Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I've given up on my astute grandmother's coopertitional GP definition because it gets twisted to support any argument.

I expect every alliance I am on or against to employ a strategy that they feel will give them the best chance t victory. This would be the professional thing to do, and if any alliance diverges from this the experience of being a participant is cheapened.

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?

Someone made a fantastic post earlier in the year and made the argument "We don't allow steroids in sports because it cheapens the result and competition adds meaning." If we let steroids back in baseball, both sides can run faster, hit more home runs and have higher scoring games. But the result is less genuine. Not playing defence to artificially inflate scores and then boast about the high scoring Arizona finals is on the same level in my opinion.

If blue decided their best chance at winning was pure offence then more power to them. But the posts to date don't lead me to believe this was the case.

I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We have a 117 OPR before going into the finals. I think that speaks for itself. Everyone was that could was playing defense on us then. Ask them...When you are on an alliance, you play what ever role helps your team and not your ego. Bottom line is, as Woodie and Dean say, its not about the robot, its about the people and the people here are all thrilled at what transpired.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Fun fact: the excellent reffing crew in AZ would have nothing to do with deliberate human player fouls as they were not within the intent of the rules. Game strategy (ie, agreed upon no defense) does not fall into this same category.

If you don't like the approach that was taken during this match, then neglect it from the "high scoring match" category when you analyze all of the regional data. I do not expect this to even be a notable (or even relevant) category among any teams with a good scouting team.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I Agree with this.

I was the driver for team 2403 in the Finals of the AZ regional. I wanted to clarify some things.

The first first match of the finals we offered the same pack with the other team but they rejected it. So I was able to drive defensively. Once we showed that we can beat them we offered the same pack for them. This doesn't hurt either alliance because the objective was to see if can beat the challenge that hasn't been broken and we have already won the first so why not TRY for it.

For me it was fun because the score was behind me and I was on my toes to see if we have beaten the challenge. It is also fun to drive:P I also played all the matches so far with defense so it was exciting to see a change.

It was GP in the scene that we worked together to try to reach some no one else has done. AND we still were against each other for the winning of the regional.

If I have missed anything some one had for a question for me just ask.

Thanks,
Joshua Sicz

Project Manager for Plasma Robotics

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I really don't see the problem here. The losing alliance said they felt they had nothing to lose, which at least means they didn't feel like they were less likely to win with the new strategy. The first one didn't work, so why not go for it? You can complain about the decision in hindsight, but looking at it from the teams' and sponsor's perspectives before the outcome was determined I can certainly understand why they did it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I first want to say I love you guys. I do have to clarify something here. I hope I don't hurt anyones feeling in AZ but the situation was as such that after the first match, the losing alliance saw that they did not have a chance or a very slim one at winning so they took the challenge put forth by Steve Sanghi to hopefully do something incredible. By this point, the competition directly between us was over and we were trying to accomplish what no one took up earlier. We were in a sense working together in the spirit of co-opertition to achieve this new goal. It was exciting and I would bet you won't find one person who was there say they disagreed.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first. How did they NOT play to the best of their ability?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 when things look bleak.

Maybe it is because I don't do fundraising or find sponsors for my team, but I would never agree to the bet. But, as long as all 6 teams agreed and weren't peer pressured into agreeing, then I guess it is ok.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Okay, but I watched the video and you didn't drive that match. You sat in the corner the entire game and did not move out of that spot. Your switch operator pushed a button 4 or 5 times to flick a ball a couple feet in the air. Surely you must have been doing more driving while playing defense. Your driver may as well have been a spectator.

