301 points! and could have done more

[falconmaster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQtXL7n93JA

[Adam Freeman]

Not to take anything away from your 301pts or the win.... but, where is the defense?

The only time a blue robot approached a red robot was to get a run away ball. And, they moved out of the way when the red robot backed up from the inbounder.

This is a totally different game than what is being played everywhere else.

I love offense, but that looked like an exhibition...not the final match of a regional.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Not to take anything away from your 301pts or the win.... but, where is the defense?

The only time a blue robot approached a red robot was to get a run away ball. And, they moved out of the way when the red robot backed up from the inbounder.

This is a totally different game than what is being played everywhere else.

I love offense, but that looked like an exhibition...not the final match of a regional.

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I think these good teams will struggle at Champs when they realize how tough defense is in other areas of the world. I also don't understand how teams can just sit there when they don't have the ball and do nothing.

[BobbyVanNess]

Impressive score! I watched this on the live webcast actually. However after driving through a moderately defensive regional, this seems to be the only time ever that I've seen as little defense as that. I think one blue robot may have gently nudged one red robot one time during all of teleop. It looks almost coordinated. Can I ask why teams chose to spend most of the match idle rather than defending? It just seems totally bizarre to me.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Any reason why there was almost zero defense in this match? Was that just the alliances' strategies or were the referrers calling match extremely tight before this? Were teams scared to play defense?

Congratulations on the win.

[Gregor]

Not to take anything away from your 301pts or the win.... but, where is the defense?

The only time a blue robot approached a red robot was to get a run away ball. And, they moved out of the way when the red robot backed up from the inbounder.

This is a totally different game than what is being played everywhere else.

I love offense, but that looked like an exhibition...not the final match of a regional.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363148#post1363148

...

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Finals 1 was more of how the regionals was. To sum Finals 2 up very quickly, Steve Sanghi, a big supporter of FIRST announced that if both alliance in a match score at least 200 points, he would sponsor every team with 500 dollars towards next season. Blue alliance actually approached us with the no defense plan and us the red alliance agreed because we were confident we could out score them with no defense on both sides. Why the blue alliance decided to do this I'll let them explain if they wish. Here is finals 1 btw and is similar to how finals 2 probably would have been played:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw

[BobbyVanNess]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363148#post1363148


Igniting controversy in 3... 2... 1...

[MrForbes]

It's interesting to see people's response to my silly idea. Notice that the outcome of the match was most likely not affected....will we ever know for sure?

does it matter?

It is a game, after all.

[kuraikou]

From what I know there was a sponsor Steve Sanghi who agreed to pay for the entry fee of teams for next year's regional if they were in a match and both alliances scored over 200 points. So there was a pact made in the finals between the alliances to not play defense so that they could get the sponsorship, that is why there was little to no defense played.

[falconmaster]

Not to take anything away from your 301pts or the win.... but, where is the defense?

The only time a blue robot approached a red robot was to get a run away ball. And, they moved out of the way when the red robot backed up from the inbounder.

This is a totally different game than what is being played everywhere else.

I love offense, but that looked like an exhibition...not the final match of a regional.

Previous match 1 match in finals with defense 225 to 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw
after this both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180

[dodar]

Previous match 1 match in finals with defense 225 to 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw
after this both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

[MrForbes]

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

What was there to lose? for either side?

[dodar]

What was there to lose? for either side?

The regional...

[MrForbes]

How?

[dodar]

How?

Hmmm, let the other side score as much as they want without trying to stop them.....let's think about how that might lose someone a regional championship.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

Not trying to say I agree with the Blue alliance strategy but they had plenty of high scoring matches with defense being played on them that outscored some of our alliance's matches. If the first plan didn't work very great (finals 1), all out scoring may have actually given them a better chance at outscoring us. Unfortunately, they had some problems running their cycles in finals 2.

[JohnFogarty]

It was a choice and both alliances seemed to have made it. If you were completely confident in your alliances ability to completely outscore your opponent's....would you do it? Apparently the alliance that lost clearly decided they would take that gamble. Would we have done it, probably not. Doesn't matter.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Does it lessen the win? No, they scored more, they deserved the win. Does it lessen the prestige of the high score? Absolutely.

I never want to bash sponsors, because they make FIRST possible for so many people. However, I sincerely disagree with this being an incentive for teams to change their strategy. This may not be against a rule in the manual, but a little bit of my pride in FRC died when I read about it. Here's to hoping against it becoming a trend.

[dodar]

It was a choice and both alliances seemed to have made it. If you were completely confident in your alliances ability to completely outscore your opponent's....would you do it? Apparently the alliance that lost clearly decided they would take that gamble. Would we have done it, probably not. Doesn't matter.

But it could still change the strategy. If one alliance thought they could win by using 2 bots and scoring 180 pts with 1 defender but the incentive offered meant they had to try 3 bots to get 200+ with no defending, well then that 3rd bot could be out of position and then lose them the regional for not doing something they were picked to do. I dont mean the 3rd bot specifically would lose it for them but the new way of using them could.

[JohnFogarty]

True.

[MrForbes]

Hmmm, let the other side score as much as they want without trying to stop them.....let's think about how that might lose someone a regional championship.

Only if it is one-sided. This case was two sided, we both agreed to not play defense for one match. We know each other, so we knew we could trust each other to keep the agreement...and of course if anyone violated the agreement, it was "over" and back to playing defense.

Coopertition™ can take many forms.

[Duncan Macdonald]

From what I know there was a sponsor Steve Sanghi who agreed to pay for the entry fee of teams for next year's regional if they were in a match and both alliances scored over 200 points. So there was a pact made in the finals between the alliances to not play defense so that they could get the sponsorship, that is why there was little to no defense played.

How is this not points shaving/match fixing? I was fine with 6v0 in 2010 because there was a FIRST created situation that rewarded it. I suspect Mr. Sanghi's heart was in the right place but this 6v$ cheapens the entire FIRST robotics program for everyone.

Why didn't the human players just collect a couple technicals?

[MrForbes]

But it could still change the strategy. If one alliance thought they could win by using 2 bots and scoring 180 pts with 1 defender but the incentive offered meant they had to try 3 bots to get 200+ with no defending, well then that 3rd bot could be out of position and then lose them the regional for not doing something they were picked to do. I dont mean the 3rd bot specifically would lose it for them but the new way of using them could.

In this case, all the robots on both alliances did what they were picked to do.

[BleakRNS]

Some perspective on the Sanghi bonus situation for those unacquainted with the Arizona Regional:

Steve Sanghi is the CEO of Microchip Technology, a huge benefactor of FIRST in Arizona. Microchip actually hosts the official Arizona FIRST page (http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/aboutus/first/home.html). He gives out a scholarship each year at the regional and has recently taken to handing out cash rewards for actions performed in matches. In other words, this is not the first time he has done something like this. Last year, it was a prize for all teams involved in a match in which all six robots hung from the pyramid. I don't remember if there was anything the year before, but it might have had to do with triple balancing. The Arizona Regional has not been known as a hotbed of high-level FRC competition in recent memory, and that is probably the reason behind the bonuses Sanghi is awarding. The intention is good: he wants there to be an extra incentive for creating a high-functioning robot and working with alliance partners. But this year it might have been a little misguided, considering the amplification of defense in Aerial Assist.

[dodar]

Only if it is one-sided. This case was two sided, we both agreed to not play defense for one match. We know each other, so we knew we could trust each other to keep the agreement...and of course if anyone violated the agreement, it was "over" and back to playing defense.

Coopertition™ can take many forms.

That's your opinion, I just dont agree with it. Gratz on making it to the finals. Hope you guys can make it to STL; you always have really good bots.

[falconmaster]

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

Believe it and it was their choice! Nobody was forced to do anything. The prospect of winning a different way by trying to win by out scoring became the challenge, and hopefully winning the bet too, even if you lost.

[dodar]

Believe it and it was their choice! Nobody was forced to do anything. The prospect of winning a different way by trying to win by out scoring became the challenge, and hopefully winning the bet too, even if you lost.

I just dont see how you tell your seniors that you were doing that. Telling them we are just playing to get 200+ instead of playing to win. How do you justify playing for maybe $500 for next year vs winning a blue banner and getting that invite to STL for Champs?

[kuraikou]

Both teams were still playing to win, they just both consensually decided to make it a match where both teams tried to score higher than the other and to get a high score.

[falconmaster]

Some perspective on the Sanghi bonus situation for those unacquainted with the Arizona Regional:

Steve Sanghi is the CEO of Microchip Technology, a huge benefactor of FIRST in Arizona. Microchip actually hosts the official Arizona FIRST page (http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/aboutus/first/home.html). He gives out a scholarship each year at the regional and has recently taken to handing out cash rewards for actions performed in matches. In other words, this is not the first time he has done something like this. Last year, it was a prize for all teams involved in a match in which all six robots hung from the pyramid. I don't remember if there was anything the year before, but it might have had to do with triple balancing. The Arizona Regional has not been known as a hotbed of high-level FRC competition in recent memory, and that is probably the reason behind the bonuses Sanghi is awarding. The intention is good: he wants there to be an extra incentive for creating a high-functioning robot and working with alliance partners. But this year it might have been a little misguided, considering the amplification of defense in Aerial Assist.

In defense of Mr. Steve Sanghi no one was required to do this.... its was put out there and teams took it. Take it for what it was worth, a motivating incentive. I am also interested in why everybody keeps saying why AZ is not a hot bed. I have heard this several times already. Based on population density, I think we are a hot bed. AZ has had teams on Einstein several times and AZ has threats every year. Also team 842 is a hall of fame team and 2486 is a major threat for championships chairmans this year. I guess I should not take this view of us too critically, its gives us an advantage at the championships if people are not paying attention to us. Too many times people on CD neglect Arizona and we struggle to get any attention. We are used to it, we have learned to be "mavericky". We aren't Michigan....

[Coach Norm]

If you thought you had an outright chance to win the match by outscoring the other alliance, then I agree. If you did not think you had a chance to win by outscoring whether in agreement or not is another question in my mind.

Incentives should not lessen the game itself or change the strategies of the teams participating in my opinion - not matter what the level of sponsorship or involvement.

I think that the semi-finals of this regional are more realistic to what alliances should expect in elimination matches. Defense was actually played and resulted in missed shots and mishandled balls in the process.

[dodar]

Both teams were still playing to win, they just both consensually decided to make it a match where both teams tried to score higher than the other and to get a high score.

But if one alliance hadnt scored over 200 in any of their previous elimination matches, than it looks to me that money led that decision to forgo the defense.

[pandamonium]

So this is a very interesting scenario. So what would stop me from making the same deal with an alliance regardless of a bet? Would you want some teams playing defense free matches in an attempt to rack up high Assist scores? Would that not create an unlevel playing field for some teams that did not know there opposing alliance as well as you?

[falconmaster]

I just don't see how you tell your seniors that you were doing that. Telling them we are just playing to get 200+ instead of playing to win. How do you justify playing for maybe $500 for next year vs winning a blue banner and getting that invite to STL for Champs?

The seniors decided themselves. Nobody told anybody to do anything. I also don't want make opinions for others but maybe they thought they had a better feeling about going for Steve Sanghi's offer. I can speak for us, we were happy to go either way. Each challenge seemed intriguing. If you had been there, you obviously would not have agreed and we would have taken you head on.

[falconmaster]

So this is a very interesting scenario. So what would stop me from making the same deal with an alliance regardless of a bet? Would you want some teams playing defense free matches in an attempt to rack up high Assist scores? Would that not create an unlevel playing field for some teams that did not know there opposing alliance as well as you?

No rule says you have to play defense. That is for teams to decide. So to answer your question, there is nothing to stop you. You are the one that has to live with whatever you do. I have faith in FIRST participants to do what is right.

[ChargerRt6]

As the driver of Team 60 I knew from the first match that our (blue) alliance was out matched. Haha, they were definitely giving us a run for our money. So, my alliance and the red alliance came to an agreement to play the next match with low stress and possible high reward. That is why there is no defense in the last match. In doing so, that allowed me personally to enjoy the last match of the regional to the fullest. :P Its all about fun anyway.

[ChargerRt6]

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

I am a senior and I was convinced to do it. I didn't do it for me. I did it for my friends on my team and helping them have fun next year. From my 4 years of being on Team 60, I learned that fundraising is a difficult task that needs hard work. If I could work with my alliance and the opponent to make money less of an issue, I will. By the second match of finals, for me, it wasn't about winning. It was about having fun and helping the teams.

[dodar]

I am a senior and I was convinced to do it. I didn't do it for me. I did it for my friends on my team and helping them have fun next year. From my 4 years of being on Team 60, I learned that fundraising is a difficult task that needs hard work. If I could work with my alliance and the opponent to make money less of an issue, I will. By the second match of finals, for me, it wasn't about winning. It was about having fun and helping the teams.

