Alliance Selection 2005- Like it?

[OneAngryDaisy]

So today we all have a lot more extra time; I decided to go read the rules, and noticed something interesting regarding alliance selection:

(and yes I did search the forums)


8.4.1: (After the top 8 teams pick 2 partners)

Of the remaining eligible teams, the highest seeded teams (up to eight) shall remain on standby and be ready to play. If a robot from one team in a three-team alliance becomes inoperable, at the discretion of the alliance captain, the highest seed of the standby teams shall join that alliance. The resulting alliance would then be composed of four teams, but only three teams will be permitted to continue with match play. The inoperable team remains part of the alliance for awards but cannot play, even if their robot is repaired


Wow. I have a lot of thoughts about this:

8 teams won't be able to pack up fully (and that kills you at championship when you really don't want to be stuck in the pits until 6:00)..

If you're in an alliance, would you rather go a round without one of your teams- or 'draft' a weaker team and sit out your best team for the rest of the playoffs? In the final round this might be a no-brainer, depending on the strength of the highest ranked team.

This is definitely not the year to have a fragile robot. In the past there would be another alliance partner ready to step in...

So what do all of youse think?

[MisterX]

As of right now, I could easily go either way with it . However, my question is in regionals how does this affect qualifying for Nationals? Does that mean 4 teams can qualify or how does it work?

[OneAngryDaisy]

That's a good question to ask FIRST, on their championship eligibility website:

http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2005/cmp_elig.htm

Merit Based Qualifying Teams from the current season -

1. Regional Chairman's Award winners (1 per Regional)
2. Regional Engineering Inspiration Award winners (1 per Regional)
3. Regional Rookie All-Star Award winners (1 per Regional)
4. Regional Champions (three per regional event)


I guess that leaves the fourth out, or maybe FIRST will be kind enough to give the fourth a ticket to Atlanta..

[Stephen Kowski]

but who gets the trophy of the four team alliance (the original alliance or the remaining one)?.....what if the alliance captain breaks and then refuses to pick the next highest seed....?

[Corey Balint]

If i remember correctly, someone asked this question or i read it somehwere. But the 4th team gets all the same awards/recognition that the other 3 teams get. So, i think that would be a yes, they do get to go to Nationals, because they were apart of the winning team, no matter how long.

[Ryan Albright]

I am not sure if i like this, I mean what if the alliance team captain's robot was in need of repair and they had to sit out. Would they still be the Alliance captain or hand it off to someone else. I just dont like the fact that the team may not re-enter, because like said up above what would you do set out a robot for a match or draft a lower seed.

[Cory]

but who gets the trophy of the four team alliance (the original alliance or the remaining one)?.....what if the alliance captain breaks and then refuses to pick the next highest seed....?

If the alliance captain breaks and refuses to pick the next highest seed then you have to live with it. You chose to join the alliance, but it doesn't mean you have any say in how it's run

They would award 4 trophies if a 4th team joins the winning alliance, I would assume.

[Corey Balint]

I forgot to voice my opinion before. I personally think this is a great idea, well for this game that is. Last year you could get away with two teams, because the game only required two, duh. This year, its completely different and you will most definitely need all three robots on the field at once. I am sure there would have been major complaints if one team broke and had no one to replace them. At least this way everyone gets a fair chance.

EX: Lets say your picked by the number one seed that has dominated at all the regionals and championships, then you break down. The #1 seed would have to overcome great difficulties with just one partner and most likely would lose. However, with the addition of a 4th member, the #1 seed has a fair shot again, and could still win it all.

[OneAngryDaisy]

I forgot to voice my opinion before. I personally think this is a great idea, well for this game that is. Last year you could get away with two teams, because the game only required two, duh. This year, its completely different and you will most definitely need all three robots on the field at once. I am sure there would have been major complaints if one team broke and had no one to replace them. At least this way everyone gets a fair chance.

EX: Lets say your picked by the number one seed that has dominated at all the regionals and championships, then you break down. The #1 seed would have to overcome great difficulties with just one partner and most likely would lose. However, with the addition of a 4th member, the #1 seed has a fair shot again, and could still win it all.


