Denying an Alliance Selection

[Magnechu]

Has your team ever denied one of the top seeds picking you? Have you ever witnessed another team denying a selection? If so, I imagine these teams were in the top 8 as well, right? Why do you deny in that case?

Just wondering, because I've never seen a team deny, and it seems like it would be very ungracious.

[GaryVoshol]

Check the responses in the Great Lakes thread. It also happened at Midwest this year, and at Detroit a year or two ago. There are a variety of reasons for declining to participate in an alliance, and most of them are GP.

[kborer22]

i believe it happened in jersey a few years ago, and 25 and 103 ended up together (correct me if im wrong, i know i have seen it once), but this is not unGP at all. If your team is lucky/good enough to be in the top 8 then you have earned the opportunity to pick who ever you want. The team that declines would only do so if they thought that the teams they had in mind to pick would be a better fit. While scouting i encourage looking for the bot that flys under the radar, that sleeper pick that tends to take your alliance from good to great.

[AdamC]

As said above, it's largely GP. If your robot fails, you can deny to prevent yourself from hampering the alliance. That's the only reason I've ever though of, although I'm sure there are more.
I'm sure you understand that denying does prevent you from joining any alliances afterwards though. I think it's largely used as a formal withdrawal from competition, since it is necessary for teams to send representatives to the field.

[Alex Cormier]

Check the responses in the Great Lakes thread. It also happened at Midwest this year, and at Detroit a year or two ago. There are a variety of reasons for declining to participate in an alliance, and most of them are GP.

Yeah, it has happened in FLR and GTR this past year. If you are a low seeded team and not picked by the top 2/3 teams, there is a real good plan to deny teams 4-6 to make your own alliance. It's not always the case of being non GP, it's still all about survival in the elimination rounds. If you feel the other team doesn't fit in a plan you have or compliment your robot more then others out there, then go right ahead and deny the pick. Also something happened at GTR, that I have never witnessed before. Team 03 knew coming into the later half of the day that their drive system was on the verge of breaking. They had announced before the alliance pickings that they might be fully operational and requested not to be picked. I felt that was a really professional announcement from a professional team. I can only wish other teams take that and do it as well instead of being selected and then announce to the alliance that they are not full functional.

[Travis Hoffman]

Has your team ever denied one of the top seeds picking you? Have you ever witnessed another team denying a selection? If so, I imagine these teams were in the top 8 as well, right? Why do you deny in that case?

Just wondering, because I've never seen a team deny, and it seems like it would be very ungracious.

If declining, and the team is outside the Top 8....

A team might decline an invitation because they know their robot is badly damaged and would not serve the alliance well in the elimination rounds. An example of this gracious action was set in motion by Team 703 at GTR this past weekend.
A team may be ignorant of the alliance selection rules and by declining a pick, remove themselves from competing in the eliminations - this has happened at least once before, but I do not recall when and where. Regional announcers/MC's have made it a point to explain the picking rules to teams in MUCH more detail in recent seasons after this had happened a few times back in the day. No one wants to see this example happen again.If declining, and the team is inside the Top 8:

By making into the Top 8 seeds, a team has earned the right to choose their own alliance partners and serve as an alliance captain. They have also earned the right to decline the invitation to form an alliance with a higher-seeded opponent who may choose them. This is well within their rights as granted by the rules and is not in any way an ungracous act. If the team declines an invitation from a higher-seeded alliance captain, they can then not accept an invitation from any other alliance captain - they may only choose their own alliance.And a related side-venture......

If picking, and the team is a top seed:

You will see this happen from time to time, and you might even see it in Atlanta - a top seeded team proceeds to choose teams in the Top 8 below them who most people feel are superior performers to the top seed. It is quite natural for the top seed to desire to ally with such great teams and robots, and it is certainly an intelligent and logical course of action to try and ally with such teams by visibly choosing them in public (even if those teams come up to them and tell them beforehand they won't agree to the selection - the virtues vs. evils of such an action are left for a debate for another day). So when the choice is made, the chosen teams will decline this invite and wish to form their own alliance (as is their right). Now, the top seed team might then repeat this process 2, 3, 4, or more times as they proceed to pick down through the top 8, trying to identify a strong partner who wishes to ally with them. Several other top teams may decline a partnership before one finally agrees to ally with the top seed.
A side effect of this action is to prevent most of the Top 8 seeds from picking each other - they must each form an alliance composed of themselves and teams outside the top 8. This has the effect of greatly leveling the playing field and spreading out the best talent among the alliances. This generally leads to less certainty of who the regional/division winner will be and generally creates a more exciting elimination atmosphere filled with closer matches. Some who enjoy watching total domination by the few at the expense of the many feel that such a picking strategy interferes with top performers' destiny to join forces and dominate the competition on the way to a regional victory or Einstein. One counters that if teams are truly "destined" to be together on their way to the gold, these top robots would have seeded #1 to begin with in order to have complete control over who they can ally with. But I digress. ;)

