Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Am I the only one that can look at this scenario and say, "If I was 217, I'd probably decline several alliances, but would still accept 1538/1986's invitation"?

1538 and 1986 together have a wealth of strong team members, as does 217. If I was on 217, I could easily see them thinking, "Yeah, with these partners, we can maybe do this", where with weaker partners they might think it impossible.

Having met and spoken with Paul on a few occasions, I'm confident in saying that the intent was not 'convince everyone to leave us for the #1 alliance'.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Chances are alot of the helpful scouting done that caused 217 to be picked despite their Championship Q-round troubles would be past competition performance scouting. 217 did a fine job at the MSC, in fact good enough to win the thing. Watching any youtube videos of the MSC playoffs would have shown that.

Nowadays, so much data is needed to gauge a teams potential performance that external data is needed. Going purely off of CMP data, 217 was not a smart pick. But due to their potential from previous events, it became a smart but EXTREMELY risky pick. Worked to a point, their luck ran out in the Division Championship. With more technology and more video documentation comes more scouting resources.

1538 has some brass buns to make that pick. I don't think I would have had the courage to do so.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

They cycled in the match with us and they did it pretty well. I thought their full court shooting worked in 1538's favor since they eat up everything on the floor so basically 217 was a long distance feeder for them.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

I can't say you're the only one, but you're probably in the minority. If you're going to accept a pick from #1 and try like heck to fix your robot, you're going to accept a pick from #8 and try like heck to fix your robot. To act otherwise is to admit that you're really just planning on riding #1's coattails with your broken, unfixable robot.If your robot is broken and requires significant repairs to reach some sort of competitive level, is it right to withhold that information from teams and hope you get pick based on prior competition's performance or reputation? How do you think the #4 or #5 seed would feel when they discovered they spent a pick on a robot that was barely working? I think 217's choice was one of two honorable paths they could have picked. The other option being to decline any pick because they felt their robot truly was completely and utterly unfixable. (Caught fire at the PDB and significantly damaged 80% of the wiring or something. Though even then you could get a driving robot together.)

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

I would like to apologize for my posts on the previous thread, and retract my statements regarding 217's intention to decline and implication that they "only wanted to play with the first seed." I did not witness either conversation first-hand, and I regret that I contributed to the rumor-spreading without verifying the facts. It is quite possible that my pit crew made incorrect assumptions and the message got distorted through repetition. I was with my team captain discussing alliance picks when I got the call that 217 was broken and not to pick them. The pit crew could have wrongly interpreted that as they would decline, then got relayed to me. It is also quite possible that the latter statement of only wanting to play with the first seed was meant to be a joke which was not picked up on, or some other completely innocent explanation. That comment was also not made by Paul himself, who I am sure, would not joke about that kind of thing. This was our team's first experience at Championships, and we were so impressed by all of the incredible teams we had the honor of sharing the field with. Congratulations to all teams, and keep up the great work!

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

The last thing any teams wants to do is decline a playoff invitation. That said, I think what Paul and 217 did (inform the top seeds their robot was broke) was honorable and the right thing to do.

1538 took a HUGE risk in picking them anyway, and it payed off in the first two rounds. But that's where it ended. Nothing more to see; one team felt they could fix a broken robot with potential and picked it regardless.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

The existence of a thread like this is necessary. Otherwise, there would be no shame in the very unprofessional and irresponsible acts that have been accused. If the acts were dishonest, then I hope that discussions like these make the perpetrators realize they aren't more clever than the community.

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, it just doesn't make sense that you would spend all the effort to tell 15 teams not to select you, but that you would accept if selected. When I heard about the incident on Saturday afternoon, the first comment I had was about how illogical this was, and this explanation confirms that. I think a lot of people feel as if nothing has been resolved. That's okay though, see my first paragraph. This shouldn't actually concern most people.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Are you proposing that we should start random baseless flame wars just to remind people that the scorn of CD will descend upon them if they have even a hint of impropriety? Frankly, I'm starting to feel really bad for anyone with a broken robot heading into selections. Their options are now to decline any picks, lie about their robot's functionality, or be accused of sandbagging.

