Alliance picking [Archive]

Shu Song

10-04-2005, 13:16

I would just like to suggestion an idea that would potentially make elimination matches more fair to lower seeded teams.

I've been to many FRC competitions and I seem to see a trend: the 1st seeded alliance almost always picks from the top 8. This should come as a surprise because to be in the top 8 means that your team is very good and should be in higher demand as a first pick. But this also means that the first seeded alliance will almost always ended up with the best alliance and the lower seeded alliances end up with not so good teams. Time after time, I've seen 1st seed alliance just roll through the elimination with ease.

In professional sport drafting, it's usually the teams with the worst records that get the first pick, which makes perfect sense, if your team is already very good, why does it need 2 more great teams to help them through eliminations.

Here are my proposals:(this is an either or, can't have both at the same time)
1. After the top 8 seeded teams are established, reverse the order so that 8th seed gets to draft first and 1st seed drafts last. This is more like professional sports, to help even the playing field, so that one team doesn't always dominate.
2. Make a new rule where no one from the top 8 can choose another team from the top 8. This helps to keep the alliances more balanced, so that 1st seed pick 2nd seed never happens.

I'm open to all forms of criticism, so don't hold anything back.

Jeff Rodriguez

10-04-2005, 13:28

You've worked you butt off all day coming up with strategy, coordinating with alliance partners, and executing strategy. You've put everything you have into trying to be #1. On Saturday, you finally achieve that and are ranked #1 at the end of qualification matches, BUT you don't pick first? I'm sorry that just isn't fair to the robots that are #1, 2, etc.
Why would I want my team to be #1 now? Instead, I'm going to try and be #8, even if that may mean losing a match or two.
I'm sure there a plenty of other people that will do almost any/everything to be #1 seed, or in this case #8 seed.

Lets say you have the top 10 teams. The team seeded #1 wants to be seeded 8th so that they can pick first, so they lose a match on purpose. Teams seeded 2, 3, 4, 5 all see how they did this, and they all go out and loose a match to get closer to the #8 seed.
This trend will start to snowball and eventually you will have teams trying to lose more than their opposing alliance.

Why shouldn't the top 8 seeds be able to form the strongest alliance they can?

The problem with comparing a FIRST alliance selection to a pro sports draft, is that professional sports don't have alliance partners. Only one teams wins a championship.
FIRST is unique, and has a unique draft system.

Meyerman

10-04-2005, 13:30

at the nj regional team 56 was #1 seed and picked 237 they werent in the top 8.

Goldeye

10-04-2005, 13:30

It's to reward them for getting the first seed, essentially. And what's to stop the 8th seed from picking the 1st? Teams would probably even try to drop their rank a bit, to get the first pick. It just wouldn't work.

Likewise, if two teams are good friends, one might blow a match so they can fall out of the top 8 and get picked by their friend.

David Guzman

10-04-2005, 13:40

I think that it is fine the way it is. A team woks hard during the event to be in the top 8 and they know that the higher they are the more chances of winnig because they get a better pick. Now if the top 8 couln't pick within the top 8 then maybe the finals wouln'd be as ecxiting because you would have alliances that aren't as strong as they could have been.

The way it is right now there are always strong alliances and it makes things a bit more ecxiting, but thats just me.

Dave

DukesAZ

10-04-2005, 13:57

Cory

10-04-2005, 14:05

To be blunt, I think this is a horrible idea, for the reasons Jeff mentioned and more.

You think people throwing/making "agreements" about matches is bad now? Wait until you institute this system. I think you'd find after about 20-30 matches, that the game would have no point to watching it. They won't be playing triple play, they'll be playing the "Who can get more penalties?" game.

FIRST is not fair. Dean has said so repeatedly. It IS, however, fair to reward the number one seed for doing so well. It's a competition, there are winners, and there are losers.

If #1 decides to pick #2 and they can absolutely dominate everyone, more power to them for making awesome robots.

The game is as fair as it's going to get. Playing best of 3 in the elims gives ANYONE a chance to win. There's no reason we should handicap the best teams.

AJunx

10-04-2005, 14:08

In professional sport drafting, it's usually the teams with the worst records that get the first pick, which makes perfect sense, if your team is already very good, why does it need 2 more great teams to help them through eliminations. Thanks to TierraDelDiablo for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm guessing, based on early poll results and former discussions, that few people will support a rule that takes away from the accomplishment (as well as the competitive advantage) of being the #1 seed.