Other than the fact they won, do you think 2403 was having a blast during F1-2 in the fact they never moved and touched the ball for less than 15 seconds the whole match?

Saying they wouldnt have wanted to drive around and play defense and push people around rather than just sit there is ludicrous.

[falconmaster]

I am a senior and I was convinced to do it. I didn't do it for me. I did it for my friends on my team and helping them have fun next year. From my 4 years of being on Team 60, I learned that fundraising is a difficult task that needs hard work. If I could work with my alliance and the opponent to make money less of an issue, I will. By the second match of finals, for me, it wasn't about winning. It was about having fun and helping the teams.

Nicely said man!

[ChargerRt6]

Other than the fact they won, do you think 2403 was having a blast during F1-2 in the fact they never moved and touched the ball for less than 15 seconds the whole match?

Saying they wouldnt have wanted to drive around and play defense and push people around rather than just sit there is ludicrous.

True, It is a fun to play with defense. But, what I believe is that we were having fun because we didn't have the stress of dealing with the other alliance. I know personally that defense can be fun. At that point though, we were having fun without it. I know I was. Besides, The red alliance brought it up first. And that is the truth. So, I would assume, yes 2403 was having "a blast".

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Other than the fact they won, do you think 2403 was having a blast during F1-2 in the fact they never moved and touched the ball for less than 15 seconds the whole match?

Saying they wouldnt have wanted to drive around and play defense and push people around rather than just sit there is ludicrous.

Plasma seemed pretty stoked on earning their 3rd regional win in their history.. They were picked for their great in bounding and invaluable passing skills and performed it every match with consistency. I'll let someone from plasma chime in if they want to though as I'm just speculating.

[MrForbes]

I think that the semi-finals of this regional are more realistic to what alliances should expect in elimination matches. Defense was actually played and resulted in missed shots and mishandled balls in the process.

Watch finals match 1, played with defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw

We were totally outgunned. Defense didn't do a dang thing for us.

Seriously...what did either side have to lose?

If you watch the quarterfinals, you'll see what alliances should expect in elimination matches.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn8-R2ZfQtC0w1ODrzPkH6A/search?query=qf+4+2014

I learned from Fredi years ago about paradigm change....and I think I'm not the only one who respects his ideas about it.

[falconmaster]

Other than the fact they won, do you think 2403 was having a blast during F1-2 in the fact they never moved and touched the ball for less than 15 seconds the whole match?

Saying they wouldnt have wanted to drive around and play defense and push people around rather than just sit there is ludicrous.

Maybe 2403 will answer themselves. I can say that they contributed 10 points every cycle. The human player through the ball to 2403 and they popped the ball up and over to us and we then took it to the truss which we through over to the other human player and then they dumped it into 2486 which then made the goal. By the way they also did that all through the finals matches and just added defense when they could. But you can ask them....

[falconmaster]

Watch finals match 1, played with defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw

We were totally outgunned. Defense didn't do a dang thing for us.

Seriously...what did either side have to lose?

If you watch the quarterfinals, you'll see what alliances should expect in elimination matches.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn8-R2ZfQtC0w1ODrzPkH6A/search?query=qf+4+2014

I learned from Fredi years ago about paradigm change....and I think I'm not the only one who respects his ideas about it.

Thanks Jim, that is the nicest thing you have ever said to me...I have a tears in my eyes......

[nixiebunny]

This match showed the world of FIRST just how nice we Arizonans really are, our crazy politicians notwithstanding.

If you want controversy, try to find *any* fouls due to G40 in the Arizona regional.

[MrForbes]

I can say that they contributed 10 points every cycle.

You mean 20 points per cycle. In a second or two. That's the best point/time performance of any of the teams on your alliance. Steven and I were discussing that this morning.

[Coach Norm]

Watch finals match 1, played with defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw

We were totally outgunned. Defense didn't do a dang thing for us.

Seriously...what did either side have to lose?

If you watch the quarterfinals, you'll see what alliances should expect in elimination matches.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn8-R2ZfQtC0w1ODrzPkH6A/search?query=qf+4+2014

I learned from Fredi years ago about paradigm change....and I think I'm not the only one who respects his ideas about it.

I agree that the quarterfinals were more like what you should expect.

Being outgunned is not fun either.

Norman

[safiq10]

I congratulate you guys for winning and making $500.

Do I agree with what you did? Not really. Would we have done the same thing? I dont know.

But as a defensive team that would have really sucked! Our team thrives on playing defense and some of the most exciting matches were matches in which someone was playing defense. Take Dallas 2014 when 3847 played defense or any of the elimination matches! They were fun and exciting (not to mention extremely difficult!)

but that is just my 2 cents congrats on the $500 and the win!

[dodar]

Maybe 2403 will answer themselves. I can say that they contributed 10 points every cycle. The human player through the ball to 2403 and they popped the ball up and over to us and we then took it to the truss which we through over to the other human player and then they dumped it into 2486 which then made the goal. By the way they also did that all through the finals matches and just added defense when they could. But you can ask them....

Saying "they just added defense when they could" vastly undercuts their efforts on your alliance. In the QF alone they stopped that blue alliance from scoring at least 50% more.

[BleakRNS]

In defense of Mr. Steve Sanghi no one was required to do this.... its was put out there and teams took it. Take it for what it was worth, a motivating incentive. I am also interested in why everybody keeps saying why AZ is not a hot bed. I have heard this several times already. Based on population density, I think we are a hot bed. AZ has had teams on Einstein several times and AZ has threats every year. Also team 842 is a hall of fame team and 2486 is a major threat for championships chairmans this year. I guess I should not take this view of us too critically, its gives us an advantage at the championships if people are not paying attention to us. Too many times people on CD neglect Arizona and we struggle to get any attention. We are used to it, we have learned to be "mavericky". We aren't Michigan....

Never said Sanghi forced anyone to do this. I was a participant on an AZ team for the last 3 years, and while there are some very good teams as you've mentioned, the regional has been overall historically weak (not as much this year, though). Last year, AZ's average winning score was more than 10 points lower than the world average. Yes, there have been Arizona teams on Einstein, but very few have even reached CMP division eliminations in recent years. Arizona's not being "neglected" in my view, there just hasn't been enough to talk about recently in terms of robots (save a few). Don't get me wrong, I've learned to love Arizona's "mavericky" style. But maybe "mavericky" isn't for the best.

[Shelbers2486]

I congratulate you guys for winning and making $500.

Do I agree with what you did? Not really. Would we have done the same thing? I dont know.

But as a defensive team that would have really sucked! Our team thrives on playing defense and some of the most exciting matches were matches in which someone was playing defense. Take Dallas 2014 when 3847 played defense or any of the elimination matches! They were fun and exciting (not to mention extremely difficult!)

but that is just my 2 cents congrats on the $500 and the win!

The blue alliance was not actually able to score the 200 points, so no money was awarded.

[waialua359]

Actually, this isn't the first time 2403 has won in their home state of Arizona.
I do recall selecting them in 2010, when we won in the Colliseum. :)

[falconmaster]

You mean 20 points per cycle. In a second or two. That's the best point/time performance of any of the teams on your alliance. Steven and I were discussing that this morning.

Thanks Jim, you see why I am not on the drive team....

[falconmaster]

Saying "they just added defense when they could" vastly undercuts their efforts on your alliance. In the QF alone they stopped that blue alliance from scoring at least 50% more.

You keep looking for negatives among a whole group of people who are obviously happy about their decision. Are you a lawyer? Just kidding. Think what you want, we all stand by our decision.

[dodar]

You keep looking for negatives among a whole group of people who are obviously happy about their decision. Are you a lawyer? Just kidding. Think what you want, we all stand by our decision.

Im not looking for negatives, just pointed out what you said. And I bet you guys are happy, you won the regional; to which I say congrats.

[seg9585]

Morality and consensual agreements between opponents aside, this was by far the most boring Finals match I've ever seen in any FIRST regional ever, considering how many points were actually scored. You really wanted to end a competition like this?

[falconmaster]

Morality and consensual agreements between opponents aside, this was by far the most boring Finals match I've ever seen in any FIRST regional ever, considering how many points were actually scored. You really wanted to end a competition like this?

Well its very fortunate then that there are many regionals. Our regional is what it was. Gracious professionalism and coopertition.

[Nathan Rossi]

Our alliance (1492, 4183, & 2647) was also offered to put down defense (for just one match) to try and maximize both of the alliance's scores. The reason I was so skeptical about doing this was we had just spent all of our time during lunch beefing up 2647 for defense (adding 2 CIMs, extra weight, and ect.). Though, the offer was very tempting (and looking back I wish we had taken it).

We did end up losing due to 60's excellent defensive play (and 4183 unfortunately losing power in the last 40 seconds of QF4-3).

I would like to personally apologize for not taking the offer, as I was 1492's primary strategist and had a weighted opinion as to if we should've done it or not. I think both alliances could've easily gotten over 200 points.

After watching week one, I wondered if any alliances would try such a strategy (dropping defense for high scoring) I'm actually surprised we didn't see this strategy sooner.

Morality and consensual agreements between opponents aside, this was by far the most boring Finals match I've ever seen in any FIRST regional ever, considering how many points were actually scored. You really wanted to end a competition like this?

As someone who was watching in person, I can tell you it was far from boring (it was in fact very exciting!).

[seg9585]

Well its very fortunate then that there are many regionals. Our regional is what it was. Gracious professionalism and coopertition.

Let me ask real quick, then: Would this type of match be acceptable if it was the Final match on the Einstein field? How big of a bribe would be required to make it acceptable on Einstein?

Conversely, would the teams have done this in Arizona if only $100 off was offered? Just $50 off? There must be a threshold...

Many teams and almost all spectators (and sponsor reps) only go to 1 regional so this is all they see.

[Grim Tuesday]

Our alliance (1492, 4183, & 2647) was also offered to put down defense (for just one match) to try and maximize both of the alliance's scores. The reason I was so skeptical about doing this was we had just spent all of our time during lunch beefing up 2647 for defense (adding 2 CIMs, extra weight, and ect.). Though, the offer was very tempting (and looking back I wish we had taken it).

We did end up losing due to 60's excellent defensive play (and 4183 unfortunately losing power in the last 40 seconds of QF4-3).

I would like to personally apologize for not taking the offer, as I was 1492's primary strategist and had a weighted opinion as to if we should've done it or not. I think both alliances could've easily gotten over 200 points.

After watching week one, I wondered if any alliances would try such a strategy (dropping defense for high scoring) I'm actually surprised we didn't see this strategy sooner.



As someone who was watching in person, I can tell you it was far from boring (it was in fact very exciting!).

This right here is my problem with the kind of bet that requires a team to give up something. You should not have to feel bad for playing the game the way you designed your robot to do it. I believe this sponsor's heart was in the right place but it's still a very weird direction to move the game.

I also agree with the sentiment offered by seg9585. If the money is what makes it worth it, then does the amount matter?

[MrForbes]

Interesting questions. No one has mentioned that Mr. Sanghi also donated more money to pay for the winning alliance team's entry fees for Championships. It would be more valuable to a team to win the finals, than to get the 200 points. It might not have been as much about the money as you think.

[dodar]

Interesting questions. No one has mentioned that Mr. Sanghi also donated more money to pay for the winning alliance team's entry fees for Championships. It would be more valuable to a team to win the finals, than to get the 200 points. It might not have been as much about the money as you think.

Thats not what is being put across.

[Answer42]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

[Nirvash]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

[falconmaster]

Let me ask real quick, then: Would this type of match be acceptable if it was the Final match on the Einstein field? How big of a bribe would be required to make it acceptable on Einstein?

Conversely, would the teams have done this in Arizona if only $100 off was offered? Just $50 off? There must be a threshold...

Many teams and almost all spectators (and sponsor reps) only go to 1 regional so this is all they see.

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge! There was no bribe. The whole contest was public, no shady deals. The money was incidental. The interesting thing is that all involved are happy and enjoyed the whole event. Its only been the people that were not there that seem to have difficulty with this. I wonder if teams on Einstein would ever see the other possibilities that exist in this approach of the game, seeing who can outscore the other, money aside.

[Anupam Goli]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

I think the rationale behind not purposefully fouling was that both teams still wanted to try and win the match through a pure offensive standpoint, and get the 200+ points clean. If we're admonishing two alliances agreeing to play a certain way, why aren't we admonishing alliances that use their timeout for the other alliance? Every argument here could be used in an argument against giving a timeout to the other alliance.

[Nathan Rossi]

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

^ This. It was jokingly brought up before our first match but, it woudn't have been the GP thing to do.