True, so much of it comes up to the actual situation. If team #1 has already won a match, and their first pick- team #2- only needs around 10 mins to repair their robot- and team #2 is an amazing robot, should #1 draft a weak #4 or go a match without team #2 and hope they can come back in the 3rd round?

Also maybe the 4th team is a really weak robot and would actually hinder the efforts of team 1 and 3..

Keep in mind that oftentimes a weak team ranks high thanks to a combination of luck and good team partners, but they don't get picked by an alliance captain. Thus, the highest ranking team left after alliance selection is oftentimes a weak robot, maybe its drivetrain is fragile, maybe it is top heavy, but there's a reason it wasn't selected. I wouldn't be suprised if the number 1 team almost never drafts a 4th team, unless one of their teammates is severely damaged.

[Koko Ed]

With 33 teams at Finger Lakes they all have to be ready to get the call. It's different that's for sure and goes to show a reliant robot may be more valuble than a dominant one.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I'm a bit confused by the rules. So, as Corey said, Team #2 is really really strong. Their robot needs 10 minutes, that's it~

If it's inoperable after a match, and is fixed, can it come back providing the #4 isn't chosen? Giving time sounds more reasonable than anything, particularly in the quarter finals.

I think the mark of a strong team will be one that is able to sacrifice their right to play for the rest fo the finals, despite wanting to, if their robot is beyond repair, so that their alliance has a fighting chance.

However, until I see the system in action, I'm not sure how to judge it. It depends heavily on attitude, commitment, and quick thinking.

[jpsaul7usa]

Wow. 33 teams is a lot :) 29 at AZ. I don't think I'll like this year's new system because it means you're going to have a really really hard choice to make if you're the alliance captain and are thinking of dropping your broken all-star teammate and going with an alternate. Granted, a working robot is better than no robot, but if it's before the final match it's a rough call.

We were allied in the finals with 330 last year at AZ and they broke down, but then entered the arena at a dramatic moment after the time limit. They got to play thanks to the generousity of the other teams (80, 498, and 696). I believe it's one of the reasons they wanted to change the rules this year.

If the current rule was in place last year we would have had the option to pick up another team and drop 330. It was in the final round, so maybe picking up another team wouldn't have been too bad, but if it occurred in the quarter or semi finals, man, I can't say what we would have done. 330 certainly wouldn't have been given the leniency of returning to play since we had an alternative.

This year if we're fortunate and get into the finals with good alliance members, I hope we aren't put into that spot. Besides, with only 29 teams at AZ and 6 teams/match, after the elimination rounds, the finals will be a nice change of pace for the pit crew to fix the robot between matches.

[Katie Reynolds]

If it's inoperable after a match, and is fixed, can it come back providing the #4 isn't chosen? That's how I read the rule. I think the intent of saying the inoperable robot can't come back only applies to teams who choose a fourth alliance team, so each alliance still has three teams to play.

[Corey Balint]

It really is one of those decisions that you need all the possible information for. So if the #2 or 1 for that matter is that good, then ya, you might be best off waiting to see if they can fix or possibly skip a round. But, is it worth losing a round that could possibly lose the whole thing for you, on the chance the other team fixes. If the replacement bot is bad, then ya, i would be in full support of waiting on it. But if it is decent, then id have to take the functional robot over a non-functional one.

[Kyle]

I like the rule, It gives everyone a chance to still win, its not fair if you are in an alliance that makes it all the way to the last round of finals then break and drop out of the alliance then not to get an award would not be fair.
Also the 10 min fix it rule is great, There arnt many problems that cant be fixed in 10 mins with 3 other teams to help you.

[AmyPrib]

You will need to make good decisions. Can your broken robot be fixed in the given amount of time? Or do you sacrifice them and choose the 4th member? If you choose the 4th member, then your broken guy can't compete anymore, even if it's fixed later. But they're still part of the alliance and therefore will still receive awards.