The reason, I think, comes from our general perception of the structure of an FRC regional event (or the Championship event, for that matter):

I imagine that most people think of a regional event as consisting of two parts. The qualification rounds are like the "regular season" and the elimination rounds are the "playoffs."

It is true that in professional sports, a draft is usually aimed at balancing out the competition, by letting less succesful teams pick first. However, a draft is always held after the season is over. The draft is not held between the end of the regular season and the beginning of the playoffs. The reason for this is because a team that has the best record going into the playoffs, thereby securing homefield advantage (at a FRC event, that would be the #1 seed), has earned the competitive advantage that is given to them.

In professional sports, the NFL for example, we expect that, come playoff time, the team with the best record from the regular season will go on to win the championship (or at least be a top contender). Of course, this doesn't always happen, but we would never demand that that team play all of their playoff games on the road just to even up the competition.

-Andrew

The Lucas

10-04-2005, 14:09

One selection method you might want to add to the poll is a serpentine draft (all you fantasy sport and FF addicts know about this). This is where the #1 seed gets the first pick in the first round. It works its way down to the #8 seed who gets the last pick in the first round. Then the #8 seed gets the first pick in the second round (i.e. two consecutive picks #8 and #9 overall). It works its way up to the #1 seed who gets the last overall pick.

I like the alliance selection the way it is but a serpentine draft would be interesting. The first quarterfinal match would be:
2 studs and a sleeper vs. 3 solid bots
Who would win? I think there would definitely be more upsets :eek:

sanddrag

10-04-2005, 14:16

I think one thing that may be a problem is who plays who. I know there is not time for everyone to play everyone but to me it seems unfair for the strongest alliance (#1) to play the weakest alliance (#8) for their first match in the quarterfinals and then alliances 4 and 5 play each other (pretty equal matched). Usually, it is two wins right up front by alliance #1 and alliance #8 is hugely defeated right from the start and it is over for them. But if alliane #1 played alliance #2 and alliance #8 played alliance #7, the lower alliances would have a better chance of proceeding further in the competition and the higher alliances would have a tougher match to play. It would be a closer more competitive match because the robots would generally be more equal. Or maybe the who plays who should be selected at random after alliance pickings. This would eliminate knowing before hand who you have to play and it would also tend to equal things out a bit.

StephLee

10-04-2005, 14:19

Our team didn't go to Pittsburgh, but some of us went to watch. In the final, the lower-seeded team won because they had a better strategy; they had a little rookie bot pulled from the stand-by pool block team 365 (MOE), the best bot on the field in that match if you ask me, and definately the best capper. MOE didn't score as much, so the lower-seeded alliance won.

The point is, even the best bot in the world can be brought down by a well-thought-out strategy and a little determination. Teams on lower-seeded alliances can win. Why should the higher-ranked teams have to submit to letting the playing field be levelled to such a degree that it's not really a fair competition anymore?

People have already made the point that FIRST is entirely different from professional sports, so I don't think I need to say anything about that.

EDIT: I forgot to mention team 53. They were ranked 53rd after the Qualifying Matches, and they wound up on the 1st seeded(and winning) alliance(congrats, guys!).

Joe Ross

10-04-2005, 14:21

Rather then reversing the top 8 teams, because that already shows favoritism for the teams that do well, why not allow the bottom 8 teams choose their partners? Let the last place team choose first. That's how pro sports work.

Pro Basketball uses a lottery, where the teams have different chances to get the first pick based on how they seeded. Wouldn't a random process be more fair?

Even better, since pro sports are for drafting personnel, why not let the bottom ranked teams draft mentors and/or sponsors. Wouldn't your team love the chance to pick up Andy Baker for your mechanical needs, or Al Skierkiewicz if your electrical is weak, or Andy Grady if you want strategy help. Or maybe you'd get to choose UTC as your sponsor, or maybe you'd prefer Delphi.

dangerousdave

10-04-2005, 14:25

At the Boilermaker Regional, team #93 was dead last (1-9) in the qualifying matches (http://indianafirst.org/webcam/rankings.html) . However, they were picked by a top alliance and went on to be a finalist (http://first.purdue.org/boilermakerregional/win_lose/awards.pdf) team. I do not know the reason that they were picked but you can never give up hope!