[dodar]

Would you rather watch the National Flag Football Championships or the NFL Super Bowl? Thats the difference you which you are talking about.

I could almost guarantee you 9/10 would pick the SB.

[falconmaster]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge. Fouls would not be the GP way to get to the goal that Steve Sanghi wanted. He wanted to see us play the game as fast as we could with co-opertition. Getting fouls would not be in the spirit that the challenge was made.

[MrForbes]

I'd rather watch NURC than any kind of football....but they're not holding it this year. Next year...watch out!

[dodar]

Previous match 1 match in finals with defense 225 to 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw
after this both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge! There was no bribe. The whole contest was public, no shady deals. The money was incidental. The interesting thing is that all involved are happy and enjoyed the whole event. Its only been the people that were not there that seem to have difficulty with this. I wonder if teams on Einstein would ever see the other possibilities that exist in this approach of the game, seeing who can outscore the other, money aside.

Something doesnt match here.

[nixiebunny]

As a spectator for the finals (we got knocked out in the quarterfinals), I found the final match to be quite enjoyable. We had just witnessed three hours of robots beating each other up. It was refreshing to watch a game with nothing but pure scoring performance.

[falconmaster]

Would you rather watch the National Flag Football Championships or the NFL Super Bowl? Thats the difference you which you are talking about.

I could almost guarantee you 9/10 would pick the SB.

What is wrong with Flag Football?

[s_forbes]

Something doesnt match here.

Read as: We tried to match Steve Sanghi's challenge; it wasn't about the money.

As a member of the team from the stands: it really wasn't about the money, we really wanted to beat the challenge.

[dodar]

Read as: We tried to match Steve Sanghi's challenge; it wasn't about the money.

As a member of the team from the stands: it really wasn't about the money, we really wanted to achieve the challenge.

I understand the point, but he and others have said they only did the challenge to get the $500 for the registration fee.

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

[seg9585]

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.


It wasn't the money, it was the challenge!

In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

[MrForbes]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

[falconmaster]

Something doesn't match here.

In AZ a tax credit donation is 400 dollars and the person who donates it gets it back dollar for dollar. We get many tax credit donations annually. Money was the way to get us to pay attention to the challenge. Teams spend way more than 500 dollars on stuff for just one regional. Again you are looking for stuff to win an argument. We in AZ did want we felt was in our best interest and none of us have a problem with it. Is there any AZ person posting here with your POV? Apparently there is nothing we can explain to help you understand our reasoning. We saw another way to play the game and we took it. No regrets. Feel what you want, say what you want, we can't be swayed to your reasoning either....

[Anupam Goli]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Similarly, people complain about poorly constructed robots and the new G27 update, but praise alliances for giving up their timeout so the other alliance can repair their robots. Sometimes the FIRST community is very conflicting and confusing.

[falconmaster]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

How come you can say stuff simpler than me. You should be a WFA winner. Its that art of communication thing.

[Nathan Rossi]

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

The same can be said for the G27 update, but that's for another topic.

[nixiebunny]

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns?

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

[s_forbes]

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

[dodar]

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

[falconmaster]

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

My response to your first part: We are not paid athletes and the audience was not upset, on the contrary they got more excited. Plus there was no admission fee. Your analogy is not accurate. The money was not there to get us to give up competing, just the method of competing under the GP umbrella. Steve Sanghi is on the board of directors of FIRST.


In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

[dodar]

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

FIRST didnt set up a good portion of the rulebook to govern defensive play just for alliances to completely disregard it by saying we wont touch you if you dont touch us. The game was made to have defense.

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

[s_forbes]

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

Yes.

[dodar]

Yes.

All I can say to that is wow.

[falconmaster]

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

He is also on the board of directors of FIRST.

[s_forbes]

All I can say to that is wow.

Me too! :eek:

[nixiebunny]

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

[Anupam Goli]

All I can say to that is wow.

And I counter your wow with this (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100). 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

[dodar]

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

Video works pretty well.

[nixiebunny]

Have any of you watched the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds? It was filmed in Tucson AZ, where I live.

The relevant scene shows the nerds vs the jocks in a tug-of-war contest. The nerds all let go of the rope simultaneously, causing all the jocks to fall backwards over each other. The lead nerd then says calmly, "You win."

[s_forbes]

And I counter your wow with this (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100). 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

I would argue that the 6v0 matches from 2010 are not even on the same page. Agreeing to play with no defense says "I bet we can fire our guns faster than yours" rather than "lets all shoot our guns in the same direction".

[dodar]

And I counter your wow with this (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100). 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

That was what I said. And I would frown upon those teams doing that as well. If you feel like you deserve to be ranked higher, earn the points by being able to play through defense and get them. Being able to score through defense will get you picked alot easier then telling a team that you are better at trying to get teams to not play defense if you wont.

I was also still a student when the 6v0 happened in 2010, I did think what happened was cool but I never thought of it as THE high score and I still didnt like how those teams did that towards raising their ranking scores.

[Nathan Rossi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Here, watch the announcement yourself.

[TheOtherGuy]

Well, this is one of the more interesting threads on CD I never thought I'd read!

The match was exciting to watch as a spectator. Everyone around me was out of their seat. That match was nothing short of inspiring.

[seg9585]

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

[s_forbes]

That match was nothing short of inspiring.

Oh, you... that's not what this competition is all about! :rolleyes:

[Duncan Macdonald]

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

I've given up on my astute grandmother's coopertitional GP definition because it gets twisted to support any argument.

I expect every alliance I am on or against to employ a strategy that they feel will give them the best chance t victory. This would be the professional thing to do, and if any alliance diverges from this the experience of being a participant is cheapened.

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?

Someone made a fantastic post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1342858&postcount=29) earlier in the year and made the argument "We don't allow steroids in sports because it cheapens the result and competition adds meaning." If we let steroids back in baseball, both sides can run faster, hit more home runs and have higher scoring games. But the result is less genuine. Not playing defence to artificially inflate scores and then boast about the high scoring Arizona finals is on the same level in my opinion.

If blue decided their best chance at winning was pure offence then more power to them. But the posts to date don't lead me to believe this was the case.

I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.

[falconmaster]

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

We have a 117 OPR before going into the finals. I think that speaks for itself. Everyone was that could was playing defense on us then. Ask them...When you are on an alliance, you play what ever role helps your team and not your ego. Bottom line is, as Woodie and Dean say, its not about the robot, its about the people and the people here are all thrilled at what transpired.

[s_forbes]

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?


Fun fact: the excellent reffing crew in AZ would have nothing to do with deliberate human player fouls as they were not within the intent of the rules. Game strategy (ie, agreed upon no defense) does not fall into this same category.

If you don't like the approach that was taken during this match, then neglect it from the "high scoring match" category when you analyze all of the regional data. I do not expect this to even be a notable (or even relevant) category among any teams with a good scouting team.

[Joshua Sicz]

Well, this is one of the more interesting threads on CD I never thought I'd read!

The match was exciting to watch as a spectator. Everyone around me was out of their seat. That match was nothing short of inspiring.

I Agree with this.

I was the driver for team 2403 in the Finals of the AZ regional. I wanted to clarify some things.

The first first match of the finals we offered the same pack with the other team but they rejected it. So I was able to drive defensively. Once we showed that we can beat them we offered the same pack for them. This doesn't hurt either alliance because the objective was to see if can beat the challenge that hasn't been broken and we have already won the first so why not TRY for it.

For me it was fun because the score was behind me and I was on my toes to see if we have beaten the challenge. It is also fun to drive:P I also played all the matches so far with defense so it was exciting to see a change.

It was GP in the scene that we worked together to try to reach some no one else has done. AND we still were against each other for the winning of the regional.

If I have missed anything some one had for a question for me just ask.

Thanks,
Joshua Sicz

Project Manager for Plasma Robotics

[AmoryG]

I really don't see the problem here. The losing alliance said they felt they had nothing to lose, which at least means they didn't feel like they were less likely to win with the new strategy. The first one didn't work, so why not go for it? You can complain about the decision in hindsight, but looking at it from the teams' and sponsor's perspectives before the outcome was determined I can certainly understand why they did it.

[falconmaster]

I've given up on my astute grandmother's coopertitional GP definition because it gets twisted to support any argument.

I expect every alliance I am on or against to employ a strategy that they feel will give them the best chance t victory. This would be the professional thing to do, and if any alliance diverges from this the experience of being a participant is cheapened.

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?

Someone made a fantastic post earlier in the year and made the argument "We don't allow steroids in sports because it cheapens the result." If we let steroids back in baseball, both sides can run faster, hit more home runs and have higher scoring games. But the result is less genuine. Not playing defence to artificially inflate scores and then boast about the high scoring Arizona finals is on the same level in my opinion.

If blue decided their best chance at winning was pure offence then more power to them. But the posts to date don't lead me to believe this was the case.

I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.

I first want to say I love you guys. I do have to clarify something here. I hope I don't hurt anyones feeling in AZ but the situation was as such that after the first match, the losing alliance saw that they did not have a chance or a very slim one at winning so they took the challenge put forth by Steve Sanghi to hopefully do something incredible. By this point, the competition directly between us was over and we were trying to accomplish what no one took up earlier. We were in a sense working together in the spirit of co-opertition to achieve this new goal. It was exciting and I would bet you won't find one person who was there say they disagreed.

[TheOtherGuy]

I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first. How did they NOT play to the best of their ability?

[XaulZan11]

I do not expect this to even be a notable (or even relevant) category among any teams with a good scouting team.

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 when things look bleak (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1363614&postcount=106).

Maybe it is because I don't do fundraising or find sponsors for my team, but I would never agree to the bet. But, as long as all 6 teams agreed and weren't peer pressured into agreeing, then I guess it is ok.

[seg9585]

For me it was fun because the score was behind me and I was on my toes to see if we have beaten the challenge. It is also fun to drive:P I also played all the matches so far with defense so it was exciting to see a change.


Okay, but I watched the video and you didn't drive that match. You sat in the corner the entire game and did not move out of that spot. Your switch operator pushed a button 4 or 5 times to flick a ball a couple feet in the air. Surely you must have been doing more driving while playing defense. Your driver may as well have been a spectator.

As an employee of one of your team's major "Titanium Sponsors", it's a little upsetting to me that the funds didn't go towards a team interested in putting forth a best-effort towards winning the game because of handshake agreements

[s_forbes]

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1363614&postcount=106).

Then I take it our actions at our local regional will lower our potential to be picked by you at championships? That is a very sad and unintended consequence. :(

[Gemmendorfer]

Okay, but I watched the video and you didn't drive that match. You sat in the corner the entire game and did not move out of that spot. Your switch operator pushed a button 4 or 5 times to flick a ball a couple feet in the air. Surely you must have been doing more driving while playing defense. Your driver may as well have been a spectator.

I think you are oversimplifying it here. If you want to use that logic, every operator just stands there and hits a couple of buttons to make the robot "flick" the ball out of the robot, whether it a couple feet or more than a couple feet. In the case of an inbounding robot for that alliance, why wouldn't it be okay to sit there and stay in position, since they were cycling pretty quickly anyways, and the few times the other alliance got the ball down the field to shoot, moving to defend would slow down the cycle time of their own alliance, and possibly not being a net benefit for the alliance anyways. Sometimes it is okay to not drive much in a match.

[TheOtherGuy]

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 when things look bleak (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1363614&postcount=106).

See my last post:
The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first.

[Joshua Sicz]

Okay, but I watched the video and you didn't drive that match. You sat in the corner the entire game and did not move out of that spot. Your switch operator pushed a button 4 or 5 times to flick a ball a couple feet in the air. Surely you must have been doing more driving while playing defense. Your driver may as well have been a spectator.

As an employee of one of your team's major "Titanium Sponsors", it's a little upsetting to me that the funds didn't go towards a team interested in putting forth a best-effort towards winning the game because of handshake agreements

I agree with you about us driving but there is one thing different. I was driver and I also controlled the flicking of the robot. We only had one driver controlling the whole robot. Our other driver reads stats and condition control for the main driver. But I disagree with you about your money went into. We really do appreciate it. It did go to a good place. Like other people were saying, people were up and standing for the match. It was still intense for me. And for effort we but our best effort into. I can say that for all of the teams on both alliances. We gave it our best effort to score the most points. It is also our best interest in winning the game. It is everyone interest. I can also say we couldn't have done it without you. This year wasn't easy for us, we used all of the help we could. I thank you.

[XaulZan11]

Then I take it our actions at our local regional will lower our potential to be picked by you at championships? That is a very sad and unintended consequence. :(

It would take a whole lot more for 842 (and many of the other Arizona teams) not make our pick list. ;)

I hope my previous post didn't come off that we just care about winning and won't pick teams who don't share the same views. While I personally wouldn't have agreed to the bet, I can't fault a team for doing what is in their best interest at the time.

