9th seed decline
 

Has a 9th seed ever declined? Did anyone ever have the guts/motivation to do so?

Here is my story.
At the Lake Superior Regional this year, we ended the quals seeded 9th. We were reasonably assured that we would be one of the first few picks. Since there were a few good robots in the top 8, and we didn't necessarily want to be with the number 1,2, or 3 seeds, I threw out the idea of declining. I immediately got shocked silence, then horrified stares, then threats on my life (I was going to be the team representative). I was told that if I declined, I would be walking the 100+ miles back home that night.

My question is, under what circumstances (if any) would you decline a pick as a 9/10 seed? Apparently, you still have a 96% chance of being a captain as a 9th seed.

Here is the alliance selection data from every competition this year. Thanks to team 2834 for providing their championship scouting database from which I made this.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I remember a story from Karthik's strategy talks from 2011 where they were seeded just outside the top 8 (I wanna say about 11th, but I could be wrong), and Team 1771 was seeded 1st. Karthik knew that with 1771, they had little chance at a world championship, but hesitated to decline because they could end up not being in eliminations at all.

This year, in Archimedes, we (20) were seeded 10th. There were a few teams that had the potential to seed inside the top 8 that we weren't comfortable being on an eliminations alliance with. We told our field representative that if she managed to be on the field as a captain by the time one of these teams tried to pick us, she should decline and we'd take our chances as an 8 seed captain. That situation didn't end up happening, as these teams ended up losing the matches they had the potential to win and seeding behind us.

But if we were the 9 seed and a 1-6 seed captain tried to pick us that we weren't comfortable competing with, we'd absolutely decline if there was some chance we could end up an alliance captain instead.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

this is probably one of the most interesting situations that can arise during alliance selection.

Karthik discussed just how screwy this situation can get during his 2012 presentation at champs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apk_X-maRf8
from ~1:29:20 to ~1:35:00

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Link to the relevant story. Thought it'd be easier for everybody.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

It seems that you are saying as a 9th seed you can decline, then move up to the number 8 position if it opened up(it usually does).

It was my understanding that if you were not an alliance captain and declined, you were out for good. This would explain your team's shocked silence.

What have past rules been governing this?

Re: 9th seed decline
 

The rule is that once you decline an invitation, you cannot be invited by anybody else. Declining does not prevent you from being an alliance captain, regardless of whether you started out in the top 8 or not.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

That cleared it up, thanks.

I knew that alliance captains could not be chosen after they declined. I was unaware that you could still move up from 9 to 8 after declining. I never encountered a circumstance like that in my time as a high school student.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Good for you. It's not a fun situation to be put into. Even now, we have what-if scenarios from Archimedes. "What if we had declined 948?" They usually end with "Well regardless of what kind of alliance we built, we'd have been against 987 and 2415- so we would have lost."
Karthik's story would have been a bit different. A 1114-973-341 alliance? THAT would have been crazy in 2011. (Heck, this year that would be crazy!)

Re: 9th seed decline
 

@ THE 2009 FLR the 13th seed declined a selection from the 3rd seed in hopes of getting in as the 8th seed.
They didn't quite make it in.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I know I've seen it at least once, where a 8-13 seed declined, planning to make an alliance captain spot, and got hung out to dry. I don't remember where it was though.

I also know my team was seeded 11th or so one year, and thought we'd make elims as a captain, but were not selected at all (we weren't that good) and only 2 selections within the top 8 happened, leaving us as the first backup bot, at 11th seed.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I think, as far as moves go, it's completely legitimate and something to talk about... but at the same time, the risk associated with declining while in 9th would be enough to make me accept.

If you're going to decline at any level, I think you need to do more work with your scouting and selection strategy than other teams. Think about it... most of the teams out there have a simple choice: Accept or don't play. Some teams have a harder decision to make: They have to rank all of the other teams in order to figure out who to pick (and every year at every regional you have at least one team that doesn't do this and needs about 5 minutes to make up their mind while everyone's waiting). If you're going to be declining as a 9th or 10th seed, you need to take it one step further - you need to create your own ranked list AND you need to figure out what other team's ranked lists will be, keeping in mind that everyone won't have the exact same desires in alliance partners as you will. Essentially, you need to be pretty sure you know exactly who will pick whom in order to know if you'll make it or not. It's a tough position to be in.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

In 2012, my team was ranked 11th at Queen City and as we formulated a pick list the question of if we would say yes to teams came up. Everyone said yes because they wanted us in the eliminations. It turned out that we moved into the 8th captain spot and swept the elimination matches. In the end whether we said yes or no to an earlier captain wouldn't have mattered but it was idea we passed around nonetheless.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Yep. I was pretty shocked. I took photos of that moment. The individual ended up walking off the field when he realized what he'd done.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