Perhaps a little tweaking in the way the alliances are selected but overall keep it the same. Dave

Daniel Brim

10-04-2005, 14:56

Rather then reversing the top 8 teams, because that already shows favoritism for the teams that do well, why not allow the bottom 8 teams choose their partners? Let the last place team choose first. That's how pro sports work.

Pro Basketball uses a lottery, where the teams have different chances to get the first pick based on how they seeded. Wouldn't a random process be more fair?
The problem with this is potentially as complicated as the problem of a "reverse" draft. People might try to lose every match on purpose so they are virually guaranteed a spot in the finals, unless they miss and don't get picked at all. I could forsee a lot of "thrown" matches because of this.

Personally, I would be in favor of getting rid of the draft altogether, and having a large tournament, like NCAA basketball. 1st, last, and middle against another alliance. The only issue with this is if a regional has an odd number of teams, some would be left out. Each method of picking has its problems, and this is no different.

-Daniel

MattB703

10-04-2005, 16:03

Alex Pelan

10-04-2005, 16:16

The current was is fine. The professional sports drafts were designed that way for a reason, as were the Fantasy Sports drafts, and of course, the FIRST draft. Each of them serves a different purpose in attempting to create a fair environment. Professional sports drafts are designed so that the teams that are in last place get top prospects, in hopes that teams will not remain in the bottom of the league for forever. These teams are already at a disadvantage, because if they're in last place, they most likely have had talent/injury problems, so they are given the advantage of improving their team for next year, or at least for the near future. This doesn't work for FIRST because the draft is for this season, not next season, as well as the fact that FIRST's "regular season" does not produce nearly enough definitive results about a robot or a team as the professional sports system does.

The fantasy sports draft was designed to keep everything fair to everyone. As far as the system knows, everyone is equal in talent, so it picks randomly, and essentially everyone, in theory, is able to pick an equal amount of talent from their draft position. This doesn't work because it would render qualifying rounds moot.

The draft system we have right now is fine. FIRST is not professional sports. It was designed that way. We are trying to move away from the system of individual players being drafted and idolized. We are drafting teams here, not individual people.

-Alex Pelan

Rick TYler

10-04-2005, 16:21

This is a great topic.

Using a sports analogy, by the end of a 162-game baseball season, you have a pretty good idea of which teams are the best that year (the 3-division format with a wild card is Just Wrong, but we'll let that slide for now). Since the FRC competition starts with 8 or 10 matches with random alliances, I believe you really can't tell which are the best robots. I think, therefore, that the seeding is more than just a little arbitrary. The final alliance system needs to address this discrepancy.

The current method uses human evaluation through the scouting process to recognize outstanding robots that might have slipped in the seedings through no fault of their own. This method is still imperfect as we all know that teams with reputations, low numbers, uniforms, handouts, giant chicken suits and other "marketing" tools are sometimes chosen over quiet teams with great robots. Scouting is, in a lot of ways, not much different from the seeding system.

So, here is a modest proposal for some changes to the current system:

1. Qualification matches only last one day. For a 40-team regional, this would probably limit each team to 5-6 qualification matches.

2. At the end of Qualification Day on Friday, the teams would be seeded and the results posted. That evening, the teams can strategize for Eliminations.

3. First thing Saturday morning (like 8am), the alliances are chosen. Matches start at 9. The number of alliances would be the number of teams present rounded down to the nearest integer. For example, a regional with 40 teams would have 13 alliances.

4. Any "odd-man-out" teams would stand by to replace robots that aren't working during the Eliminations. I'm open to ideas here, by the way. Maybe it would be better to add them to the lowest- or highest-seeded alliances and have one or two 4-robot teams?

5. Alliances would be chosen via draft as in the current system.

6. The First Round of the Eliminations would be for reducing the number of alliances to eight. For example, in a 39-team regional, there would be 13 alliances. To reduce the 13 alliances (for example) to eight alliances for the Final Round of the Eliminations, there would be a 2-out-of-3 match between the lower-ranked alliances.