[rees2001]

I once saw a team, not in the top 8, deny an alliance selection because they didn't understand the rules. They wanted to partner up with a different team not the #1 seed. They were told that denying this selection would forfeit them from the elimination rounds & they still denied. Then when the team they wanted to pair up with called their number they were happy & came running out to accept. They were told again that they could not accept. Lets saw the behavior I witnessed after that announcement was not GP, for that matter it wasn't even PG.

[Corey Balint]

In 2006 at Nationals (Newton Field), 176 was denied twice. It was part of a strategy by the #1 seed to break up any "super alliances". 176 was not one of the best robots on the field, but had been doing fairly well and had a nice match schedule. They ended up being the only undefeated team in the division and ultimately took the 1 seed.
The seeding was...
1. 176
2. 987
3. 25
4. 254...
176 knew that 987 was likely to select 25, due to their success together at Las Vegas that year and they also knew that 25 would deny a selection. They knew 25 would deny because there were a decent amount of teams that were considered better than 176. They also chose 254 for the same reason. 987 could then not select 25 or 254. 25 also could not select 254 as well.
Ultimately they chose 111 and got to the Division Finals. You could argue that if they hadn't played that strategy, they wouldn't have made it past semis.


So to answer the question...a good amount of times denying a team/blocking a team has a lot to do with strategy. However there are a decent amount of times where the seeded team is just not up to snuff for some teams to pair with.

[Kyle Love]

For a team to deny in the top 8 is okay. Many strategies are pre-planned going into the alliance pickings, some of which tell the person picking that they will not accept an invitation to be allied together. It's all part of the "game" or FIRST would have a rule not allowing this to happen.

For a team to deny out of the top 8 is also okay. If a team has a robot that may have a broken something-or-other and does not want to keep an alliance from having an alliance partner that is at "100%" instead, it's very gracious for them to deny the selection.

As for what happened at GLR this past weekend, I saw it as an immense strategy put into place, and it worked very effectively.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Travis,
This is what I tell rookie teams at each regional on Saturday morning...
"Be sure to have a list of your top 5 #1 picks and top 5 #2 picks ready for alliance selection. Make sure you give the list to your team captain before alliance selection. If you find yourself in a position to be picking you want to be prepared and if you are picked you want to help your alliance partner pick another robot that will fill out your capabilities. If you choose someone in the top eight and they decline, do not feel bad, just move on to your next choice. They either think they have a better chance with another robot; they think they would like to play you; or they think your robot would be a better fit with another robot you have not thought about. Remember that this might be their and your last chance to bring home some hardware this season. Everyone wants to play on Saturday afternoon. Finally, remind your student to keep an eye on the available team list on the big screen. You don't want to pick someone that is already in an alliance, you don't want to look like a rookie out there."

I know there have been other threads about picking teams you know will decline so they cannot ask another team in the top eight. My $0.02 on this subject is Shame On You!

[IndySam]

On a side note, I have seen teams accept an invitation when they shouldn't have. If you don't think your team matches up well then it's more than OK to say "thanks but no."

[JaneYoung]

Strategy is an integral part of the robotics competition and the alliance selections are a part of that. If you think of the importance of strategy in games that you are familiar with - apply that to the entire process of build and competition, from design through alliance selections, and throughout each match, with alliances working with each other.

I'm linking you to the conferences that will be available at the Championship. There are those who will not be attending the Championship, I understand, but I would like you to look at some of the topics and note who some of the presenters are. A few of the presentations discuss strategy. If there is any way for folks to attend these, I would highly recommend it.

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FIRST_Place/2008_Conference_Schedule_32008.pdf

The game, strategy, drivers continuing to improve throughout the competition(s), alliances working with each other - each of these elements continue to deepen and develop, as does our understanding. It's pretty spectacular.

[EricH]

If the Los Angeles selections for 2008 ever come up on video, there were four declines to partner with one team. All four came from inside the top 8. Then one of those teams was picked and accepted and #9 came up...only to be sent back after the FTA reminded the person running the selection (not the MC in this case) that you can't accept after declining.

