Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

::rtm:: I believe the concerned rules are as follows:

emaphasis mine

Declining a pick would then preclude a team from becoming a backup robot because they are no longer eligible. In this situation, had 1114 declined at #10 and then not move up to the top 8, an alliance calling in the back up robot would not result in them being the back up robot because although they would be the highest seeded remaining team, they would not be the highest seeded remaining eligible team. So declining a pick to be called in as a back up for some ridiculously strong alliance is not within the rules.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

^ That issue was actually brought up earlier in this thread (around post 55). I just checked, and the Q&A question Jared341 submitted is still pending...

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation, but the fact that 5.4.1 says "that team is not eligible to be picked again" and NOT something like "that team is not eligible to join another Alliance" leaves a bit of a gray area. A backup bot is not really "picked".

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Wow, it would take a lot of, um, uh--bravery!--to decline while in 10th seed... After watching 610 decline their way out of the tournament at FLR 2009 while in 9th seed, I can't imagine ever taking that chance.

Speaking of alliance disruptions, the other alliances might choose not to pick in the top eight first time through just to lock a powerhouse team like 1114 out of contention. (By the way I'm not saying that's what happened to 610 in 2009 -- as far as I know there wasn't even a hint of collusion in that regard. I'm also not saying I'd approve or disapprove of a lock out like this, either -- just that I could easily see it happen.)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

A final thought about declining a first pick from the 10th seed position. To even think about doing so, you would have to assume you could get a better partner after seven picks have already occurred (assuming that a team in the top eight picks another in the top eight twice). the #1 seed would have to be less capable than at least five teams that seeded 11th or worse. I don't see that as a very likely scenario. If a 10th seeded team did decline a first pick, then somehow ended up in the 8th position, it is doubtful that they could get a better partner than the #1 seed, but they could definitely get a great second pick. Would it be possible to create a better alliance that way? maybe, but I haven't seen many #8 alliances win it all.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Ahh, but would the 1st seed be able to beat the 8th seed? Keep in mind that on Newton, the 7th seed went to Einstein if I remember correctly, and an 8th seed won Einstein one year. Last year it was a race of minibots, if the 8th seed deployed faster than the 1st seeded alliance, it was over; also one reason why I hated minibots.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

This is true; however, the 8 seed does have the luxury of back-to-back picks. This allows them to build a strong alliance (admittedly out of the remaining robots, but when there are 85 teams left in the division, the pickins aren't exactly slim)

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

Agreed. It very much depends on where the drop-offs are in the field. If the field is very deep through 24 robots, then the 8th seed doesn't get much advantage with their 2nd pick compared to the 1st seed's 2nd pick. If the field drops off severly after 17 robots (and there isn't much dropoff in the top 15), then being 7 or 8 seed can be an advantage.

The alliance of 217, 68, and 247 in 2009 were world finalists from the 7th seed (I believe) after 217 declined a top pick. I remember the reason being that they felt the dropoff in the field made the 7th seed a more attractive spot.

In 2007, we (team 65 at the time) were division finalists from as the 8th seed captain. Similar reasons - the field dropoff was such that 8th seed was a great spot to be. To be honest, I thought we had the best alliance in the division that year - had a couple small things gone differently, we probably would have won it.

Re: Disrupting Alliances
 

This was true in Curie 2009. There were several robots that seeded very high in the top 5 that were good robots but it seemed that the top robots in the division were in the bottom of the top 8.

The only time when you should decline a first pick by the higher seed is when you know that you can pick AND the number of stronger robots is greater than the difference in positions. For example, you are seeded 6th and are picked by the number 1 seed. You look on your scouting data and see that while they are a good robot, there are 7 other robots seeded below you that you view would compliment your robot better meaning that if you decline, you would be garunteed 2 of the 7 by the time it is your turn to pick. This tactic becomes risky when you are 9th or 10th seed. The only times you should decline as a 9th or 10th seed is when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be inter pickings. At a regional you sometimes will have the 9th, 10th, and even 11th seeds move up but at Champs there is a lot of picking outside the top 8 from my observations.