7. OK, this is easier with a drawing than in words, but here's how the First Elimination round would work for regionals with up to 48 teams (I haven't thought about what to do with more than 16 alliances yet...):

a. If you have 16 alliances, #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc. The eight winners go on to the Final Round.

b. If you have fewer than 16 alliances, use this formula to determine the number of matches:

(# of alliances) - 8 = # of single-elimination matches

For example, a 13-alliance field would have have five First Round elimination matches, which would be played between the 4th through 13th seeded alliances. The top three alliances would get a bye. The 4th seed would play the 13th, the 5th would play the 12th, etc. The winners of these matches would go through to play the Final Round with the top-seeded alliances that got a bye.

Things I like about this system:

1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out.

2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980).

3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked).

Things I don't like about this system:

1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system.

2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday.

So, what do you think?

spears312

10-04-2005, 17:36

The Lucas

10-04-2005, 17:44

Things I like about this system:

1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out.

2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980).

3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked).

Things I don't like about this system:

1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system.

2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday.

So, what do you think?

1. Hard to explain is not a big problem, hard to program is. The scoring software already has major problems with an 8 alliance tournament. At Pitt, it didn’t fill in the next highest ranked team as #8 when the top 8 picked among themselves. In the finals at Philly, the #2 alliance was red against the #4 alliance in blue. After the first match we had to switch sides (red to blue) because the program placed the #2 alliance in blue and the #4 alliance in red. I think the program must automatically put any alliance from the right half of the bracket (where #2 is) in the blue spot. I think it would take years to get the software for this tournament developed to a usable level. Meanwhile, it will probably break and we will have to use pencil and paper for a couple years.

2. At some Regionals, will be too many matches to play on Sat. At the Greater Toronto Regional this year, there were 66 teams. That would make 22 alliances. That would require: 6 play-in match-ups + 8 first round match-ups + 4 quarterfinal match-ups + 2 semi match-ups + 1 final match-up = 21 match-ups. Each match-up could last up to 3 matches for a maximum of 21*3=63 matches. That’s more than the number of qualifying matches some Regionals have. I guess the play-in games could be one match, but that would only eliminate 12 matches.

The idea is pretty cool. It has a feel of March Madness where you don’t really know who is going to win. It would be nice to include as many teams as possible in the tournament. Unfortunately, it’s just not practical.

Wetzel

10-04-2005, 17:59

1. Hard to explain is not a big problem, hard to program is. The scoring software already has major problems with an 8 alliance tournament. *snip Software problems snip*

It is not hard to program. This years software problems are not because of a complex ranking system, but because of poor development and testing procedures. It would be fairly easy for someone who is competent to write the program for Ricks system.

Wetzel

JackN

10-04-2005, 21:35

I like the way it is now. The one way it could be improved is if you added eight more possible alliances and picked friday night. There was talk that 1st always wins. At West Michigan number 5 or 4 won beating one and two with good strategy, good design and good driving.

Scott Chambliss

10-04-2005, 23:02

I think that the current system is good, although the serpentine system merits consideration. My team is a rookie team, and we did fairly good; #17 seed. To our complete suprise, we were the first choice of the #2 seed. While we didn't win, we won every qualifying match until finals, where we lost both to the #1 alliance (which teams it consisted of escape me for the moment). I guess that this goes to show that the current system works out pretty well. By the way, I think that there was a rookie team in the top 8 at Peachtree, but correct me if i'm wrong

dlavery

11-04-2005, 00:21

Kevin Kolodziej

11-04-2005, 01:19

I really like the idea of the serpentine draft. I think that would definitely "balance" the competition a bit.

But the way it is, you almost always end up with the two best alliances in the finals, which makes for a very exciting set of matches.

Who's to say that FIRST couldn't give it a try for one year? It's not like that hasn't been done before (2001). Speaking of which, that auto-seed system was a very unique idea. For those that are unfamiliar with it, the #1 seed was automatically paired with the #5 seed, #2 with #6, etc. It worked well because you had to draft 3 additional teams and there were no quarter finals. There may have been teams that would throw a match so that they could drop down into an auto-seed position, but I'm not sure how frequently it happened (if at all).

