Crazy Idea, looking for comments

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST



I posted this message while back, but got no takers. Thought perhaps folks might have missed it.

Here is another chance.

What do you think about the idea of having 3 team alliances always (specifically, during the Qualifying Matches)?

Each QM would have 6 team 'on deck.' Shortly before the match, the 6 teams would be divided into 2 groups of 3 and two 'alliance captain' teams would be randomly selected.

In this way, teams would have practice for the finals in negotiating not only the strategy but the robot choices as well.

In addition to this, it would help to even up 2 on 1 problem created by non-functional or barely functional robots (the chance of 2 dead robots on one alliance is much less -- therefore there would be fewer 2 on 1 QM's).

It could cause a problem or two also, not the least of which is that a team may NEVER have their robot play a match, but perhaps this could be worked out.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/4/99 8:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



Joe,

I'd go for the idea as long as we make sure one team doesn't sit for all there matches, And another thing, if my team had to sit down for a match i might be a little upset if I know that we can do a better job, I think there might be alot of arguments to who plays if there are 3 good robots. But hey I'd be willing to give it a try.

Kuli TJ² Team 88

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/4/99 8:31 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



I like the idea of avoiding 2 on 1's, but I agree with Mike that there might be arguments about who plays. How about this crazy idea instead. Keep the seeding based on average q points, and allow teams to volunteer to play extra matches. SOme system would have to be worked out to organize this but I think it could work. If you can not at least make your bot move when it's time for your match, you get 0 QP's and go back to the pits. Which ever volunteer bot is on deck then gets thrown in and has an extra match going towards their QP average.

I haven't put much thought at all into this idea (in fact I think it might be stolen from another post a while back), so I'll stop here and see if anybody wants to run with it.

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



I know I've said this before, but sit tight cuz I'm gonna say it again.



It is a well known statistical fact that luck is eliminated with increased trials. We need increased trials!

If one 540 match can put a lucky robot into the select sixteen, and similarly one 8 point round can pull a select sixteen team from that coveted position, there is obviously a problem. You have all acknowledged this in your posts. The solution is to increase the trials!

How do we fix it? More arenas. More time.

I saw someone suggest an extra day. This costs more, but it may not be such a bad tradeoff. We all want more matches. Don't you think those 80+ hour all-nighters would be better requited with more than six matches? Seriously, we put our lives into this thing.

More arenas would mean a big headache for FIRST and less time between matches. Unless another day is added. Once again, it may be worth the costs.

Personally, I think adding a third alliance partner is merely a way to avoid the issue. It works to a point, but it reduces the amount of matches some team gets to play. In essence, it makes the situation worse. No mater how well a teams bot performs, they deserve some play time. We all deserve to play. Remember what FIRST stands for...

And as for practicing for the finals, that also seems a little contrived. It's human nature to try to find reasons to support our opinions so I don't blame you, but it didn't really seem like an issue to me. It's not something you need too much practice for. I know my team didn't have a problem with it.


Just some thoughts from the guy who's got too many...
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Other on team #247, da Bears, from Berkley High and PICO/Wisne Design.

Posted on 5/5/99 3:56 AM MST


In Reply to: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Daniel on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST:



I agree that increased trails would be one way to solve the problem.
However, I think the way q-points are calculated is the problem. I say
improve the ranking system and six rounds would be sufficient.

Flaws that I see with the system:
It favors offensive, high scoring rounds only.
It discriminates against good defensive rounds which turn out to
be important in the elimination tourney.
As a result, sometimes losing outweighs winning.


I have been trying to come up with some ideas for a better ranking system.
If I get something concrete to post, I will.

Dan
#247 da Bears

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/5/99 4:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Dan on 5/5/99 3:56 AM MST:



Simplest way to simplify is to only rank by wins. One win - one point.
Point totals in a round could remain as is. But for ranking, count
the victories. Then a low-scoring, but well-fought win would be
weighted the same as a high-scoring, stroll-in-the-park against a weaker
opponent.
The teams with the most wins go to finals. Say, 5 out of 6 to qualify.
Simple, easy, fair.

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/5/99 4:25 AM MST:



Exactly. If ranking was done as seeding was last year, wins would mean a lot more.

Average QPs can be the tie breaker.

To point out the difference, my team was 4 of 4 last year and we ended up seeding at 6th place. This year we were 6 of 6. Although you'd naturally think that would be even better, we ended up ranking in the mid-30s.

Funny that.

A win-based ranking system would reward both defensive and offensive strategies, and would hold both at similar values as in the finals. It makes too much sence!

Still, this would bring robots that lose a match due to bad luck way down in seeding. In either case, more matches are needed.

My position still stands =)


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/5/99 5:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Do it like seeding last year... posted by Daniel on 5/5/99 7:58 AM MST:



: Exactly. If ranking was done as seeding was last year, wins would mean a lot more.

: Average QPs can be the tie breaker.

: To point out the difference, my team was 4 of 4 last year and we ended up seeding at 6th place. This year we were 6 of 6. Although you'd naturally think that would be even better, we ended up ranking in the mid-30s.

: Funny that.

: A win-based ranking system would reward both defensive and offensive strategies, and would hold both at similar values as in the finals. It makes too much sence!

: Still, this would bring robots that lose a match due to bad luck way down in seeding. In either case, more matches are needed.

: My position still stands =)

:
: -Daniel

But the bad luck you'd run into in this ranking system would be
mechanical malfunctions, human player falls off Space Mountain,
your bus driver gets lost and you end up in Pahokee. Stuff you
can't blame on any other team. Sweet, huh?

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/5/99 10:42 AM MST


In Reply to: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Daniel on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST:




: It is a well known statistical fact that luck is eliminated with increased trials. We need increased trials!

I agree, increased trials would reduce the luck factor. But there is another way (I think). At one point I thought FIRST was actually doing this, but I changed my mind. Randomly break up the teams into 8 groups (this year there would have been 26 teams per group. Play a round robinish tournament with the smaller group. The top two teams from each group comprise the 'sweet 16' and then you conduct the draft from there. As long as there is some minimum # of Q mathces per team (let's say at least 4), luck is actually a function of the ratio of the number of matches played to the number of teams in your group. With 6 matches and 208 teams, luck is a much bigger factor than 6 matches ad 26 teams.

: If one 540 match can put a lucky robot into the select sixteen, and similarly one 8 point round can pull a select sixteen team from that coveted position, there is obviously a problem. You have all acknowledged this in your posts. The solution is to increase the trials!

I'm still not sure that this is true. Give a 'lucky' team one 540 point win and 5, 100 point losses (a very good losing score). Their average QP is 353, decent but below this year's top 16 (We were 14th with about a 460 average).

There has been a lot of discussion about defense not being rewarded in the seeding rounds. This is obviously true, but ... FIRST gave us all the same set of rules on day one. It was obvious then that they wanted to reward scoring in matches. This makes sense. People want to see high scores, it's more fun. Defense is exciting in the elimination rounds, because winning is so much more important. Think about pro hockey. It's hard to get people to watch because of the low scoring. In the post season though, there is nothing more exciting (in all of pro sports, IMHO) than sudden death in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I don't think FIRST screwed up this year by placing so much emphasis on scoring in the Q rounds. What I feel they did screw up was in placing so much importance on scoring for a game where it was very difficult to tell the score until after it is all over. They paired a game that is more exciting to watch when played defensively with a system that rewarded offense. Rather than lobbying FIRST to do one thing or the other with the scoring, I think that we should be asking them to make sure that there is a good fit between whatever the game is and whatever the seeding formula is.


Any Thoughts?

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/5/99 12:50 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 10:42 AM MST:




: I agree, increased trials would reduce the luck factor. But there is another way (I think). At one point I thought FIRST was actually doing this, but I changed my mind. Randomly break up the teams into 8 groups (this year there would have been 26 teams per group. Play a round robinish tournament with the smaller group. The top two teams from each group comprise the 'sweet 16' and then you conduct the draft from there. As long as there is some minimum # of Q mathces per team (let's say at least 4), luck is actually a function of the ratio of the number of matches played to the number of teams in your group. With 6 matches and 208 teams, luck is a much bigger factor than 6 matches ad 26 teams.

:
: Any Thoughts?

: P.J.

I think the luck factor would just shift to a different area. The luck factor would be in the strength of the group of 26 that you're in. A decent team could get lucky and be put in with a group of lesser robots and make it to the dance while the same team might get put in a group with a bunch of good teams and finish poorly. It's a lot like (oh no, another sports reference) Major League Baseball a few years ago when 4 teams in the American League East had better records than the champion of the American League West. The A.L West champion made it to the playoffs and only one of the 4 better teams in the A.L. East made it. That system isn't necessarily fair either.

-Chris

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/5/99 2:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Chris on 5/5/99 12:50 PM MST:



: I think the luck factor would just shift to a different area. The luck factor would be in the strength of the group of 26 that you're in. A decent team could get lucky and be put in with a group of lesser robots and make it to the dance while the same team might get put in a group with a bunch of good teams and finish poorly. It's a lot like (oh no, another sports reference) Major League Baseball a few years ago when 4 teams in the American League East had better records than the champion of the American League West. The A.L West champion made it to the playoffs and only one of the 4 better teams in the A.L. East made it. That system isn't necessarily fair either.