[iVanDuzer]

There's an underlying tone to the posters where someone says that the two alliances decided to be "GP" and play "in the spirit of coopertition." I'm sure this is not the intention, but the overall effect of these statements makes it seem as though any strategies that are NOT run-and-gun-offence-no-defence are by extension un-GP and not in the spirit of coopertition. And that's not cool for me. I've been taught from day one that coopertition is competing like crazy on the field, while helping each other off of it. It's giving your all and then shaking hands and mending bots after. It doesn't exclude defence. Furthermore, implying that playing defence is "un-GP" is wrong as well. As long as you aren't actively trying to tear robots apart, nothing your robots do on the field has any reflection on GP. Clean D is professional - I see it all the time in the NHL.

Speaking of the NHL, I don't think the original players ever thought the game would evolve strategies like the NJ Devils' famous "trap" defence that won them a bunch of Stanley Cups or the Left Wing Lock that made the Soviets a powerhouse. We are given the game, but the game is defined by how we play it. Last year the game changed drastically depending on what robots were on the field: you had cyclers and climbers and dumpers and full-court-bombers. It was a different game every match. And that was cool. Every (cleanly executed) strategy was just as much in the spirit of coopertition as the next. No one was "superior" to others, and nobody implied that the "proper" way to play the game as FIRST intended it was for every robot to climb the pyramid, or to have three cyclers, or whatever. They were just simply different ways to play the game.

Maybe I'm being too worked up over nothing. Maybe I'm being pedantic. Maybe I'm just way too tired. Or maybe everyone needs to take a deep breath and really consider what we write about each other and ourselves. Worry about the implications. This thread is a great example of what happens when we don't.

[cadandcookies]

There are multiple ways to play any game. I have to commend both alliances for playing it in a way few have dared to.

Seriously, I'd rather see a match like this one, everyone playing at the top of their game, than watching the latest Michigan or Ontario slugfest.

Good luck to the winning alliance-- I'm confident some of you will be in a position to pick the naysayers in this thread.

[Michael Corsetto]

Really glad the teams at the Arizona Regional, especially the teams in the finals, enjoyed this match. Lots of teams on the field with rich FIRST histories.

However, this Finals Match 2 is not Aerial Assist. It has a huge stipulation intertwined into the game. It is unfair to compare the results of this match to other matches where teams participated in "untainted" Aerial Assist.

On the other hand, you could argue that every regional and district event is different regardless. But every other Finals Match 2 that I've seen has played by the same rules, no strings attached.

Carry on down in Arizona! It sounds like you guys put a different twist on FIRST, which is refreshing to see! Just think twice before boasting about an artificially inflated score, might rub some people the wrong way :rolleyes:

-Mike

[nixiebunny]

The curious thing about this match is that it featured the best robots in the regional, playing with no defense at all, and they still were not able to achieve the 200-200 minimum score for Steve Sanghi's $500 challenge.

[DampRobot]

We play to win every single match. Even if were bound to win, we don't hold back. Even if there's no way to beat the other team, we still play all out.

Why? There are so many reasons not to. Robots can get broken in hard play. Feelings can be hurt by hard defense. And sometimes, losing a match makes the tournament just a little bit easier to win due to the ranking system.

But we don't. Competing as hard as we possibly can shows our competitors that we respect them. Whether we are "supposed to" crush them, or be crushed by them, we still give it our all. If we didn't, we'd be saying that they weren't even worth trying to beat.

Perhaps you have a different idea of competition, or perhaps money is much more important to you than it is to us. I can't be in your shoes, and to be perfectly honest, I don't know your team or regional. But this is the passion we bring to the field, and we expect the same passion from everyone we compete with and against. Because if teams didn't bring it to the field, what would winning really mean?

[MrForbes]

We play to win every single match. Even if were bound to win, we don't hold back. Even if there's no way to beat the other team, we still play all out.

Do you seriously think either alliance was not trying their hardest to win? Why do you think the score was so high?

Notice that the blue alliance did BETTER with the no defense strategy. Not only did we score a lot more points, we closed the gap a little bit.

We put everything we had into it....we didn't have enough. Exactly the same effort that we put into the first finals match. Everything.

[Cory]

Not sure how this match was exciting/inspiring/etc.

That is the most boring finals match I can think of since 2009...and at least then there was some drama of when a team would get pinned and get their trailer loaded up.

I've seen practice matches that were a lot more exciting.

[TheOtherGuy]

Not sure how this match was exciting/inspiring/etc.

That is the most boring finals match I can think of since 2009...and at least then there was some drama of when a team would get pinned and get their trailer loaded up.

I've seen practice matches that were a lot more exciting.

Understandable. (http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/254#2014onwa)

One of our new students pointed out that he was really confused when another student was so excited about old match videos that were clearly boring. His perception changed dramatically over the weekend, of course.

I suppose you just have to have been there.

Congratulations on the win, by the way!

[Duncan Macdonald]

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first. How did they NOT play to the best of their ability?

Like many things in FIRST the process is important. I have no problem with an alliance that decides their best chance at winning is pure offence. I don't agree with the practice of making arrangements with opponents to achieve a secondary objective. The scores were much higher but the change in point differential between matches was 3.

You are allowed to disagree but the success of Cory's team is no reason to dismiss his opinion.

[Tottanka]

Do you seriously think either alliance was not trying their hardest to win? Why do you think the score was so high?

Notice that the blue alliance did BETTER with the no defense strategy. Not only did we score a lot more points, we closed the gap a little bit.

We put everything we had into it....we didn't have enough. Exactly the same effort that we put into the first finals match. Everything.

i wouldn't call 2 bots sitting doing nothing at least half of the match as "Everything", but that's just my opinion apparently.
On a side note, i am completely not OK with what went down. It's not to the spirit of FIRST. (again, my opinion)

[BHS_STopping]

Are these Forbes folks going to have to force out another team update? :rolleyes:

[MrForbes]

I was thinking about writing up a detailed story about what "went down"...but my guess is I'd be wasting my time.

The gist of it is, that it was never about the money. The money was a catalyst for a paradigm shift, and that paradigm shift allowed us to get almost twice as many points in our last finals match, compared to our first finals match. Yes, by having two robots sitting still. There is more than one way to play a game to win.

If that bothers you, I'm sorry. It didn't seem to bother the teams involved, nor the thousands of people watching it unfold before them.

[Tom Line]

I was thinking about writing up a detailed story about what "went down"...but my guess is I'd be wasting my time.

The gist of it is, that it was never about the money. The money was a catalyst for a paradigm shift, and that paradigm shift allowed us to get almost twice as many points in our last finals match, compared to our first finals match. Yes, by having two robots sitting still. There is more than one way to play a game to win.

If that bothers you, I'm sorry. It didn't seem to bother the teams involved, nor the thousands of people watching it unfold before them.

Frankly I think you captured what the GDC had originally believed this game would be - less defense and more offense. It makes those 50 point penalties a little more palatable when you're scoring 300 points.

It certainly isn't the first time that the GDC has been a little surprised in what we've done to a game (re: minibot speed in 2011).

[Jared Russell]

As long as everyone involved consented to this plan, I don't see what the problem is.

Congrats to the winning alliance! I would expect to see slightly more defense played at the World Championship, though :)

[MrForbes]

I would expect to see slightly more defense played at the World Championship, though :)

Remember, every team agreed to not play defense in that one finals match. You can expect the Falcons, CocoNuts, and Plasma to do their best in every match they play. We know they always have, and always will.

We asked all teams if they would be willing to not play defense in our first (and only the first) QF match, but one team dissented, so we played "normal". Those were three very rough matches!

If nothing else, at least a few people might be looking a the game a little differently today, than they were last week. I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or not.

[Conor Ryan]

As long as everyone involved consented to this plan, I don't see what the problem is.

Congrats to the winning alliance! I would expect to see slightly more defense played at the World Championship, though :)

Remember, every team agreed to not play defense in that one finals match. You can expect the Falcons, CocoNuts, and Plasma to do their best in every match they play. We know they always have, and always will.

We asked all teams if they would be willing to not play defense in our first (and only the first) QF match, but one team dissented, so we played "normal". Those were three very rough matches!

If nothing else, at least a few people might be looking a the game a little differently today, than they were last week. I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or not.

I would have asked for some sort of approval from HQ prior to this, team consent is one thing, but my worry is the McDonald's French Fry effect - keeping every event the same.


Edit: Overall, I like the idea - I just want to make sure it was executed correctly with the appropriate parties involved.

[Nirvash]

I would have asked for some sort of approval from HQ prior to this, team consent is one thing, but my worry is the McDonald's French Fry effect - keeping every event the same.

Where can I get HQ's phone number so I can ask them about every strategy?

[Chris is me]

I don't see much wrong with six teams choosing not to play defense for one match. It's their match, their regional, they can do whatever they want. They are still clearly trying to win the match, and that's what matters "ethically".

What this match proved to me is that this game just isn't exciting. When there is no defense, four robots are literally standing around doing nothing. At other events, these teams play defense, which makes the offensive play look worse and grittier with a few notable exceptions. Perhaps excluding matches where the best teams in the world are both playing offense and some defense, this game isn't going to be very interesting to watch in most cases.

[Jay O'Donnell]

I would have asked for some sort of approval from HQ prior to this, team consent is one thing, but my worry is the McDonald's French Fry effect - keeping every event the same.

While I disagree with the no defense match personally, I don't think this would be necessary. There is no rule against playing no defense. They made that choice and really there's nothing FIRST could have done to stop them. There is no "right way" to play this game, you make the game what you want. And while I personally don't like it, I have to respect the fact that all six teams invved wanted to play this way.

[N7UJJ]

Thinking outside of the box.
Challenging the status quo.
Unique perspective.

That is the history of 842. That may be why they receive so much attention in and outside of the FIRST community.

The Coconuts, 2486, have yet to be awarded the championship Chairman's award, but they sure have a most impressive regional Chairman trophies.

All but one team at the Arizona regional were Arizona teams. Many have a long history of working together... Kinda one big 50 member family.

As a result, it is not too surprising to see something unique, innovative and controversial arise when these teams strategize.

What they did was legal, ethical in the judgement of the six participating teams and very entertaining to the audience, including officials from Go Daddy and other potential supporters of FIRST.

I think it was a smart move. At least it gave us something to think about and challenge our conventional views on why we are involved in FIRST.

[falconmaster]

Thinking outside of the box.
Challenging the status quo.
Unique perspective.

That is the history of 842. That may be why they receive so much attention in and outside of the FIRST community.

The Coconuts, 2486, have yet to be awarded the championship Chairman's award, but they sure have a most impressive regional Chairman trophies.

All but one team at the Arizona regional were Arizona teams. Many have a long history of working together... Kinda one big 50 member family.

As a result, it is not too surprising to see something unique, innovative and controversial arise when these teams strategize.

What they did was legal, ethical in the judgement of the six participating teams and very entertaining to the audience, including officials from Go Daddy and other potential supporters of FIRST.

I think it was a smart move. At least it gave us something to think about and challenge our conventional views on why we are involved in FIRST.

Thank you Allan for painting the picture of what transpired in AZ so perfectly. It is amazing to see the controversy from what started as a simple post. I understand where people opposed to what we did are coming from, but what we did here in AZ seemed very natural and fluid to us. No controversy intended. It was as simple as an opportunity to try a new strategy and all involved took it. We are defending what we did because we feel ( I think I speak for all maybe on this) like we were being passed judgment on and we are simply defending our actions. This situation will most likely not show up at Championships, but it has been a very interesting "experiment" to say the least. To see how people react has been very educational.

[jspatz1]

Its been fun to follow who joins the 300+/no penalties club. If these circumstances are accurate, I would hesitate to add it to the list. Kansas City Qual. 49 and Waterloo Semi 2 were genuine competative matches, this appears to be more of a mutual exhibition. We were part of a 370/no penalties practice match in KC, but not being a genuine competative match it obviously doesn't count. You can argue the ethics of playing a match with a wink and a handshake, but as far the scoring records go, it certainly deserves an asterisk*.

[Cory]

They made that choice and really there's nothing FIRST could have done to stop them.

FIRST very well could have told an event sponsor they were not allowed to make that offer, for fear of hurting the integrity of the game (if that is their view).

[MrForbes]

That's probably a matter for the FIRST board of directors to discuss...since the fellow who made the offer is on the board.