You will be assigned the next highest seeded team waiting in line. So - it would behoove you to have good scouting, know what those extra 8 teams can/can't do, and find out who your 4th member would be before you choose to take them. You should be able to make a decent decision based on all the above as to whether or not you want/need to take the 4th member. If you find that your 4th team is more of a hindrance (maybe unlikely), maybe you can just put 2 robots on the field... I dont think I read anything about not placing a working robot on the field. If you have 3 of 4 working robots, would you have to place all 3 out there, or can you choose to just put 2 out? Even if Robot 4 is "weaker", I'm sure you can find something for them to do on the field...

It forces you to make a decision, rather than saying... OK - Robot 1 broke a chain, so we're gonna take Robot 4 just for this match.. and then 3min later Robot 1 gets fixed and for the rest of elimination rounds they have 4 robots to choose from. That wouldn't exactly be fair to all those who only have 3 robots to choose from since they didn't have the bad luck of breaking one. So the stipulation is that you can't play the original guy anymore and you now have only 3 robots to play.

Even if Robot 1 isn't fixable, if you think Robot 4 is weak, and won't add to your value, then you don't have to choose them.. You'll just play with 2 robots the rest of the rounds.

You get one chance to choose from the standby guys. Does it matter when you choose? Can I go through a few rounds with two robots and then in the finals, decide I want a 4th member? Dont' know if you'd do that, but... I didn't see a restriction for when you had to choose a 4th member. Maybe I missed it, if there is one.

I think it's a pretty balanced little selection process. If everyone was allowed to choose 4 robots per alliance for elims, that's a lot of robots for elims. This just makes you think about who you're choosing for the main 3 - you'd want them consistent, reliable, and robust. You need to be able to trust Robot 1 when they say "I only need 4min to fix this". But it still gives you a little bit of flexibility so that you're not completely at a disadvantage when one breaks.
We shall see how it all works out. I dont' see any major problems with it at this point. The choice will boil down to knowing your information.

[Stephen Kowski]

what if the backup robot fails/breaks? just 2 v 3 for the rest of the time?

[Goobergunch]

Aye, per the third paragraph of section 8.4.1:

The original three-team alliance shall only have one opportunity to draw from the teams on standby. If a second robot from the alliance becomes inoperable, then the alliance must play the following matches with only two (or even one) teams. It is in the best interests of all teams to construct their robots to be as robust as possible to prevent this situation.

[Ken Loyd]

Another case study?

Team A is not one of the top eight teams. They refuse an invitation from a selecting team. Does Team A still go into the replacement pool?

Ken

[Rick]

Another case study?

Team A is not one of the top eight teams. They refuse an invitation from a selecting team. Does Team A still go into the replacement pool?

Ken
If Team A refuses to join an alliance, they probably can't compete anyways because they are broken. I've only seen one instance when a team that was ready to go actually said no to an alliance pick, and that was because there was confusion on the field. And if a team is picked but refuses it usually means they are seeded and would like to have their own alliance.

[nuggetsyl]

Another case study?

Team A is not one of the top eight teams. They refuse an invitation from a selecting team. Does Team A still go into the replacement pool?

Ken
wow i did not think of that i feel first will not allow any team to play if they pull that stunt

[Travis Hoffman]

A similar thread was started by Joe Johnson shortly after kickoff:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32311


I'll re-post what I posted in that thread, as it equally applies here.

*********************************************

I like the On Deck idea; however, I question why alliance captains aren't permitted to pick from a list of the On Deck teams instead of having the highest ranked team force fed to them. If an alliance robot breaks, I don't believe it would cause much, if any, additional confusion or delay for a FIRST official to present a list of teams to an alliance captain (a list they'll have generated per the existing rule, anyway) and have him/her select a team from the list. Those who didn't prepare such a detailed pick list could simply choose the top ranked On Deck team as is already the rule without any additional delay.

There is a reason teams spend so much time scouting - it's so they can determine which high ranked teams are deserving of their position and which were in those high spots due more to good fortune than anything else. It's also so they can identify teams whose robots and strategies best complement what they like to do during a match, some of whom may be at the bottom of the rankings due solely to bad luck and would be ineligible for selection under the current rule. I'm sure the scout crews for many picking teams will create pick lists that are detailed enough to include their most desired On Deck teams - why not reward the hard work of those teams by letting them choose whom they want? In addition, this would let these better-prepared alliances contact their preferred On Deck selections and guarantee they won't be packing up their robot before the end of the eliminations - with the current system, can FIRST guarantee that scenario won't happen? How much of a delay would that cause if it did? I'd be more enthusiastic about keeping my robot out and in top running condition if an alliance captain came to me and told me they wanted us to be their On Deck team instead of having to wait around with the rest of the "scrap heap", waiting to be salvaged by a team who may not even like what they're getting.