: -Chris

This is a good point. I have a feeling that my way does reduce the luck involved, but since I haven’t done the math, let’s assume I’m wrong. All we need now is a way to reduce the “luck” involved in the assignment of teams to the small groups. Guess what, we have one! The regional tournaments. Take the seeding results form all of the regionals and divide them into quartiles (the top 25% from each regional are lumped together, the second 25% from each, etc.). Then fill each of the small groups for the national tournament like this:

Randomly assign the top quartile teams, then the second quartile, then the third quartile, and then the fourth quartile.

For teams that go to more than 1 regional, their average quartile rank would be used, rounding up for .5’s and higher, down for below .5 (1.33 goes to 1st quartile, 1.5 goes to 2nd quartile)

Certainly there is some luck involved in where you seed in regionals, but it is less so. There is also an argument that there will be some regionals with much stronger fields than others, but I think this goes further towards reducing the luck factor. We can not eliminate it, nor would I really want to. But there are ways to minimize it to the point where most people feel there is a direct correlation between effort, ability, and results.

P.J.

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 2:11 PM MST:



I disagree that the round robin of smaller groups lessens the luck of the draw, but I think that the idea of using the regional results is a great idea.

I propose that the averages carry over from the regionals. This would help to give us more rounds without adding to the time at the national. The scores from each regional may have to be normalized so that all regionals have the same average QM points in order to account for regional differences in offensive/defensive strategies.

I could go for it. It is not as desireable as having more QM's but it is perhaps a good compromise between an invitation only Nationals and what we currently have now.

What do others think?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 5/5/99 10:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



: I disagree that the round robin of smaller groups lessens the luck of the draw, but I think that the idea of using the regional results is a great idea.

: I propose that the averages carry over from the regionals. This would help to give us more rounds without adding to the time at the national. The scores from each regional may have to be normalized so that all regionals have the same average QM points in order to account for regional differences in offensive/defensive strategies.

: I could go for it. It is not as desireable as having more QM's but it is perhaps a good compromise between an invitation only Nationals and what we currently have now.

: What do others think?

: Joe J.

Don't really see this working for a couple reasons...
1) Some teams don't/can't (although i don't know why you wouldn't unless
you couldn't) go to regionals...you can say oh well...they just get
6 QM's...well that leads right into #2... (convienently ;)

2) You'd have a lot of teams w/ a lot of different numbers fo QM's
and the proverbial 'lucky/unlucky round' gets magnified or shrunk (sorry
i couldn't think of a smart sounding -ed word to mean shrunk...sue me...)
depending on your QM's...at least in this year's system everyones
lucky/unlucky rounds counted equally...but you could have one team use
their skill and score 3 perfect rounds at various regionals...but the
effect is shrunken down so much by the fact that they had 33 QM's...but
the team that gets 'lucky' with one perfect score at nationals and those
are their only 6 QM's is virtually guaranteed a spot in the finals...
and you think people complain about it (oh sorry...discuss it) now... ;)

Tom
Team 275

p.s. ifyou can't tell i'm slightly cynical about the whole 'lucky/unlucky'
round thing...before nationals (my team didn't get to go to a regional..
we're poor and in houston) i was thinking...wow just gotta get lucky once
and we're in...after the competition i now know that it takes a lot more
than just getting 'lucky' to get a really good score....unlucky rounds are
a little more likely...but still...'lucky' perfect scores aren't gonna come
up too often...and any team who has the ability to get a perfect score
whether they are paired with a box w/ wheels or the #1 seed deserves a spot
in the finals...b/c your robot has to be able to do something special to
get a perfect score...

sorry..i didn't mean to write all that...i just needed to say it... :)

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/6/99 5:29 AM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



I can't argue too convincingly about the smaller groups thing. It feels that way in my gut, but I wouldn't trust my statistical instincts much farther than I could throw a robot.

I want there to be a way to use the regional results, but I think that directly carrying over QM averages to the National tournament would be too much of a penalty for teams that didn't quite have it together at the 1 regional they attended. Of course, there should be some reward for performing well at regionals, and yes, a penalty for shipping a robot that doesn't work. How about this: Normalize the results of the regionals and then count a team's regional average as a pecentage of their seeding rank at Nationals, say 25%-33%. That way, you couldn't rack up a 500 pt average in 30 regional Q matches and coast into the National finals with a very mediocre performance there, and a sub-par performance at a regional wouldn't sink you chances at Nationals.

Now, what about the teams that don't go to any regionals. Personally, I think that this should be discouraged, but I haven't been around long enough to develop a really strong opinion about it. I see three options: Let them use just their average at Nationals, Give them the Regional average going into the National Tournament, or give them a fraction (3/4) of the regional average going into the national tournament. I've no idea which is best ...

I think this is being productive, more ideas please!

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/6/99 8:04 AM MST


In Reply to: Yes, use the regional results... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 8:02 PM MST:



I know it seems like a good thing to use regional results, but as of now, it's not a consistent measure. Some teams go to many regionals, others go to few or none at all. It's a great idea and I'm sure FIRST will work something similar into the games of the future, but we're not ready yet. We won't be ready until all robots go to the same number of regionals. If you think about it, a team that goes to many regionals doesn't get affected by a bad round in Florida, whereas a robot in Florida that gets unlucky for a match or two, experiences large effects on their average QP. I've always been an advocate of teams going to however many regionals they want, but under those changes, I'd have to move to the other side. You have to always remember there are teams that can't even afford to go to one regional.

We always need to strive to become MORE fair, not less (and I know it will never be 'fair', but it's always a positive change to move towards that ideal).

I like the idea, but we're not ready.

The calculations would be messy, I think that's a sign.


Agree/Disagree?
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/6/99 11:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Not ready...yet. posted by Daniel on 5/6/99 8:04 AM MST:



I agree. If you read my post below, you'll see a potential solution to the problem of teams having different #'s of Q matches from the regionals. It goes like this:

Let every teams regional average be weighted the same in the seeding matches at Nationals, regardless of whether they played 6 or 60 regional matches.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/6/99 12:04 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Not ready...yet. posted by P.J. Baker on 5/6/99 11:05 AM MST:



Even so, it's such an unconstant variable. Some teams don't even go to any...

I guess I can live with being a skeptic... =)


-Daniel

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/6/99 7:55 PM MST


In Reply to: Not ready...yet. posted by Daniel on 5/6/99 8:04 AM MST:



Okay, how about these (not always fair) suggestions for making it more fair for teams that go to more or less than 1 regional:

Give every team a starting Qualifying Point (QP) total equal to 6 times their average from all the regionals they attended of their average QP/match for each regional. Teams that go to no regionals get 6 times the average from all the regionals of the average QM/match.

For example, if a team scored 100 QP/Match at Chicago, 300 QP/Match in Philly, and 400 QP/match in Ypsi, then they would start the Nationals with 1200 QP (or 200 QP/Match). NOTE: ((100+200+300)/3)*6 = 1200

Further if
CA average QP/Match = 101,
IL average QP/Match = 99,
FL average QP/Match = 105,
PA average QP/Match = 95,
CT average QP/Match = 150,
NJ average QP/Match = 75,
MI average QP/Match = 75,

Then every team that went to no regionals would get 600 QP at the start of the nationals (or 100 QP/Match). NOTE: ((101+99+105+95+150+75+75)/7)*6 = 600

Assuming 6 QM's at the Nationals, then a team's average QP/match for the Nationals would then be weighted of 1/2 from the Qualifying Matches at the Nationals and 1/2 from Qualifying Matches from the Regionals (except for the no regional teams which 1/2 get an unfair lift and 1/2 get an unfair drag, life's not fair ;-)

Continuing with the example above if the team that went to the 3 regionals was paired with at team that went to no regionals and they won with 300 points, then their new QP/Match would be 300 and 214 respectively. NOTE: (1200+3*300)/7 = 300, (600+3*300)/7= 214

The actual QP/match would probably have to be normalized themselves to take out differences in scoring from regional to regional, but that is only a minor detail.

By doing this, everyone's QM's at the Nationals would be worth the same in terms of how much a particular bad or good match moved a teams QP/match, but some of the information gained from the regional would be incorporated into the National performance.

Itis a bit complicated to explain, but I don't think that it would be any trouble to implement and I think that it is a way to address some of the concerns folks have bought up.

What do you think?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/6/99 8:11 PM MST


In Reply to: some 'unfair' modifications to make it 'fair' posted by Joe Johnson on 5/6/99 7:55 PM MST:



I'm sorry but I still can't see what problem you're trying to solve here. If you're trying to make the game more fair, I can't see how that does the job. Teams that don't go to regionals could get cheated. In fact, it is most likely going to be the rookie teams that don't go to regionals. Those are exactly the people who we don't want to feel cheated. We need this thing to grow, not shrink.

Is it maybe something else?

Perhaps I'm just confused...


Lemme know.
-Daniel

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/6/99 8:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: does that really make it more fair? posted by Daniel on 5/6/99 8:11 PM MST:



This is a long metaphor, but stick with me.

Suppose you have 200+ bags of gold and you want rank each bag of gold from heaviest to lightest.

But... You don't have very good scale: It is just a balance. Further, you must weigh 4 randomly selected bags at a time, 2 on each side of the balance. Even worse, suppose the balance is not necessarily on a level base, but rather the base is randomly tipped for each measurement, adding even more uncertainty to each result.

The only real way to accomplish the task is by making lots of measurement.