[Tottanka]

While this is enjoyable to watch, and might be a viable strategy to win a game, i would have completely understood those claims if the 500$ bonus wasn't a part of it.
If that 500$ being a motivation for a team to chose a certain strategy over another, in my opinion not only is it wrong - but also is a dangerous, slippery slope.
Teams are supposed to chose their strategy for a given match based on scouting data and professional considerations, not on a basis of a possible award, especially if it's a financial one.

[AaronEllsworth]

As a dad of Team 2403 I have to weigh in on this conversation. Being the 3rd pick on the 1st seed alliance was simply amazing to me. We weren’t good enough to lead an alliance, nor good enough to be picked on any of the other alliances, but we did have enough skills to nicely compliment the best 2 robots in the competition. I agree that the score of this match can’t fairly be compared to the scores of other matches played with defense. I don’t understand why that is important except for bragging rights. So who out there has the highest score in a match?
But I totally disagree with the other sports comparisons and here is why: football, basketball, soccer, tennis, etc. all have ONE game piece and your opponent is really the only thing keeping you from scoring infinitely. In aerial assist, each team has a game piece, and much of the challenge of the game remains in the shooting and passing and ball handling, but most importantly both alliances can play offense AT THE SAME TIME, since they each have a ball. So this became more of a relay race. I thought it was awesome and should be encouraged, and given the point value in the rules for ball passing this seems to be more in the spirit of what the gamemakers envisioned for this game, but maybe that’s just me. The second assist is worth 20 points, which is twice as big as any other scoring event on the field.
In many of the other matches, it happened that a ‘bot was lined up to take a shot only to be bumped at just the right moment to miss the shot and then the robots have to go scrambling to pick up the loose game piece; that was heart-wrenching and difficult to watch. Basketball doesn’t allow that kind of fouling, but the rules allow it here. I personally think the game would be much better without that kind of defense.
Also, this was a fascinating match that really helps answer the question of how many points are really achievable in a 2:15 game. Could we have executed everything flawlessly and a little faster and gotten 360 points? That would be amazingly fun to try. Also, the blue alliance put 180 points on the board and everyone was cheering for them to reach 200! It was awesome!

[AaronEllsworth]

I was thinking about writing up a detailed story about what "went down"...but my guess is I'd be wasting my time.
.

I for one would LOVE to read your write-up of what "went down". I can't say that it will change anyone's mind, but this sport is much more fascinating the more you know about what really goes into each match.

[jspatz1]

In an amatuer sport or competition, if the offer of a monetary reward causes you to play any differently than you otherwise would, then that is wrong. It is that simple. Any other details of the story are just rationalizations.

[falconmaster]

In an amatuer sport or competition, if the offer of a monetary reward causes you to play any differently than you otherwise would, then that is wrong. It is that simple. Any other details of the story are just rationalizations.

We did not do it for the money, we did it for the challenge....

[Gregor]

We did not do it for the money, we did it for the challenge....

You're contradicting yourself.

both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180

Bolded for emphasis.

[jspatz1]

We did not do it for the money, we did it for the challenge....
...
In defense of Mr. Steve Sanghi no one was required to do this.... its was put out there and teams took it. Take it for what it was worth, a motivating incentive.

[Dave McLaughlin]

We did not do it for the money, we did it for the challenge....

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

[Bob Steele]

What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!... I salute you. (Quote from ???)

Well maybe not those things specifically... but I like the attitude of thinking outside the box...making the game something special for you and your event.
Let's have fun with the game and accept a challenge

I don't think it matters why it was done....
It is our game...

I do salute you

[nixiebunny]

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

We have had teams in Arizona do stuff like this in the past, just for the fun of it. So the answer is yes.

The level of friendship between the Arizona teams is astounding. I've seen some sore losers in other states, but never in my three years at the Chandler event.

[AaronEllsworth]

In an amatuer sport or competition, if the offer of a monetary reward causes you to play any differently than you otherwise would, then that is wrong. It is that simple. Any other details of the story are just rationalizations.
That is true if the offer is secret, or to limited participants, but in this case it was very publically announced at the beginning of the competition, and became part of the ground rules. Now perhaps since this regional competition is also part of a national competition, that might be a problem. That’s an issue for the people in charge.
I can’t speak for Mr. Sanghi, but I’m sure the challenge was issued to elevate the game play, and I’m sure he wasn’t intending that a no-defense strategy would be necessary to meet the challenge, and still it wasn’t met.

[falconmaster]

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

Iin AZ there is a tax credit system in place for donors. If you donate 200 if single and 400 if married ,you get the amount back dollar for dollar. For many in AZ 500 dollars is not that big an incentive. I can't speak for anyone else but we raise over 10 thousand a year in tax credits. Money is never an incentive for us to throw our morals out of the way. We were doing it for the challenge. We always try to take on the challenge Steve Sanghi puts out to us each year. Maybe he should not offer any money based on how everyone is out of sorts or maybe he should donate the money to a charity so that everyone could relax. There was no big conspiracy or underhandedness. It was just a challenge. A public challenge, everyone one in attendance knew it. He never told anyone to not play defense, that was a decision that both alliances came to on their own. Maybe it would have been better if the challenge were different like giving both alliances $500 if all balls were scored in autonomous. Thant way no one would have to give up anything. That was more along the lines of the type of challenge he has done before. Maybe that is why no one thought any different for this challenge?

[dodar]

Iin AZ there is a tax credit system in place for donors. If you donate 200 if single and 400 if married ,you get the amount back dollar for dollar. For many in AZ 500 dollars is not that big an incentive. I can't speak for anyone else but we raise over 10 thousand a year in tax credits. Money is never an incentive for us to throw our morals out of the way. We were doing it for the challenge. We always try to take on the challenge Steve Sanghi puts out to us each year. Maybe he should not offer any money based on how everyone is out of sorts or maybe he should donate the money to a charity so that everyone could relax. There was no big conspiracy or underhandedness. It was just a challenge. A public challenge, everyone one in attendance knew it. He never told anyone to not play defense, that was a decision that both alliances came to on their own. Maybe it would have been better if the challenge were different like giving both alliances $500 if all balls were scored in autonomous. Thant way no one would have to give up anything. That was more along the lines of the type of challenge he has done before. Maybe that is why no one thought any different for this challenge?

But then why wait till money was involved? Why not do it any other time? That was the only thing that changed from doing it in any other match.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

But then why wait till money was involved? Why not do it any other time? That was the only thing that changed from doing it in any other match.

The offer stood for every match in the regional including qualifying so money was technically involved throughout the whole competition. It only happened in the last match because every team agreed to try and beat the challenge as a sub goal.

[falconmaster]

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

I can't speak for the other teams, but given the history of Steve Sanghi and the AZ regional event I would say yes, but I will let them speak for themselves.

[dodar]

The offer stood for every match in the regional including qualifying so money was technically involved throughout the whole competition. It only happened in the last match because every team agreed to try and beat the challenge as a sub goal.

Oh ok, didnt know when the offer was put forth. But then the question begs, why was the monetary incentive needed to try to do that? If it would have happened without the money, then why was the money introduced? If it only would have happened with the money, then there's your answer.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Oh ok, didnt know when the offer was put forth. But then the question begs, why was the monetary incentive needed to try to do that? If it would have happened without the money, then why was the money introduced? If it only would have happened with the money, then there's your answer.

I think your going way too deep into this decision be Steve Sanghi to involve money. He wanted to promote and reward excellence and this happened to be his way of doing so. Last year was the first challenge which was to have 6 robots off the ground in a match and initially stuck a monetary reward on that so it just seemed natural to stick a monetary reward on this year's challenge.

Edit...
Btw, Steve Sanghi may be on the FIRST board of directors but he decided to set this challenge individually out of his own pocket. He technically has every right to spend his money how he sees fit.

[falconmaster]

But then why wait till money was involved? Why not do it any other time? That was the only thing that changed from doing it in any other match.

I don't know, I wasn't in the decision making process between the two alliances. But I would guess that the blue alliance figured they were going to lose anyway and wanted to take Steve up on his challenge. If it was purely for the money I would guess it would have been done earlier in the tournament. Even though there was money attached, I truly believe they all did it for the challenge, the wanted to meet Steves challenge, money be damned. The Blue alliance wanted to go out with a bang and they almost pulled it off. Actually now that I am thinking about it, all this discussion is kind of a bang....

[dodar]

I don't know, I wasn't in the decision making process between the two alliances. But I would guess that the blue alliance figured they were going to lose anyway and wanted to take Steve up on his challenge. If it was purely for the money I would guess it would have been done earlier in the tournament. Even though there was money attached, I truly believe they all did it for the challenge, the wanted to meet Steves challenge, money be damned. The Blue alliance wanted to go out with a bang and they almost pulled it off. Actually now that I am thinking about it, all this discussion is kind of a bang....

Im not limiting this to the Finals, as someone before has said, this challenge was throughout the regional.

[falconmaster]

Im not limiting this to the Finals, as someone before has said, this challenge was throughout the regional.

No one did before because the money was not an incentive, that is the only reason I can come with...The challenge only became a reality when the it was the last time available to achieve it. I guess the two alliances wanted to take a real shot at it.

[Dave McLaughlin]

I'm curious how finals match 3 would have been played if the other alliance had won during finals 2 and the challenge was still on the table...

[SciBorg Dave]

I just watch the match and then read the post. I think that was a poor lesson learned for $. I do not think the match was something to be proud of.

[Dave McLaughlin]

No one did before because the money was not an incentive, that is the only reason I can come with...The challenge only became a reality when the it was the last time available to achieve it. I guess the two alliances wanted to take a real shot at it.

Wanted to take a real shot at it, or take a real shot at a $500 consolation prize...

[dodar]

The offer stood for every match in the regional including qualifying so money was technically involved throughout the whole competition. It only happened in the last match because every team agreed to try and beat the challenge as a sub goal.

No one did before because the money was not an incentive, that is the only reason I can come with...The challenge only became a reality when the it was the last time available to achieve it. I guess the two alliances wanted to take a real shot at it.

These things dont match. Either the money was always there or it wasnt. And if the money wasnt an incentive, why did no one else do it for the other 97 matches?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

These things dont match. Either the money was always there or it wasnt. And if the money wasnt an incentive, why did no one else do it for the other 97 matches?

I believe he meant more about the robots actually being able to score 200 points on both side. If you really think about it the 2 best alliances in the final couldn't pull it off so the odds of doing it for another random match isn't really realistic.

[chris1592]

No one did before because the money was not an incentive, that is the only reason I can come with...The challenge only became a reality when the it was the last time available to achieve it. I guess the two alliances wanted to take a real shot at it.

For all you know, every team at the regional was trying to do the challenge throughout the weekend, the "legitimate" way (i.e. playing just like every other match and hoping both teams get 200 pts).

I can't speak for Steve, but it probably was not his intentions to issue a challenge where the only way to do it was for both alliances to have to amend their normal game play.

That being said, I personally wouldn't have resorted to this type of strategy to complete the challenge as in my opinion it is not genuine; to each their own I guess.

[dodar]

I believe he meant more about the robots actually being able to score 200 points on both side. If you really think about it the 2 best alliances in the final couldn't pull it off so the odds of doing it for another random match isn't really realistic.

Hindsight is 20/20 but that doesnt show why no other matches didnt try this "strategy" to get the "Highest Score/$500."

[Steven Donow]

In an amatuer sport or competition, if the offer of a monetary reward causes you to play any differently than you otherwise would, then that is wrong. It is that simple. Any other details of the story are just rationalizations.

Even though both sides agreed to it? That to me says there's no issue. Who cares if it makes these finals look "boring" or "different" than the status quo, these 6 teams all made the decision to do this. It is a rationalization, because the choices made were rational considering everyone directly effected by it agreed to it.

[AaronEllsworth]

These things dont match. Either the money was always there or it wasnt. And if the money wasnt an incentive, why did no one else do it for the other 97 matches?
The money was always there, but in the big picture it really isn't that big a prize and it took two days of matches to think out of the box and get 2 alliances willing to try it.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Hindsight is 20/20 but that doesnt show why no other matches didnt try this "strategy" to get the "Highest Score/$500."

How does it not show. If an alliance just doesn't have the scoring potential to put up those points, its not even worth bothering trying to accomplish the challenge. And as said before all teams have to agree to it. Not every team in Arizona regional would have agreed to this challenge. It just so happen that the 6 in the finals did and completing the challenge was realistic. I never even thought of an agreement of playing no defense until I heard about it near the finals.

[dodar]

The money was always there, but in the big picture it really isn't that big a prize and it took two days of matches to think out of the box and get 2 alliances willing to try it.

But everyone who did that match said it wasnt about the money...