By allowing teams to pre-determine who they want their On Deck partners to be, matching the On Deck team's robot and strategy to those of the existing alliance, I think FIRST would give all elimination alliances a better chance at achieving success while facing adversity, and they would improve the quality and excitement of the elimination rounds.

[OneAngryDaisy]

Another case study?

Team A is not one of the top eight teams. They refuse an invitation from a selecting team. Does Team A still go into the replacement pool?

Ken


First of all, my bad- I overlooked Joe Johnson's thread, haven't been on CD enough the past few months..


and I would doubt FIRST would allow Team A to be selected- why? because if the 1st selected team picks the obvious best robot in the competition- and wants Team A to be their third robot, but Team A gets selected by the 2nd seeded team, Team A could simply deny the invitation and wait for the 3rd team in the first alliance to mysteriously break.

Un-GP, i know. Probably won't happen, I know. But there's no real rationale for declining an invitation unless the alliance that invites you is absolutely horrendous, you know for sure you're the next highest team, and you figure a robot will break sometime during the competition- but even that is risky.

[Jaine Perotti]

By allowing teams to pre-determine who they want their On Deck partners to be, matching the On Deck team's robot and strategy to those of the existing alliance, I think FIRST would give all elimination alliances a better chance at achieving success while facing adversity, and they would improve the quality and excitement of the elimination rounds.While I agree that this is one way of looking at it (and this really is a subjective matter), I think that the opposite could be true if you look at it in a different way.

If one of your alliance partners becomes inoperable, your team will be forced to make a tough decision. This decision will impact the outcome of all of the matches to come, and could either harm or benefit you. A major aspect of strategizing is the ability to make quick tactical decisions. While it would be nice of FIRST to let teams keep their strategy consistent throughout elimination rounds, adding in an aspect of uncertainty will put a team's ability to strategize to the test. A team that truly exemplifies "tactical genius" will be able to think on their feet and make the appropriate decisions.

In this sense, FIRST has added a new level of excitement to the game. Your alliance partner breaks, they don't know if they will be able to fix their robot, and you need to make a decision...a decision could make it or break it for your team. To me, that sounds quite thrilling. Overcoming the setbacks presented by losing an alliance partner would be a very exciting thing. While there is a little more risk involved, risk is a part of the game. Risk is what makes competition fun... in fact, risk itself makes the competition what it is.

I see this as a choice between a more "comfortable" way of playing the game, versus a more uncertain way of playing the game. Personally, I like the uncertainty. For me it makes the experience more thrilling, and that much more satisfying when challenges of that nature are overcome. While I may have a few more heart palpitations not knowing what will happen next, I would rather feel the thrill of making it through a desperate situation. But again, this is purely a personal preference.

-- Jaine

[petek]

I kindof like how this system relates to the real world of engineering projects.

Suppose your company bid on a big contract with the assumption that Amazing Machines would be subcontracting a large part. You have history with Amazing, and know their quality. You get the contract and the next week Amazing tells you that a huge military contract came in which will use up all of their capacity for next two months. You're not that big a customer of Amazing's that you can play hardball with them on this. (Welcome to my world)

You feel that only if everything works perfectly will you still be able to meet the contract using Amazing; knowing that there is a very real chance that they will be late now, which would make you late, too. On the other hand, you know that the finished product will be great if it has the Amazing parts in it.

It just so happens that New Little Guy Machines just opened their doors and wants your business. They say they can do the job that Amazing Machines would do, but you don't have much knowledge of their capabilities. (Did I hear someone say "scouting"?)

So what do you do? Do you take a chance on Amazing meeting the deadline or one on Little Guy being able to do the job? With Little Guy, if they do the job okay, you'll make your deadline, but you'd be taking a chance on quality.

I think that FIRST just raised the bar a tiny bit for alliance captains.