It is clear (at least to me) from the Nationals, that 6 measurements per bag of gold is not sufficient to accurately rank the bags of gold. Many light bags are going to be estimated to be heavy simply because they were randomly weighed with 6 heavy bags or because they were weighed against 6 pairs of light bags (or even against one heavy bag and an empty bag!). The same is true for heavy bags that would be estimated to be light simply because of the luck of which bags was on their side of the balance or which bags happened to be on the other side of the teeter-totter. In addition, there is that random tipping of the base to deal with (a broken arm, a bad battery, a blown fuse, etc.).

It isn't exacty the most efficient means of ranking bags, but it is kind of exciting to watch.

The road to more accurate bag ranking runs right though the the town of More Weighings, but with 200+ bags to rank we don't have time to even look in that direction yet alone go there.

But... as it turns out, we have already weighed some of these bags against each other at the regionals. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use these measurement somehow?

What many folks are proposing (myself included) is that we use some of these measurements, but try to do so in a way that does not totaly take all the excitement and uncertainty out of the important weighings at the Nationals.

As to it being fairer, I can't say.

I do think that such proposals would be more likely to produce a heavier group of 'Heaviest 16' bags of gold than would otherwise be the case.

To me, this seems more fair. To a particular bag of gold that would have been judged in the Heaviest 16 except that it didn't participate in an earlier weighings, it would not seem fair at all.

While I sympathize with such bags of gold, I think that the improved odds of getting a more rational result is worth it.

My 2 cents.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/6/99 10:50 PM MST


In Reply to: weighing bags of gold with an odd scale... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/6/99 8:52 PM MST:



I completely agree that more trials are needed. I'm sure you've seen my messages stating just that. But if the trials you use are fake, it just becomes another 'tilt of the scale' (to use your analogy).

Although I do believe it's true that the proposed system may make the upper teams more accurately ranked, I fear it could discourage new teams that don't go to regionals.

The new guys are exactly the wrong people to discourage.

This is about inspiration, remember? We can't have people dropping out because of an inherent unfairness in the system. In fact, if I'm thinking about this correctly, it would be worse than 'tilting the scale'. It would be more like placing it on a slanted table. The unfairness that you were referring to was due to ill luck. The proposed unfairness is actually designed into the system. Something just doesn't feel right about that. I can't force myself to believe that a good system can TRY to be unfair. Unfortunately I think the proposed system does just that.

Although the current system is flawed, it isn’t trying to be unfair.

Perhaps I'm completely off my rocker here. Perhaps rookie teams often make it to regionals. I really don't know. Do any of you know what the general trend is for rookie teams?


Thoughts?
-Daniel

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/6/99 11:35 PM MST


In Reply to: New bags may get discouraged... posted by Daniel on 5/6/99 10:50 PM MST:



Three things:

1) I don't think that this system unfairly hurts rookies and even if it did, teams are not rookies forever. There are many many many disadvantages to being new to this FIRST game. Yet, most of us get through it. Many not only get through it, but rise to the challenge.


2) If the teams that only go to the Nationals are a representative sample of all teams in terms of performance, then, on average, the system proposed neither hurts nor helps such teams because they are presumed to be average teams in the presence of no wieghings to the contrary and half of the teams would be above average and half would be below average. However, I argue that the teams that only go to the Nationals are NOT a representative sample and infact are likely to have a mean performance level significantly below the average of teams going to at least one regional before attending the Nationals (see explanation below). If this theory is correct, then the scales are tilted in their FAVOR not against them.


3) I think that it is in the interest of FIRST to encourage teams to attend a regional before attending the Nationals. Perhaps a system that is perceived to be a disadvantage to teams that only go the Nationals is a good thing, providing an extra incentive to teams to find a way to get to a regional.


Joe J.


EXPLANATION OF STATEMENT ABOVE:

3 reasons why I believe that the group of teams only attending the Nationals are not a representative sample of all FIRST teams in terms of robot performance:

First of all, funding does matter somewhat and teams that can only go to the Nationals are more likely to have lower funding for their robot.

Second, as has been much discussed, going to a regional gives teams a chance to improve their robots and their driver skill.

Third, FIRST rewards fanatics and teams that only go to the Nationals are less likely to be FIRST fanantics than the typical team going to one or more regionals.

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/7/99 8:24 AM MST


In Reply to: let me say this about that... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/6/99 11:35 PM MST:



I pretty much agree with everything here. I do think that the regionals should count for less than half of seeding points at Nationals (to encourage improvement between regionals and nationals)

I think that FIRST should discourage teams only going to Nationals (although it shouldn't be prohibited until every team has less than a 5 hour drive to a regional). For a rookie team, a regional is likely to be less overwhelming than Nationals, they are more likely to get into the elimination round, and they don't suffer the huge momentum loss of shipping a robot and then twiddling their thumbs for two months waiting to compete. To me, the huge downtime is the least inspirational thing in all of FIRST. I think that it would be even more so for a rookie team.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/7/99 8:34 AM MST


In Reply to: let me say this about that... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/6/99 11:35 PM MST:



I guess you got me there. Good points!

You see, I was basing my points on personal experience. This year my team managed to attend a regional for the first time in our three year history. For our first two years, we were not 'average'. Both years we finished within the top 30, the second of which we were seeded sixth. Not too shabby. And this is without a regional.

Under your proposed system, my team would have been dragged down to a certain extent. But I see now that my team is probably not representative of the majority of teams that don't go to regionals. In fact, my team didn't not go due to lack of funding. We had plenty of money last year, we just didn't have a regional within a practical distance.

This year we did...
Thanks NASA!!

Sounds like this thing may be workable after all!
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/7/99 4:41 AM MST


In Reply to: New bags may get discouraged... posted by Daniel on 5/6/99 10:50 PM MST:



: I completely agree that more trials are needed. I'm sure you've seen my messages stating just that. But if the trials you use are fake, it just becomes another 'tilt of the scale' (to use your analogy).

: Although I do believe it's true that the proposed system may make the upper teams more accurately ranked, I fear it could discourage new teams that don't go to regionals.

: The new guys are exactly the wrong people to discourage.

: This is about inspiration, remember? We can't have people dropping out because of an inherent unfairness in the system. In fact, if I'm thinking about this correctly, it would be worse than 'tilting the scale'. It would be more like placing it on a slanted table. The unfairness that you were referring to was due to ill luck. The proposed unfairness is actually designed into the system. Something just doesn't feel right about that. I can't force myself to believe that a good system can TRY to be unfair. Unfortunately I think the proposed system does just that.

: Although the current system is flawed, it isn’t trying to be unfair.

: Perhaps I'm completely off my rocker here. Perhaps rookie teams often make it to regionals. I really don't know. Do any of you know what the general trend is for rookie teams?

:
: Thoughts?
: -Daniel

I agree with you, Daniel. But the obvious way to take the 'slant out of
the table' is to make the regionals preliminary to a national playoff and
not include those 'bags of gold' that skew the results. Then you have
new problems such as financing for regional winners that aren't prepare
for a trip to Florida.
And the solution to that is to make the trip to
EPCOT to compete in the Nationals the prize for winning at a regional
provided FIRST could find the financial support to pay for 60 teams (10
regionals X top 6 teams approx.) 20 players per team, over 300 hotel rooms,
1000 airline tickets... It would be expensive but with the right backers
it could happen.
As much as I dislike the idea of only going to Nationals if you win the
right (we were a rookie team in '98 that only went to National), I know that
it would take a lot of the 'luck factor' out of the game if they stick
with the alliance format.
That would also limit each team to one regional. And we've heard the complaints
that the teams with deep pockets get an unfair advantage by travelling to
multiple regionals. And I agree that it's a waste to knock yourself out for
for months and only compete once or twice. So, give the robots back to the
teams between the Regionals (held on the same weekend) and the National
and hold Invitationals in between (?). Let everyone tweak and primp their
robots as much as they want before Nationals for, say, three weeks.
It would make Nationals one tough game and probably worthy of national
air time.

(I really think something like this will happen anyway, like it or not).

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Chris on 5/5/99 12:50 PM MST:



: I think the luck factor would just shift to a different area. The luck factor would be in the strength of the group of 26 that you're in. A decent team could get lucky and be put in with a group of lesser robots and make it to the dance while the same team might get put in a group with a bunch of good teams and finish poorly. It's a lot like (oh no, another sports reference) Major League Baseball a few years ago when 4 teams in the American League East had better records than the champion of the American League West. The A.L West champion made it to the playoffs and only one of the 4 better teams in the A.L. East made it. That system isn't necessarily fair either.

: -Chris

AHHHHH...it's that word again...'fair'...now..i'm all for fair...fair is
good...and whatever system they decide to use ought to be as close to
'fair' as they can possibly think to make it....BUT...nothing will
EVER be fair...there is not a single system ever that declared a winner
that somebody could not come up with some reason it wasn't fair...
(ex. 'A tournament isn't fair b/c what if i play a good team early'...ok
well...you still lost to the good team...so does it matter whether it
was early or late...i know there is a pride issue...but you still lost...
and SOMEONE has to lose to them early...another ex. this year 'scoring
was centered around offense...defense wasn't rewarded'...everyone was
told from teh beginning how it worked...and that was the point of alliances...
the offensive robots made the finals and hte defensive robots had to
depend on being selected as a partner...)