My team went into those knowing that if we were picked (by some fluke) we would decline.

I also remember one instance--not sure if it's something my dad told me or something I saw--but a team declined because they were going to miss their flight home if they participated in the elimination rounds.

And then there are the "breaker" declines. I won't go into those, as others have done it already.

[Jim Meyer]

It's pretty simple really, the seeding process is not perfect. Sometimes teams get lucky match selections and seed higher than the level their robot is performing at. When this happens seeded teams can sometimes get stronger partners by choosing their own alliance.

[Mr. Lim]

I know there have been other threads about picking teams you know will decline so they cannot ask another team in the top eight. My $0.02 on this subject is Shame On You!

I have to disagree wholeheartedly on this one. Picking teams you know will decline is NOT simply a last-ditch, "mess everyone else up" endeavour. It is a VERY real and effective way to build a regional winning alliance, even for very "so-so" robots.

Consider this hypothetical situation where one mediocre team is ranked #1 overall, followed by several excellent robots:

1. 9999
2. 1114
3. 39
4. 103
5. 968
6. 1625
7. 3000
8. 4000

Let's also assume 9999 is marginally better than teams 3000 and 4000.

9999 should start picking at 39 (NOT 1114)
39 declines
103 declines
968 declines
1625 declines

now 9999 picks 1114.

Consider 1114's position: What is the BEST POSSIBLE ALLIANCE that can be formed at the regional now?

That's right, it ACTUALLY is 9999 and 1114, because the rest of the field is now forced to pick robots 3000, 4000 and below.

1114 should DEFINITELY accept, and they WILL form the strongest alliance at the regional.

The strategic power of the 1st rank seed as a "so-so" robot should not be trifled with. Unfortunately, we RARELY ever see it used to its maximum potential.

The truth is, some (actually MOST) teams can only build okay robots. Some of these teams are consistently higher performers by just finding a way to win (in a GP way of course). Can they really be faulted for this? To me, this process is easily just as inspiring...

[Corey Balint]

I have to disagree wholeheartedly on this one. Picking teams you know will decline is NOT simply a last-ditch, "mess everyone else up" endeavour. It is a VERY real and effective way to build a regional winning alliance, even for quite mediocre robots.

Consider this hypothetical situation where one mediocre team is ranked #1 overall, followed by several excellent robots:

1. 9999
2. 1114
3. 39
4. 103
5. 968
6. 1625
7. 3000
8. 4000

Let's also assume 9999 is marginally better than teams 3000 and 4000.

9999 should start picking at 39 (NOT 1114)
39 declines
103 declines
968 declines
1625 declines

now 9999 picks 1114.

Consider 1114's position: What is the BEST POSSIBLE ALLIANCE that can be formed at the regional now?

That's right, it ACTUALLY is 9999 and 1114, because the rest of the field is now forced to pick robots 3000, 4000 and below.

1114 should DEFINITELY accept, and they WILL form the strongest alliance at the regional.

The strategic power of the 1st rank seed as a mediocre robot should not be trifled with. Unfortunately, we RARELY ever see it used to its maximum potential.

The truth is, some teams can only build so-so robots. Some of these teams still just keep on finding a way to win (in a GP way of course). Can they really be faulted for this? To me, this process is easily just as inspiring...

Well, you are also assuming there are no great teams outside of the top 8. Otherwise, great analysis. I always had a list of what I would do if X happened at events. It looked quite like that.

[Racer26]

Well, I mean, at most events there arent many more than 5 or 6 truly dominant machines...

[Corey Balint]

Well, I mean, at most events there arent many more than 5 or 6 truly dominant machines...

Well...you don't have to think dominant. Not all regionals have anyone dominant. Look at Oklahoma/Seattle/Minnesota...not many people can name teams that participated there, let alone 5 or 6 standouts. You might just have a whole bunch of mediocre teams with 2 or 3 above them.


