Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

If you are in this position to begin with, your prospects for winning Einstein are probably somewhat slim.

Might as well play to make it as far as you possibly can, and see what happens from there!

I support breaking up the alliances 100%. Regardless of how you got there, you still "earned" that #1 seed, and have every right to maximize that opportunity.

Specifically for this year, the trickier question is whether you should KEEP a weaker team OUT of the #1 spot to prevent this situation from happening. Say you are in the top 8, and have a match against a weak team who will move into the #1 position with 2 CP. Should you decline co-oping with them so they don't get the #1 seed and break everyone (including you) up?

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I hear this a lot, "I don't want to hear any booing..." ...In my 9 years of FIRST, I don't think I have ever heard a crowd "Boo" a team for turning down someone. I *have* heard "OOoooo" and personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It amps the excitement up and gets people interested in alliance selections.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I don't have 9 years to my name, but I have certainly heard booing in alliance selection. The "B" was very defined. Maybe Michigan is just a very positive place? ;) I have no problem with disrupting alliances--even with refusal to Co-Op balance, as long as you're honest about it.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

The beginning of the plan to split up the top 8 on Newton that year actually stemmed from the fact that we (176) talked to many of the high ranked teams before selections, and many of them said they would not accept our invitation to form an alliance anyway. We had a relatively "easy" match schedule, and truthfully did not deserve to be ranked #1 in such a stacked division. We then went to 111 (who was outside the top 8), and colluded on the strategy to break everyone else up before selecting them, to better our chances of winning in elims.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

My point was not that the #1 seed suffered from the systematic effort to split top teams, but that the DIVISION suffered in regards to the forming of an alliance capable of going all the way...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Can someone explain the 2006 Newton selection for me? I haven't been able to find good information on it. Same for "scorched earth" as it applies to selection.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

See two posts above you for what happened in 2006.

"Scorched earth" = There's a #1 seed. For some reason or another, other teams in the top 8 don't want to be on an alliance with the first seed, so they decline invitations from the first seed. This prevents a "super alliance" from forming as the top 8 seeds cannot choose each other.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

If you make it to Einstein, you can win. Point me to a division champ alliance that never had a chance to take it all. Look at 2010, a year where the champs were all but guaranteed... Then Newton happened with Galileo close behind. Or 2008, where Galileo lost their first match to Newton. Or 2007 where the Wall of Maroon pulled a huge upset. Or Archimedes 2006 when a team who had never won a regional before seeded first and became World Champs. Were any of these divisions "scorched earth?" I don't know, and maybe not, but if you can make it to the big dance, you might as well waltz.

I also don't see why scorched earth would matter too much, as Einstein alliances consistently pick outside the top 8 anyways. Last year, 217 picked 1503, 254 picked 111, and 987 picked 968. The only alliance that had inter-picking was the Archimedes division, where 2016 (1) picked 177 (6).

It isn't a tricky question. You can decide whether to to co-op or not. However, that is your decision and not your alliance's. If someone else on your alliance wants to try for those 2 extra CP, then what gives you the right to stop them? Who made you alliance captain? The best you can do is explain the situation to your partners and hope they agree with your strategy (a la 1625 in Galileo 2010, who did a 6v0 in their last match that led to a number 3 seed and a division title).

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Hmm... Is refusing to co-op to lower someone's rank still co-opping. I think in a way it is. Also I have no issues with splitting up alliances; it's in the spirit of the game. It just stings a little to be on the receiving end.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

[quote=iVanDuzer;1160863]If you make it to Einstein, you can win. Point me to a division champ alliance that never had a chance to take it all. Look at 2010, a year where the champs were all but guaranteed... Then Newton happened with Galileo close behind. Or 2008, where Galileo lost their first match to Newton. Or 2007 where the Wall of Maroon pulled a huge upset. Or Archimedes 2006 when a team who had never won a regional before seeded first and became World Champs. Were any of these divisions "scorched earth?" I don't know, and maybe not, but if you can make it to the big dance, you might as well waltz.

