New England teams ranked by points

I took all the New England Events listed in RobotEvents this Sack Attack season and scored teams by:

Excellence award = 8 points
Championship = 7 points
Finalist = 6 points
Programming skills = 5 points
Driver skills = 4 points
Design Award 4 points
SemiFinalist = 3 points
other Awards = 2 points

The results can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/NE-SackAttackRankings

This is really cool thanks for posting! I’ve been wanting to do this but have not had the time…

That’s really cool! I would suggest adding an average column too because not everyone went to the same amount of competitions.

Hey averaging is a good idea. PLEASE everyone take this as a snowday fun project. I didn’t have anyone to check it over so this is certain to have mistakes, there was a lot of switching between screens and adding new teams at each event I reviewed. But it gives everyone a rough idea of how you did.

Working on one right now for Nebraska/Iowa. Stole your template, hope that was okay :smiley:

I find your weighting system a bit odd. Specifically why Programming Skills is ranked above Driver Skills and the Design Award. Some possible changes:

-Programming/Driver Skills given equal weight
-Design Award equal to or slightly below champions, but above skills
-Amaze/Build should probably not be blanketed as “Other Awards”
-Possibly upgrade Think and Create as well?

A possible new point allocation:

Excellence = 8
Champion = 7
Finalist = 6
Design = 6
Amaze/Build = 5
Think/Create = 4
Programming Skills = 3
Drivers Skills = 3
Semifinalist = 3
Other Awards = 2

Thanks for bringing up this idea, it’s really interesting!

Edit: On second thought, not quite sure what to do with the judged awards as Amaze, Build, Think, Create, etc. aren’t offered at all tournaments, so that can skew point values. I also think Skills Challenges should be upped to 4 points, maybe even 5. Any other thoughts?

I think Programming Skills should be higher than Robot Skills because for Programming Skills it takes a lot more effort to create a good run. You can do that pretty easily in Robot Skills.

It’s all relative. I can say that anyone can program a quick 2 hour repositioning run for 100+ points. I can also say that anyone can drive a 200+ point driver skills. It’s the best of the best that push both of these challenges to the absolute limits and both should be equally respected.

Programming Skills just seems more difficult because less people attempt it. Many teams don’t want to bother with the sensors/coding involved. I could also argue that Driver Skills is more useful in a match situation than Programming Skills.

Point taken.

But I do think you will learn more of a “life lesson” in Programming then in Driver.

Absolutely true, I definitely agree.

Just awesome!! Hope you have fun and I look forward to seeing the Nebraska/Iowa results. It was really neat to see some teams place highly that I hadn’t really paid attention to during season - but should have! I am thinking it might be a good idea to keep a running score during the season next year.

boom, I finished! Unfortunately, I didn’t do my ranking by a variable system that let me change the values, so I’m using the original point scale rather than the updated suggestions by Sweet Mochi, which I agree with.

I also added some designation for the teams that are going to worlds and for the teams that aren’t from the region but competed in regional tournaments.

There is also a per tournament ranking added by averaging out the total by the number of tournaments attended, which I believe I got mostly right.

Some added comments for each of the worlds teams
//
5069A-They consistently finished in at least the semifinals in I believe every tournament, and won lots of robot skills and excellences. Pretty much mastered the efficiency bot early in the season, but haven’t made many improvements.
8701- They won like 4 design awards and 1 excellence award, along with winning a couple tournaments. Very weak showing at nationals though with a redesign, will be interesting to see where they end up for worlds.
1970A-Qualified at league play early, did decent throughout rest of the season. I think they went 3-10 at nationals, but with key members on vacation. Should be strong at worlds.
1045F-Strong sweeper bot with roller/lexan intake. Finished 2nd in blue division at nationals. Will perform well at worlds.
3018- Probably our region’s most famous team, they have consistently unique designs. Currently hold 2nd or 3rd in programming in the world.
6069X- They did a reveal a couple days ago, strong team, well driven efficiency bot. (always cease to amaze :wink: )
1064P- My team is the best don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.
1064A- Won 4 out of 4 local tournaments they competed in, runner up in league play. Robot Skills champ at nationals.
1064B-Runner up in I believe 2 tournaments, won excellence award.
1045A-Qualified based on programming skills, strong dumper bot.

It appears that the DESIGN award is becoming more prestigious because it now earns a slot at CMP at many events.
However, unless RECF has issued some new guidance, and except for EXCELLENCE, all the other judged awards are equal. Let me know if you have alternate info.

Design award is definitely up there with Excellence and Tournament Finalists/Champions. The other awards I’m judging based off personal experience and personal bias. Mostly looking to differentiate the “other awards” into 2 or 3 groups. As an extreme example, I wouldn’t put the Amaze and Judge’s Award on the same scale. If we’re trying to use this scale to measure the performance of a team, Amaze/Build/Create/Think usually correspond best to match performance. I honestly don’t have a way to split them up though, so maybe it’s just easier to clump them all together.

This is a really interesting idea - when I’ve got some spare time I’ll have to do a list for the CO teams.
One thing I would change would be to give points to teams in the top 30 on the skills leaderboards. My team got 150 in programming skills (15th on the leaderboard) but we did not get a programming skills award because another team barely edged us out.

I find this an interesting point of view. When I look around, I see so few, everyday gadgets and machines that run solely autonomously. Conversely, when I look out my window, I see cars, bikes, boats, planes, cranes, harvesters, diggers, endless types of machines (even the thing I am slowly typing on now) that need to have an interface between an operator (driver) and the machine (I have a very large window :smiley: ). These wonderful machines have (hopefully) been designed by somebody to make them comfortable, easy to use, efficient and possibly even fun. The designer has considered the user as well as the machine.

There will undoubtedly be a major shift towards more automation in the future, but there will always be a place for a Lamborghini, because it is a pure pleasure to drive a machine like that (at least that is what I have heard :slight_smile: ).

So with Driver skills, it is very important, using coding and design, to make the best possible interface between driver and robot so it is as easy as possible to drive fast. Like the Lamborghini, a robot that operates well is great fun to drive, and I guess that is one reason why Driver Skills is so much more popular than Programming skills.

Cheers, Paul

This kind of reminds me of FRC district points/ranking system. Perhaps further inspiration could be taken from that.