Bascically what i'm trying to say is NOTHING will ever be fair so that
isn't exactly the best argument....
I tend to agree with P.J. that splitting it up into divisions randomly
and have the best teams from each division pick from whoever they want
would be good...but then again...I don't make the rules..i just have to
deal with them... ;)

my 2 cents,
Tom
Team 275

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/5/99 8:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Tom Vanderslice on 5/5/99 7:03 PM MST:



I agree with Tom. When the results are not the what we would like, they don't seem fair. Nothing is ever going to seem fair to everyone. If we look at making sure the competition is fair it is way too easy to lose site of what FIRST is all about. I have said it many times before. I really don;t care who ends up on top as long as there is good competition to get there. To that end, FIRST did a terrific job this year. Yes there were good robots not in the finals, but the robots there were good. To that I say it was a very good year. Our team is in agreement, the alliances are the best thing FIRST has done in a long time.

Elaine

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/6/99 6:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Tom Vanderslice on 5/5/99 7:03 PM MST:



: Bascically what i'm trying to say is NOTHING will ever be fair so that
: isn't exactly the best argument....

That was the point I was making. I just didn't come right out and say it.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 6:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 10:42 AM MST:



Thoughts? Yup. Here goes...


: Play a round robinish tournament with the smaller group.

Is that really better than just increasing the amount of Q's? I see that your method would help, but I still think more matches would be more effective. Besides, I personally would rather have more matches anyway! I think the three day national competition is bursting at the seams. Give 'em a fourth!


: Give a 'lucky' team one 540 point win and 5, 100 point losses (a very good losing score). Their average QP is 353, decent but below this year's top 16 (We were 14th with about a 460 average).

I see your point, but how many teams lose matches with 100 points? I would bet at least three out of five of those 100 point rounds would be a win, boosting that average QP to 453. That's just about where you guys were at. 100 points is not a bad enough score to make the assumption that it would be a loss, it's really not a bad score at all.

Just to make it a little clearer, say a team gets lucky for two matches. One 540 and one around 380. Both are very good scores. With just those two scores ALONE, if we average in zeros for the other 4 matches, they have the same 460 that you had. And should a team that gets zeros really be in the finals?


: There has been a lot of discussion about defense not being rewarded in the seeding rounds. This is obviously true, but ... FIRST gave us all the same set of rules on day one. It was obvious then that they wanted to reward scoring in matches.

Very true. However, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am not griping about how unfair it was that my 'bot didn't get in the top 16. I never expected to. I counted on getting picked. I just think maybe it was a mistake for FIRST to value high scores so much. In my opinion, defense is a very valuable aspect of sports and if FIRST wants to be sport-like, they should value defense just as they do offence. Why not reward both? Seed on wins and use QMs as tie breakers! High scores win matches just as well as defense does. It allows for more flexible playing strategy. Besides, I don't agree that defense isn't as exciting as high scores. I was sitting on the edge of my seat when I saw Wildstang's basket being held down...


Any of this making sense?
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:57 PM MST


In Reply to: I'm not so sure... posted by Daniel on 5/5/99 6:02 PM MST:



Of course you make sense.

:
: Is that really better than just increasing the amount of Q's? I see that your method would help, but I still think more matches would be more effective. Besides, I personally would rather have more matches anyway! I think the three day national competition is bursting at the seams. Give 'em a fourth!

No. Nothing is better than increasing the number of matches played. It is better from every angle except logistics and cost. I was just trying to suggest a reasonable alternative that would let us keep the 3 day format.

:
: I see your point, but how many teams lose matches with 100 points? I would bet at least three out of five of those 100 point rounds would be a win, boosting that average QP to 453. That's just about where you guys were at. 100 points is not a bad enough score to make the assumption that it would be a loss, it's really not a bad score at all.
Just to make it a little clearer, say a team gets lucky for two matches. One 540 and one around 380. Both are very good scores. With just those two scores ALONE, if we average in zeros for the other 4 matches, they have the same 460 that you had. And should a team that gets zeros really be in the finals?

We could go around forever on this one. But...I think you'll have a hard time finding a 'bad' 'bot that can scores of 540 and 380 in a 6 match schedule - even if they were paired with G-Force in 3 matches and the Bobcat in the other 3 =)

:
: Very true. However, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I am not griping about how unfair it was that my 'bot didn't get in the top 16. I never expected to. I counted on getting picked. I just think maybe it was a mistake for FIRST to value high scores so much. In my opinion, defense is a very valuable aspect of sports and if FIRST wants to be sport-like, they should value defense just as they do offence. Why not reward both? Seed on wins and use QMs as tie breakers! High scores win matches just as well as defense does. It allows for more flexible playing strategy. Besides, I don't agree that defense isn't as exciting as high scores. I was sitting on the edge of my seat when I saw Wildstang's basket being held down...

Two people have missed my point on this one, I apologize for being unclear. I think that FIRST tried to emphasize scoring in a game that was most exciting to watch when it was played defensively. The design of the game led some teams to build great robots, that just weren't going to be big scorers, which is what they needed to be to make waves in the seeding tournament. I believe that FIRST should try to tailor the seeding formula to encourage the game to be played in it's most exciting form, no matter what the game is. This year, the best seeding system probably would have downplayed scoring and emphasized winning (eventhough it was pretty easy for a great team to be 5-1 or 4-2)


Thanks for your comments,

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by Sean Kim, Student on team #115 from Monta Vista High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 6:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Or we could try the easy way... posted by P.J. Baker on 5/5/99 10:42 AM MST:



= )

I see that you like the way the competition was offense-based!

Hmm..
I don't think, however, that the format of Double Trouble itself is very defense-oriented.
For example, there was the puck. Robots pushed the puck around to double their score or to reduce other team's score by half.
This is certainly defense-based.
Raising the floppy and trying to press other robot's basket. That's certainly defense-based.

Right?

I actually think that offense-based game would be fun!
FIRST, in my opinion, has never held the game that was offense-based.
If the game should be offensive, there should be many many many ways of scoring.
We had basically 3 ways of scoring this year. Floppy, Getting on the puck, and pushing the puck.
Most of the alliances were able to to all three tasks very well. That means one alliance had to play defense to keep one of these 3 taks on their score.

What if we don't have to worry about that kind of stuff?
What if there are 150 ways to score point?
There can't be an alliance that can do all that 150 tasks in 2 minutes.
This would be more fun to watch.

50 ways to score 1 or 2 or 3 points 10 ways to triple your points and 30 ways to double your point.
30 ways to half your opponent's points. and so on.

I guess this will be more attractive to the mass because it has more points, right?

So what do you think?

kison

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 7:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Offensive games format. posted by Sean Kim on 5/5/99 6:53 PM MST:



I think it's really cool to see these 'bots interact.

Adding hundreds of ways to score points would simply make it a timed race. What would become of strategy? Everyone’s goal would simply be to “go get ‘em and get ‘em fast”. Why would there even need to be more than one robot on the field at a time?

Personally I think it's much more entertaining and 'inspiring' to see these ‘bots duke it out for two mins.


Just my take
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 5/6/99 4:35 PM MST


In Reply to: Offensive games format. posted by Sean Kim on 5/5/99 6:53 PM MST:



My take on this is the following:

Everyone is complaining that first takes too long between each match. Most of this time is the Referee's scoring the round. Adding over 150 ways to score ain't gonna help this problem.

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 5/6/99 4:29 AM MST


In Reply to: Or we could try the easy way... posted by Daniel on 5/4/99 9:15 PM MST:



I know I have said this before too. Come up with a game
that has near INSTANT score results at the end of the game
That would save tremendous time with the same amount of
refs, fields etc. and then you get more matches.

: I know I've said this before, but sit tight cuz I'm gonna say it again.


: It is a well known statistical fact that luck is eliminated with increased trials. We need increased trials!

: If one 540 match can put a lucky robot into the select sixteen, and similarly one 8 point round can pull a select sixteen team from that coveted position, there is obviously a problem. You have all acknowledged this in your posts. The solution is to increase the trials!

: How do we fix it? More arenas. More time.

: I saw someone suggest an extra day. This costs more, but it may not be such a bad tradeoff. We all want more matches. Don't you think those 80+ hour all-nighters would be better requited with more than six matches? Seriously, we put our lives into this thing.

: More arenas would mean a big headache for FIRST and less time between matches. Unless another day is added. Once again, it may be worth the costs.

: Personally, I think adding a third alliance partner is merely a way to avoid the issue. It works to a point, but it reduces the amount of matches some team gets to play. In essence, it makes the situation worse. No mater how well a teams bot performs, they deserve some play time. We all deserve to play. Remember what FIRST stands for...

: And as for practicing for the finals, that also seems a little contrived. It's human nature to try to find reasons to support our opinions so I don't blame you, but it didn't really seem like an issue to me. It's not something you need too much practice for. I know my team didn't have a problem with it.

