Picker Or Pickee [Archive]

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 6:57 PM MST

Any comments on the new alliance selection rules? I don't think FIRST thought this one through.

The number one seed can pick anyone. Looking back at last year, can you imagine at Michigan Baxter having the pick of the field or us having the pick from the entire field in Chicago?(I imagine the same situation existed in all the regionals) You would have had a super alliance that would have been almost impossible to beat! Also, what does the number two seed do? At the rumble NYPRO could have picked us. Do we graciously accept with an almost certain chance of the championship as a pickee or do we decline and try and win as a picker? I am not sure what we would have done!

Bill B

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST

In Reply to: Picker Or Pickee posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 6:57 PM MST:

That's the one section of the rules that really worries me. In the NE Regional we were picked by Bobcat, and in the national by the X-cats. At Rumble we chose Woburn team 188, but I'm not sure how things would have turned out if teams in the top seed were allowed to choose each other. It does seem to set up a feeling that 'Super-Alliances' will be made, and be almost unbeatable. I'd be interested in hearing how other teams see this.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/9/2000 7:29 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Picker Or Pickee posted by Lora Knepper on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST:

There are many many things for me to worry about this year. I am afraid this is fairly low on the list.

The problem is not going to BE a problem if the seeding proceedure ends up being close to a very elaborate random number generator.

The method of calculationing QP's provides very strong pressure toward the center. I suspect that there will be a very tight bell curve with only a very few breaking away from the center. I think that this system will require MANY MANY more seeding rounds to have the converge to the 'true' seeding.

Comments?

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Sam Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:24 PM MST

In Reply to: down on the list of worries... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/9/2000 7:29 PM MST:

: There are many many things for me to worry about this year. I am afraid this is fairly low on the list.

True. You have to be in the situation first.

: The problem is not going to BE a problem if the seeding proceedure ends up being close to a very elaborate random number generator.

Random, except for the picks. I think strong teams will still come out on top, as usual.

: The method of calculationing QP's provides very strong pressure toward the center. I suspect that there will be a very tight bell curve with only a very few breaking away from the center. I think that this system will require MANY MANY more seeding rounds to have the converge to the 'true' seeding.
: Comments?
: Joe J.

True? I think a strong team against a weak one will still get a great score, even if they spend the last 90 seconds loading up the opponent's goal. Then taking the bar away from their opponent, if they need to.

And the possibility of super-alliances is very valid, I agree with Bill Beatty in this. We'll see.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:39 PM MST

In Reply to: down on the list of worries... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/9/2000 7:29 PM MST:

Car Nack predicts that, if there is no changes in the selection process, the number one seed will win no less than half of the regional competitions!

There appears to be a few foolish mortals that might dispute the wisdom of the all knowing-all seeing Car Nack. Or, possibly they are just making idle chatter. Car Nack is willing to risk his vast riches by wagering a large diet Coke against a large Mountain Dew that his prediction will come true.

Car Nack has spoken!

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:43 PM MST

In Reply to: Car Nack Predicts posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 10:39 PM MST:

How about it Bill. Are you in yet?

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 11:05 PM MST

In Reply to: I think Car Nack should get in the game. posted by Raul on 1/9/2000 10:43 PM MST:

I guess I really shouldn't comment about this year's competition. We will be in the show in spirit only this year. Oh man, how we miss it already!

Bill B

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 3:28 AM MST

In Reply to: Touche Raul posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 11:05 PM MST:

Bill,

As to comments on the forum, please continue. Your thoughts are always welcome.

Keep stirring the pot.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 1/10/2000 12:16 PM MST

In Reply to: Touche Raul posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 11:05 PM MST:

:
Is Brian available as a free agent coach? But then I'm not sure that we could pass him off as being from Arkansas!

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Brian Beatty.

Coach on team #71, Team Hammond, from Hammond Schools.

