pauline_Tasci]

Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins… (2-1)

[PayneTrain]

Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins… (2-1)

[Michael_Corsetto]

Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins… (2-1)

1671 has more World Championship wins than Regional Wins (1-0).

[Andrew_Schreiber]

Having worked with a lot of the TBA data, people should really know that lots of 2005 data is non-existent. I don’t know why… It just is. TBA data I would assume is compiled by TBA and it’s databases, I doubt FIRST would be interested in keeping track of such information for themselves.

Some of the match data from that year just doesn’t really exist. Or it’s in really weird formats. Or it’s just flat out wrong. (On FIRST’s own pages)

[Noudvanbrunscho]

1671 has more World Championship wins than Regional Wins (1-0).

I had to check this to believe it, that’s so cool.:eek:

[BrennanB]

Some of the match data from that year just doesn’t really exist. Or it’s in really weird formats. Or it’s just flat out wrong. (On FIRST’s own pages)

Just weird that it happened over multiple events in the same year. Some FMS bug or something?

[PayneTrain]

Don’t forget that 5012 has more championship wins than points scored in elims at champs in 2015

You must be great at parties.

[runneals]

I’m working on building an open data portal for my day job and it has functionality in it where you would be able to chart by columns, so you could do on the fly charting based on whatever you wanted to see (such as # of matches played, number of teams by year, a team’s average event score… Would something like that be a cool idea or something that you wouldn’t be interested in? I can push it up to github as a feature request if so.

[Andrew_Schreiber]

Just weird that it happened over multiple events in the same year. Some FMS bug or something?

Possible. Also possible that the events didn’t have internet and the data was never saved. Or that it was corrupted. I mean, that was 10 years ago.

[Taylor]

Just saying 1114, 2056, 148 and 610 can’t all be in alliance #1 :yikes:

Why not? I can think of several scenarios in which that could happen.

[Karthik]

Possible. Also possible that the events didn’t have internet and the data was never saved. Or that it was corrupted. I mean, that was 10 years ago.

2005 was the first year of a new FMS. There were some issues with data reporting that year.

[tindleroot]

Why not? I can think of several scenarios in which that could happen.

Unless FIRST is changing alliances this year, only 3 of those 4 can be on the #1 alliance.

[Knufire]

Unless FIRST is changing alliances this year, only 3 of those 4 can be on the #1 alliance.

I’ve seen 4 team alliances before as well (pssst, check your signature).

[tindleroot]

I’ve seen 4 team alliances before as well (pssst, check your signature).

Not at the Waterloo Regional, though.
Edit: Never mind. (Think before you post)

[Mr_Lim]

Not at the Waterloo Regional, though.
Edit: Never mind. (Think before you post)

Ontario is a strange place.

We just had an off-season event where 1310 didn’t even make it to the eliminations despite being North Bay Regional winners, possessing a solid 3 tote auto, and a good landfill robot capable of putting up multiple capped, noodled 6-stacks.

Anything’s possible… (except 2056 losing a regional)

[Koko_Ed]

2005 was the first year of a new FMS. There were some issues with data reporting that year.

FLR 2005 had a very rough event with the Hatch scoring system that year.
Thank God for Joe Ross.