As an employee of one of your team's major "Titanium Sponsors", it's a little upsetting to me that the funds didn't go towards a team interested in putting forth a best-effort towards winning the game because of handshake agreements

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Then I take it our actions at our local regional will lower our potential to be picked by you at championships? That is a very sad and unintended consequence. :(

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I think you are oversimplifying it here. If you want to use that logic, every operator just stands there and hits a couple of buttons to make the robot "flick" the ball out of the robot, whether it a couple feet or more than a couple feet. In the case of an inbounding robot for that alliance, why wouldn't it be okay to sit there and stay in position, since they were cycling pretty quickly anyways, and the few times the other alliance got the ball down the field to shoot, moving to defend would slow down the cycle time of their own alliance, and possibly not being a net benefit for the alliance anyways. Sometimes it is okay to not drive much in a match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

See my last post:

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I agree with you about us driving but there is one thing different. I was driver and I also controlled the flicking of the robot. We only had one driver controlling the whole robot. Our other driver reads stats and condition control for the main driver. But I disagree with you about your money went into. We really do appreciate it. It did go to a good place. Like other people were saying, people were up and standing for the match. It was still intense for me. And for effort we but our best effort into. I can say that for all of the teams on both alliances. We gave it our best effort to score the most points. It is also our best interest in winning the game. It is everyone interest. I can also say we couldn't have done it without you. This year wasn't easy for us, we used all of the help we could. I thank you.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

It would take a whole lot more for 842 (and many of the other Arizona teams) not make our pick list. ;)

I hope my previous post didn't come off that we just care about winning and won't pick teams who don't share the same views. While I personally wouldn't have agreed to the bet, I can't fault a team for doing what is in their best interest at the time.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

There's an underlying tone to the posters where someone says that the two alliances decided to be "GP" and play "in the spirit of coopertition." I'm sure this is not the intention, but the overall effect of these statements makes it seem as though any strategies that are NOT run-and-gun-offence-no-defence are by extension un-GP and not in the spirit of coopertition. And that's not cool for me. I've been taught from day one that coopertition is competing like crazy on the field, while helping each other off of it. It's giving your all and then shaking hands and mending bots after. It doesn't exclude defence. Furthermore, implying that playing defence is "un-GP" is wrong as well. As long as you aren't actively trying to tear robots apart, nothing your robots do on the field has any reflection on GP. Clean D is professional - I see it all the time in the NHL.

Speaking of the NHL, I don't think the original players ever thought the game would evolve strategies like the NJ Devils' famous "trap" defence that won them a bunch of Stanley Cups or the Left Wing Lock that made the Soviets a powerhouse. We are given the game, but the game is defined by how we play it. Last year the game changed drastically depending on what robots were on the field: you had cyclers and climbers and dumpers and full-court-bombers. It was a different game every match. And that was cool. Every (cleanly executed) strategy was just as much in the spirit of coopertition as the next. No one was "superior" to others, and nobody implied that the "proper" way to play the game as FIRST intended it was for every robot to climb the pyramid, or to have three cyclers, or whatever. They were just simply different ways to play the game.

Maybe I'm being too worked up over nothing. Maybe I'm being pedantic. Maybe I'm just way too tired. Or maybe everyone needs to take a deep breath and really consider what we write about each other and ourselves. Worry about the implications. This thread is a great example of what happens when we don't.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

There are multiple ways to play any game. I have to commend both alliances for playing it in a way few have dared to.

Seriously, I'd rather see a match like this one, everyone playing at the top of their game, than watching the latest Michigan or Ontario slugfest.

Good luck to the winning alliance-- I'm confident some of you will be in a position to pick the naysayers in this thread.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Really glad the teams at the Arizona Regional, especially the teams in the finals, enjoyed this match. Lots of teams on the field with rich FIRST histories.

However, this Finals Match 2 is not Aerial Assist. It has a huge stipulation intertwined into the game. It is unfair to compare the results of this match to other matches where teams participated in "untainted" Aerial Assist.

On the other hand, you could argue that every regional and district event is different regardless. But every other Finals Match 2 that I've seen has played by the same rules, no strings attached.

Carry on down in Arizona! It sounds like you guys put a different twist on FIRST, which is refreshing to see! Just think twice before boasting about an artificially inflated score, might rub some people the wrong way :rolleyes:

-Mike

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The curious thing about this match is that it featured the best robots in the regional, playing with no defense at all, and they still were not able to achieve the 200-200 minimum score for Steve Sanghi's $500 challenge.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We play to win every single match. Even if were bound to win, we don't hold back. Even if there's no way to beat the other team, we still play all out.

Why? There are so many reasons not to. Robots can get broken in hard play. Feelings can be hurt by hard defense. And sometimes, losing a match makes the tournament just a little bit easier to win due to the ranking system.