(I had this worded correctly in my head before...but I can't remember how I wanted to say it. So it might be confusing/not making the point I was getting at)

[kborer22]

i agree with not always picking the "standout" team, it is more about what makes you alliance complete. In this game you would look for 2 hurdlers and 1 lap/defense bot. Last year for us in Boston, the stars aligned and we had stellar performances in the elims. 126 and 125(us), were able to each cap up to 5 or 6 times a match, 69 would cap 1-3 in a match, and then deploy their huge ramps at the end. (It ended up that 69 would stay close to the home zone and put up a colum and then play d or get back and deploy ramps, and 126 and 125 would blitz the other side of the field and put up as many tubes as possible, we scored over 200 pts a few times, once in quarters and once in semis i think)

[Koko Ed]

No matter how nicely you put it denying an alliance selection is the equivalent of having the most popular girl in school tell the meek class valedictorian that they "just want to be friends". It still has the same painful effects if she simply snarled "I wouldn't date you if you were the last man on earth" and slapped him.
I remember a few years ago a team was turned down by a more established team from their area at the championships and we were sitting nearby the rejected team. The kids were miffed and hurt.
It's legal but there is no real pleasant way to do it. Just say no thanks and move on.

[Brandon Holley]

KoKo is right here.

There is no nice way to do it, but it is definitely a feasible option that teams should consider in certain situations (ie: Newton '06)

[Dave Flowerday]

I know there have been other threads about picking teams you know will decline so they cannot ask another team in the top eight. My $0.02 on this subject is Shame On You!
Why do you say that? A team doing this is using a strategy to attempt to maximize their potential to win and is not doing anything at all against the rules. If FIRST thought this was an action deserving of shame, then certainly they could adjust the rules to prevent it (one way would be to simply allow a team who's been picked already and declined to accept from another team, like in the old days). I just don't see any reason to scold anyone for doing something that is perfectly within the rules.

Our team has discussed using this strategy multiple times before. I believe we were the ones who suggested this course of action to 176 on Newton in '06 (since they had already informed us that they intended to pick us). Is there some reason we should just roll over and let a "super-alliance" be formed that we know full well that we can't beat, when we have a valid, fully rules-compliant option to prevent it?

[SayDeeM8194]

This actually happened in the recent Bayou Regional. One top 8 team, seeded #3, picked I believe the #5 or #6 team. The latter denied the request, for they had already planned their personal strategy and wanted to remain an alliance captain. The status of the #3 alliance: went on to the semifinals and lost in the third round due to a penalty that was not called on the opposing team in a situation that needed a second look. The other team competed and also lost in elimination, unfortunately with damage to their innovative design. It's all part of the Game!!

[dilbert]

i agree with not always picking the "standout" team, it is more about what makes you alliance complete. In this game you would look for 2 hurdlers and 1 lap/defense bot. Last year for us in Boston, the stars aligned and we had stellar performances in the elims. 126 and 125(us), were able to each cap up to 5 or 6 times a match, 69 would cap 1-3 in a match, and then deploy their huge ramps at the end. (It ended up that 69 would stay close to the home zone and put up a colum and then play d or get back and deploy ramps, and 126 and 125 would blitz the other side of the field and put up as many tubes as possible, we scored over 200 pts a few times, once in quarters and once in semis i think)

Yes, but our alliance was 2 lap bots and a team that could hurdle 1 or two times. Sometimes, strategy can be better than amazing hurdling. (or whatever the game calls for)

[Elgin Clock]

In Philadelphia we were seeded number 6.
5 picked us, and we declined their offer.

We then picked team 7.

We based our decision on a lot of things, and one of them was that Team 7 had a better average for hurdling than Team 5 which we wanted in an alliance partner at the time.

We tend to scout an individual team throughout the course of a competition, and not an alliance, nor will we pick a team just because they are ranked higher at the end of qualifications than another team.

2 places in the rankings can make a big difference.
(Even if it's in a negative direction.)

So basically, we've done this before with success, and will do it again if the need arises.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Why do you say that?

I don't have to agree with everything and this one I choose to not to agree with.

[Jim Meyer]

Serpentine alliance selections certainly make it more appealing for a low seeded team to decline an alliance from a higher seeded team. Lets say it's a wash between who you think will be left to be picked, and the team asking you to be in an alliance, by leading your own alliance you are getting a better third team.

Sure there will be some hurt feelings, I blame them on the inability of the seeding system to accurately rank teams.

[Doug Leppard]

This actually happened in the recent Bayou Regional. One top 8 team, seeded #3, picked I believe the #5 or #6 team. The latter denied the request, for they had already planned their personal strategy and wanted to remain an alliance captain. The status of the #3 alliance: went on to the semifinals and lost in the third round due to a penalty that was not called on the opposing team in a situation that needed a second look. The other team competed and also lost in elimination, unfortunately with damage to their innovative design. It's all part of the Game!!

It was alliance led by team 34 picking 1902 I think we were alliance 5 at that point.