The only complaint (not really) with the current system I have is that I think the #1 vs. #8 match should not be the first match (I think it should be the last quarterfinal match). I say this because the #8 teams tend to be inexperienced (in terms of the finals) and may not have even been prepared to be a picker (no excuse if you're in the top 15). In the frantic hour between picking and playing, repairs and reinspection must happen, and things get overlooked. Maybe I'm just bitter because we swapped in a good battery and then swapped the battery we just took out back IN just before the match (d'oh!). :yikes: . Rest assured, that WILL NOT happen again!

Kev

Rick TYler

11-04-2005, 01:22

(...)it was much better than one of the other ideas we discussed, that would never be implemented (let's just say that Andy promised if it ever was implemented, he was gonna get Midieval on my poor little, non-pig-wrestling, computer-geek behind; he said something about making his "sumo wrestling match with Jason Morrella look like a walk in the park" - and we all know how that ended... :) ).

Heh. I understand the Page Playoff system, and I'm not afraid to use it. You don't want me to do that, do you?

Kit Gerhart

11-04-2005, 07:44

I think one thing that may be a problem is who plays who. I know there is not time for everyone to play everyone but to me it seems unfair for the strongest alliance (#1) to play the weakest alliance (#8) for their first match in the quarterfinals and then alliances 4 and 5 play each other (pretty equal matched). Usually, it is two wins right up front by alliance #1 and alliance #8 is hugely defeated right from the start and it is over for them.
The "top seed plays bottom seed in the first round" is standard procedure for nearly all tournaments, and to me, it makes sense. Usually the #1 alliance beats #8 in FIRST events, but not always. Two examples where that didn't happen are quite memorable to me from last year's Championship. In our division, Currie, #8 beat #1, and #7 beat #2. We were #2, one of the "underachiever" alliances. Oh well.

kjohnson

11-04-2005, 08:01

The 8th seeded alliance at VCU beat the 1st seeded alliance in the quarterfinals.

Then they beat the 5th seeded alliance in the semi-finals.

They lost 2-0 in the finals to the 3rd seeded alliance - but they still made it to the finals with supposedly the lowest ranked teams and got plenty of recognition (good and bad). They used a very defensive strategy - sacrificing one robot that could not cap reliably (about 50%) to play very hard defense.

Kit Gerhart

11-04-2005, 08:04

Currently, the way it’s done now is fair and simple. If you seed in first place, you deserve first pick. And while the first seed certainly has the advantage, they won’t always win. In almost every case it seems that it's not the best team that makes up the alliance, but the best combination of teams. Disallowing the picking of teams with in the top eight would make an interesting rule change which would end any 1-2 seed alliances, but at the same time would make picking a lot harder because in most cases first seeds pick list's top eight are the rankings top eight.
While I like the current system, I sometimes think it gives the top seed too much advantage over the other seeds. When number one can pick from any other team in the event, including #'s 2-8, if they have good scouting, they have are going to have two very good teams on their alliance. We have been in the enviable position of being top qualifier in two regionals this year, and both times we picked number 2, and won the regional. It turned out that our most difficult elimination round was at the Florida regional against the number 8 alliance, though a mechanical problem with one of our robots made that round difficult.

While I voted to keep the present system in the poll, it might be interesting to not allow teams to pick each other withing the top 8. That should equalize alliances somewhat and increase the chance for good teams that did not make the top 8 due to bad luck, etc., to end up in one of the top alliances. As it is now, teams who did not make the top 8 might be hoping to be picked in the second round by one of the top alliances, rather than in the first round by number 7 or 8. Not allowing teams to pick within the top 8 would "mix things up" in the first round picks like is now the case in the second round picks. I did not like the "auto matching" used in 2001 where 1-5, 2-6 etc. were automatically paired into alliances.

Raul

11-04-2005, 08:55

While I voted to keep the present system in the poll, it might be interesting to not allow teams to pick each other withing the top 8. That should equalize alliances somewhat and increase the chance for good teams that did not make the top 8 due to bad luck, etc., to end up in one of the top alliances. As it is now, teams who did not make the top 8 might be hoping to be picked in the second round by one of the top alliances, rather than in the first round by number 7 or 8. Not allowing teams to pick within the top 8 would "mix things up" in the first round picks like is now the case in the second round picks. I did not like the "auto matching" used in 2001 where 1-5, 2-6 etc. were automatically paired into alliances.
KEEP IT AS-IS. Allowing the top seeds to pick each other completely removes the idea of teams losing on purpose for a chance to be picked.