Posted on 1/10/2000 8:50 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Touche Raul posted by Greg Mills on 1/10/2000 12:16 PM MST:

Greg: you are correct that I would have a difficult time passing for an Arkansan Baxter Bomb Squad member-It would be tough to keep up with the energy level and enthusiasm your team brings to the competition. Besides, you and the guys(Mike C.) have a pretty good handle on the situation. As for my status, free agent is an accurate term. Maybe play-by-play commentator?
See you in Chicago.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/11/2000 6:33 AM MST

In Reply to: free agent posted by Brian Beatty on 1/10/2000 8:50 PM MST:

Bill,

Since you will not be contributing to a specific team, how about sharing all your ideas of what you think a robot should do to win in this competition. How would you pick up the balls, what drive system, etc. The rookies (and some not-so-rookie) teams could benefit from your wisdom.

That way you can stay involved and keep your mind limber until you join us again next year.

This applies to any other previous team members that are already feeling hungry.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/11/2000 6:27 PM MST

In Reply to: Let's not waste your wisdom posted by Raul on 1/11/2000 6:33 AM MST:

Raul,

I think that Bill has already expressed some opinions as to how he sees the game going:

'It looks to me that Wildstang has the First 2000 machine pretty much in the can. ready to go. You guys will be very tough. ' Bill Beatty on these forums several days ago...

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/12/2000 6:40 AM MST

In Reply to: Bill has already weighed in on that... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2000 6:27 PM MST:

Well, I appreciate the compliment / vote of confidence. However, we have as much work to do as anyone else. We may have already used many of the necessary components (there are many other teams who have also); but there are a lot of new requirements and we have to combine technologies in unique ways.

Not allowing a robot to attach to the goal is a bummer since we were really getting good at doing that after 3 years of doing it. So, I don't think we will try to squeeze the balls in or out as in the past - we'll see.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/12/2000 8:29 AM MST

In Reply to: Thanks, but... posted by Raul on 1/12/2000 6:40 AM MST:

I feel quite certain that Car Nack will make additional, thought prevoking predictions before the competitions begins.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 1:05 AM MST

In Reply to: down on the list of worries... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/9/2000 7:29 PM MST:

: There are many many things for me to worry about this year. I am afraid this is fairly low on the list.

: The problem is not going to BE a problem if the seeding proceedure ends up being close to a very elaborate random number generator.

: The method of calculationing QP's provides very strong pressure toward the center. I suspect that there will be a very tight bell curve with only a very few breaking away from the center. I think that this system will require MANY MANY more seeding rounds to have the converge to the 'true' seeding.

I don't think it is possible to obtain a true seeding for this contest regardless of the
number of seeding rounds. Because the number of QPs earned is based on the
losing team's score, which is not a factor at all in the elimination rounds, the
strategies used in the qualifying rounds will in most cases be entirely different
than in the elimination rounds.

It's almost like playing two different games.

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 4:38 PM MST

In Reply to: Yes, they are two different games... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 3:46 AM MST:

You both are reading my mind on this one!

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 1/10/2000 5:32 PM MST

In Reply to: Yes, they are two different games... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 3:46 AM MST:

: Excellent point. Seeding Matches and the Elimination Matches celebrate and reward VERY different skills.

: Perhaps this year more than ever, the general concensus view of a team's desireability as a partner and the seeding rank will have little to do with each other.

: To my mind this is not a good thing.

This topic actually came up during our meeting today, and it was discussed as one of the things that will make scouting so important this year...there may be a team that is designed as a solely 'offensive' machine, and actually score in BOTH goals during the match to increase their QP ranking. It is these teams that really need to be looked for in scouting for possible allies during the elim rounds, because these are the same ones that will help to increase your score in the elim rounds by putting all those balls that they put into their opponent's goal earlier into their own in the elim rounds.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/10/2000 1:47 PM MST

In Reply to: down on the list of worries... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/9/2000 7:29 PM MST:

Joe, I agree.