[dodar]

How does it not show. If an alliance just doesn't have the scoring potential to put up those points, its not even worth bothering trying to accomplish the challenge. And as said before all teams have to agree to it. Not every team in Arizona regional would have agreed to this challenge. It just so happen that the 6 in the finals did and completing the challenge was realistic. I never even thought of an agreement of playing no defense until I heard about it near the finals.

Then F1-2 was all about the money for the both alliances. In their 5 previous Elimination matches the Blue Alliance averaged 165.

[BHS_STopping]

But everyone who did that match said it wasnt about the money...

There are several reasons the teams did this, but money almost certainly wasn't at the top of list.

[falconmaster]

I'm curious how finals match 3 would have been played if the other alliance had won during finals 2 and the challenge was still on the table...

That is a great question, since the offer originated from the blue alliance I would have to say that we probably would not done it because the challenge would not have been brought up, but I could be wrong maybe they would have done it anyway.

[dodar]

There are several reasons the teams did this, but money almost certainly wasn't at the top of list.

If the money was even on the list, it was wrong to play the match that way.

[falconmaster]

These things dont match. Either the money was always there or it wasnt. And if the money wasnt an incentive, why did no one else do it for the other 97 matches?

The money was always on the table, people were just not interested in it...until there was one shot left to do it

[dodar]

The first first match of the finals we offered the same pack with the other team but they rejected it. So I was able to drive defensively. Once we showed that we can beat them we offered the same pack for them.

That is a great question, since the offer originated from the blue alliance I would have to say that we probably would not done it because the challenge would not have been brought up, but I could be wrong maybe they would have done it anyway.

Your alliance member said you guys offered them the "no defense" match after you showed them they had no chance at the banner.

[dodar]

The money was always on the table, people were just not interested in it...until there was one shot left to do it

Then that means the "challenge" didnt lead to that match, the money did.

[Gregor]

The money was always on the table, people were just not interested in it...until there was one shot left to do it

I thought it wasn't about the money?

[AaronEllsworth]

But everyone who did that match said it wasnt about the money...
If it had just been a challenge with a trophy or certificate, I doubt it would have happened, but who knows? The point I was trying to make is the challenge only became a consideration when everything else was settled.
I thought you were just confused about why this strategy only happened in the final match of the competition. If the red alliance had had any worries about actually winning, I'm sure they would not have given up any options and tactics. Earlier in this thread, post #7 from Rangel(kf7fdb) from one of the players involved explains pretty well. But IMHO, red had the better defense too:cool: !

[BHS_STopping]

ITT: People wanting to be right while bringing others down. How GP.

[dodar]

If it had just been a challenge with a trophy or certificate, I doubt it would have happened, but who knows? The point I was trying to make is the challenge only became a consideration when everything else was settled.
I thought you were just confused about why this strategy only happened in the final match of the competition. If the red alliance had had any worries about actually winning, I'm sure they would not have given up any options and tactics. Earlier in this thread, post #7 from Rangel(kf7fdb) from one of the players involved explains pretty well. But IMHO, red had the better defense too:cool: !

Its both. I wouldnt agree to a strategy between alliances that would alter the flow of the game and I most certainly wouldnt do it if money was behind the want to do that strategy.

[MrForbes]

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

That seems to be the question. I think the answer is yes, but we'll probably never know.

I'll give the detailed account of what went down, so you can decide. Beware that it took me a while to think through the events and recount what happened when, and my memory is not as good as it could be, so there could be some mistakes here.

The #6 blue alliance consisted of the Bulldogs (60), N.E.R.D.S. (1726) (that's us), and the Gila Monsters (3785). We have played with and against the Bulldogs several times over the years, and I have great respect for their ability to win in tough situations, so I was happy to be picked by them. They are friends with the Gila Monsters, as well.

Arizona's regional is held in a high school, the ARENA is in the gym, the pits are in a large hallway not far away. The beginning of the queuing area is between the two. Since we were playing in QF 4, we got to wait in the beginning of the queuing area while the first match was being played. This match had the #1 alliance, the CocoNuts (2846), Falcons (842), and Plasma (2403). We know the Falcons well, and are friends with the other two as well.

I sat in the corner of the stands nearest the door, next to Martin from 842. We worked for a couple weeks on the movie La Vida Robot in New Mexico this past fall, so we know each other. I sat there because I knew we would need to move the robot soon, down the long queuing hallway and I didn't want to be all the way across the gym with my team since I had to leave in a hurry when the match was over. From our seats, we could just see the scoreboard. As the first match ended, I saw the score 260 to 68, and it occurred to me that no qualifying match had come close to meeting Mr. Sanghi's challenge: If both alliances in any match made at least 200 points, he would pay $500 of his own money towards the registration fee for next year's regional for each of the 6 teams each time they did it, up to a total of $15,000 for the weekend. I thought to myself, if there were no defense, we might be able to do it. This was the paradigm shift. Everyone plays as hard as they can to score, it's a full offensive match, and if we do well enough, we can also get a bonus. I didn't have much time to think about all the implications, but I wanted to see if our alliance would want to try to play a match without defense, to see if we could meet the challenge. The money was a small part of the lure...our team is better at fundraising than we are at spending, so we don't really need the money. The challenge was the big thing for me. But I knew the money was a good lure for the other five teams involved.

Our QF match was against Team Caution (1492), Bit Buckets (4183), and Cyborg Mustangs (2647). I first asked the coaches of our alliance members if they were interested, and they agreed after some discussion with other team members. We then asked the coaches of the other alliance. We discussed some conditions, such as no intentional fouls, and playing defense would mean the agreement was off. The offer was for the first match, only. Team Caution declined. I accepted that easily, and wished the other alliance good luck, The atmosphere was very friendly, we get along fine...and I need to mention that my brother and two of my sons mentor the Bit Buckets, although I don't think any of them were there at the time.

We played our first match, it was intense. This was also my first regional as drive coach, my first experience in eliminations "behind the glass". We lost the first match, but it was close. We adjusted our tactics and strategy, and managed to win the next match! Great...we are still in the game. We did it again, and won the quarter final against the third alliance! On to the semi finals.

In the semis, we were up against #7, who had defeated the second alliance. The BoxerBots (1828) are a tough team, the were with Out of Orbit (2449) and the Dragons (2375). All three are great teams, they fought hard but lost the first match by a fair margin. About this time, I realized that we would probably be in the finals against the first alliance, and decided to talk to Fredi and Dave and see if they were interested in playing the first match of the finals without defense. I knew that they could outscore us about two to one, and that they had plenty of defense on their side, as well. I figured we had nothing to lose, and they probably knew they had little to lose also. I also know that Fredi loves to do things differently. And I also know that they are low on funds, they had to scrape to get the money to go to Championships for the past few years.

I asked the two if they would like to play a match without defense, in the hopes of meeting the challenge. I forgot to mention the condition of not intentionally fouling, I just made a qick offer, to see if they were interested. I said I had to confirm if our alliance all wanted to do it, because I didn't know yet. Fredi and Dave both were interested, and went to talk to Plasma about it.

I went back to our alliance, and told them that I had asked the first alliance if they wanted to play no defense, and that they were interested. We went on to play our second semifinal match, which we also won. The Bulldogs said that they would not want to play no defense, as they had to win to get to championships, and they were not going to take any chances. I let the other alliance know, and we played our first finals match, struggling to get only 101 points to their 225. At the end of the match, I turned to the Bulldogs coach and said someting about defense not doing much to help us win that match. I went away for a few minutes, and when I returned, I was told that we were on for "no defense" in the next match.

The alliances made some quick decisions, we were each going to try to stick to our own right side of the field, to stay out of each others way. The match started....blue made both auto shots, Falcons missed both of theirs, Coconuts made theirs. The race was on. We were able to inbound relatively quickly with no interference, but it still took a while to get the ball to the Bulldogs, and get it over the truss. We ran our cycles as fast as we could, but we just could not keep up with the stronger alliance. Plasma was inbounding instantly to Falcons, who shot over the truss to the CocoNuts human player, who handed off to their robot and scored in the high goal. It was very impressive to watch, although it looked like an unstoppable juggernaut, from where we stood. The thing is, they were unstoppable with defense being played on them, as well. We were not handling the ball very well, and the time it took our side to get and shoot the ball really limited the amount of defense we were able to play in the first match. We did end up with 180 points to 301, not enough to meet the challenge, but a respectable score for the sixth alliance, and considerably higher than our score in the first finals match, when Plasma was playing defense on us.


We congratulated the winners, and everyone was in great spirits after the match. We lost, we didn't meet the challenge, but we finally got to play a really exciting, high scoring match against the best alliance there.

[dodar]

ITT: People wanting to be right while bringing others down. How GP.

Yes, wanting to keep the spirit of FIRST, how un-GP.

[falconmaster]

I just watch the match and then read the post. I think that was a poor lesson learned for $. I do not think the match was something to be proud of.

On the contrary this has been an extremely useful lesson learned and an incredible experience and I bet there are many people reading who are not posting who are pondering what they would do. I am defending my team's decision and trying to clarify why both alliances did what they did because I think it was incredibly bold to do this knowing how they could get criticized in the FIRST community. Obviously this is a very polarizing issue. It is interesting to see how people pass judgement on others. We are truly a social species. We were proud of the match for what is was trying to achieve, no regrets. I stand by my team's and both the alliances decision. No one was hurt, no one was cheated, all parties and the audience were in agreement. For that time and that place it was the thing to do. It probably will not happen at the championships, but I think its great that this happened here in AZ to have this dialog before Championships. I will point out however that at the finals last year in the last matches, it became who could outscore each other game with little or no defense on any robot, especially 610 who had free reign of the field. They basically did what we did without the prearrangement. Yes there was no money involved in their game, but we, unfortunately, can't run away from that no matter how much we say the challenge was not taken up for the money. It was always there the whole tournament and no one went for it. It really was the challenge.

[BHS_STopping]

Yes, wanting to keep the spirit of FIRST, how un-GP.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. All of the teams came together and made this decision themselves. How is that not in the spirit of FIRST? Are you really so bent on trying to bring down last year's International WFA winner and his team? It really seems like you just want so badly for them to admit that they're wrong. What's your goal here?

[dodar]

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. All of the teams came together and made this decision themselves. How is that not in the spirit of FIRST? Are you really so bent on trying to bring down last year's National WFA winner and his team? It really seems like you just want so badly for them to admit that they're wrong. What's your goal here?

If through all these posts you cannot realize how having money alter the play of even 1 match, even if that match is almost surely decided, then I cant further explain anything.

[Abhishek R]

I don't think the issue being debated is really the fact that all 6 teams agreed on it; that part seems fine to me.

The issue as from what I'm reading is why all 6 teams agreed to what they did.

[BHS_STopping]

If through all these posts you cannot realize how having money alter the play of even 1 match, even if that match is almost surely decided, then I cant further explain anything.

If I offer you a nice trophy for doing community service on a robotics team, does that seem like a disingenuous incentive?

[Dave McLaughlin]

That is a great question, since the offer originated from the blue alliance I would have to say that we probably would not done it because the challenge would not have been brought up, but I could be wrong maybe they would have done it anyway.

The point I am trying to make is that if this was the case the outcome of a match would have been altered by opposing alliances agreeing to a subset of rules different from those administered throughout the course of the competition which could reasonably be construed as collusion. If the blue alliance offered to attempt the challenge because they thought that they had no chance to win based on the outcome of the first finals match then they in essence valued the opportunity to complete this challenge more than the opportunity to win the regional. Money aside, the goal while competing should always be to win the match. The integrity of the competition hinges upon it.

If the money was not on the table, why would a team ever consider this challenge to be more important than employing any and every strategy necessary to attempt to win the event, EVEN after losing the first finals match.

[BHS_STopping]

[deleted]

I'm just saying that you can't always cry foul when a material incentive exists. There are teams who perform actions (that they normally wouldn't have) for the sake of winning an award or getting a blue banner, so what makes this situation different?

[dodar]

I'm just saying that you can't always cry foul when a material incentive exists. There are teams who perform actions (that they normally wouldn't have) for the sake of winning an award or getting a blue banner, so what makes this situation different?

Was the point of teams competing at the Arizona Regional to win the Blue Banner or to just win the $500? That's the difference.

[bduddy]

If I offer you a nice trophy for doing community service on a robotics team, does that seem like a disingenuous incentive?Do you really not understand the difference between community service and affecting the play of a match?

Let me suggest something here. Has anyone considered the effect of 2 or even 1 robot on an alliance saying "we want to go for that!" and the effect that might have on the 3rd robot? What if they wanted to play defense?

If I were part of FIRST or the local regional planning committee, I would strongly advise Mr. Sanghi not to pull something like that ever again.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Was the point of teams competing at the Arizona Regional to win the Blue Banner or to just win the $500? That's the difference.