:
: Just some thoughts from the guy who's got too many...
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 5/4/99 10:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:




you can't help but realized this may totally eliminate teams from playing at all!! after six weeks of tons of hardwork, you show up at the national and are 'negotiated' out of every QM you have... and if you never play, who's going to pick you as a partner?

i'm still see no real reason for the tri-alliance in the elimination matches, but definitely keep out of it in the qualifying.. i think rank shows more closely the ability of individual robots to perform, and making three teams per match would make that impossible to judge as well..

i am 110% con on that one.. if i'm going to put in all that work, i can at least be guaranteed 6 matches..

that's what i think

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/5/99 3:47 AM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



Three team alliances in which one team sits the bench? Nope, I don't like
it - strongly. Some teams would never get a chance to even try. I'd almost
rather go to Reionals as eliminations for a National to weed out weaker
robots than to have teams shut out entirely. Or even repeat this year's format.
And it's bad enough that some teams wouldn't play because they built a barely
functional machine. The bigger tragedy would be the teams with great robots
that sit out because they're rookies, don't have the name recognition of some
of the veteran teams, end up paired with two others from the same city or
corporation... We like to think that it's all about ability. But there is
a 'political undercurrent' that would banish some good teams to the bench.
With 200+ teams competing it's almost impossible to scope out every machine, see
everyone play, before making alliance decisions. So some choices would have
to be based on something other than pure ability.
Let's add a day to Nationals and go back to double eliminations. Put as many
robots on the field as you want. But let each win or lose on their own merit.

Opinionatedly,
Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/5/99 10:02 AM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



I would have to go against this one for the same reason everyone else is, this would give some teams no chance to play at all. I would rather go out onto the field and have my alliance partner no-show knowing that they tried their best to get their machine out on the field, than see teams sidelined because no one would give them a chance. Sometimes just seeing your robot out on the field moving or not, gives you a proud feeling of accomplishment. Call me crazy, but im an old-fashioned guy, I want to see the return of 1 on 1 on 1 play, maybe even 4 teams all against each other.
Cya all later,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 5/5/99 3:24 PM MST


In Reply to: call me crazy posted by Andy Grady on 5/5/99 10:02 AM MST:




maybe it's cause andy and i are original products of the same team, but i definitely have to agree with him. i like the alliance, they were cool, for a year, but i kinda of wish i could have driven my last competition head-to-head, may the one best robot win...every competition's going to have it's faults.. and you can see that there were several with the alliance idea.. and so i think we should revert back to the 1 on 1.. even if there are four robots one the field.. imagine the competition that would have made?!!

so i think..

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/5/99 7:33 PM MST


In Reply to: 4 teams battle- now that would be cool posted by colleen on 5/5/99 3:24 PM MST:



Any grey beards out there want to take on this 4 teams at once, each team on its own idea?

I have seen the videos from Rug Rage. It looked to me like a lot of matches ended up with 2 robots locked in a defensive death struggle while the other two racked up points.

What was it like for teams that actually played the game?

Do tell...

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Tim Murray, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO inc..

Posted on 5/5/99 7:42 PM MST


In Reply to: rug rage posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 7:33 PM MST:



Joe,

You're absolutely right. That was the way that the
competition went. The stories that I hear are that
we came in as defending champs and won a mini
tournament called the massachusetts showdown between
the 6 Massachusetts teams, back in the day when massachusetts
was the michigan of FIRST. The next day, a team
came out with practically a cardboard box with wooden
wheels pinned us in a corner and we didn't move.
This was the same for many other teams. i meant to
reply from the post earlier about 1 on 1 on 1 on 1 matches.
FIRST changed the competition format because of the
many flaws involved with 4 team matches dealing with every
man for himself.

Tim

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/6/99 11:50 AM MST


In Reply to: rug rage posted by Joe Johnson on 5/5/99 7:33 PM MST:



Can someone summarize Rug Rage for us young'ens with only a year or two of FIRST behind us...
was it 4 teams individual? how did it play?

Jonathan

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/5/99 6:17 PM MST


In Reply to: call me crazy posted by Andy Grady on 5/5/99 10:02 AM MST:



You're crazy! =)

I can understand your point of view, but I gotta say the strategy and defense involved with this year's game was great! More entertaining to watch, and more entertaining to play. FIRST has really made a breakthrough with this one...

I would never want them to go back to single robots.


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/5/99 8:23 PM MST


In Reply to: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Daniel on 5/5/99 6:17 PM MST:



I would have to agree with you that alliances did bring an exiting new point of strategy to the game, and the matches were very exiting to watch. But I am a little soured because we were ranked 4th going into our last match, and our alliance partner no-showed, after that match we were knocked all the way down to 18. Now im not blaming anything on our partner at the time, they tried their best, but i feel that this is the perfect example of how the system was a little screwy. But thats just my opinion :)
cya all later,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/5/99 8:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Andy Grady on 5/5/99 8:23 PM MST:



Andy -
You came to the competition with a phenominal team,
with a great robot,
at one point you made it to 4th ranked,
were picked as an alliance partner by another terrific team
placed 10th in the competition with your alliance partners

And you are soured?

What more would you (or anyone else out there) get out of FIRST by coming in 9th place or 1st or were ranked #1

I know a lot of kids who did not get beyond your first accomplishment and felt FIRST was the most wonderful experience of their lives

My intent is not to offend, just to point out that we all need to keep a little perspective here. It is easy to lose perspective when you care so much about somethong as we all do about FIRST.

It' my belief however that if winning becomes the end, every FIRST participant loses.

My 2 cents

Elaine

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/6/99 4:17 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Elaine Anselm on 5/5/99 8:54 PM MST:



I can completely sympathize with Andy G. Don't take it to mean that being
soured on the game means being soured on FIRST. But just step back and image
how it felt to sit 1st place Thurs., stay near the top 10 Fri., sit
at 10th until your last match Saturday in which you're paired with a tin can
on wheels (not the box on wheels), slip to 19th and NOT make it to finals.
We were pretty certain that we'd either finish top 16, or be a first round pick.
It was disappointing. And packing up the robot before finals? I couldn't
watch. And it had nothing to do with winning - it had everything to do with
staying in the game.
We had an incredibly good robot. 19th seed out of 207 is a great finish.
We were 6th seed at Kennedy.
And it felt as though no one noticed. Why?
As we were packing up, other teams came by to offer consolations - they
didn't realize we had slipped out of the top 16 and had expected us to be
pickers - not pickees - so our number wasn't on their lists. Having the
ranking board down during match 6 didn't help either. About the time the board
came back online, the student reps were heading to the stage.
Soured on the game, this game? Yes, I am. I dare anyone to tell me that
we shouldn't have felt disappointment.
But soured on FIRST? Not at all. It's still new and if one game doesn't
suit you, there's always next year.

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/6/99 10:55 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/6/99 4:17 AM MST:



I think you have all the right in the world to be dissapointed, I don't think anyone wants to come home with anything less then the national championship and that is the way I think it should be. I think 204 teams should be atleast a little dissappointed that they didn't win. I'm dissapointed that my team didn't win it all even though we seeded first. The score board crashing was a big problem, if I had time i was going to look at the teams that were in the top 25 and go talk to there team but with the scoreboard down i just didn't have the time. I remember reading a couple messages back that someone said something pertaining to FIRST isn't about winning and I'd like to agree and disagree with that. I do agree that winning is not the most important thing, the most important thing is that kids learn about engineering, technology and teamwork, but I don't help out for a grueling 6 weeks to lose, Everytime our robot goes out I'm happy that it is out there and I marvel at the accomplishments that my team made, but they when that buzzer sounds for the next two minutes all i can think about is winning that match. It was a great honor for my team to be the number one seed, but I would of came in 16th if it meant we won the championship. But hey this is just my opinion. Thanks for listening

Kuli Team 88 TJ²

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/6/99 1:23 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Mike Kulibaba on 5/6/99 10:55 AM MST:



Disappointed when you get eliminated - absolutely! You have the right to feel any way you want for as long as you want.

I am in agreement, it is disappointing when you don’t do what you set out to do. For most FIRST teams that is winning the National Championship. It was certainly one of our goals. You need to feel like a winner to be a winner. For those 2 minutes during a match, all you can think about is winning the match. It’s is emotional and feels really bad when your name is not listed under the 1st place finisher. I have comforted many kids (and adults) when we've been eliminated. We get very emotional, but you let out the emotion and get over it.

Did we ever lose - nope - we cannot lose. If I thought we could, I would be devastated and I probably wouldn’t stick around for more than 1 year (I’ve done this for 8 now and am looking forward to the kickoff 8 months from now).

It's all in the attitude.
You may think it’s corny, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see it as corny.
Our team came away from the weekend feeling like a million dollars.
The disappointed feeling for us was over 30 minutes after the last match.

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/6/99 5:07 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Elaine Anselm on 5/6/99 1:23 PM MST:



It's not corny at all, you are exactly right. There is a time to move on, it's just longer for me then most people. I am dissappointed that we didn't win but in no way would I change the good time I had that weekend. The emotion that goes into this competition is more then anything else I have ever done. I am dissapointed but as you said, we didn't lose, none of the teams that got there and had a working robot are losers, they all did something that most people will never get a chance to do, I'm proud of everyone that was there for putting in the time and effort that they did, I've done this for 4 years and it gets tougher and tougher each year( I have the utmost respect for you for doing this for 8 years and still going strong). And I'm probably be over my disappointment when my team gets to the rumble. And then if we don't win that then I'll be dissapointed again, but just cause I might be disappointed it won't stop me from having a good time. And in the end I'll get over it, I always tell myself there is always next year. I hope after 8 years I feel the way you do, I totally agree that I have to get over my disappointment. On a ligher note, I just want to say thank you to the X-Cats, when my team started our first year, the X-Cats were one of the teams that I looked up to because you guys showed us how to be gracious professionals in everything we did. I remember after my first year, Team 191 was my favorite team because they showed me what FIRST is all about.

[archiver]

Posted by Kate Leach, Student on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode / RS Machines.