However, I think FIRST agrees too, so they added rule SC-something (sorry don't have the rule book with me). A robot gets to drop its lowest scoring QM. Yay! You get one free fluke!

I think it's a good start. Considering the larger amount of matches to begin with, being able to drop one of the couple flukes you may have makes me feel better. Last year, GRT did really well at the cali regional but would have seeded even better if it could have dropped it's zero point round. That round was before the drivers had figured out how the robot worked. $@#$@#$@#$@# happens, yes?

Lastly, it doesn't MATTER what your seed is. If people know you have a good bot you WILL get picked because teams tend to research their top 10 or 15 picks. Even with that fluke of a match for GRT, we were picked by the number one seed -- they looked PAST that. So you see, the majority of good teams will get a shot at the trophy.

-DL

PS - remember that teams can pick other robots in the top 16 seeds so you don't loose your chance at being the first to pick anymore. You could get picked first! So the puzzle all fits together.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/10/2000 2:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: down on the list of worries... posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 1:47 PM MST:

SC5.

At the conclusion of the qualification matches, each team will drop the QPs earned in their lowest QP match.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:24

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/9/2000 7:32 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Picker Or Pickee posted by Lora Knepper on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST:

Frankly, I don't really see the problem with having these so-called 'supper-alliances'. If these two robots are the best, they deserve the privalege of working together. After all, shouldn't the first prize be awarded to the best two robots? I'd be impressive to watch, and I'm sure there would still be VERY tough competition and VERY close matches. I have yet to see a year when there were two robots so dramatically better than all the others that when paired up, nobody would stand a chance. Remember: strategy is key.

Maybe? Maybe not?

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Picker Or Pickee posted by Lora Knepper on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST:

I have to agree with Joe on this one. The odds of having the 16 best teams with the 16 highest QP's is astronomical. If you thought luck played a big role last year with alliance selections in seeding matches, wait until this year. With so many new teams, especially at the nationals, some very good teams are likely to be matched with a majority of not-so-good teams. We would need many more seeding matches.

What makes things worse is that with the scoring system for QP's (loser's score), the capabilities of your robot will be even less of a factor in determining how high you get seeded.

However, I am so happy that I can use any amount aluminum extrusion from the additional list that this wierd scoring system and its necessary strategy has not sunk in. For the first time in 4 years we will not require our welder to risk his health welding electrical conduit with its toxic coating!

No matter what, if you have a good robot, you increase your chances.

I also agree with Daniel - there will be enough good teams at the nationals to ensure it is not a blowout.

Just my two or three cents worth.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/10/2000 2:10 PM MST

In Reply to: This is Wierd - I agree with Joe posted by Raul on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST:

Tell me about these aluminum extrusions.

I get the concept: you run alluminum through a die that cuts a long bar into a specific shape. But what about the teams that don't have this capability?? Doesn't that make our job even harder? Or maybe there's a specific profile that's standard and good and buyable. What's the deal?

Thanks in advance for any info.

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 6:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Aluminum extrusions. posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 2:10 PM MST:

The aluminum extrustion rule is about as big of a loop hole in the Additional Hardware List as I have ever seen (and I LIKE IT! ;-).

It is my understanding that any constant section aluminum extrusion of any length can be used provided that it is 'off the shelf' (i.e. not a custom section extruded just for you) and its section is no bigger than 2 by 3.

This is HUGE!

There are a nearly unlimited variety available (many are available in sections intended for use with T-nuts, corner braces, etc.).

Good luck.

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 1/10/2000 7:38 PM MST

In Reply to: They make it, you BUY it ;-) posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:07 PM MST:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from how I'm reading the AHL this year, it seems like that for just about everything, we're allowed any amount we want...and without it digging into our $425 for a change! Looks good to me... =)

Nate

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST

In Reply to: And that's not all... posted by Nate Smith on 1/10/2000 7:38 PM MST:

You're right. Thought my team can't even afford to buy $425 worth of stuff, let alone 'any amount we want'. AHHHH!!! =)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that's not all... posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST:

I wouldn't worry, I expect to have a lot of fun getting to play with you guys this year! ;-) And if you need any help while in competiton, stop by pit 69 and we'll help you with anything we can.