Most importantly it seems to me after reading this that the teams goals changed from winning the blue banner to completing the challenge once they felt they had no chance to win the event. The introduction of a goal that became more important than winning the match for those teams competing demonstrates the inherent problem with incentives other than winning the match.

[dodar]

Most importantly it seems to me after reading this that the teams goals changed from winning the blue banner to completing the challenge once they felt they had no chance to win the event. The introduction of a goal that became more important than winning the match for those teams competing demonstrates the inherent problem with incentives other than winning the match.

Exactly, instead of seeing the F1-1 score and looking towards how to beat them the next match, they moved their attention to just going for that 200pt barrier.

[MrForbes]

If the money was not on the table, why would a team ever consider this challenge to be more important than employing any and every strategy necessary to attempt to win the event, EVEN after losing the first finals match.

The interesting thing is that there was a higher monetary incentive to win the regional. If you go back thru the thread, you might find a post by a member of team 1492, with a link to the video of the offer. Something like $1000 payment towards registration for Champs for the teams on the winning alliance. I don't really remember.

If you read my post at the top of this page, you'll see that we decided that the no defense strategy was indeed a more viable strategy to win the match, than playing defense.

The monetary offer is what sparked the idea to not play defense. It is not what really made us do it, as far as I can tell.

[BHS_STopping]

Was the point of teams competing at the Arizona Regional to win the Blue Banner or to just win the $500? That's the difference.

I don't see any shame in the blue alliance admitting that they had a very slim chance to win, nor do I see any shame with giving thousands of spectators something different to cheer for in a final match. At that point, the crowd wasn't interested in who won or who lost; it was about seeing if Arizona teams, which people have been so fast to discount over the years, were capable of meeting such a difficult challenge. I guarantee that the crowd would have erupted had the blue alliance been able to score just 20 more points during the last match of the entire regional competition. We wouldn't have been cheering because we just watched 6 teams each win $500 towards next year's registration -- we would have been cheering because we, the FIRST community of Arizona, were given a challenge and met it.

I bet you, with a high degree of certainty, that if Steve Sanghi had presented the challenge without the monetary contribution, we would have seen the exact same thing happen.

[dodar]

The interesting thing is that there was a higher monetary incentive to win the regional. If you go back thru the thread, you might find a post by a member of team 1492, with a link to the video of the offer. Something like $1000 payment towards registration for Champs for the teams on the winning alliance. I don't really remember.

If you read my post at the top of this page, you'll see that we decided that the no defense strategy was indeed a more viable strategy to win the match, than playing defense.

The monetary offer is what sparked the idea to not play defense. It is not what really made us do it, as far as I can tell.

So you guys went, "Hmmmm if we lost by 100+ by having 1 defender, maybe we can win with 0 defenders."

I dont see the logic. Also, I dont see how you cant see if the money brought you to any type of strategy, how that is bad.

[RoboAlum]

. We in AZ did want we felt was in our best interest and none of us have a problem with it. Is there any AZ person posting here with your POV? ..

No I agree with everyone else on this thread the actions that were taken in that finals match were way out of line why have it be a finals match but play it like a practice match. I am a new mentor on an AZ team that was competing last weekend FRC team 4841. The day that sponsor gave out that challenge I knew unless something like this situation took place where no one played def that challenge wouldn't be met. I am honestly saddened to see a HOF team act in that manner. I know the team that made me who I am today which is FRC 71 would never act like that, in fact we played every match to the fullest and knew if we lost we gave it our all. If thats the way Arizona Robotics is gonna be ran then I am not someone who wants to be apart of it

[jspatz1]

The offer stood for every match in the regional including qualifying so money was technically involved throughout the whole competition.

Wow. This is a shocking situation. In FRC, in a year in which the game is highly defensive in nature, a sponsor of a specific regional is offering a cash reward to teams at that specific regional if they can stage high scoring matches.

If someone had told me this story as hearsay, I would have told them they must be wrong. That kind of thing does not happen in FIRST. But evidently from these first hand accounts it is true. Never have I heard of sponsors or anyone else offering money to teams who can manage a certain outcome to matches. That is the worst idea and the slipperiest slope I have ever heard of.

Even if the sponsor's intent wasn't to pump up the scores and records at their regional, how could they not anticipate that there would be any other appearance? Is this where FIRST is going? Cash prizes for scoring performances? Some regionals with monetary prizes and some regionals without? I cannot believe that FIRST agrees with or condones this situation.

There are more considerations and more teams/people affected by this than just those involved in this match. The integrity of the results of the regional, the integrity of scoring records, statistics, and OPRs in all of FRC, and the integrity of FIRST competitions in general are affected. FIRST is an amatuer sport driven by GP, learning, and competitive spirit. Nothing good can come from making it a competition for money.

[dodar]

I bet you, with a high degree of certainty, that if Steve Sanghi had presented the challenge without the monetary contribution, we would have seen the exact same thing happen.

So you are saying that if the $500 towards next year's registration wasnt offered, the blue alliance would have just gone along with the "no defense" agreement for(pardon the language) "shits and giggles?" Mind you, at risk of losing the regional.

[AdamHeard]

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. All of the teams came together and made this decision themselves. How is that not in the spirit of FIRST? Are you really so bent on trying to bring down last year's National WFA winner and his team? It really seems like you just want so badly for them to admit that they're wrong. What's your goal here?

It doesn't really help that 842 started this thread (and another) that was essentially just bragging about them winning. Not the most gracious way to celebrate a win.

[BHS_STopping]

So you are saying that if the $500 towards next year's registration wasnt offered, the blue alliance would have just gone along with the "no defense" agreement for(pardon the language) "shits and giggles?"

If the challenge was in place, then abso-freaking-lutely.

[RoboAlum]

It doesn't really help that 842 started this thread (and another) that was essentially just bragging about them winning. Not the most gracious way to celebrate a win.

I completely agree

[dodar]

If the challenge was in place, then abso-freaking-lutely.

Then Im sorry but they are in the wrong competition to just blindly give up a chance at going to the World Championships to try and reach a goal that no one really cares about for no gain whatsoever.

[falconmaster]

Falcons missed both of theirs,

Sorry Jim we made both of ours, but a great recounting. Srka Johnson and drive team had final say on strategy I gave my ok.

[BHS_STopping]

Then Im sorry but they are in the wrong competition to just blindly give up a chance at going to the World Championships to try and reach a goal that no one really cares about for no gain whatsoever.

So be it.

[Maxwell777]

There are several reasons the teams did this, but money almost certainly wasn't at the top of list.

Exactly. What people are overlooking here is that $500 isn't that much. For our team, that's a single tax credit. Nobody is upset we didn't get the $500, but we're happy that we got to have a good final match*.

*"Good final match" is subject to the viewer's opinion

[TheOtherGuy]

Most importantly it seems to me after reading this that the teams goals changed from winning the blue banner to completing the challenge once they felt they had no chance to win the event. The introduction of a goal that became more important than winning the match for those teams competing demonstrates the inherent problem with incentives other than winning the match.

Exactly, instead of seeing the F1-1 score and looking towards how to beat them the next match, they moved their attention to just going for that 200pt barrier.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but:
The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first.

C'mon, it was a fun challenge that no one had attempted. The $500 was just a deduction from the team's entrance fee next year (and they didn't even get it).

[dodar]

Exactly. What people are overlooking here is that $500 isn't that much. For our team, that's a single tax credit. Nobody is upset we didn't get the $500, but we're happy that we got to have a good final match*.

*"Good final match" is subject to the viewer's opinion

The amount isnt the problem.

[dodar]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but:


C'mon, it was a fun challenge that no one had attempted. The $500 was just a deduction from the team's entrance fee next year (and they didn't even get it).

MOV F1-1: 124
MOV F1-2: 121

In terms of this years' game, that 3 point difference is negligible. They did the same; no defense didnt help them.

[TheOtherGuy]

In terms of this years' game, that 3 point difference is negligible. They did the same; no defense didnt help them.

That's one metric. Blue scored 44.9% of red's score in the first finals match, and 59.8% in the second. They also scored 78% more points.

[falconmaster]

No I agree with everyone else on this thread the actions that were taken in that finals match were way out of line why have it be a finals match but play it like a practice match. I am a new mentor on an AZ team that was competing last weekend FRC team 4841. The day that sponsor gave out that challenge I knew unless something like this situation took place where no one played def that challenge wouldn't be met. I am honestly saddened to see a HOF team act in that manner. I know the team that made me who I am today which is FRC 71 would never act like that, in fact we played every match to the fullest and knew if we lost we gave it our all. If thats the way Arizona Robotics is gonna be ran then I am not someone who wants to be apart of it
No body is perfect not even a HOF team. We were trying to meet a challenge put up by our event sponsor because all parties were interested. I wish the money was not involved but alas we can't get away from that. It was not our motivation. Sorry to disappoint all. I guess there is someone in AZ who does not accept what we did. We did it and we thought it was a worthy challenge and we stand by it, accept it or not.

[RoboAlum]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but:


C'mon, it was a fun challenge that no one had attempted. The $500 was just a deduction from the team's entrance fee next year (and they didn't even get it).

No I am upset about how teams payed major money for that regional and for you guys to just treat the finals like its an opportunity to make money and then say well 500 isnt alot of money to some teams like ours that is major money. If youre not going to give it your all and try to win the regional then don't participate in eliminations there are tons of teams who would of loved to have your spot and would of played a tough match to try to get that win.

[Nirvash]

The amount isnt the problem.

The fact the people are making such a big deal over how two teams decided to play the game and had fun doing it, is the problem.

They didn't play the game how you would if liked, deal with it. Unless you have asked the GDC on how they'd like to see the game played, don't say it isn't in the spirit of things.

The monetary reward obviously wasn't the goal of that match, it was seeing if they could complete the challenge. If you want to complain that the reward influenced them, then you better get rid or all the awards FRC has other then winning a regional.

[MrForbes]

If youre not going to give it your all and try to win the regional

Who didn't give it their all to win? We did BETTER in the second finals match, than in the first.

What better strategy was there to win the second match? Play pure defense and not score at all? We had one good defensive robot on our alliance, they had two. What else could we do? I don't get it.

[RoboAlum]

No body is perfect not even a HOF team.

Its not the idea of being perfect a HOF team is suppose to set an example for those younger teams.

[dodar]

The fact the people are making such a big deal over how two teams decided to play the game and had fun doing it, is the problem.

They didn't play the game how you would if liked, deal with it. Unless you have asked the GDC on how they'd like to see the game played, don't say it isn't in the spirit of things.

The monetary reward obviously wasn't the goal of that match, it was seeing if they could complete the challenge. If you want to complain that the reward influenced them, then you better get rid or all the awards FRC has other then winning a regional.

So the AZR Final was only played by 2 teams? And we dont have to ask them, thats what the manual is for; they wouldnt have made the manual nor the updates if they wanted you to ask them how to play the game. And conspiring with your opponents to alter the flow of the game isnt in the spirit of FIRST. The rest of your post I have already posted on.

[Tottanka]

The fact the people are making such a big deal over how two teams decided to play the game and had fun doing it, is the problem.

They didn't play the game how you would if liked, deal with it. Unless you have asked the GDC on how they'd like to see the game played, don't say it isn't in the spirit of things.

The monetary reward obviously wasn't the goal of that match, it was seeing if they could complete the challenge. If you want to complain that the reward influenced them, then you better get rid or all the awards FRC has other then winning a regional.

My problem here, is that i feel that instead of giving all they got to win the game, the teams decided to give all they got to pass the challenge. The 2 things don't line up, and contradict each other.
As a FIRSTer, i want teams giving all they got to win 100% of the time. Seems like here it didnt happen.

[RoboAlum]

Who didn't give it their all to win? We did BETTER in the second finals match, than in the first.



Are you kidding me please dont tell me you just said that. You're obviously going to do better when there is no one playing def on you.

[cgmv123]

"Good final match" is subject to the viewer's opinion

There are ways to quantity and objectify the quality of a match/game.

Late, back and forth lead charges, upset potential, buzzer beaters/last second scores, and overall game significance all contribute to the quality of a game and all can be assessed in an objective manner.

[falconmaster]

I completely agree

Sorry, I was just happy about making over 300 points, Guess I should have curbed my enthusiasm. I had no idea this would all happen. I would have jumped on the other thread if I wanted to get into all this. It has been very educational though. I am always willing to learn. I am looking at the bright side.

[Maxwell777]

Are you kidding me please dont tell me you just said that. You're obviously going to do better when there is no one playing def on you.

The score ratio between the two alliances was higher for blue in the 2nd match. So yes, the Blue alliance did better. They improved much more than we did.

[dodar]

The score ratio between the two alliances was higher for blue in the 2nd match. So yes, the Blue alliance did better. They improved much more than we did.