[Travis Hoffman]

I kindof like how this system relates to the real world of engineering projects.

Suppose your company bid on a big contract with the assumption that Amazing Machines would be subcontracting a large part. You have history with Amazing, and know their quality. You get the contract and the next week Amazing tells you that a huge military contract came in which will use up all of their capacity for next two months. You're not that big a customer of Amazing's that you can play hardball with them on this. (Welcome to my world)

You feel that only if everything works perfectly will you still be able to meet the contract using Amazing; knowing that there is a very real chance that they will be late now, which would make you late, too. On the other hand, you know that the finished product will be great if it has the Amazing parts in it.

It just so happens that New Little Guy Machines just opened their doors and wants your business. They say they can do the job that Amazing Machines would do, but you don't have much knowledge of their capabilities. (Did I hear someone say "scouting"?)

So what do you do? Do you take a chance on Amazing meeting the deadline or one on Little Guy being able to do the job? With Little Guy, if they do the job okay, you'll make your deadline, but you'd be taking a chance on quality.

I think that FIRST just raised the bar a tiny bit for alliance captains.
That is a really great analogy; however, your parallel to the engineering world all assumes that your company still retains the right to CHOOSE New Little Guy Machines in the event that Amazing can't hold up its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, under the current rules, your company is at the mercy of a ranked list, and the selection of your alternate business partner is made for you by an external party. No matter how much you want to do business with New Little Guy Machines and no matter how much they want to do business with you, if they are the #2-rated company on that list - you're going to be stuck with the #1 guy no matter what he makes and how well he makes it - for all you know, he's making widgets and you need whatchamacallits! Makes perfect business sense to me! :rolleyes:

So yes, alliance "CEO's" will all make do with what they are forced to work with, but I'm sure many'd feel a whole lot better if they were permitted to use their OWN powers of judgement in trying to ensure their company's success during a crisis instead of placing more of their company's destiny in the uncontrollable hands of fate.

[Jessica Boucher]

So yes, alliance "CEO's" will all make do with what they are forced to work with, but I'm sure many'd feel a whole lot better if they were permitted to use their OWN powers of judgement in trying to ensure their company's success during a crisis instead of placing more of their company's destiny in the uncontrollable hands of fate.

I'd like to be of the opinion that the uncontrollability of the ranked list also fits in with the industrial world. There's reasons why things go the way they go in the real world - and some of it is performance as a company(team), but also part of it is being in the right place at the right time (or the right pairings).

So, the situation is still about using one's own powers of judgement to trying to ensure the company's destiny...but it's being placed in a reactive state as opposed to a proactive state.

Is being in a reactive state my favorite place to be? Goodness no! But, its a great learning experience because it does happen. Do you think Blockbuster really likes having to change its entire business model to accomodate the changing tastes of the rental market due to the emerging technology of NetFlix? Not really, because that means huge internal shifts on their part in a market they were excelling in. But it also means that they can take what they've learned from their research of the industry and the analysis of NetFlix's business model (scouting, to those of you out there in FIRSTland) to improve upon it and learn from their mistakes.

So...I think we'll be ok. I'm excited to see how this plays out.

[Dave Scheck]

I didn't see this question covered above...

What happens to C03 in the case that an alliance chooses not to bring in the 4th member and play with 2? Do only 2 robots have to be in the zone? Do you need to put the dead robot out there in order to get those points?

<C03> All three ROBOTS of the same alliance in their designated END ZONE at the conclusion of a match is
worth 10 points to the alliance. A ROBOT is not considered in the END ZONE if it is touching the field
outside the defined END ZONE border. The tape line designating the END ZONE border is considered “in”
the END ZONE.

[dez250]

I didn't see this question covered above...

What happens to C03 in the case that an alliance chooses not to bring in the 4th member and play with 2? Do only 2 robots have to be in the zone? Do you need to put the dead robot out there in order to get those points?

Dave you stick the broken guy in to sit in the end zone the whole match if you still want the chance to earn the end zone bonus. I am still trying to come up with a decision and the wording i use for this rule to show how i feel. I will put a post up later.

[Billfred]

I think the rule says it all--three robots.