Good Luck,
Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:01 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that's not all... posted by Lora Knepper on 1/10/2000 9:33 PM MST:

Thanks =)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that's not all... posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST:

Like Raul & Joe, I was actually cheering when I read about FIRST letting us use aluminum extrusions... thanks FIRST!

I've been using aluminum extrusions for designing machines at Delphi for the past seven years. So, for what it's worth, here are my opinions & suggestions.

1. What type should you use?
Like Joe said, there are these types with t-slots in them. These are what I suggest. There are four main companies who make the same type of extrusion:
.....Item Products (all over US)
.....Item MB (German, original maker, smaller US presence)
.....ParFrame (Parker Hannifin, all over US)
.....80/20 (metric type...all over midwest)

These four types are mostly interchangeable... but not completely. Item MB has the best selection, and they can distribute out of Dayton, OH. They all have lowered their prices considerably during the past 3 years... competition is getting fierce.

I would bet money that most distributors of these components would donate a decent amount of extrusions and simple fasteners to your FIRST team. Just tell them that they are dealing with prospective engineering students who know little about aluminum extrusions and let them give a 1/2 hour 'speel' on their extrusion product.

These extrusion companies have very good catologs that take a while to understand all that is available. Also, these catalogs will tell you how to use their extrusions, fasteners and joining plates.

Get yourself educated about these extrusions and use them. As you can see, we'll use them, along with Wildstang and ChiefDelphi... so you better get some yourself. Beg and plead if you must... just use them.

Think about it... high strength, pre-fabbed, lightweight sticks with adjustable fasteners and neat-o bearing possiblilites with the t-slots.... woof!

Check out these companies sites (see links below).
www.item-products.com
www.8020.net

Good luck,
Andy B.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by colleen.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O'Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST

In Reply to: Picker Or Pickee posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 6:57 PM MST:

.. i'm glad you think that my old team and Team Hammond would have made a champion alliance.. it would have been a pleasure :-)

now i have a question on the point you just made (may have missed this in the rule).. but as you said, as #2 seed, you could graciously decline the #1 seed's offer - however, would that decline take you out of the finals all together? by way of rule GM26 'Teams may decline an offer when asked to ally for the elimination matches, however if a team declines they are no longer eligible to be chosen...' I know it says that they can't be chosen- but in the idea in which FIRST developed that rule, it is feeling that declining an offer basically declines you the chance to compete in finals..

what do you think FIRST is looking for? and what do you guys think they'd do in that case?

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST

In Reply to: When the Pickee declines... posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:

i think that if you decline the offer, you are saying you don't want to be in the big show.

i think that if i was in the top 8 and was asked by another top 8 to dance with them, i'd be honored and would accept. Not getting to go is a fairly big deal...

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST

In Reply to: When the Pickee declines... posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:

Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

Bill B

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST:

: Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

My interpretation is the same as Bill's, but I'm not convinced the wording isn't an oversight.

I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I'll post any response I receive here.

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST:

: : Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

: My interpretation is the same as Bill's, but I'm not convinced the wording isn't an oversight.

: I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I'll post any response I receive here.

According to Eric, this issue is under discussion at FIRST. Keep your eyes on the Team Updates for more information.

Given that the issue is being debated at FIRST, perhaps a discussion here is in order should they decide to consider our opinions in making a decision.

With rule GM26 as written, I do not think it should be applied to teams who reject an offer to form an alliance if doing so allows them to form their own alliance - on the basis of either initial seeding or being bumped up by higher seeded teams forming an alliance.