For example: If you are #4 and hope to be picked by #1, under the current system you do not have to worry about where you stand - just continue to win. But, if you do not allow #1 to pick other seeded teams, #4 would consider negotiating with #1 and then losing on purpose to make themselves eligible to be picked by #1.

petek

11-04-2005, 09:18

Adding one more vote for keep it as-is, I'll add that in my experience, FRC qualification seeding rewards consistency and luck as much as game-dominating performance. Also, we've all seen many cases where very strong robots have seeded outside the top 8 because of weak alliance partners in qualification. Team 237 at NJ this year was a good example already raised in this thread.

Joe Ross

11-04-2005, 10:19

Kit Gerhart

11-04-2005, 10:41

Here is the discussion that happened when FIRST changed the rules so that the top 8 seeds could pick each other. Previously, the top 8 couldn't pick another team in the top 8, like TierraDelDiablo proposed for the second option.

Remember, these are people reacting to the change, I'm still trying to find a thread that talks about it past tense.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10164
There was some interesting discussion on that thread, and a recurring theme was that the seeding at the end of the qualifying matches was close to a random number generator. From our perspective, it has not been that way this year. As top qualifier, we have picked the number 2 seed twice because our scouting and watching of matches indicated that we should. Of course, there may be those out there who think we were top qualifier as the result of random events.:)

GeorgeTheEng

11-04-2005, 11:20

One thing to consider that is different then the last couple of years is the way the 3 alliances are used. Since it's 3 alliance, 3 on 3 match everyone is out there in each match. Last year, you only had 2 and that meant that you had to have 1 different robot in the 2nd match of your set. To me that is a big difference and one where I've thought that maybe with 3 on 3 the top 8 should not be able to pick within themselves.

The reason that I say that is that the top 2 to 4 team are usually there because they are the top teams at the regional. They win because they help pull thier alliances through, they have good drives, they have good strategies, and they understand the game. It is rare that those teams are there by luck of the draw for the seeding matches (but yes it does happen). As such, those teams are generally also good at determining an opponents weakness and trying to exploit that. (That is not meant in a bad way, it's how games are played when it's winner take all). With all 3 alliance members on the field, there is little that the 2nd match of the elimination will have vastly different strategy because it's the same teams. Last years game made it a little harder for the leading team to determine full strategy until they knew who was going on the field and it gave the underdog a chance to try a different set of players and strategy. With the entire alliance out there, my experience has been that the leader finds the strategy and exploits it twice to the same result. To me it makes the game a little less exciting in the elimination matches because that potential unknown isn't there anymore. (Of course maybe the answer to this has nothing to do with the top 8)

qhsscience

11-04-2005, 11:20

From my team experiences, it makes a big difference to go for that #1 seed as it gives you control over your alliance. Anything less leaves you open for another team to ask you to be their alliance partner. The current format should force teams to all push for that higher seeding, and, therefore, make the qualification matches all as exciting as possible.

As to the #1 seed picking the #2 seed, I'll admit that it sometimes happens, but I know that it sometimes doesn't happen. The random alliances that exist during qualifications sometimes lead to a good machine not having a great record. Our team decided at the Southern California Regional to choose a team that wasn't anywhere near the top 8. Good scouts on a team make sure that the best machine is picked, not necessarily the next best record.

I would be open to the serpentine method as a way of bringing a little more balance to the situation, but I am also happy with the current method.

Andy Baker

11-04-2005, 14:32

The so-called "serpentine" system was one that Andy Baker and I discussed while standing around the sidelines at the Las Vegas Regional. It is interesting, but there are some definite pros and cons to the idea. But it was much better than one of the other ideas we discussed, that would never be implemented (let's just say that Andy promised if it ever was implemented, he wsa gonna get Midieval on my poor little, non-pig-wrestling, computer-geek behind; he said something about making his "sumo wrestling match with Jason Morrella look like a walk in the park" - and we all know how that ended... :) ).

-dave

The "serpentine" picking system would be interesting, and very fair.