As it hasn't been mentioned, beware of "Scorched Earth". While the #9 almost always bubbles up, the exact reason you may want to decline a #1 may be the exact reason you want to accept a #1. Occasionally the team in #1 will get turned down by the majority of the other alliance captains. This can lead to a #9 rank getting left outside of the draft.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

What interests me are the 5 events this year where there was little/no interpicking in the top 8. They are:
No interpicking:
Curie Division
Hatboro Horsham
Buckeye

1 interpick:
Traverse City
Oregon

Can anyone provide insight as to the selections at these events? Were there a lot of top 8 declines? Was there a high seeded team that no one wanted to be with?

Re: 9th seed decline
 

We planned on it at GKC in 2009 (seed#9) and in 2011 (seed #11). Never had to decline, but was the 8th captain seed both years.

The list of potential declines was much longer in 2009 than it was in 2011 due to our position and our strategy at elims.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I think some for events in Rebound Rumble, it would have been advantageous to be the ninth seed moved up to 8th alliance captain due to the messed up rankings the coop bridge brought. If the #1 seed was a team you could probably beat that got to their position via coop bridge, then it would be a smart choice to decline their invitation, select two solid teams in a row with the power of the 8th seed, and beat them in the quarters.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Really any competition, any year there's a less deserving #1 seed, this can apply. 2012 in particular do to the wonky co-op bridge, but the same could be said this year.
What if, in Curie, 1717 or 1310 was seeded 9th when they declined 1678? If they moved up (and that's a big 'if' in that division), they could have had two great picks that shouldn't have been left for the second round (like 1918- seriously how did a 5-disc auto and a 50 point climb get left to the second round of picks?!?!)
But I digress.
That would have been exceptionally risky.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Curie was exceptionally strange and unpredictable this year, but I wasn't surprised 1918 didn't make it until the second round. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love 1918's robot and approach. In fact, in my opinion, they were very close to the ideal design solution this year.

The number one reason they dropped to second pick, boiled down to speed. With the gear ratio they had on their drive base, they were painfully slow moving around the field. Without defense, they could still score a slightly above average amount of cycles. However, eliminations at champs can be brutal when it comes to defense. Their autonomous cycle was fairly reliable, but occasionally their collection device seemed to have trouble scooping discs up. Their climb worked great with only a few mishaps during the season, yet it didn't get used in several elimination matches, IIRC.

Had the selections on Curie played out differently, it would have been very likely that 1918 could have been a first pick, assuming more inter-picking amongst the top 8.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

The team was 610. They declined assuming out sister team, 424 would select our team. When that didn't happen the writing was on the wall. It was not a 'mistake' it was a calculated risk that did not work in their favor.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Ohh Duncan... if I remember correctly they believed at the time they were in a higher seed (10th or 11th) not 13th, didn't work out so well.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I can shed a little light on Oregon.
Oregon is a huge event with many robots of varied build and design quality. This, mixed with the process through which the seeding rounds are formed created many 3 on 1 matches throughout the day, often with desirable robots loosing matches even though they played beautifully. Anyway, seeding was very unkind to generally good teams (Mean Machine, Bear Metal, Flaming Chickens, SOTA Bots, all played several 3 on 1) and very kind to average teams (such as my own, where we were carried by our alliance partners). This all created a situation where people in the top 8 took risks on robots that didn't seed too well because there were no sure picks in their own ranks. Just to give you an idea at how wonky things were, the winning alliance seeds were 1, 19, and 25. The bots on our alliance were seeded 8, 12, and 34.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

You may already know this, but in Curie what happened was that the first seed invited all the other seven seeds. They didn't seem to upset when they all declined so I'm assuming they did this so that the other top seeds couldn't partner up with each other. Our team thought that it was a clever plan, but there may be unforeseen down sides to this option other than the obvious possibility that someone they were not particularly fond of might accept.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

The "scorched earth" strategy. There are some downsides, depending on implementation.

Usually, it's applied to specific teams that the first seed does not want to team up, or to force one of those teams onto their alliance. Say, asking the #3 and the #5, when you really want the #2 on your side and not facing #3 and #5 together, and you know that #2 wants one of those two. Very rarely is it applied to the entire top 8.

Sometimes, it's done accidentally--a team may just be picking off the ranking list (protip, don't do this), or may just be a team that nobody really wants to ally with, due to a number of factors. In this case, you'll see a lot of confusion.