Being the primary team of an alliance - being the picker instead of the pickee - may be considered by some teams to be a significant measure of their accomplishment in the competition. Certainly, not all teams will agree. But I don't think it is fair to deprive those who feel this way of the opportunity they earned simply to appease another team.

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Joe Johnson.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST:

I vote for no rejections. period.

There are many many fewer back room deals situations that can arise.

I liked the straight forwardness of the picking in this method.

Either the seeding means something or it does not. If it does, then those who seed higher should get the advantage of the seed. We all know that the seeding does not really always come out in exact order, but we all live with it. If we want to say that the seeding order really doesn't matter, then we should toss all the team that seeded above the XXX percentile in a hat and then pick them in random order. As each of the first 8 teams get their number pulled from the hat, they would pick their partner (from among ALL teams not already picked -- even folks in the hat). After 8 teams have picked, these 8 would get a second pick in random order pulled from the hat.

At least this method would acknowledge the luck factor in determining the seeding rankings.

Any thoughts?

Joe J.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST

In Reply to: No Rejects posted by colleen on 1/10/2000 8:31 PM MST:

I know my opinion on this issue is very controversial because it WAS last time. But here it is:

I don't see why, if the #1 seed is really the best robot out there, that their first choice wouldn't want to work with them. Everyone seemingly wants so very much to win, so why would somebody throw that away for anything other than a good reason? Rejections were originally the factor that countered the 'luck' issue in determining seed. For example, if a team was really third best but they won #1 seed from some fluke, teams who know themselves to be the best pick will hold out to be picked by the 'best' team. This gets us what we want! A first place alliance of the best two robots! I was never truly convinced that teams don't deserve the right to reject an alliance request.

HOWEVER...

This year it's much less likely that teams will be seeded out of order. Last year, one lucky 540 or anything close would raise a team by thousands of qualifying points. This was just silly! One match could mean the difference between 9th seed and 1st seed. That should never be the case. This year, the likelihood of one match making the difference for a team is very low. Scores don't go up exponentially like they used to. No multipliers.

SO...

I don't forsee much need to reject. FIRST may as well make it impossible.

Any thoughts?
-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:29 PM MST

In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:

I see where you're going with this Daniel, and I must say that I agree with you. The way FIRST has made the game this year, seems to eliminate the problem of the huge scoring rounds that would push teams way up in the seeding. I think that the seeding matches are going to be very close this year, with standings constantly changing. I'm not sure if a team should be given the right to reject an alliance request, but their really shouldn't be a need anyway. So there, I think I've babbled long enough! ;-)

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST

In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:

I'm another person who disagreed with the no-rejection rule last year - and I still do.

Unlike Daniel, my objections have nothing to do with the accuracy of the seedings.

Drawing an analogy to the real world, I don't think a team's ranking should give it absolute control over another team any more than a company's size gives it absolute control over another company. In both cases, the better team/bigger company may be the most attractive partner for many, but there are some who would rather team up with another team/company for reasons of their own. I feel they should be allowed to do so.

One objection raised last year was that if rejections are allowed a team might throw matches in order to drop their seeding so they could be picked as a partner by a higher ranked team. That is not a factor this year because a seeded team can be selected as a partner by a higher ranked team. While there are still some situations where a team might benefit by throwing a match to hurt their alliance partner, these situations are not eliminated by a 'no reject' rule. And I honestly don't believe there are many, if any teams, who would do this.

For those who can't get past the conspiracy theories, try this one out:

Team 12 and team 4 desire to be alliance partners in the elimination rounds (the team numbers used here are the seeding ranks). Team 12 notifies teams 1-3 that it does not wish to be in an alliance with them prior to the selection process.

Team 2 ignores team 12's objection and chooses them as a partner. Team 12, irate over their slection by team 2, decides to accept the invitation. They also decide to teach team 2 a lesson by throwing their matches...