Posted on 5/7/99 1:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Elaine Anselm on 5/6/99 1:23 PM MST:



I can *totally* relate to getting your emotions out and moving on.. Happened to me at the Mid-Atlantic regionals.. One of the robots down there was just out to break robots cuz they didn't really have their working at the time.. Well, we were about the 5th robot that they had broken during that regional.. And we were broken during our last match on Friday evening.. They grabbed hold of our cage and pulled down.. Broke the middle stage of our lift.. I know that it's our fault for not having a very stable lift.. But I never liked our design of our lift from the beginning.. And I'm still friends with people on the team.. No hard feelings anymore.. It's just that it was the middle stage of the lift and we didn't have anymore fiberglass to remake the part.. I cried.. A wicked lot too.. Sure I was ripped at first when it was broken, but that's not why I was crying.. It was frustration.. The fact that I'd put in 6 weeks to build that robot and it was broken deliberately.. It took over 2 hours to fix the thing.. I feel bad for my engineers who had to miss half the party fixing it.. I even cried after it was fixed.. That's how frustrated I was.. And then someone on my team had to come over and try to make me feel better.. 'It's only a game Kate.' Uhm, excuse me, no.. It's not a game.. It's my life.. Now that I look back on the breakage, it's not so bad.. Things break in real life.. Nothings perfect.. I really don't even want it to be that way ever.. $@#$@#$@#$@# happens, you hafta learn to deal.. Gotta learn to recover.. No one's expected to be recovered from something like this in 2 minutes.. Now that I think about it.. The break was more heartbreaking for me than losing and not getting picked to go on at nationals.. Granted I don't like losing either, but having something that you've put your heart and soul into for 6 weeks is even worse.. Sorry that I've rambled for so long.. But y'know.. It's all good.. :-)

-KATe-

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/7/99 6:17 PM MST


In Reply to: I can relate posted by Kate Leach on 5/7/99 1:06 PM MST:



The obvious deep feelings and emotion in your posting rekindled in me some of the sorrow and loss I myself have felt at many times during these 4 years doing this FIRST thing.

And yet there are also times of great joy and feelings of accomplishment.

'I cried.. A wicked lot too..'

'It's my life.. '

'It's all good..'

Have I found a kindred spirit?

Those who know me and have also read your message will have no doubt.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 5/7/99 6:57 PM MST


In Reply to: KATe, kindred spirit? posted by Joe Johnson on 5/7/99 6:17 PM MST:



I'd imagine every team has a kindred spirit to Kate.

TJ² at rumble at the rock in 1997.
Wildstang at rumble at the rock in 1998.

Unfortunalty every team has had moments, near or like this.

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/8/99 6:22 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Mike Kulibaba on 5/6/99 10:55 AM MST:



'I think you have all the right in the world to be dissapointed, I don't
think anyone wants to come home with anything less then the national
championship'

If you check the tense of the verbs regarding any disappointment felt in
my post preceding yours, they are all in the past. Like I said, it wasn't
that we lost the chance to win it all. It was having the game end for us.
We were done, finished and we didn't expect it.
Now maybe if we had approached it more aggressively - with more 'attitude' -
the outcome would have been different. Not neccessarily better or worse, just
different. Opinions on this subject are welcome. Do you go to play or to win?
How much competiveness is enough? Too much? How 'psyched' should the team be?
At what point do you stop being spirited and start being obnoxious?

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/8/99 11:10 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 6:22 AM MST:



Do I go out to win? Yes, I think everyone should want to win. But that is not the main reason why I do this program, just being there is thrill. When you talk about competitiveness, I do not thing any sport(especially FIRST) can go without a competitive fire burning in people's body. Some people start to get too competitive when you want to win so bad that you cheat or play dirty. As I member of my team, if we just went out there to win and not to have fun then the competition wouldn't be as much fun and I probably wouldn't do it. For example: I used to play baseball and it was my favorite thing to do, I always had fun but I always wanted to win, I sacrificed my body many times to try to help the team win and some times we did and sometime we didn't, but I had no regrets about putting in the time and effort I did. This is my mentality with FIRST, I give up my body for 6 straight weeks to come up with a competitive robot that everyone who is on the team is proud of. I get the biggest thrill when a memeber of another team comes over and says that they like our robot cause it makes those 6 weeks worth every second. How psyched should a team be? I think a team should be psyched if they win and a little upset if they lose, but they should know that winning is not the resaon they are there. If you take my team for example, my team doesn't have as much of a competitive nature as I do, most people on my team let go of things a little after the match is over, it just takes me a little longer, and I am bad person cause I can't like go as easy. I think you stop becoming spirited when you get involved in these competitions just to win. And I don't think anyone does that, Even I know that this program is not about winning. Winning is not on the top of my list for why I do this program, I do this program for the students, for the fun or it, etc. Winning just comes at the end when everything else is taken care of, it's just nothing makes me happier then when that final bell rings if my team's robot is on top. I hope people don't think I'm obnoxious for thinking this way but competition is a part of life and everyone should always strive to be the best they can, in life or in FIRST, but do it within the rules. I would never break the rules to win in a FIRST competition or any other competition cause I have too much respect for the people that put in the hard work and effort in this program. In closing, Do I go out to win? yes. Am I competitive? of course I am. But I understand that the point of this program isn't to win, Winning is just a by-product. I think this is a very important question because I think so people do get really competitive when it comes to these things. Thank you for listening

Kuli Team 88 TJ²

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/8/99 12:35 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: When do people become too competitive posted by Mike Kulibaba on 5/8/99 11:10 AM MST:



Well said. I feel exactly the same (with the exception that my sport of choice was football -- defensive end).

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/8/99 12:36 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 6:22 AM MST:



Where is the line drawn? I draw it at the edge of gracious professionalism. When a team is no longer concerned with people outside their team, and begins to neglect the feelings of those around them while striving for the gold, that team has gone too far.

I haven't seen much of this at all.

In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen it.

A team has a right to be ecstatic when it wins, and respectively has a right to be devastated after a loss. That's what helps us beat on. That's what keeps the clock ticking. We take a fall, but then tell ourselves that 'next year, we're gonna clear our name'. In fact, a loss can be just as inspiring as a win. As long as we care.

All teams should be competitive. That's part of what's so inspiring about all this.


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/10/99 10:59 AM MST


In Reply to: where is the line drawn? posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 12:36 PM MST:



: Where is the line drawn? I draw it at the edge of gracious professionalism. When a team is no longer concerned with people outside their team, and begins to neglect the feelings of those around them while striving for the gold, that team has gone too far.

: I haven't seen much of this at all.

: In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen it.

I've seen some of it. We won a match and afterward some of our students were threatened by students from another team. I'm not going to mention anything else about it, but I just wanted to say that I have seen it happen and I think that definitely goes over the line.

-Chris

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/10/99 8:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: where is the line drawn? posted by Chris on 5/10/99 10:59 AM MST:



I didn't know anybody out there was that...intense (to put it kindly).

But even so, I think it's rare enough that we shouldn't worry our little heads off. We're always gonna have one or two ear-biters among the crew.


We'll live to tell about it... =)
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/6/99 5:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Elaine Anselm on 5/5/99 8:54 PM MST:



Now don't get me wrong, I am very proud and exited that we were able to get 18th out of 204 teams. By no means am i soured by that. However, I have been on a team with a winning tradition for many years, and this year i came to a team who had a rough time in the past competing on the level of some of the teams out there. On friday at lunch we were standing at number one. The students on my team were exposed to something new to them, contending for the championship. I can't even explain how it felt to see their faces after they had been through so many tough times in previous years concerning their robots. Not many on our team ever dreamed of being in the top 16, we saw top 16 as our major goal, and were out to get it at all costs. As you can imagine, we were dissapointed when a little bit of bad luck kept us from making the goal that was so close to our reach. Now, I know there are many teams out there who would be happy just to have a robot moving on the field, but they have their own goals, while we have ours. That is the reason why im soured. I however love this program, and it has done more for me than I could have ever imagined, so i would never be soured by it. I just like to argue about the game from year to year, thats part of why the program is such fun. :)
Cya all later,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by Shannon, Coach on team #191, XCATS, from Wilson Magnet High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/8/99 12:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hey, I'm just following orders... posted by Elaine Anselm on 5/5/99 8:54 PM MST:



