Since this thread is to recap the US Open and to thank the volunteers.
I would like to post my thoughts.
The Volunteers and Organizers: I am sorry for not remembering all names of the volunteers I met, but to me that is a good thing. There was so many people making the event a great experience for my club and for other teams. I would like to personally the three people coordinating interviews, our two judges, our inspector, the various queuing people, the field re-setters, the referees for both divisions, the people running the tournament manager, the skill fields, the Kroc Center and employees, and the event organizers behind the scenes.
Please post any person you would like to thank because all these volunteers deserve the appreciation.
The Venue: Even though the pits and competition fields were flipped for the middle school and high school division as explained in a previous thread, the venue was great. Lighting the fields was a cool way to make matches really intense and one thing we noticed is that you can see through the large balls to be able to pick up buckies in the goal zone much easier. The practice fields were a little out of the way but the isolation and low noise level allowed for a lot more work to get done on them. The skills lines were really long but we had breaks between matches to get them in so it was not bad and I really would not know how to prevent long lines.
Robots: There were many outstanding robots and teams. As a scout for my team, I was able to talk to everyone in the creative division. Each team was very solid and well prepared. I expect those that competed in the innovative division feel the same after watching their playoffs.
I would also like to post some stats from 246 Overclocked’s amazing stat website.
The stat I think is the best for the playoffs is MMO (combination of estimated contribution and the absolute value of how much a robot affects the opponents estimated contribution) and you will see why.
9090C (3rd alliance captain and division champion)- 38
1200C(division semifinalist and 3rd in R skills)- 36.6
3018A (2nd alliance captain)- 31.8
1970K (division finalist)- 31.7
7232 (division quarterfinalist, 3rd in P skills, and 2nd in R skills)- 31.5
1460B (5th alliance captain)- 31
4148B (1st alliance captain)- 30.5
5003 (division champion)- 28.6
2527A (division semifinalist)- 25.8
400X (1st alliance captain, 4th in R skills and tournament champion)- 55.9
185A (2nd alliance captain and division finalist)- 47.4
1200 (tournament champion)- 38.6
217D (division quarterfinalist)- 38.5
1200F (division finalist)- 34.3
5069A (excellence award, 1st in R skills, 3rd alliance captain, and division quarter finalist)
1064A (tournament champion)- 31.8
Also note 2131C (division finalist)- 27.8 (11th in this stat)
The reason I wanted to point them out is because in the innovative division the champions were (1,3,7) in this stat and the finalists were (2,5,11) in this stat. The creative division was also similar the champions were (1, 8, 14) and the finalists were (4, 19) but compared to that side of the bracket they had the higher MMOs plus they could hang. Then in the championship the total MMO of Creative- 90.3 lost to Innovative- 122.3. It would be interesting to compare every alliance in the playoffs too. Extra things to point out is that I did not include qualification rank because it turns out in the creative division that made it to the finals was 14th but had the highest MMO on its side of the bracket. Plus the second pick on one of the top alliances was ranked 20th but had an extremely high MMO (which in my opinion made them a big diamond in the rough) and ended doing very well.
Suggestions for teams going to worlds: Take a look at these stats for Worlds and at Worlds because qualification rank was not a very good prediction to do well in the creative division based on which alliances moved on (the alliance with the team with the highest MMO in the match won every match up except for the 4 v 5 which is always a toss up). Again I would suggest factoring this stat in alliance selection because the evidence proves it worked in the playoffs at the US Open. This may be even more important. As the scout, I watched 75% of the qualification matches and saw mostly the same strategies used throughout the year. In the playoffs a new strategy came out and was really dominate. Whenever it was applied match scores were a blow out win or within ten points of each other. It was actually used to upset a 2nd alliance and the Tournament final match seen here (http://youtu.be/kL_9fQNZUBk) thank you Ethan 117. The closest match and the one where it went head to head was in the division finals of Innovative seen here starting at 5:17 ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Ui7J8bvjs) . I think the reason it worked was because it took the towers and when used against each other made the autonomous bonus super important.
Feel free to thank volunteers and share your experience but I would also like to have an your analysis of the statistical relevance of MMO to actual matches and the new heavily used and successful based on match scores strategy in the playoffs relevance to strategy at worlds.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Ui7J8bvjs) . I think the reason it worked was because it took the towers and when used against each other made the autonomous bonus super important.)