Our strategists saw the 34 & 1902 combination would not have been good for either team and we feel 34 did better without us. Both teams lost in the semi's we lost to the #1 team who eventually won and 34 lost to the #2 alliance.

Our team 1902 felt really bad about declining. We had bonded with team 34 hosting a dinner with them and team 34 had even given us a "best design" award. So it was a controversial call by our team. Many in the crowds communicated their surprise.

Again it was nothing against a team who had earned a top stop but more of having a partnership taking both of us to the top.

Thank you again team 34 for picking us, please do forgive us for not saying yes, it was not easy for us.

[AcesPease]

Having been on both sides of this, I can say that it does hurt when you know you will be declined, but that shouldn't discourage you from "breaking" up that "super alliance". On the other hand, if you have an idea that your robot will work better with someone else who has not yet been picked, then you should exercise your right to decline. This is all part of the game and can make the picking very interesting :)

[Ed Sparks]

It was alliance led by team 34 picking 1902 I think we were alliance 5 at that point.

Our strategists saw the 34 & 1902 combination would not have been good for either team and we feel 34 did better without us. Both teams lost in the semi's we lost to the #1 team who eventually won and 34 lost to the #2 alliance.

Our team 1902 felt really bad about declining. We had bonded with team 34 hosting a dinner with them and team 34 had even given us a "best design" award. So it was a controversial call by our team. Many in the crowds communicated their surprise.

Again it was nothing against a team who had earned a top stop but more of having a partnership taking both of us to the top.

Thank you again team 34 for picking us, please do forgive us for not saying yes, it was not easy for us.

No harm, no foul, we understand ...........
One of these days we're going to team up with you guys! Maybe next year? :)

[DG Highroller]

a team declined a pick this year at san diego. i believe 701 declined but i forgot who they declined to

[Amanda Morrison]

I'm shocked by some of the responses saying 'It's unpleasant, get it over with', 'it hurts feelings', or 'it's not the right thing to do'.

Having 'emcee'd' the alliance selection for multiple events on both the FRC and FTC side, I've found that simply explaining the rules to the group of kids beforehand and letting them know that they have EARNED THE RIGHT to decline if they are in the Top 8 teams is completely effective.

I have only had an issue once, at an FTC Tournament, and the team later admitted that they hadn't read the rules nor attended the mandatory meeting. Once we took them aside and explained, they realized they had made a mistake and the representative apologized to his team. No booing, no hard feelings - he manned up and explained, and his team respected him for it.

Just like there's no crying in baseball, there's no booing in FIRST. I'm very surprised when I go to competitions and hear that people are booed for strategically declining a pick. That's not fair to either team - you're embarrassing both team representatives by doing that and making the situation perpetually more awkward.

In the past, my team and I were booed by another team for a legal maneuver on practice day. I still remember the team, and I'm still hurt by it. I can remember every time I've sat in the stands and heard a team boo and yell against another team - and I certainly remember who those teams are. When myself and our scouts are working on our pick list, we certainly take into account other teams' behaviors on where we rank them. We don't want our drive team working with ungracious or immature competitors.

Bottom line: You need to be mature enough to realize that not everyone is going to want to partner with you and that teams may have a strategy that may not be aligned with yours. Doing this is not ungracious. This is a competition. We compete.

[EricH]

I
Just like there's no crying in baseball, there's no booing in FIRST. I'm very surprised when I go to competitions and hear that people are booed for strategically declining a pick. That's not fair to either team - you're embarrassing both team representatives by doing that and making the situation perpetually more awkward. Jim Beck countered two boos at L.A. (a top 8 team declined, then another top 8 declined the same team) with "Don't boo him, give him HELP! Shout out some numbers!" There was an immediate deafening chorus of team numbers from all over the arena. And there was no more booing.

[chaoticprout]

Jim Beck countered two boos at L.A. (a top 8 team declined, then another top 8 declined the same team) with "Don't boo him, give him HELP! Shout out some numbers!" There was an immediate deafening chorus of team numbers from all over the arena. And there was no more booing.

This is why Jim is one of my favorites ever.

Edit: Btw, that decline was from a rookie team who went on to make 2 of the best picks I've seen in a long time and led their alliance into the finals. If you can't work together with someone, no wrong in declining.

[usbcd36]

I saw a team decline at the Buckeye this year. What happened was some of the teams in the top eight picked other teams in the top eight, which caused lower-seeded teams to move up. The team that ended up in the seventh spot (250?) seemed like they had not planned this out (which is reasonable, since I think they were the eleventh-highest seeded team) and tried to pick the team in the eighth spot (1001?), who declined. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, since 1001 probably already had others in mind, and they were going to be in the elimination rounds anyway.