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:09 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST:

Nobody will throw matches in the elimination rounds. That would just be silly. I think people are way too competitive to do that. They want too much to win to throw away their own chances.

I think it would help your argument if you give a few practical reasons as to why someone would turn down a higher seeded alliance. I mostly agree with you on that but it really would help if you state some cases. As it is now, the only case you put fourth was highly improbable. Just a suggestion.

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:54 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 11:09 PM MST:

: Nobody will throw matches in the elimination rounds. That would just be silly. I think people are way too competitive to do that. They want too much to win to throw away their own chances.

That's a rational response. People who are upset do not always behave rationally.

I agree that most teams would not throw an elimination match -- just as I feel that most teams wouldn't throw a qualifying match. The point I was trying to make is that implementing a 'no rejection' rule does not eliminate all the possible pathologic scenerios - it only changes the circumstances under which they might occur.

: I think it would help your argument if you give a few practical reasons as to why someone would turn down a higher seeded alliance. I mostly agree with you on that but it really would help if you state some cases. As it is now, the only case you put fourth was highly improbable. Just a suggestion.

There can be any number of reason -- many of which may not make much sense to anyone else. Why doesn't really matter -- the point is that with a 'no rejection' rule the team being picked loses their freedom of choice. That's not the way our society works in general, and I see no good reason to create a new paradigm here.

If having specific reasons will help you, here are a few:

- they have a long association with or feel more comfortable working with the lower-
ranked team
- they feel they will be able to make a greater contribution to an alliance with the lower-
ranked team
- they feel the seedings are inaccurate and that they stand a better chance of winning
with the lower-ranked team
- they dislike the higher-ranked team

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 3:21 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 11:54 PM MST:

I don't mean to sound all high and mighty here, but the competition doesn't work like that. If you get picked by someone, you work with them whether you like them or not. One theory the competition has always been based on (even before the days of gracious proffesionalism) is 'punting.' If you get picked by someone else, you might be a little unhappy about it, but you aren't going to throw matches in the finals. That would be shooting yourself in the foot. And this isn't the kind of situation where you lose the ability to think rationally. You're talking about rational people (or so engineers and prosective engineers are generally thought to be) in a fairly reasonable situation. Noone is going to be emotionally traumatized by being picked by a different team, so I don't see too many 'crimes of passion' being committed this year.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST

In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:

I have a real problem with a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeiture it's right to select a partner! I am also against rejections and all the possible problems associated with it. Thats why I stated that I don't believe that FIRST thought this one all the way through. It appears that they tried to fix a part of the selection process that wasn't really broke.

The Outside Observer

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 12:21 AM MST

In Reply to: Ranking The Worms posted by Bill Beatty on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST:

Why are you against a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeit it's right to select a partner?

I personally am against a system that puts the 17th and 33rd best robots in 1st place with the #1 seed.

I think the mistake you may be making, is you're thinking of last year when you look at these rules. These teams aren't really forced to forfeit their right to pick, they simply never were given the right. The only team that's guaranteed the right to pick an alliance is the #1 seed. Nobody's forfeiting anything.

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Erin.

Student on team #1, The Juggernauts, from OTC-NE, Oxford High School and 3-D Services.

Posted on 1/16/2000 10:41 AM MST

In Reply to: but wait... posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 12:21 AM MST:

last year, our robot couldn't rack up big points.
but when we got with a good offensive robot, we did the job and we did it well. Just because a robot is in 33rd place doesn't mean it is or isn't a good robot. I feel like you are degrading alot of the students that put good time and effort into their robot when you say that you don't think a 33rd or 17th place robot doesn't have a right to get 1st place with the number one seed. The Technokats had an extremely innovative and powerful robot. But due to the fact that they didn't always get lots of points, they weren't always in the top 8 or 16. But when another team picked them, they got out there and tore up the game. Sometimes a 33rd place robot does belong in 1st place with the 1st or 2nd or whatever seed, it just needs a little help by being picked.
I don't think we will see all of the top teams picking each other this year. Last year was too big of an example for this to happen.
maybe i am wrong? just trying to prove a point. i like feedback :)
-erin