:I'm hoping this doesn't get lost in this long thread, but anyway....I'm a student on the same team as Elaine and I can tell you I'm one of the people she's had to make feel better after we've lost a match or competition and I just wanted to give my two cents. I'm a senior this year and am one of the first students coaches. This whole year was stressful (when isn't it:)), but even more especially for me this year because I was a coach and had to chose the drivers/players and make sure they were ready. after the regional where just about everything bad that could happen, did, I don't really think we knew how well we would do at nationals. So, our goal was to go out and show what we were capable of. That's all anyone really can do. When we got the perfect score ( yay TJ^), I can honestly tell you it was one of the best moments of my life. All the years of coming SO close, or doing really not well made getting into the top 16 that much sweeter for me. When we were eliminated in the first round, I walked down the tunnel and as 200 people cheered and clapped, I walked over to my best friend and cried for the longest time. Everyone stood there cheering, which only made me cry harder. After everyone went back to the pit, we finally started walking back and everyone kept telling me they were so proud of all of us. I'm sure other people who saw me crying thought I was upset because we had lost. But that wasn't the reason. I was upset because I'm a senior and that would be the last time walking down the tunnel as an XCat. It was bittersweet. I was SO proud of my team, my drivers, the robot, our alliance partners, and I was sad that it was ending. FIRST has been the light for me in high school - the adults on my team are my heroes. I'll be back next year, but on a different team. Why am I rambling this much? Because if I let how we do at the competition dictate to me how I felt about the year, I would have been devastated every year and never would have come back after my freshman year. I wouldn't have been able to handle it. I came back and put myself through all of the stress because the adults have taught us that the most important thing is us (the students). How we do at the competition is secondary. I'm not going to lie. I wanted to win nationals, very badly in fact. Who goes in there not hoping it's their team rushing the stage at the end of finals? But I also knew that if it didn't happen that it was ok too. Because this program is about how much you can challenge yourself and learn. I've learned a lot about myself the past 4 years in FIRST - that I cna be a leader (ask Elaine - my freshman year no one would have thought I would be up on the stage coaching), that winning doesn't neccessarily mean you get a trophy. We have lots of them at our site and I can tell you that what I remember from FIRST is not the awards ceremonies, the matches or any of that. I remember our team parties. I remember all of the people I've met through FIRST. I remember the adults on the team helping me figure out where I wanted to go to college. I remember 200 people cheering at the end of the tunnel even though they were probably disappointed too. Those are the things that are important in life. In 20 years, you aren't going to look back and say, gee I'm still angry we didn't make it into the top 16. Hopefully you don't. You should look back and remember that you did something important. And you should feel proud. Whether you came in first or 207th. SHANN:)

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/8/99 12:45 PM MST


In Reply to: Please READ posted by Shannon on 5/8/99 12:27 PM MST:



I couldn't agree more.

Very well put...although it would have been nice to separate into a few paragraphs ;-)

Thanks for being wonderful alliance partners!
-Daniel


= = = = = = = = = =
PS -
Want to feel better? Do what I'm doing, start a team. I'll never walk down that tunnel as a GRT member, but I sure plan on walking the tunnel again.
= = = = = = = = = =

[archiver]

Posted by MaryEllen, Other on team #180, S.P.A.M., from South Fork and Martin County High Schools and UTC/Pratt & Whitney, FL.

Posted on 5/8/99 3:47 PM MST


In Reply to: go shannon! posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 12:45 PM MST:



: I couldn't agree more.

: Very well put...although it would have been nice to separate into a few paragraphs ;-)

: Thanks for being wonderful alliance partners!
: -Daniel

:
: = = = = = = = = = =
: PS -
: Want to feel better? Do what I'm doing, start a team. I'll never walk down that tunnel as a GRT member, but I sure plan on walking the tunnel again.
: = = = = = = = = = =

Daniel -
After college, you could always put in a resume at NASA. I'm sure they'll
still be hiring. GRT forever?

[archiver]

Posted by Shannon, Coach on team #191, XCATS, from Wilson Magnet High School and Xerox.

Posted on 5/10/99 5:32 AM MST


In Reply to: Why not? posted by MaryEllen on 5/8/99 3:47 PM MST:



I'll be seeing you next year. Don't worry:) I'm going to Northeastern University, which has a team (remember - they're offering a scholarship next year). I'll definently be back. SHANN:)

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/8/99 8:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Please READ posted by Shannon on 5/8/99 12:27 PM MST:



Shannon,
How right you are. I remember when we lost our final match my senior year in high school. I could only think that it was all over, and I was upset because I wanted more than anything else to win a championship. I found, however, that it is worth alot more than just winning. My life was shaped around this program, I was able to get a job because of the experience I gained with CADD while working on the animation. Before FIRST I wanted to be a doctor, I know now that I really wanted to be an engineer all these years. And thanx to the people at NYPRO who cared so much about my future and learning, I was able to get into college when I thought I might not be. I am very very happy to have been part of this competition all my life. But it doesn't have to end when you leave high school, I am living proof. As a member of the Daniel Webster College and Alvirne High School team I was able to pass on everything I had learned about engineering and FIRST over the years. Even better, I learned more this year than I ever did before. This is because FIRST was part of our engineering project, and we the college students had to work with the high school students in designing and building the robot. So you can see that your experiences with FIRST do not end with high school. They will carry with you as long as you will let them.
Good Luck in the Future
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne HS

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



The discussion in this thread seems to be about the inadequacy or 'unfairness' of the National QM's in correctly selecting the top 16 teams. Strong teams who came close but didn't make it, or, worse, were in and then fell out seem in general to be attributing that to the (bad) luck of the draw in QM's. So we're looking for ways to minimize the occurance of bad luck (like no-shows and dead bots) or its impact on QP's. My question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?

If the selection process for the top 16 is flawed by 'bad luck' that should not happen in the ideal case, I have 3 questions:

1) Were any teams NOT worthy of National Elimination level play included in the Top 16, as selected by the QM process?

2) How many teams SHOULD have been in the Elimination bracket to give all the strong teams their deserved shot at the title? If all of the teams who believe they would have made the Eliminations but for bad luck (with their ally draw or his performance) were to hold up their hands, what would the count be? (I will assume that no team who did make the 16 would withdraw on the basis that they were a weak team who rode in on good luck of the draw and superior performance by their allies.)

3) How many teams who SHOULD have made the Eliminations and didn't make the Top 16 were NOT subsequently drafted?

I'm genuinely curious about the answers to these questions, because it seems to me like the 'unfairness' impact of the QM random ally draw can be discounted by simply expanding the Elimination group. Why not trade off 1 of the 6 Q rounds for an additional level of Eliminations? That's nearly a wash on total number of Tournament matches with 200 teams.

A couple of things to think about, tho. The 'strong' teams would be depriving the 'weak' teams of some of the opportunity to play in Orlando that they busted their butts to get. They may have been washing cars for air fare while other teams were gaining strength at Regionals. Also, a 'Top 32' would draft another 64 teams as Elimination allies, totaling 96 of 200 teams. Hm, I can hear it now, late in the second round of the draft, 'no good allies left.' So I guess the strong teams who made the expanded Top group would feel that the process was still unfair if they didn't make it high enough to get to draft worthy allies.

I guess I can't totally avoid a little sarcasm. I'm sorry. It seems like there is an inherent and unavoidable tradeoff or balance between the benefits of the alliance concept and the element of randomness it brings to the competition. What is best for advancing the goals of FIRST?

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/7/99 2:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Bottom Line? posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST:



Dodd,

You have made several posts over the last couple of weeks that were right on the money. Very clear, and very intelligent. This one is no different. I've put together some info to help answer at least your 1st question, and made my 'Bottom Line' suggestion for the format of the National Tournament.

P.J.


Since I collected a lot of the info before nationals, I did a little more work and came up with these (unofficial) stats for the top 16 seeds at EPCOT:

15 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least 1 regional

10 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in at least 1 regional

7 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least two regionals

4 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in 2 regionals

2 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of three regionals

With one possible exception of 1 team (I won’t name them, but invite them to comment), these were not 'lucky' teams - unless they were very lucky teams. Although I have made several statements concerning how to improve (read: reduce bad luck in) the seeding process at the national tournament, I must stick to my original statement about the seeding tournament this year: IT WORKED PRETTY WELL.

Now, as far as the good teams that were not drafted are concerned, what can we do for them? I think that one less seeding round in exchange for more elimination rounds, I could live with that, as long as a team’s average score from regional play was some how used in determining seeding at Nationals (this is well covered in many posts in this thread). What I could not live with, is having to come up with a list of nearly 100 possible alliance partners if I seeded 32nd in the seeding rounds. This could be fixed by breaking the National seeding tournament up into four groups with the top 8 from each group picking two partners from their group (or, to make things fun, make group 1 pick from group 4, 2 from 3, etc.). This would make the draft much more manageable for the teams doing the picking, while allowing more teams into the elimination tournament.

This is as far as I’m going to go in terms of trying to redesign the National tournament. I think that this format could work very well. IT IS NOT FAIR! The only 'fair' tournament would be some sort of hyper accurate computer simulation, and even then there would be complaints. I think the tournament format that I propose here (which is about 2% mine and 98% stolen from other posts), would put just about all of the top 50 teams (the 'real' top 50, not the top 50 seeds) in the elimination tournament. I think that we would be hard pressed to do anything better than that

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/7/99 5:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Bottom Line? posted by P.J. Baker on 5/7/99 2:21 PM MST:



P.J and Dodd have it just about right.

I have to join my voice to those who say that for all my worries and nightmare scenarios prior to the competition, it did in actual fact work pretty well.

Joe J.

P.S. I have to say that I might not agree if I were not on a team that was selected. Also, working pretty well is no excuse for not saying that things could still be improved if we did X, Y and Z.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Bottom Line? posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST:




Ahh playing the game of what if......

What if we could have enough regionals across America that we could:

1. Limit entrance to only 36 teams or less
2. Play 8 - 10 qualifying matches per event
3. Allow the top 12 teams to pick two alliance partners from the remaining 24

This would allow EVERY TEAM into the elimination matches...Everyone
gets in...everyone gets a shot....it's about the best team...it has to be, because everyone is in...
no one to cry foul or bad luck....

And what if in addition to the 36 team maximum we had:

1. 10 games per season...10 Weekend 'events' each season
(That represents alot less time and money than you currently spend each year on FIRST)

And how could we do that you say....Well I say come to Rumble or better
yet go to our web site at pnta.org and download the Rumble Recipe...

