Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

How very sad.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

This is commonly because many better teams hope to do well in eliminations, and typically when winging alliance selections can tend to fall way out of hand. Unless your 2056 and 1114, then it is assumed before the regional that you will work together (and probably win).

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

In the context of the seeding system in place this year and the scenario described in the original post, I maintain, as I stated in my initial post that for me personally the choice is clear - I play to win every match.

When the seeding criteria create the motivation to score for your opponent in certain situations; then, I also have no problem. Aim High was a good example of that scenario.

When the seeding criteria create the motivation to cooperate with opponents to control the outcome of the match and it is in everyone's best interest to play, for example 6v0, well I would not criticize teams for pursuing that strategy. It never came up for me that year; if approached by all five other teams, I probably would have cooperated and still slept well that night :rolleyes:

I could imagine a scenario where losing their last match would put a team in a better position for alliance selection without impacting the ranking of alliance partners or opponents. If I were clever enough to recognize it in the first place, I want to believe that I would not support such strategy by our team. I hope that we would play to win. That would be a personal choice based on my value system. I also would not criticize another who made a different choice. While I would strongly lobby against it, if that was the consensus of my team, I could support it. Under no circumstances would I accept a "bribe" as it were to throw a match.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

This is all further complicated by the onset of the district systems and point values for the placings at district events. In the later Quals, some teams will be looking at possibly their last chances to get points for DCMPs. If a single team's performance were so significant as to be able to control the outcome of one match, they would risk additional loss of reputation by their sub-par performance. I don't recall why it's called sand-bagging, but I think the NHRA has rules about dragster running times that deal with too large a variation.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

The best way to ensure that each team plays to win every match is to ensure that the seeding system rewards that behavior. Qualifying points based on wins and ties with tie breaker points based on a team's own alliance performance (not the opposing one's) should do that.

This is the system in place for this year. The remaining incentive which may influence behavior is the draft process. In my opinion, drafting 1 to 8 in both rounds would remove any incentive for a team to "throw" a match.

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I don't think many teams throw matches because of the "snake" drafting system - in any case, this would probably not be a good idea because, year after year, higher seeds still win more often anyway. What I see discussed much more often is the manipulation of matches to ensure that a certain team is or is not ranked highly, to try to ensure a given result in the first round of alliance selection, and I don't see how going to a 1-8, 1-8 system would change that. I do agree that the "simpler" ranking system this year has removed the incentive for the 6v0, etc., and I'm all for that.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

If the wildcard still exists then there is a very big incentive for a team to try to be an alliance captain on the opposite side of the bracket from the Wildcard generating alliances (often the #1 seed/alliance). Several times this season it has been beneficial for our team to lose. I tell my drivers to never throw a match but you can tell they have no incentive to win (we still won nearly all those matches).

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I agree that the serpentine draft is likely not much of a factor in a decision to throw a match. There are certainly folks who do not like it for other reasons ... for another thread.

The manipulation of matches to influence the ranking of a specific team crosses the ethical line for me.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

The big one you can never get rid of is when you're playing the #1 seed, you're the second best robot at the event, and you have a better alliance. There's no way to prevent that kind of match throwing, since there will always be an incentive to keep a better team #1 seed if you are the guaranteed first pick.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

Assuming that you are not already the #2 seed, yes I see your point.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I stand corrected. Twice ... :yikes:

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

If your goal was to win the tournament, and loosing a match made it easier, I think that would certainly qualify as a grey area. It would be especially grey if your alliances agreed it was in their best interest to lose the match too.

I'm not sure if you read my first post on this thread or not, but essentially our motivation for loosing the match would be to keep a very inconsistent robot very high in the seedlings in order to break up and to weaken elimination alliances.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I did read your original post and read it over again before I posted that comment. As pointed out by others, I agree that late in the Qualification Rounds there may be circumstances which would cause a team to consider the consequences of losing versus winning a match.

I appreciate your transparency in sharing your situation and thought process. I also commend you for making the correct choice, in my opinion.

As I stated in my earlier post, I would strongly argue against ever throwing a match, regardless of the situation, based on my personal value system.

While I would support a team consensus (large majority) decision; i.e., I was unable to persuade them otherwise, I would be looking for a new team. I think that the example of the Olympic competition sited in an earlier post correctly illustrates the accepted view that such behavior is unethical and to be discouraged.

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

I agree, kudos to the poster making the right decision. In my opinion it is never reasonable to throw a match. Play your best every match, play to win. Your team should value its integrity over "strategically winning".

Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
 

We saw this a bunch of times in Canada this season. Teams declining the #4 and #5 alliance captains, preferring to captain their own alliance from the #6 or #7 spot (because the winner of #4/#5 faces the winner of #1/#8 in semis). To earn the wildcard you had to make it to finals. Going through 1114/2056 to get there from the #4/#5 is extremely difficult. Going through the #2 or #3 alliance (or both) to get there is still difficult, but less so.