[Koko Ed]

I saw a team decline at the Buckeye this year. What happened was some of the teams in the top eight picked other teams in the top eight, which caused lower-seeded teams to move up. The team that ended up in the seventh spot (250?) seemed like they had not planned this out (which is reasonable, since I think they were the eleventh-highest seeded team) and tried to pick the team in the eighth spot (1001?), who declined. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, since 1001 probably already had others in mind, and they were going to be in the elimination rounds anyway.

I think you mean 120 trying to pick 250 after canvasing the crowd by asking who wants to be picked.

[MDiff]

At the few regionals i've seen, i think in about 80% of them i've seen denying, more than once.

Just a bit ago in GLR08 there was 3 denys from the top seed
in DTR08 there was one too

In DTR07 there was a huge number of denies as well, with nearly every team denying first seed.
as i recall, 47 took advantage of the serpentine draft as well in that picking when they declined the #7, (as position 8) so that they could pick 2 robots quickly and in their favor

[DarkFlame145]

A team declined at FLR this year.

[ttldomination]

A couple of teams declined in Peachtree. I believe the number seven alliance was given an offer by number 5 and they refused. or sorry, number seven seed.

[Jared Russell]

I don't know...just because you are ALLOWED to deny a selection, it doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.

I personally would never deny a selection unless our robot was having problems. But that is a decision that each team must make for themselves.

Usually, our team will go to the various other top 8 teams and ask them beforehand whether or not they will pick us, or if they will accept if we pick them. This way you can avoid a little bit of the embarrassment that always comes with declining a pick.

[usbcd36]

I think you mean 120 trying to pick 250 after canvasing the crowd by asking who wants to be picked.

Yeah… Just had the numbers wrong, that's all.

The point is that 250 was already in, so they didn't need to be picked to participate.

[Magnechu]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this much of a response. Thanks a lot everyone for the answers, it does make sense now, just never saw it in action. This year we didn't have to worry about it, being the 3rd and 1st alliances, respectively. I'll keep this in mind for the future, though, especially since we're considering heading down for the Championship next year.

[Stephi Rae]

At the Seattle regional, we were seeded 3rd. We were good friends with the first seed and knew they wanted to pick us. As many know, the Seattle regional was quite scarce on competent hurdlers, but with our scouting data we knew that we would play much better with a lower ranked hurdler and a sleeper lapper/hybrid that we had our eye on. Before the pickings we told the #1 seed that we would decline if the picked us. They were... disappointed, but we explained and I don't think there are any hard feelings. We ended up getting picked by the second alliance (a pure rabbit) and declined. We wanted to continue with our own plans. We ended up taking one of our highest hurdler picks (2046) and that sleeper (949), and going through the eliminations undefeated. We would have done just as well 488, but they ended up with the #2 alliance. It was a strategy decision for us, and it definitely worked out well in our situation. I, personally, feel much better about telling the #1 alliance ahead of time.

[The Lucas]

A team declined at FLR this year.

Actually, 2 teams declined. #2 67 declined #1 1507's offer and new #8 1503 declined new #6 68's offer (I think). You don't see many declines that late. I was talking to 1503 in the pits near the field (but couldn't see the screen) and we were shocked. Then we realized they had moved into picking position and it made sense.

I don't think my team has ever declined but that doesn't mean we would not. Declining can be a difficult decision to make so it is important to talk over the when to decline and when to accept. Teams thinking about declining should make a list of more preferable partners and if a certain amount of those (based on difference in picking position) are available then decline.

[XaulZan11]

Teams thinking about declining should make a list of more preferable partners and if a certain amount of those (based on difference in picking position) are available then decline.

Correct, but you cannot just think of the first round. If your the 8th seed, you cannot think of it just as "is the 1st seed better than someone I can pick with the 8th pick?" Instead, you should think of it as "Is the 1st seed and 16 pick better than the 8th pick and 9th pick?" Depending on the depth of the regional and where (if any) are there major drop offs in teams, the second round could be the deciding factor.

[jayjaywalker3]

In Philadelphia we were seeded number 6.
5 picked us, and we declined their offer.

We then picked team 7.

We based our decision on a lot of things, and one of them was that Team 7 had a better average for hurdling than Team 5 which we wanted in an alliance partner at the time.

We tend to scout an individual team throughout the course of a competition, and not an alliance, nor will we pick a team just because they are ranked higher at the end of qualifications than another team.

