Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I was the coach for a team that was ranked first an a competition last year with a very close second ranked team. During our last match we needed the win and the Co-Op points to grab the first seed. The other Alliance was going to forget about the coop bridge in an attempt to showcase a triple balance. Leaving us ranked second. We were lucky that the other alliance was 3 long robots and decided to Co-op instead.
A similar situation at the same competition, the number 2 team and a team ranked just out of the top 8, but a great pick where competing together late on Saturday. They refused to Co-op with the number 2 seed and explained to their partners why, who all refused to Co-op. After the match the team came up to me and said they don't expect us to pick them, but they would rather have us in the first seed.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

This is why I hate the Co-Op points from last season for 2 reasons.
1. We literally had to convince a team to co-op with us in order to rank #1, when at first they decided not to because others wanted another team to rank #1.
2. We had to keep playing 2 strategies within a match.....in trying to beat an opponent, then at the last moment try to balance with no more scoring.
We had a match at CMP where we went too late to the co-op bridge because we were soo caught up in scoring. This adds too much pressure to try to do the right thing in both situations.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I believe it is abandoning the idea of gracious professionalism, although I would not necessarily go and say that throwing a match is completely unethical. Given, if it's thrown solely for your own benefit, then it is unethical. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

Honestly, I don't see this as a problem. Many teams network throughout competitions with other teams, and it's all to do with scouting and drive teams observing each other's performance. If you're a top team, then you want another top team on your alliance, plain and simple. We chose 1189, Gearheads at Livonia because we valued their performance, and we worked really well with them. It's not a back door deal at all, it's rather networking between teams. I've seen it done many times, whether it be students handing out pamphlets about their robot's performance, or drive teams talking to each other. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's rather teams trying to optimize their performance in eliminations through productive networking with other teams.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

My own personal opinion: whatever you end up deciding to do, you need to be open and honest with your alliance partners, and you should not attempt to harm their individual best efforts.

I'd hope you would never find yourself involved in that situation. As a rule, you should never ask someone to throw a match and put them in that situation. Seeding high because others volunteered to lose is against the spirit of competition.

There are years that break the mold and call for 6v0 strategies, in this case it isn't "throwing" a match because the entire alliance is involved.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

My take on it is the same as it was in the 6v0 thread from 2010: If you might have to explain the politics of the situation to a sponsor or parent, you probably made the wrong choice.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Oh come on. There is a big difference between talking to a partner once you have secured the first pick and "back door deals". There is no bribery, trickery, or even anything remotely unethical going on. All they are trying to figure out is who they want to pick round 2.

You see two teams talking to each other and "back door deals" is really the first thing that comes to mind? What crooked things are they even in a position to do?

I'm sorry that I kinda jumped on this comment, but every year I hear people talk about alliance selection like its some huge political struggle when it's really all just tactics.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Our team has been on the receiving end of a "if you throw the next match we'll pick you" request. I'd call that a "back door deal". (We declined.)

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Again, what about a wonky ranking system that doesn't use W/L record as a primary qualification? 6v0 in 2010 is clever match strategy that the entire alliance has to agree to participate in. I would rather have the effect of possible outcomes dictate the match strategy for any match. If 6v0 helps all members of my alliance, you bet I'm going to do it.

Also, how is finding the perfect partner for you alliance a "back door deal"? You better have a definite pick list and ask how your potential partner would feel about an alliance well before picking starts if you are a captain.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Yup, that's super sketchy and should be frowned upon. What the poster said is that all teams in the top 8 go sit in corners and game the system somehow. I'd allege that teams asking others to throw matches is by no means the norm and certainly not something "everyone" is doing at 10 AM on Saturday.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Agreed on both counts.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Most likely what everyone is doing at 10 AM is trying to find their ideal partners and going over a picking strategy to break up any power alliances. On webcasts and in the stands, the alliance selections look like they are done on the spot, but behind each team number being called is hours of strategy, scouting, analysis, and talking with the team. You might call these alliances "pre-arranged", but if you don't want teams to talk with each other about alliance selections, Situations like Newton in 2006 and Northern Lights this year would not pop up and eliminations in those competitions would be less exciting. Alliance picking strategies win blue banners.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

What about explaining to your sponsors that you aren't able to promote and advertise them at the championship event because your team was fixated on one match and not the event as a whole?

[DISCLAIMER] In no way do I support unethical behavior. Just providing food for thought. [/DISCLAIMER]

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I am also saying that teams do that... I'm not sure where we disagree? All I am saying is that teams talk once they know their fate. 2791 did this at WPI once the top seed was secured. We didn't ask anyone to throw any matches, and never have.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Thunder910 States it best. If both partners agree, then great. You have to look at the overall alliance at the time, not just your individual team.