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/17/2000 3:49 AM MST

In Reply to: hey dan, i don't agree... and i'm looking for some feedback posted by Erin on 1/16/2000 10:41 AM MST:

I think we may be closer to agreement than you think. My team (GRT #192) had a very defensive strategy last year. We were seeded in the mid thirties. Our strategy was to play hard and win some matches solidly. We managed to win all of our 6 seeding matches. However as we were primarily defensive, our seed was low.

Also, I was always an advocate of rejections because I felt a 33rd seed team didn't necessarily not deserve the right to have some choice in partners just because it's 33rd, as it may be there for strategic reasons (i.e. defensive robot).

For the same reason, I see no problem with the 33rd seed taking the gold. However, a system that prematurely eliminates the possibility for some robots to be on the winning alliance is innately unfair. A system that doesn't allow the #1 seed to pair with the #2 is not a good system, as it could very well be forcing the second best robot to get a lower place than even the second pick of seed #1.

Does this make any sense? Maybe??
-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/17/2000 4:12 AM MST

In Reply to: you agree more than you know. posted by Daniel on 1/17/2000 3:49 AM MST:

:However, a system that prematurely eliminates the possibility for some robots to be on the winning alliance is innately unfair. A system that doesn't allow the #1 seed to pair with the #2 is not a good system, as it could very well be forcing the second best robot to get a lower place than even the second pick of seed #1.

:Does this make any sense? Maybe??

Since you ask... :)

What part of the existing rules are you objecting to? You made some very abstract statements without explaining how you feel they relate to specific aspects of the competition.

The bottom line is that fairness is a very subjective -- there is no way to design a contest like this such that everyone will consider it fair under all circumstances.

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/17/2000 5:37 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: you agree more than you know. posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/17/2000 4:12 AM MST:

I think my message was mostly in reference to last year's game. This year I'm pretty happy with most things. ;-)

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 1:21 AM MST

In Reply to: Ranking The Worms posted by Bill Beatty on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST:

: I have a real problem with a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeiture it's right to select a partner! I am also against rejections and all the possible problems associated with it. Thats why I stated that I don't believe that FIRST thought this one all the way through. It appears that they tried to fix a part of the selection process that wasn't really broke.

Under what circumstances does a high seeded team lose forfeit their 'right' to select a partner? Even if rejections are allowed, they can select any partner they desire; however, the potential partner also has a 'right' to reject the association. If they are rejected they then choose another partner.

The 'rejection' scenerio is much closer to the way alliances and mergers work in the business world. Can you provide examples of real life situations which mirror the 'no reject' scenerio?

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:25

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/11/2000 6:48 AM MST

In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:

I'll put it as simply as possible:
Those seeded at the top should have a choice to reject.
Those seeded lower than 8 or 16 do not have a choice.

For the same reasons of variability, there is a large probability the #1 seed will not be the best robot. The best robot may be seeded # 5 or something. If they are one of the best robots, Should they not have a choice?

Also, is it not true that the team who does the picking typically gets to run the team? Shouldn't the #5 seed get a chance to form their own alliance and get 'top billing' on the team and run it the way they want.

Raul

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:26

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 10:38 AM MST

In Reply to: You're missing the point - just picking on Joe :) posted by Raul on 1/11/2000 6:48 AM MST:

I'm starting to wonder what all this talk is about in the first place. Now that I think about it, and I invite all of you to try this angle out for this particular issue, there's no reason why there should be anything 'special' about the top 16 seeds. FIRST has decided to give the biggest reward to the #1 seed (which is no easy possition to get), and only give the same privalege to the next robot down the line who hasn't had the honor of already being picked. We're all getting stuck thinking about how it was last year and 'oh wait! we don't get that same privalege that we got last year!!'. Maybe we just never stopped to think that it may just happen to be the way it's supposed to be. It seems like a fair system, as long as we're all not spoiled from being able to pick our alliances last year.