2 places in the rankings can make a big difference.
(Even if it's in a negative direction.)

So basically, we've done this before with success, and will do it again if the need arises.

What would have happened if Team 5 then proceeded to pick Team 7.

[Doug Leppard]

No harm, no foul, we understand ...........
One of these days we're going to team up with you guys! Maybe next year? :)

Look forward to it, maybe at Atlanta. Please pass onto your team our thoughts and how we appreciated connecting with them.

[PizzmasterP27]

At the few regionals i've seen, i think in about 80% of them i've seen denying, more than once.

Just a bit ago in GLR08 there was 3 denys from the top seed
in DTR08 there was one too


in glr 08 it wasnt neccesary to pick within the top 8 though. Evn though their was many great machines within the top 8...(66,47,27,1718,33,65,107 and 67) there was also many great machines outside the top 8 (68,217,326,469,503,70,494,910 sorry if i did not mention your team.) It was very impressive to me to see that the only team that picked wihtin the top 8 was 33 and they picked 107. Other than that, it was everyone picking outside the top 8.:ahh:

[Elgin Clock]

What would have happened if Team 5 then proceeded to pick Team 7.

In a scenario like that (which very well could have happened) we had backup teams we would pick.

Basically we decided at that point that we felt that we couldn't work nicely with teams 4 of 5 on an alliance. There we other robots out there we felt we could work better with (strategy wise, not because there was anything wrong with the team or the robot per-say), and if team 5 picked 7, then we would just go down our list.

We had a difficult spot of being ranked 6th where a lot of good bots would get picked before us if no one above us picked us.

We basically decided that we would accept immediately the offer of the top 3 teams if they chose us since we liked all of them & recognized that all 3 of them would work well & compliment our style of play in the game, and make a decision based on who was left to pick when team 4 or 5 came around and if they picked us go from there.

Team 5 picked us, and at that point there were other teams who weren't picked remaining on our list we felt we could work better with than team 5.

[The Lucas]

In a scenario like that (which very well could have happened) we had backup teams we would pick.


Had Team 7 declined then Team 8 declined, then Team 5 picked the next team on your list (out of top 8), which certainly could have happened, that would have knocked 3 teams off your list. However, that is the risk you must take to form a great alliance like the one you had with 816 and 1370 (the #3 alliance IMHO, right up there with #1A and #1B).

[Andy Baker]

I agree that teams have earned the right to decline a pick, and strategically picking a team who you know will decline you is part of the competition.

However... I get frustrated by the lack of tact and grace alliance captains have when they turn down a pick. This year, I actually saw a kid simply say "no". Not, "no, thanks"... just "no". That was fairly lame. Alternatively, I heard that one team said "we are honored by this selection, but due to our rank, we are choosing to decline this offer". That was much better, of course. A bit of thought went into that reply. It's not that hard, people.

Every year, I am surprised with the lack of creativity during alliance selections. Last year, at the Championships, there was much improvement. I'm just amazed that we have all of these young leaders who briefly have the microphone and the attention of a few thousand people, and they don't take advantage of the situation. This is combined with the lack of tact that some students have when they decide to decline. I know that the pressure is on, and they are nervous, but, c'mon. You guys and gals can do better.

Looks like we need another incentive program (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56022) for creativity during alliance selections.

Andy B.

[Doug Leppard]

I get frustrated by the lack of tact and grace alliance captains have when they turn down a pick.

Andy B.

Our member that represented us, I could tell was nervous when invited to be a alliance member and she knew we would turn it down, she paused to get the best words out, she did great. But that is a lot of pressure for some high school student.

[IKE]

One thing, I would like anyone reading this thread to know, is that should you be in the situation that you feel it necessary to deny a team, do so with respect and dignity. The best denial I have ever heard (and I have heard many in my short few years) was Midwest 08 by the Captain of 111. I will parapharse as I did not write it down, but it went a little like this: "On behalf of Team 111 I am honored and would like to thank team #### for there offer, however we humblely decline so that we may choose our own alliance."

Al if you have this on tape, I would love a direct quote.

I have also seen sarcasm and non-GP denials. Not very classy.

Lastly, the booing is uncalled for. Many participants do not get a chance to see the behind the scenes action, but denials are often known about in advance. When they take place the team being denied is asking while knowing the response. At that point it is a strategic move. 2 out of 3 regionals I was involved in this year (MWR and GLR) had strategic denials. Like any strategy you will find proponents and opponents.