It was surely much better than the idea that Dave posed to me as we were on the sidelines at the Vegas regional. Dave comes over to me, with his evil grin:

Dave: "Andy... I want to know what you think about a new alliance picking idea I have"

Andy: "ut oh... OK, Dave, I am ready"

Dave: "What do you think of a system that allows the 8th seeded team to pick first, instead of the 1st seeded team"

Andy: (thinks... how do I tactfully put this) "Dave, that is ridiculously horrible. This is a competition, afterall, not a game of tiddly-winks."

Dave: "Good... that is exactly the reaction I was hoping for. I want to come up with a system that REALLY ticks you old veteran teams off!! mmmmuuaahahahahahhahahaha (jabba-the-hut laugh)"

Dave must have the ability to read minds. While I did not actually *say* that I wanted to get Midevil on him, the *thought* did pass through my simple brain.

Sigh... Let's hope for an underwater game in 2006.

Andy B.

ps... all this, and the sumo-wrestling Morrella comment was left untouched

dhitchco

11-04-2005, 14:42

I began to have an inferiority complex at the Toronto regional, as our rookie team finished well out of the top eight (16th seed I believe).

So, when the top 8 took the stage and began picking each other, the rest of the teams started to move up, but we were still at the back of the line.

Then, as the 2nd round of picks was being gobbled up, I began to say "Hey, we're pretty good too!".

Then, as the 3rd round picks started, we were picked by the #1 team. So, heck, I didn't care if we made it in the 2nd or 3rd round....and we got picked by the #1 team.

He....he..... and then we went on to win the whole enchilada with them!

So, yes, I think the current system works great. All throughout the qualifying matches, each team has the same clear mission to get as high up the ladder as they can.

Evan Austin

11-04-2005, 15:12

Personally, I agree with the current system. It may have its drawbacks, but everything has drawbacks, you just have to live with them.
The question that I have is, why shouldn't number 1 be allowed to pick first? They have certainly earned the right to do so. This does not guarantee them certain victory. But still, not allowing them to pick first and to pick whoever they want is kind of like being the polesitter at a race, and then being told that you must start from the back for no apparent reason. If a team has worked their way to the top, let them be rewarded for it.

Lil' Lavery

11-04-2005, 15:29

Sure high seeds typically win, but not always. The #8 seed in VCU got all the way to the finals this year (which means they obv beat the #1 seed in the QF) , before loosing the #3 seed. Last year in VCU the #7 seeded alliance (yay for us!) upset the #2 seed. The #3 would eventually win VCU last year as well. I have seen several #2 and #3 seeded alliances win competitions, almost as much as the #1 seeds. In Purdue this year, the only "favorite" not to get upset during the QF was the #1 seed, proving lower seeds do stand a chance. Even though the #1 would eventually win Purdue, it took them 4 final matches (yes, there was a tie).
Yes, there are several dominant #1 seeded alliances, such as in Colorado and Annapolis this year, but the #1 seed doesnt always get what they want. I have seen a number of teams decline picks and start their own #2, #3, or #4 seeded alliance as Alliance Captain. Last year in VCU, team 33 did just that and went on to win VCU.
The competitions which tend to have dominant alliances are usually (but not always) the smaller and/or "weaker" ones that have very few really good teams. When 2 of these teams band together, there is usually only one, or perhaps no other alliance, that can stand a chance. But at the larger and more competitive regionals, or championship, this is not the case. There are enough good robots to be able to upset a #1 seed. Look at UTC for example. the #1 lost there, and it was comprised of what many consider 2 of the best teams around.

IMDWalrus

11-04-2005, 15:33

The debate here seems to boil down to one question.

The number one seed has definitely earned an advantage. But how much of an advantage is too much?

Considering that I've seen eight seeds beat one seeds multiple times at regionals, it hasn't proven to be too much of a problem so far. It's a bit different at smaller regionals, though. At Detroit, there were 33 teams competiting. Because of the small pool of teams, the number one alliance looks absolutely intimidating whereas the eighth alliance is...well, not nearly as much of a threat.

I almost do think that a serpentine system would be fairer. It's much kinder to the eighth seed, to be sure, and when you've got the first and second ranked robots paired together already, how much more of an advantage do they need?

There's even a possibility that FIRST could just use systems like that at regionals below a certain size. The eighth alliance at, say, Great Lakes has many, MANY more choices for their final team than they would at Detroit. That added freedom of choice could make all the difference, especially if it comes down to finding a robot that complements your alliance perfectly or just choosing the best of the nine robots left, with two or three of those not working correctly.