I also don't see why scorched earth would matter too much, as Einstein alliances consistently pick outside the top 8 anyways. Last year, 217 picked 1503, 254 picked 111, and 987 picked 968. The only alliance that had inter-picking was the Archimedes division, where 2016 (1) picked 177 (6).


You are correct that any Division winner has a shot to win it all. Obviously as a member of the Wall of Maroon I am aware that upsets are possible...but I think they are called upsets because the odds are against the underdogs, which means statistically one is less likely to achieve success in the competitive arena when unable to ally with other teams that may have more strengths and form an even better fit with your team. Over time, one would find that stronger alliances are going to wind up on top more than "weaker" alliances which can be the result of a "scorched earth" scenario.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

There was a little bit of disruption in Newton last year (though it wasn't intentional and could have been taken much further if it was). Team 3138 was deservingly the number 1 seed and selected Team 16 (the 6th seed), who declined. They then immediately picked 233, who was ranked outside of the top 8. Teams 148 and 217 then both declined invitations to join the second seed, 1676, which prevented any combination of those three teams within the top 8 from pairing up.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

How about this scenario then. The weaker #1 seed approaches the other high power teams in the top 8 and tells them it looks like they'll be pursuing a scorched earth strategy. The #1 seed pick whichever top 8 powerhouse seems most likely and suggests they team up and use the scorched earth strategy to weaken all the other alliances. It's pretty similar, except you're pressuring one of those other top 8 teams to accept, because if they don't, you're gonna break up their chances at a powerhouse alliance anyways.

I think the most logical way this would go is #1 picks 3-8 expecting declines, then turns to #2. At which point, #1 is basically declaring it's a better option than whoever's left outside of the top 8. Or you plan on #7 or #8 being your "dare ya" pick, suggesting that #1 is a better option than who is left by the 8th pick.

Anyways, just a random thought on a different scenario. I think it'd still be perfectly legal and acceptable. I also think it's unlikely this year, as there's going to be enough strength scattered through the rankings that even a #8 seed would probably prefer its odds on making its own picks in a scorched earth Elims.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Hmm... I wonder why the MCs in a fair number of events are so quick to translate an "oooo" into a "booo" and call attention to it as a "booo" then. This isn't a minor thing either--I've heard it on the webcasts from multiple events.

The MCs have been doing a really good job with trying to tamp that down, with reminders that every team has the right to decline, and the odd "Hey! No booing! They can do that!"

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Separate post, because I forgot I wanted to address the topic of "weaker" alliances somehow letting down their division on Einstein. Which is what JB987 seems to be suggesting by stating the division suffers from a scorched earth selection strategy. If that's not the case, then my apologies, and I suggest more artful phrasing than "the price you pay" and divisions "suffering".

Frankly, this makes no sense. Teams are under no obligation whatsoever to put the interests of the division ahead of their own. For all the encouragement of cheering on your division on Einstein, the whole process is obviously focused on individual teams striving to get as far as they can. Not on a particular division trying to win on Einstein. If they latter were the case, there wouldn't be a point to alliance selections at all. You'd just have a panel of experts pick the division alliance most likely to cream the other divisions.

It's nonsense even if your position is just that it's somehow morally wrong to do alliance selections in a fashion that "weakens" the division. If that were the case, then it'd be morally wrong for any of the "weaker" alliances to pick a non-Top 8 powerhouse team before the "strongest" alliance had a chance at it for a second pick. The only morally right strategy would be for everyone to stay out of the way of the formation of an otherwise completely improbable mega-alliance of 3 powerhouse teams.

So no, I don't think there's a thing wrong with a "scorched earth" selection strategy, and I don't think teams should worry one whit that they might be "weakening" their division by pursuing it.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Ok, so say Galileo 2011 1771 picked 111 first and they declined (someone correct me if 111 was not one of the top 8 seeds). That would allow them to select 1114 next and thus ending any chance of 111/254/1114 forming an alliance together.