[SSMike]

The point is that 250 was already in, so they didn't need to be picked to participate.

Yes that's true, but that is not the only reason why we declined. As the representative, I was very nervous being on the field in front of everyone, because it is a lot of pressure. To make matters worse, I had literally been on the field all of a minute before I was asked to join 120's alliance. In situations like those you have to stick to your guns and do what you think is best for your team. At that point Team 250 was the 8th seed and 120 was the 7th seed. I had a list of teams that I was looking for based on the scouting sheets of my teammates over the qualification matches. At that point, there were still two teams that had not been picked that were high on our list (612 and 1506). This is what my team agreed on if they were still around. I figured that I'd be able to get them in my two consecutive picks if 120 didn't pick them.

When I actually did decline, I wanted to do it as nicely as possible, by saying "Team 250 respectfully declines." I'll be honest, I still felt really bad about having to decline someone who was sincere enough about inviting my team to play with them, but based on my team's strategy, it was the best choice, in my opinion.

[Stephi Rae]

I agree that teams have earned the right to decline a pick, and strategically picking a team who you know will decline you is part of the competition.

However... I get frustrated by the lack of tact and grace alliance captains have when they turn down a pick. This year, I actually saw a kid simply say "no". Not, "no, thanks"... just "no". That was fairly lame. Alternatively, I heard that one team said "we are honored by this selection, but due to our rank, we are choosing to decline this offer". That was much better, of course. A bit of thought went into that reply. It's not that hard, people.

Every year, I am surprised with the lack of creativity during alliance selections. Last year, at the Championships, there was much improvement. I'm just amazed that we have all of these young leaders who briefly have the microphone and the attention of a few thousand people, and they don't take advantage of the situation. This is combined with the lack of tact that some students have when they decide to decline. I know that the pressure is on, and they are nervous, but, c'mon. You guys and gals can do better.

Looks like we need another incentive program (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56022) for creativity during alliance selections.

Andy B.

I definitely agree with you. But I also agree with Doug Leppard as well. After we had informed the number one pick of our intentions, I did not really expect the number 2 seed to pick us. When they did i have to say I was a little nervous and wasn't sure what to say... the best I could come up with on the spot was "Team 1983 respectfully declines". I think another competition would be a great way to get the creative juices flowing through the alliance selections, specifically in the event of declined invitations.

[SU 39]

I agree that teams have earned the right to decline a pick, and strategically picking a team who you know will decline you is part of the competition.

However... I get frustrated by the lack of tact and grace alliance captains have when they turn down a pick. This year, I actually saw a kid simply say "no". Not, "no, thanks"... just "no". That was fairly lame. Alternatively, I heard that one team said "we are honored by this selection, but due to our rank, we are choosing to decline this offer". That was much better, of course. A bit of thought went into that reply. It's not that hard, people.

Every year, I am surprised with the lack of creativity during alliance selections. Last year, at the Championships, there was much improvement. I'm just amazed that we have all of these young leaders who briefly have the microphone and the attention of a few thousand people, and they don't take advantage of the situation. This is combined with the lack of tact that some students have when they decide to decline. I know that the pressure is on, and they are nervous, but, c'mon. You guys and gals can do better.

Looks like we need another incentive program (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56022) for creativity during alliance selections.

Andy B.



As the representative for 846, we/I tried to be creative at the Hawaii regional. Maybe it wasn't so clear. Our robot has a vacuum, hence the "we suck" comment. And then we wanted to play Simon Says just for kicks. We did "simon says...touch your chin" and I had 2024's rep touch his cheek. Most of the crowd looked confused and I didn't get a chance to let everyone know where their chin was. In fact, apparently someone near our team in the stands went "I'LL TOUCH BOTH CHINS FOR YOU" and proceeded to touch both cheeks.

[Elgin Clock]

Had Team 7 declined then Team 8 declined, then Team 5 picked the next team on your list (out of top 8), which certainly could have happened, that would have knocked 3 teams off your list. However, that is the risk you must take to form a great alliance like the one you had with 816 and 1370 (the #3 alliance IMHO, right up there with #1A and #1B).

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know specifics of our list, but I know not everyone on our list (for first choice) was in the top 8 at the time of the alliance selections.
Not that what you said is wrong, it's true, and we have gotten ourselves messed up with that scenario in the past.
Alliance selections are always nervewracking, but you just have to go in having a big enough list of good teams so that you always get someone you're familiar with so you're not left with a last minute surprise decision while standing up there with that alliance captain's bib.