The primary downside is that someone accepts when you weren't expecting them to. This is easily avoided by asking the top 8 if they would accept if you pick them, and hoping that someone isn't trying to call your bluff.

However, it also breaks up ALL the powerhouse alliances from the top 8, which at Championship weakens your division. Enter the Curie Curse, in this case.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I always wonder... if a really good 9th/10th/11th-place team employs this strategy, might the top 8 robots adjust their picks to try to keep said team out of eliminations entirely? I would certainly consider it, although at that point it's almost a Prisoner's Dillema situation...

Re: 9th seed decline
 

If you're really good, you probably aren't in a position to employ that strategy--you're either picking, or due to ranking quirks/carrying partners against double-teams you're about 16th or lower (like 254 at one of their 2012 events--couldn't get coop points to save their lives).

If that were to happen, I would be surprised.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Split the difference, they were the 12th seed according to the data in our 2009 Scouting Database.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

For the data historians out there... what is the lowest seeded team to ever captain an alliance? The 15th seeded is the lowest possible, how close has it got to that?

Re: 9th seed decline
 

15th seed captained the 8th seed alliance at WPI this year.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

New question: What's the lowest seeded captain to win an event?

744 won Orlando this year captaining the 8th alliance from the 13th seed. Anyone from 14 or 15?

Re: 9th seed decline
 

Calculated mistake would fit better. The rankings I had with me on the field were not up to date, leading me to think we were 10th instead of 12th. The 3rd alliance captain was 22nd on our pick list and the 188-1507 alliance was very strong.

I have been to FLR twice and my pick list has never been a good predictor for the actual picking. (Probably because I don't know the background team relationships)

Re: 9th seed decline
 

The 15th seed (816) became the #8 captain at the 2010 Philadlephia regional. As the 15th seed, they didn't have a pick list thinking that it was all but impossible they would be a captain. We (1712) were their first selection. We didn't have a pick list thinking that there was no way we would be selected in the first round of alliance selection. Lesson learned, always have a pick list!

When all was said and done, the #8 alliance of 816, 1712, and 709 did push the #1 seeded alliance (341, 365, 486) to the brink. We only lost the 1st match on a penalty (1712's only penalty of the entire tournament :( ), won the second match with some luck and a lot of defense, and were looking great 30 seconds into the 3rd match when 365 flipped over. Fortunately for the top seed, 341 then went into beast mode and they won the match 6-3. It was a good (albeit short) run for the misfit #8 alliance.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

In 2005, I was team president, and drive team coach. So I went out for alliance selections. That's when it was 1-8 1-8 draft still. We were ranked 9th at champs on our field. We decided to decline an invite from the #4 team because we felt we could field a better alliance and thought we would move up past 8th seed. #1 picked #2 and the MC didn't move me forward so it looked like we weren't in picking position when I declined. It caused such an uproar in the stands because the MC said that there must be something wrong with our robot since we weren't accepting an invite. Then when it came time for #8 (us) to pick, they couldn't figure out what to do. We ended up losing, but put up a strong battle none the less.

Re: 9th seed decline
 

i would only do it if your robot is completely dead and is impossible to fix before the next round.. this is in the sense of gracious professionalism

Re: 9th seed decline
 

I don't think we're talking about reasons for the 9th seed to decline other than strategy.

This is a limited scenario: You are seeded #9, you are picked, and maybe you think you can build a better alliance from the #8 slot should you get there. Do you accept, which has obvious strategic implications, or do you decline, which is a risky gamble due to relying on inter-top-8 selection?

For this scenario, which does happen from time to time, we are assuming that your robot is functional or fixable (you can do a LOT of fixing by postponing lunch until after your first QF match or taking lunch in shifts, as well as tapping alliance partners' supplies of manpower and tools and parts, so there are very few impossible fixes). Gracious Professionalism, while it has a place in how you accept or decline, should not affect your decision either direction--we're talking strategy, and as declining from any position is not forbidden, it is therefore allowed--and therefore, GP does not come into play. (Your team may see this differently than I do.)



As for whether or not I would decline, or call for a decline, that is highly dependent on situation. If I knew that I was the best robot at doing X hard-to-beat strategy, and there were a lot of decent or good complementary teams to that strategy out there (> 9), I would probably consider doing just that, particularly if there was another robot that used my strategy (though not as well, or with a weakness that I didn't have) within the top 8. On the other hand, if I've got a defensive specialist... I'm taking the offer of alliance. Defenders don't go in the first round unless they're REALLY good at what they do.