What if instead of building the Robot new every year...we built it every
48 months and teams spent their precious time and money putting on MANY LOCAL
competitions instead of say 20,000.00 to 50,000.00 going to Disney...

Instead we put up 5K to 8K for a local competition and paid for it
by charging teams who come 100-300 dollars....Think about this folks.

LETS PUT THE EFFORT INTO MAKING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PLAY THE GAME.
Does it not seem silly to spend 60+ days building a great machine just
to use it twice?

C'mon lets put these valuable resources to work doing what these kids, teachers, engineers
and parents really want to do.....let's put our time resources and
capital into PLAYING THE GAME......

10 games per season with high point winners advancing through
local state,regional and finally national competitions....All for less money than
most teams spend now.....because we extend the building cycle to
36-48months and PLAY WITH THE MACHINES through a defined season....

Am I insane to think this way ?....Ask the folks who are going to
'post season' events all across this country if I'm insane...ask the
folks who come to Rumble if they'd rather build em' or play with em'.

Do sports team practice because they like practice...or do they practice
cause they like to play the game better and better?

Who wrote it in stone that things had to be the way they are?

Would'nt you like to playing with your robot right now...Our kids sure
would....

Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/11/99 8:05 AM MST


In Reply to: a better game posted by michael bastoni on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST:



Keep on hammerin', Mr. B. There's a grass roots critical mass to ge gathered out here - just got to find the box of matches. I haven't peeped it yet, but Bravo to PNTA for posting the Rumble Recipe. We have the most fun of the year at Rumble and Riverfest. I love everything about the team and community sponsored Summer Invitationals. Your team's leadership in showing the way and helping others get past the 'gulp' stage of throwing their own Invitational is exactly what FIRST needs. I could not agree more with your emphasis on play, rather than the great anticipation and letdown cycle that FIRST is currently structured to be. It's like this is going to be great, wasn't it? FIRST needs to absorb your perspective on maximizing the sustainability of the program growth by optimizing the bang we all get from the human resource expenditure.

We look forward to knocking heads with all the winners at the Rumble, and thanks to PNTA for showing the right stuff.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Frank Toussaint, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Wheeling and Rolling Meadows and Motorola .

Posted on 5/12/99 1:04 PM MST


In Reply to: a better game posted by michael bastoni on 5/10/99 7:32 PM MST:



...ask the
: folks who come to Rumble if they'd rather build em' or play with em'.

Mr.B

I want to build 'em AND play with 'em. And I want to do both every year.

After the kickoff we grumble;
For six weeks we mumble and bumble.
But this time of year
We holler and cheer.
WildStang's ready to rumble!

Mr. T

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 5/7/99 11:31 PM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



How bout this: forget the alliance thing, i personally don't like it. Let only teams who finished in the top x of every regional go to the nationals thus keeping the nationals to a reasonable number of teams, say 128, make the games one on one, in both qualification and elimination. let the bots square off in one on one, no double teaming, single elimination matches just like the NCAA tornement. yes there might be some luck in any given match but it would be drastically reduced because each robot would rely only on themselves, also, get rid of the human player, it's a robotics compitition. if you look at the ncaa tornement most years one of the very top teams win, and there are of course the cindirella teams which give color to the tornement. First could be the same way. also to keep the contest offensive oriented keep the seeding the way it was this year, the seeding i thought was the biggest strength of this years game, by seeding by highest score everyone will want to build a robot that is more offensive, rather than sit back and play defense

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Jacob Etter on 5/7/99 11:31 PM MST:



'...sit back and play defense'?

There are a few things wrong with that sentence.

Defense is hardly sitting back. In fact, if you watch sports, tell me one example of a sport in which there's no defense. It's critical not only for the merit of the game, but also for the entertainment factor. Defense is exciting to watch!

Furthermore, I feel fairness should a secondary goal in this whole FIRST thing. See, FIRST has a mission: it strives to inspire. In my opinion there is nothing more inspiring than watching robots play an intelligent battle that involves not only agility, but wits as well. The game structure this year allowed drivers to incorporate a high level of strategy ranging from offence, to the defense that I so often praise on these forums. TKO was my hero this year. They took the risk of adopting an entirely defensive strategy by taking off their basket permanently. That may not have been ideal, as they were not very flexible in how they could play during the round, but it sure made for some exciting -- inspiring, rather -- matches. That takes guts.

Personally, although occasionally hit by a bad stroke of luck, I felt more attached to this years game than I have been ever before. What the competition encouraged, was to have a robot that could play however it needed to. A robot that could lift ten floppies or hold down a few elevators. A robot that could do it all. Why is that a bad thing?

I know it seems unfair, especially to those who were 'cheated' the most by the system, but boy did it make for some great machines and strategies.

I gotta say, FIRST blew me away this year. That doesn’t mean there’s no room to improve the system, there’s always ways to improve (read some of these other forum messages and you’ll see). Sometimes you can fix a “broken” guitar by tuning it, because it wasn’t really broken after all. Are you sure the process doesn’t just need some tuning?

I don’t know about you, but I was sure inspired this year.


I can't wait to find out about next year's game...
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST


In Reply to: defense---not exactly kicking back... posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST:



'The game structure this year allowed drivers to incorporate a high level
of strategy ranging from offence, to the defense that I so often praise
on these forums.'

I disagree. When the seeding is based soley on points you have to play
an offensive game to stay high in the rankings. Playing defensively
sometimes kept the point total low for all four teams playing. All four,
therefore, usually took a 'lose' in rank even with the 3X multiplier. The
matches were exciting to watch. But not always the BEST strategy to stay
well ranked. You didn't go into a match against just one team. You were
up against all the teams - for points.
I think it was done intentionally to keep teams 'on task' - scoring
points and making the robots do what they were assigned to do rather than
spending a whole match blocking.
Granted, defensive play was required; keeping the puck on your own side of
the field, blocking sides of the puck to keep other robots off of it, etc.
But, defensive play was not always rewarded.
And I've thought long and hard and cannot think of a professional
sport where rankings are determined by points per game rather than wins per
season. Baseball, football, hockey, lacrosse, basketball, tennis, auto racing,
horse racing; all are ranked/seeded by wins.
Keep the scoring as diverse as possible. It only adds to the action and
challenge of the game. But base rankings on wins and let defense be rewarded.

Mts. Trax

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/8/99 7:38 AM MST


In Reply to: Defense---not exactly the best strategy either.... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST:



The 'Minor League' of basketball is the CBA.

I think that in that league, standings for playoff spots are awarded not based solely on the score at the end of the game, but on the score at the end of each quarter.

It is something like 1 point for begin ahead a the end of each quarter and 3 points for winning (someone who knows for sure help me out on this).

Anyway, this is an example of a sport where the team that wins the game may not always walk away with the most points toward the playoffs.

What to teams think about something like that for FIRST?

Using this year's game for example, perhaps rather than using the score at the end, points could also be awarded for the position of the puck and/or robots on the puck at 0:30, 1:00, and 1:30. I haven't thought this whole thing through, but perhaps there is something to the idea.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/8/99 12:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Defense---not exactly the best strategy either.... posted by Andrew Trax on 5/8/99 4:04 AM MST:



You don't really disagree. =)

I believe defense was rewarded to some extent through the alliance picking process. A good defensive team tends to get noticed (through those exciting matches I wrote about), and during the choosing, gets picked. I know it didn't happen in every case, but I saw it as pretty common. For example, TKO got picked from a low seed at the Great Lakes Regional. At nationals, there were quite a few defensive bots in the elimination rounds (i.e. 45, 177, 192, etc).

I believe this, but well understand and agree that defense wasn't rewarded enough.

We are in perfect agreement about how this problem could be fixed. The game encouraged the various strategies, so it should follow through and reward that which it encourages. Wins are what really counts in this. Points make a good tie breaker. Or, somehow, winning should be weighed more than the points. Perhaps a certain number of points could be rewarded for a win. I saw that idea in these forums before and I liked it. For example, a team winning with 64 points could be rewarded with the '300-point win bonus', bringing them to 364 points. That way, a high scoring round gets a lot of points, but doesn't make a team unbeatable. People who win all their matches would tend to do very well, and rankings would probably end up very similar to using wins as a tie breaker. However, the one advantage would be that a team that goes 5-1 by some fluke could still stay above a few 6-0 teams that maybe didn't score quite as high each match.

The tripler was invented to give winning a value, but unfortunately all it did was give scoring even more worth.

Giving high scoring such a huge weighting is oppressive. It makes everyone think that the game can only be played one way. That shouldn't be. Encourage WHATEVER WORKS. Defense included.


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/10/99 10:39 AM MST


In Reply to: defense---not exactly kicking back... posted by Daniel on 5/8/99 2:25 AM MST:



: Furthermore, I feel fairness should a secondary goal in this whole FIRST thing.

I have to take exception to this statement. FIRST is a messenger carrying a message of inspiration of science and technology. If the competition is viewed to be unfair by any teams, those teams may lose faith in the competition and FIRST's ability to run a competition. If one loses faith in the messenger, how can one have faith in the message the messenger preaches? They can't.

If everyone is to have faith in FIRST, everyone must view FIRST as being equitable and fair to all. This is why FIRST should strive for fairness. Otherwise, some teams may decide to pack up and head to a different form of inspiration that is viewed as being more fair.