But we don't. Competing as hard as we possibly can shows our competitors that we respect them. Whether we are "supposed to" crush them, or be crushed by them, we still give it our all. If we didn't, we'd be saying that they weren't even worth trying to beat.

Perhaps you have a different idea of competition, or perhaps money is much more important to you than it is to us. I can't be in your shoes, and to be perfectly honest, I don't know your team or regional. But this is the passion we bring to the field, and we expect the same passion from everyone we compete with and against. Because if teams didn't bring it to the field, what would winning really mean?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Do you seriously think either alliance was not trying their hardest to win? Why do you think the score was so high?

Notice that the blue alliance did BETTER with the no defense strategy. Not only did we score a lot more points, we closed the gap a little bit.

We put everything we had into it....we didn't have enough. Exactly the same effort that we put into the first finals match. Everything.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Not sure how this match was exciting/inspiring/etc.

That is the most boring finals match I can think of since 2009...and at least then there was some drama of when a team would get pinned and get their trailer loaded up.

I've seen practice matches that were a lot more exciting.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Understandable.

One of our new students pointed out that he was really confused when another student was so excited about old match videos that were clearly boring. His perception changed dramatically over the weekend, of course.

I suppose you just have to have been there.

Congratulations on the win, by the way!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Like many things in FIRST the process is important. I have no problem with an alliance that decides their best chance at winning is pure offence. I don't agree with the practice of making arrangements with opponents to achieve a secondary objective. The scores were much higher but the change in point differential between matches was 3.

You are allowed to disagree but the success of Cory's team is no reason to dismiss his opinion.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

i wouldn't call 2 bots sitting doing nothing at least half of the match as "Everything", but that's just my opinion apparently.
On a side note, i am completely not OK with what went down. It's not to the spirit of FIRST. (again, my opinion)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Are these Forbes folks going to have to force out another team update? :rolleyes:

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I was thinking about writing up a detailed story about what "went down"...but my guess is I'd be wasting my time.

The gist of it is, that it was never about the money. The money was a catalyst for a paradigm shift, and that paradigm shift allowed us to get almost twice as many points in our last finals match, compared to our first finals match. Yes, by having two robots sitting still. There is more than one way to play a game to win.

If that bothers you, I'm sorry. It didn't seem to bother the teams involved, nor the thousands of people watching it unfold before them.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Frankly I think you captured what the GDC had originally believed this game would be - less defense and more offense. It makes those 50 point penalties a little more palatable when you're scoring 300 points.

It certainly isn't the first time that the GDC has been a little surprised in what we've done to a game (re: minibot speed in 2011).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

As long as everyone involved consented to this plan, I don't see what the problem is.

Congrats to the winning alliance! I would expect to see slightly more defense played at the World Championship, though :)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Remember, every team agreed to not play defense in that one finals match. You can expect the Falcons, CocoNuts, and Plasma to do their best in every match they play. We know they always have, and always will.

We asked all teams if they would be willing to not play defense in our first (and only the first) QF match, but one team dissented, so we played "normal". Those were three very rough matches!

If nothing else, at least a few people might be looking a the game a little differently today, than they were last week. I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or not.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I would have asked for some sort of approval from HQ prior to this, team consent is one thing, but my worry is the McDonald's French Fry effect - keeping every event the same.


Edit: Overall, I like the idea - I just want to make sure it was executed correctly with the appropriate parties involved.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Where can I get HQ's phone number so I can ask them about every strategy?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I don't see much wrong with six teams choosing not to play defense for one match. It's their match, their regional, they can do whatever they want. They are still clearly trying to win the match, and that's what matters "ethically".

What this match proved to me is that this game just isn't exciting. When there is no defense, four robots are literally standing around doing nothing. At other events, these teams play defense, which makes the offensive play look worse and grittier with a few notable exceptions. Perhaps excluding matches where the best teams in the world are both playing offense and some defense, this game isn't going to be very interesting to watch in most cases.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

While I disagree with the no defense match personally, I don't think this would be necessary. There is no rule against playing no defense. They made that choice and really there's nothing FIRST could have done to stop them. There is no "right way" to play this game, you make the game what you want. And while I personally don't like it, I have to respect the fact that all six teams invved wanted to play this way.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Thinking outside of the box.
Challenging the status quo.
Unique perspective.