Here's a hypothetical for the doubters. And I'd appreciate it if you'd actually really consider it. If this exact same situation happened, but the team in question was team 5592 or 30XX or something, would we still be having an argument over them sandbagging their way to the #1 seed? Or would we have accepted the explanation that they thought they were broken and noncompetitive, but managed to pull off some highly impressive repairs over lunch?

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Here's another one: the low numbered team in question is instead picked up by the 5 or 6 seed (in similar fashion), performs well, but loosed in the first round?

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Im going to add my 2 cents quik.

I may not be correct but I was hanging out around 217s pit after alliance selections and they seemed to be working really hard on their robot. My team was once put in s situation in 2012 at the Buckeye regional. At a previous regional our joystick failed and it cost us a regional win(possibly). This problem reoccoured at Buckeye where we told teams to be cautious if they picked us as we may not work in elims. We were picked by the number one alliance who we told the same thing too. they had some of the same controls and some of the same mentors and they were able to add some assisance. We ended up dying part way through a match but luckily, I , the driver was able to quickly get the joystick back working. So before calling this team ungraciously Professional put yourself in your shoes. I think they did the right thing

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

I don't really see this thread as baseless. There was a less than desirable situation for everyone in that division, one that created a lot of questions and hurt feelings (based on the questions and feedback I received from numerous teams while standing at the inspection desk after alliance selection but prior to elims). I think it's important to air it out and get the facts that 97% of the teams in the division didn't have - the only teams that truly knew the situation with regards to 217's functioning and risk were those on the alliance.

The only alternative to starting a thread about the situation would be to leave Champs suspecting some of the best teams around of using underhanded techniques in order to win, allowing that impression to sit there and fester, and ultimately having a negative impact on anyone involved (in terms of reputation, outlook, and possible future actions by teams who suspected the worst).

For those who weren't in the division and weren't in the elims against this alliance, consider what they heard and saw. 217 told them they were broken, couldn't be fixed in time, and not to pick them. Then they saw them then get picked as a third robot for the #1 alliance. Their very first match in elims, they shoot in autonomous, seem to drive just fine, and proceed to do some full court shooting to feed their alliance members. It's extremely easy to jump to the conclusion that something fishy was going on, and many people did. While many of us here on CD know about the best teams and individuals in FIRST and would give them the benefit of the doubt, a large part of the FIRST community doesn't.

It's important for us, as a community to occasionally have discussions like this that bring us back to the question "What is Gracious Professionalism?" Would it be declining any and all alliance invitations if you were in 217's shoes? Would it be picking a team that just broke, with the intention of helping them get fixed so they can perform in the elimination matches? Would it be digging into the facts of a situation before passing judgement on another team? This situation, and this thread gives us an amazing opportunity to constructively discuss one of the core principles of FIRST.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

This^

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

I was our mentor/coach that the Thunder Chickens spoke to during the Newton qualifiers. Our team (3997 - the Screaming Chickens) were ranked fourth in the Newton division. I had been talking to one of the volunteers that is related to them through out the competition and had mentioned that a completely "Chicken" alliance would be fun. When they approached us they stated they were damaged from a fall in the practice field and where facing a serious rebuild challenge. They did not say to not choose them. They did not say could not make it back. However, they did say that they wanted us to know about their situation before we made any decisions. I can not speak to what they may have stated to other teams, but I figured it was worth stating that they did not directly tell us to not pick them.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

C'mon, of course I am not suggesting random rumors be spread. You should feel really bad for a team with a broken robot heading into elims as they probably won't get to compete with a robot on which the team spent a lot of time. If you are going to tell teams you are damaged beyond repair, you shouldn't accept an invitation.

If team 3XXX were at the center of this, and they were good enough to be MSC champs, then of course it'd be a big deal! I don't have any reason to favor/spite 217.

Re: Ungracious professionalism at internationals?
 

Heh.