I calculated the rankings of all teams using the FRC District Standard Points Ranking System as shown below. Since everyone does not have a standardized 2 events per team or 12 matches per event, I made the following modifications: Win points are normalized based on 12 matches per event. The first two events are counted. If a team has participated in less then 2 events, their first event is doubled (as a result, every team has their points doubled this week).
POINT CATEGORY POINTS POINTS
Win-Loss Record in Qualifying Rounds
Win 2
Tie 1
Loss 0
Alliance Selection Results
Alliance Captain Equal to 17 minus the Alliance Captain Number [e.g.: 14 points for Alliance #3 Captain]
Draft Order by Acceptance Equal to 17 minus the Draft Order Acceptance Number [e.g.: 12 points for the Team that is 5 th to accept an offer of Alliance]
Elimination Round Performance 5 points for every match won in which a Team ’s robot participated,
Awards
Chairman’s Award 10 Points for
Engineering Inspiration and Rookie All Star Awards 8 Points
all other judged Team awards 5 points
Team Age
Rookie Teams 10
Second-year Teams 5
Here are the top 25. Full rankings are attached. The full rankings show all factors, as well as the rankings without normalizing for matches or number of events.
Since this system may be instituted for all District events in the future, it’s worth discussing this calculation. Several thoughts:
Since this is a World Ranking (which has no real consequence) vs District qualifying (which needs to have clear, fair and balanced rules), I think you should use the LAST 2 events to reflect how a team evolves during the season and best reflects how they are doing going into the Champs. (I understand why Districts uses the first 2 events and agree with that.)
Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1.
Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that.
Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It’s more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn’t give full credit for that.
I watched Team 75 play (and win) this weekend, and they were astounding. It is right they are ranked so highly…I think this may be another great year for them. And the nice thing is, they bring their own crowd…
If I was trying to do rankings that reflected teams going into champs, I would not be using anything close to this system. Instead, this is a way for teams not in districts to see how they stack up. The word rankings is simply because that is what Michigan uses.
Normalization on non-integer basis has the effect of number of matches acting as the first sorting criteria. When I first starting playing with California rankings last year, I did play around with integer and non-integer normalization (as well as no normalization). I was much happier with integer normalization.
Just checking to make sure I followed what Joe Did
So I really want to Normalize for number of events played, and for the size of certain events. Its not fair to compare a smaller, 30 team district with a with a 42 team district with a 58 team 3 day regional.
My idea: separate out these different categories as appropriate. Qualification wins is pretty self explanatory, it should normalize for the number of chance you have for a win. The middle section of the formula should be adjusted for the number of times you get to be picked, judged and play in eliminations. The last section should only be awarded once per season before district champs, I’m open to suggestions, especially for the last segment of the formula.
My Proposed Formula, point values follow District Standard Points Ranking, hopefully it lines up with Joe’s. Normalized World Rankings=
(Qualification Wins + Qualification Ties) / (Qualification Matches Played)]
+
(Alliance Captains + Draft Order Acceptance + Elimination Performance + Judged Awards) / (Number of Events Participated In)]
+
[Team Age + Chairman’s + Engineering Inspiration + Rookie All Star]
[LEFT]Edit: I completely realize this makes it really difficult to figure out ties. Probably should just prioritize the second part of the formula.
[/LEFT]
I am doing something similar to score the Ohio teams for our State Event this year. Question on your week 2 results. 4269 came into Q3-3 as a back up bot at Crossroads, won 5 matches, why do they not have any elimination points?
I have to correct backup teams points manually. I remember doing that for 5188 and 4269, but probably overwrote those values when fixing something else. Attached are corrected rankings.
There are a few issues with week 3 events. St. Louis only posted a few awards. I don’t have correct alliance selection results for Mexico City. The order posted in the 2014 Alliance Selection thread was not correct. When first and second pick could not be unambiguously determined, I used the higher seed as the first pick. I will update when updated data is available.