Of course, if there were some catastrophic failure, I guess you could always neatly bundle your robot's essential goods (battery, RC, breaker panel, LEDs, team numbers, etc.) and put them in something and call it the Flower Pot of DOOOOOOOOM!

...or something like that.

<edit> Of course, you would have to get an inspector to weigh it and fly through the inspection checklist. </edit>

[Dave Scheck]

I think the rule says it all--three robots.[quote]That's what I thought, just trying to get other interpretations

[quote]Of course, if there were some catastrophic failure, I guess you could always neatly bundle your robot's essential goods (battery, RC, breaker panel, LEDs, team numbers, etc.) and put them in something and call it the Flower Pot of DOOOOOOOOM!Haha, I was thinking more of a tote from 2003 ;)

Actually I wanted to see somebody do that in an offseason comp in 2003...I can just see it now....

"And there goes team X to stack a bin and..wait...do my eyes deceive me...why yes, the bin has actually eluded team X" :p

[dlavery]

That is a really great analogy; however, your parallel to the engineering world all assumes that your company still retains the right to CHOOSE New Little Guy Machines in the event that Amazing can't hold up its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, under the current rules, your company is at the mercy of a ranked list, and the selection of your alternate business partner is made for you by an external party. No matter how much you want to do business with New Little Guy Machines and no matter how much they want to do business with you, if they are the #2-rated company on that list - you're going to be stuck with the #1 guy no matter what he makes and how well he makes it - for all you know, he's making widgets and you need whatchamacallits! Makes perfect business sense to me! :rolleyes:

The analogy to the real world still holds perfectly. Yup, that's right - welcome to the real world of government engineering! That is the one where decisions regarding the selection of business partners are bound by the rules of "8-A corporations," "Buy-American Clause," "Lowest Bidder selections," "Minority-owned business preferences," "Business development zone preferences," "competitive peer reviews," "justfications for non-competitive procurements," etc. etc. etc.

You know, the more and more I look at what happens with a typical FIRST team and the experiences they go through, the more and more impressed I am with FIRST and how they make it more and more like the "real world" every day (even the really wierd parts of the real world)!

-dave

[Josh Fritsch]

I have a question...I think the rule is a little vague or I just didn't read it properly. Anyway stay with me I don't want this to be too confusing ;)

Ok...so in the elimination matches you, the original alliances will consist of 24 teams (8 alliances * 3 per alliance). And lets just say for the sake of easiness to understand the teams picked were also ranked 1-24. Ok. Say a team on alliance 1 breaks down, now do they have to choose the next available highest ranked i.e. robot ranked #25? or can they choose any one of the 8 robots that must stay "ready" to play? I just got confused about this. :rolleyes:

[-matt-]

I have a question...I think the rule is a little vague or I just didn't read it properly. Anyway stay with me I don't want this to be too confusing ;)

Ok...so in the elimination matches you, the original alliances will consist of 24 teams (8 alliances * 3 per alliance). And lets just say for the sake of easiness to understand the teams picked were also ranked 1-24. Ok. Say a team on alliance 1 breaks down, now do they have to choose the next available highest ranked i.e. robot ranked #25? or can they choose any one of the 8 robots that must stay "ready" to play? I just got confused about this. :rolleyes:

I believe that you must pick the highest seeded team avalible. There is no choice in robots, except the choice to play a round with only two robots or to pick the highest seeded team not picked for elims.

[Stu Bloom]

I have a question...I think the rule is a little vague or I just didn't read it properly. Anyway stay with me I don't want this to be too confusing ;)

Ok...so in the elimination matches you, the original alliances will consist of 24 teams (8 alliances * 3 per alliance). And lets just say for the sake of easiness to understand the teams picked were also ranked 1-24. Ok. Say a team on alliance 1 breaks down, now do they have to choose the next available highest ranked i.e. robot ranked #25? or can they choose any one of the 8 robots that must stay "ready" to play? I just got confused about this. :rolleyes:I'm not sure what you think is vague ...

from 8.4.1 - Alliance Selection Process
Of the remaining eligible teams, the highest seeded teams (up to eight) shall remain on standby and be ready to play. If a robot from one team in a three-team alliance becomes inoperable, at the discretion of the Alliance Captain, the highest seed of the standby teams shall join that alliance. The resulting alliance would then be composed of four teams, but only three teams will be permitted to continue with match play. The inoperable team remains part of the alliance for awards but cannot play, even if their robot is repaired.The way I read this - the Alliance Captain determines whether or not a fourth team will join the alliance. Once that decision is made, it is the highest remaining seed that fills that position.