Try that angle out for size and let me know if it fits.

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:26

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 11:20 AM MST

In Reply to: think DIFFERENT posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 10:38 AM MST:

: I'm starting to wonder what all this talk is about in the first place. Now that I think about it, and I invite all of you to try this angle out for this particular issue, there's no reason why there should be anything 'special' about the top 16 seeds.

At least some of us disagree. Raul and I have both given specific reasons why we feel the top 8/16 seeds should be exempt from the 'no reject' rule. To clarify my position: I object to the 'no reject' rule in its entirety; if the rule does exist I feel the top 8/16 teams (and any other team which has been bumped up into a position of selecting their own alliance at the time they are selected) should be exempt. My reasons are very similar to Raul's.

:FIRST has decided to give the biggest reward to the #1 seed (which is no easy possition to get), and only give the same privalege to the next robot down the line who hasn't had the honor of already being picked.

Unless they have posted a clarification to the rules I am not aware of, this decision has NOT been made (or at least it hasn't been announced).

Rule GM26 states:

[I]f a team declines they are no longer eligible to be chosen as an alliance partner.

Specifically, it does not address whether a team is eligible *to choose* alliance partners after declining an alliance. I've already asked for clarification of this point and Eric responded that they have the matter under discussion.

:We're all getting stuck thinking about how it was last year and 'oh wait! we don't get that same privalege that we got last year!!'. Maybe we just never stopped to think that it may just happen to be the way it's supposed to be. It seems like a fair system, as long as we're all not spoiled from being able to pick our alliances last year.

My objection has nothing to do with last year, but rather with what I feel is fairness to teams which have earned by their own performance the privilege to select their own alliance.

Jerry

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:26

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 11:58 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: think DIFFERENT posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/11/2000 11:20 AM MST:

First off, I agree with you about no rejections in general. I was always a fan of rejections because I felt any team has a right to a choice.

BUT...

If any team doesn't have this right, why should anyone be different? You said that you think 'teams which have earned by their own performance the privilege to select their own alliance' should be given that opportunity, but I don't see where they 'earned' that privilage. Nobody told seed #3 that they get to pick their alliance partiner.

I don't see why, if rejection is 'not within the spirit of the competition', that any team should be exempt from gracious professionalism. Think about WHY these rules were enstated, not as much what they state.

-DL

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:26

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 12:03 PM MST

In Reply to: but they haven't posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 11:58 AM MST:

I think that the whole scenario is a little silly and I agree with Mr. Beatty. Everyone here has played back yard football before, right? You start by picking captains and the captains pick from the rest of the crowd. I've never seen a situation where the captain with the first pick chose the other captain. That would make for an unfair situation, regardless as to what kind of rights he/she has (debatably) earned. You simply aren't going to have a reasonable set of alliances if you have seed # 1 and seed # 2 on the same team (assuming they didn't get lucky). I think that it should be the same as last year (for the sake of fair play, not privelages) in that the top eight (or sixteen) seeds can't pick each other.

archiver

23-06-2002, 22:26

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/12/2000 1:30 PM MST

In Reply to: It's rather silly anyways posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 12:03 PM MST:

It's always easy to think up a real life situation for any argument. The fact of the matter is:

-- This isn't back yard football! --

This is the game FIRST said it would be; and I personally don't see why the 'best' team shouldn't be allowed to pick the second best. Super-alliances assure that the trophy goes to the right teams. We're all yelling about what's fair and what's not but we never stop to think that the 17th team drafted is ending up with a good chance at the #1 prize because it's with the first draft and the #1 seed. Why shouldn't it be that the best two robots get the gold?

I just don't see how this is a problem.

-DL