They improved the MOV by 3 points.

[falconmaster]

Its not the idea of being perfect a HOF team is suppose to set an example for those younger teams.

You are right

[MrForbes]

Are you kidding me please dont tell me you just said that. You're obviously going to do better when there is no one playing def on you.

Exactly, and we found a way to keep them from playing defense on us.

What would your approach be, other than how we played the first match? That didn't work out so well. I'd really like to know how to win a match like that.

[bduddy]

Exactly, and we found a way to keep them from playing defense on us.

What would your approach be, other than how we played the first match? That didn't work out so well. I'd really like to know how to win a match like that.Did you really just imply that you agreed to this "challenge" in the hope that you would have a better chance of winning without defense? Please tell me that's not what you meant. That's even worse than the idea that your alliance had given up.

[Maxwell777]

Its not the idea of being perfect a HOF team is suppose to set an example for those younger teams.

Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.

[Grim Tuesday]

My issue with this challenge is that it gave teams two competing goals: One to try and win the regional and the other to get more money for next year.

There is no way anyone can argue that not playing defense will increase the chance of an alliance winning. Given the sheer amount of downtime in this game, there is almost always some defense to be played to lower the opponent's score.

As a result, encouraging a team not to play defense for a cash reward directly pits "winning the match" with "helping our program for next year". These two goals should not be opposing.

All the teams in this match that we have heard from on Chief Delphi are very insistent that this decision was completely voluntary, to play as they decided to. I won't second guess their decisions; I respect the choices they made. But if I were in their shoes, I would not like to be forced to choose between trying my best to win the match and $500.

If I were given this challenge, I would vehemently oppose playing any way but the way that gave me the best chance to win. I would hate giving up the chance for $500 and I'm sure I'd take some heat from fundraisers on my team as well as potentially less financially fortunate members of my alliance.

With Gracious Professionalism, fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions. Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process. They avoid treating anyone like losers. No chest thumping tough talk, but no sticky-sweet platitudes either. Knowledge, competition, and empathy are comfortably blended.

The challenge given is an interesting twist on the 'official' GP definition. On one hand, it can be argued that 'fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions'. On the other hand, I wonder if not playing the match to the full potential might fall under not 'competing like crazy'.

Coopertition® produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.

Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from Mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can.

The same conundrum is produced from the definition of coopertition. You assist others in fundraising for the next season but at the same time, you reduce the level of 'competing always'. Similarly, you are still competing but you have re-written the game.

There is also the issue of a slippery slope with challenges like this. What if the challenge was $500 if one alliance could hold the other to 0 points in teleop? Would it be OK to simply not try to score in the finals in an attempt to raise $1000 in two final matches?

Why is this different from 6v0 of 2010? In Breakaway, 6v0 was created by The Tournament, definitely part of the manual, and the game. It created a conflict between winning a match and winning a regional. Unlike this challenge however, it did not create a conflict between winning the regional and fundraising. It did not give a competitive advantage to better funded teams who needed the money less. It did indeed put teams in a tough situation where there is a decision teams have to make that they should not be forced to.

[Dave McLaughlin]

They didn't play the game how you would if liked, deal with it. Unless you have asked the GDC on how they'd like to see the game played, don't say it isn't in the spirit of things.

Do you honestly think that if I asked in the official Q&A if providing challenges with monetary rewards to teams that have the potential to alter match play is legal they would say yes?

[dodar]

Exactly, and we found a way to keep them from playing defense on us.

What would your approach be, other than how we played the first match? That didn't work out so well. I'd really like to know how to win a match like that.

Dont let them get to the inbound position, dont let them truss, dont let them shoot. You guys barely even touched them.

[TheOtherGuy]

They improved the MOV by 3 points.

Read my last post, and his post.

::deadhorse::

[RoboAlum]

. I'd really like to know how to win a match like that.

Well you obviously know red would win the Autonomous period but you could of still had 60 and Gila monsters play def on 842. You guys had a good bot and could of ran the field with doing truss shots and high goal shots and 1 assist. Yes your alliance wasn't a powerhouse but there is always a chance as long as you try.

[Tottanka]

Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.

That is an arrogant statement.
And there are times for fun, and times for doing your best. Regional finals - is times for doing your best (which is usually more fun than anything else, by the way).
To me, losing while doing your best, is better than winning this challange.

[dodar]

Read my last post, and his post.

::deadhorse::

Its not beating a dead horse if that is gonna keep being his response to "they did better." I can guarantee you that if they had played more/better defense the MOV would have been reduced by a lot more than 3.

[bduddy]

Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.That's one of the worst examples you could possibly set. Lose the first match? Just give up!

[TheOtherGuy]

Its not beating a dead horse if that is gonna keep being his response to "they did better." I can guarantee you that if they had played more/better defense the MOV would have been reduced by a lot more than 3.

It is beating a dead horse. We're choosing different metrics on how the blue alliance performed. Either is valid, this argument is going nowhere. Ergo, dead horse.

[Abhishek R]

Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.

I'm hearing that you can't have fun by trying to win the match because you lost the first one. Teams have several times taken sets to three and sometimes even advanced from there.

[dodar]

It is beating a dead horse. We're choosing different metrics on how the blue alliance performed. Either is valid, this argument is going nowhere. Ergo, dead horse.

If you think we are using different metrics then you are basing your metrics of "winning" off of the $500 challenge instead of actually winning the match.

[Maxwell777]

That is an arrogant statement.
And there are times for fun, and times for doing your best. Regional finals - is times for doing your best (which is usually more fun than anything else, by the way).
To me, losing while doing your best, is better than winning this challange.

I cannot find his post, but I believe that earlier the driver from team 60 (Blue), said that the last match was the best match that he had played that day. We all tried our best, the only difference was that we tried our best to break 200 on both sides.

Subnote: I had a feeling that it would come off as arrogant. My apologies, but I still think that we had the advantage.

[TheOtherGuy]

If you think we are using different metrics then you are basing your metrics of "winning" off of the $500 challenge instead of actually winning the match.

No. You are using margin of victory. I am using the ratio between scores. Different metrics.

[Maxwell777]

I'm hearing that you can't have fun by trying to win the match because you lost the first one. Teams have several times taken sets to three and sometimes even advanced from there.

As I said earlier:

I cannot find his post, but I believe that earlier the driver from team 60 (Blue), said that the last match was the best match that he had played that day.

[RyanB]

I feel like this thread is a good place to express my opinion on the competition aspect of FIRST. Let’s begin with the purpose of FIRST and how it applies to these competitions. Nowhere in the FIRST mission statement or vision statement does the word competition appear, with this said I do realize that the competition aspect is a big part of what got me personally enthralled with FIRST alongside being able to do hands on design work as a high school student. Competitions provide many learning opportunities for students such as time management, problem solving skills and an introduction to statistical analysis and how it applies to strategy implementation. All of these skills and more are extremely valuable to companies and increase the employability of students that have been exposed to these through FIRST. I can’t speak for FIRST but in my opinion I think too much emphasis is being placed on winning competitions. When I see the integrity of a HOF team being questioned for strategic implementation completely within the rules set forth by FIRST, it makes me uneasy about the direction we are headed in. I understand the urge to win and who is involved (students, sponsors, parents, schools), but I also believe that students are being engaged and inspired regardless of the amount of banners they receive.
I wasn’t at the regional, I don’t know exactly what happened but we are getting a pretty good depiction from both sides on the decision process and what those decision led too. It seams both alliances wanted to win and decided to do what they thought would win them the competition and the challenge set forth by a sponsor. With regard to defense itself, there is nowhere in the manual that sais defense must be played. Defense is a strategy that many teams employ and has been deemed by many to be a big part of the game, that doesn’t mean it has to be.
These are expressly my opinions and I do recognize other viewpoints made on this thread as valid concerns, and as such I though it important to also express my opinions on the matter.

[Nirvash]

Do you honestly think that if I asked in the official Q&A if providing challenges with monetary rewards to teams that have the potential to alter match play is legal they would say yes?

I think the better question would be if an alliance is allowed to discuss strategies with an opposing alliance that may alter match play.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Okay I am hearing a lot of opinions and statements that do not really reflect the teams in questions but individuals. Right now most of the teams and their members are feeling attacked and judged and emotions are starting to run statements. Everyone just needs to take a breather and take the events of the finals for what they were. You've heard plenty of different perspectives and accounts of what happened and it is what it is. Never did I or any teams involved think of how controversal this would be when the decision was made. If we offended anyone then I apologize but at this point we are just beating a dead horse. I suggest all involved in this heated discussion take a break from it and ponder on it to themselves for a bit.

[Maxwell777]

That's one of the worst examples you could possibly set. Lose the first match? Just give up!

Nobody gave up! That's the beauty of it! We both decided to play the game a different way. Mutually giving up defense isn't giving up. If anything, blue played a better match against us. They improved their score even more than we did!

[N7UJJ]

Play 100% every match?
I felt the #1 seed playing the #8 seed should have played a more conventional 1assist game and save the double assist as a surprise in later matches when it would be a surprise and an advantage in perhaps a more difficult round.

In the finals, blue would have had to win two matches after they fought their best to defeat red. While it is possible they could win the next two, it seems extremely unlikely. In fact, they still had a chance to out score red in the shootout, although also unlikely.

Six teams playing a friendly match who set a goal for themselves that had no effect on any other team's ranking or playoff chances and entertained the crowd was great to experience.

As for the $500, it was the challenge itself that made this, in the final match of the day, a refreshing alternative to a crash and bash slugfest.

Note that the International Chairman's team receives a $10,000 scholarship to give to one of their students. I doubt it is the motivation for submitting an entry. But even if it was...

The spirit of FIRST has little to do with robots or winning. I think the teams who were involved have explained themselves well. Not much more to add.

[dodar]

No. You are using margin of victory. I am using the ratio between scores. Different metrics.

Ok then lets use ratios:

Blue(Finalists): They scored 1.09x more in F1-2 than the average of their 5 Elim matches before. Thats only 15 points more.

Red(Winners): They scored 1.55x more in F1-2 than the average of their 5 Elim matches before. Thats 108 points more.

[MrForbes]

Well you obviously know red would win the Autonomous period but you could of still had 60 and Gila monsters play def on 842. You guys had a good bot and could of ran the field with doing truss shots and high goal shots and 1 assist. Yes your alliance wasn't a powerhouse but there is always a chance as long as you try.

With 60 and Gila playing defense on 842, 2486 would be scoring away as we are defended by 2403. We knew the only way we could have any chance of getting points was by getting the three assists, and it just took too long with the limited ball handling ability we had on our alliance. We could pick up the ball when there was defense on us, but we could not truss or score fast unless 60 was blocking for us, and if they were doing that, they could not be defending 842 or 2468 at the same time. Gila took a while to get set up for the inbound if they left the corner to defend, and could not truss or score.

I think we did respectably well in both finals matches. If we looked like we were not playing hard, I don't know what to say. We gave it our all in both matches.

[George Nishimura]

Every team is entitled to act the way they do within the rules of the game and the spirit of the competition.

Playing no defense is not necessarily the wrong strategy.

The six teams do not owe us anything, but personally I believe they should ask themselves:

did they believe they could win?
did they try their best to win?
would they have played this way if there was no financial incentive?

If they answer yes, fair play to them.

I hope that any financial incentives offered in the future tie directly in to the existing regional incentives (ie winning an award/match).

[jspatz1]

The 500 lb. gorilla in this story is not these teams, or if or why they decided to play a certain way, or whether it was right or wrong. The much bigger issue is whether it can be acceptable at a FIRST event for a sponsor, or anyone else, to offer money rewards to teams for running up a high match score, or a low score, or any other goal that could be manipulated or affect outcomes. Where would this stop if permitted? I do not fault the teams for taking the temptation of the cash reward (nicknamed the "challenge".) I fault the sponsor who made the proposal, and any FIRST official who knew of it and allowed it to go on. It is a dangerous phenomenon that FIRST would be wise to nip in the bud.

[dodar]

The 500 lb. gorilla in this story is not these teams, or if or why they decided to play a certain way, or whether it was right or wrong. The much bigger issue is whether it can be acceptable at a FIRST event for a sponsor, or anyone else, to offer money rewards to teams for running up a high match score, or a low score, or any other goal that could be manipulated or affect outcomes. Where would this stop if permitted? I do not fault the teams for taking the temptation of the cash reward (nicknamed the "challenge".) I fault the sponsor who made the proposal, and any FIRST official who knew of it and allowed it to go on. It is a dangerous phenomenon that FIRST would be wise to nip in the bud.

Well according to those who were there, the man who proposed the "challenge" is on the FIRST Board of Directors.