[OneAngryDaisy]

Now that the first weekend is over, did any of the top 8 seeds in the past regionals 'draft' a robot to replace one of their broken bots?

[OneAngryDaisy]

Also- here's an answer for championship qualifying, check out the awards page for each regional.. here's St. Louis:

Regional Winner #1 1625 NASA and Winnebago High School Winnebago,IL
Regional Winner #2 1444 Beta Sigms Psi Fraternity Alumni/Arco Construction Co./Spartan Light Metal/CRH Transportation/White Rodgers/Neff Press/Applied Ind. Tech./Trinity Products/NASA & Lutheran High South St. Louis,MO
Regional Winner #3 939 Sisseton High School Sisseton,SD
Regional Winner #4


I take this to mean that the fourth (replacement) bot is also considered a winning bot, and is therefore eligible for the championship.

[Btower]

Some thoughts on the Alliance Replacements.

At GLR we brought the two highest seed un-picked teams onto the field to be on standby (according to the rules as they were explained to me, the alliance captain must decide to bring an alternate in 2 minutes before the start of the next round. No extra time is given, so they better be on the field ready to go. I chose to have only two teams as a worst case scenario. (We used neither but I thank them for their patience). There would be no way to keep 8 on the field, not to mention the extremely low probability of using more than 2 or 3.
If an alternate is used, all four teams are equal members of the alliance. (Trophies, trips, bling, book tours, custody of the children etc.)

[Jack Jones]

I think the replacement rule is a good idea. However, I do have one serious reservation.

What would prevent an alliance from deciding to replace a robot that was less than 100% (running, but not at it's best). Or worse, from deciding that the top seed in the pool would do a better job against the upcoming alliance.

Your answer, most likely, would be; "Gracious Professionalism." But how long will it take for someone to take advantage of a loophole like that?

[Rick TYler]

I think the replacement rule is a good idea. However, I do have one serious reservation.

What would prevent an alliance from deciding to replace a robot that was less than 100% (running, but not at it's best). Or worse, from deciding that the top seed in the pool would do a better job against the upcoming alliance.

Your answer, most likely, would be; "Gracious Professionalism." But how long will it take for someone to take advantage of a loophole like that?

We were that first-up replacement robot at PNW and sat and watched the whole finals. One team had a robot that had significant driving problems as a transmission was failing and (apparently) lost the use of its arm early in the finals and their alliance stuck with them anyways. Our team captain talked to the alliance captain who had never heard of the replacement rule. The alliance captain still stuck with his choice. I'm pretty sure than an alliance robot would have to catch fire before most captains would replace it.

[Btower]

I think the replacement rule is a good idea. However, I do have one serious reservation.

What would prevent an alliance from deciding to replace a robot that was less than 100% (running, but not at it's best). Or worse, from deciding that the top seed in the pool would do a better job against the upcoming alliance.

Your answer, most likely, would be; "Gracious Professionalism." But how long will it take for someone to take advantage of a loophole like that?


I think the reason the replaced team is not allowed to compete again is to discourage a "strategic" replacement. Not mention it would probably be obvious to most observers.

Ben

[EricH]

At the Sacramento regional, the three top teams after alliance selection were told "Be ready to play" or something like that. None of them were used. What might help is if FIRST allowed the lowest four teams to pack up after quarter finals and the next lowest two to do the same after semifinals. This would also make it easier on the shippers who have to take the robots away (a few at a time instead of all at once).

[Kit Gerhart]

I think the reason the replaced team is not allowed to compete again is to discourage a "strategic" replacement. Not mention it would probably be obvious to most observers.

Ben
I figured the reason is to go along with the rest of the baseball analogy stuff that is part of this year's competition. If you are taken out, you can't return to the game.