I don't think we'll be seeing a change like this anytime soon, but who knows?

Kit Gerhart

11-04-2005, 15:36

The current system has worked fine for years. I don't see a reason to change it.

In fact of the seven regionals I have attended, I can't of a time where the no.1 seeded alliance has taken home the championship (including the time we were on the no.1 seeded alliance).
We have been top seed at three regionals since I have been with Team 233 and have won all three times. There is always luck involved, both in being top seed and in winning a competition, but being top seed gives you a huge advantage over every other team in that you are able to pick one of your partners from the entire field. Occasionally they may decline, but not often.

Sarah Johnson

11-04-2005, 16:07

Since the FRC competition starts with 8 or 10 matches with random alliances, I believe you really can't tell which are the best robots. I think, therefore, that the seeding is more than just a little arbitrary. The final alliance system needs to address this discrepancy.

Rick TYler has a good point even though his system is rather complicated...

One of the reasons the alliance picking is an issue, I personally think, is because the seeding is a matter more often than not of luck. It is true that luck favors the good robots many times in the seeding matches, :rolleyes: But it is also true that the number one seed has quite a fair bit of luck with alliance partners and such. This year alliance partners are especially crucial because playing with two dead robots, even if you are the ultimate superrobt, you almost never win.

The eliminatation rounds currently try to compensate for this by making the alliances win 2 matches, instead of sudden death or whatever. But, I think the point some people are trying to make, which I agree with, is that, even before the draft even begins, this should be balanced a little by taking the first pick of the second round away from the top alliance. This means that the number one alliance needs to be able to hold its own and absolutely cannot be the weak robot in its alliance, otherwise it will be topped by the #8 alliance.

Very interesting discussion all... hopefully this will be taken into consideration by the people down at FIRST for next years game!

Greg Perkins

11-04-2005, 22:04

I have been pondering this question ever since i began reffing. It seems all to common to see the #1 seed pick #2 and go on to dominate the compeition. At RiverRage Ed Forcier asked me if we should try the #2 option in the poll. It was great, eliminated landslides and made for an extremely even matchup through the finals. The football analogy is a great example...why should the best team get the best partners? If a team is so "good" they shouldnt need the number 2 seed to prove themselves. Hence why I voted that we should pick out of the top 8.

also on another note...i've noticed most people who support the current setup are people who have benefieted from it. I myself am a product of getting screwed by being stuck against the best alliance.

just my $.02 and observations

haroony341

11-04-2005, 23:56

Shu Song

13-04-2005, 18:12

i say leave it as it is, there does need to be an advantage of being the number 1 seed, and this shows it, if anything was to change, i would propose that 1st seed picks then 2nd, 3rd and so on and they can choose anyone. but then the 8th seeded alliance get the last pick in the first round of choosing and then right away pick their next partner and then 7th chooses and so on back to the 1st alliance. this still gives the advantage to higher seeded teams since they choose their partners first ad would still be able to choose amongst themselves. but this does give the lower seeded teams a better chance

I believe that's call serpentine draft and is readily discussed here.

I totally forgot to put that in the poll. I will admit now that the backwards draft is bad idea. I tend to agree with Greg Perkins that a lot of the people who voted to keep the current system have benefitted from it.

Kims Robot

13-04-2005, 19:29

Although the current draft did well for us in toronto, as Doug mentioned above, I would tend to lean towards a serpentine type draft.

Does anyone have any actual stats on how often the #1 seed alliance ends up playing the #2 seed alliance in the finals? I think I would have to see actual numbers and stats to see how "fair" it was. I know in the regionals I went to this year, #8 seed always got crushed in the first match... and that is the reason I would favor serpentine.

It gets really hard when you are a selecting alliance in 6, 7, or 8 seed, and you have a reduced number of teams to pick from, and often they are not as good as the robots above (not to say there arent outliers that get overlooked, but in general). I think with the "luck" that is involved in so many of the qualifications matches (its terrible when you are the only robot of 3 on the field, or moving, and it wasnt your choice!). I think something should be attempted to even out this luck. But all this said, I dont mind the system the way it is. 99% of the time, the #1 team has very rightfully earned that spot, with little luck needed... so let them reap their rewards :)