That is the history of 842. That may be why they receive so much attention in and outside of the FIRST community.

The Coconuts, 2486, have yet to be awarded the championship Chairman's award, but they sure have a most impressive regional Chairman trophies.

All but one team at the Arizona regional were Arizona teams. Many have a long history of working together... Kinda one big 50 member family.

As a result, it is not too surprising to see something unique, innovative and controversial arise when these teams strategize.

What they did was legal, ethical in the judgement of the six participating teams and very entertaining to the audience, including officials from Go Daddy and other potential supporters of FIRST.

I think it was a smart move. At least it gave us something to think about and challenge our conventional views on why we are involved in FIRST.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Thank you Allan for painting the picture of what transpired in AZ so perfectly. It is amazing to see the controversy from what started as a simple post. I understand where people opposed to what we did are coming from, but what we did here in AZ seemed very natural and fluid to us. No controversy intended. It was as simple as an opportunity to try a new strategy and all involved took it. We are defending what we did because we feel ( I think I speak for all maybe on this) like we were being passed judgment on and we are simply defending our actions. This situation will most likely not show up at Championships, but it has been a very interesting "experiment" to say the least. To see how people react has been very educational.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Its been fun to follow who joins the 300+/no penalties club. If these circumstances are accurate, I would hesitate to add it to the list. Kansas City Qual. 49 and Waterloo Semi 2 were genuine competative matches, this appears to be more of a mutual exhibition. We were part of a 370/no penalties practice match in KC, but not being a genuine competative match it obviously doesn't count. You can argue the ethics of playing a match with a wink and a handshake, but as far the scoring records go, it certainly deserves an asterisk*.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

FIRST very well could have told an event sponsor they were not allowed to make that offer, for fear of hurting the integrity of the game (if that is their view).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That's probably a matter for the FIRST board of directors to discuss...since the fellow who made the offer is on the board.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

While this is enjoyable to watch, and might be a viable strategy to win a game, i would have completely understood those claims if the 500$ bonus wasn't a part of it.
If that 500$ being a motivation for a team to chose a certain strategy over another, in my opinion not only is it wrong - but also is a dangerous, slippery slope.
Teams are supposed to chose their strategy for a given match based on scouting data and professional considerations, not on a basis of a possible award, especially if it's a financial one.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

As a dad of Team 2403 I have to weigh in on this conversation. Being the 3rd pick on the 1st seed alliance was simply amazing to me. We weren’t good enough to lead an alliance, nor good enough to be picked on any of the other alliances, but we did have enough skills to nicely compliment the best 2 robots in the competition. I agree that the score of this match can’t fairly be compared to the scores of other matches played with defense. I don’t understand why that is important except for bragging rights. So who out there has the highest score in a match?
But I totally disagree with the other sports comparisons and here is why: football, basketball, soccer, tennis, etc. all have ONE game piece and your opponent is really the only thing keeping you from scoring infinitely. In aerial assist, each team has a game piece, and much of the challenge of the game remains in the shooting and passing and ball handling, but most importantly both alliances can play offense AT THE SAME TIME, since they each have a ball. So this became more of a relay race. I thought it was awesome and should be encouraged, and given the point value in the rules for ball passing this seems to be more in the spirit of what the gamemakers envisioned for this game, but maybe that’s just me. The second assist is worth 20 points, which is twice as big as any other scoring event on the field.
In many of the other matches, it happened that a ‘bot was lined up to take a shot only to be bumped at just the right moment to miss the shot and then the robots have to go scrambling to pick up the loose game piece; that was heart-wrenching and difficult to watch. Basketball doesn’t allow that kind of fouling, but the rules allow it here. I personally think the game would be much better without that kind of defense.
Also, this was a fascinating match that really helps answer the question of how many points are really achievable in a 2:15 game. Could we have executed everything flawlessly and a little faster and gotten 360 points? That would be amazingly fun to try. Also, the blue alliance put 180 points on the board and everyone was cheering for them to reach 200! It was awesome!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I for one would LOVE to read your write-up of what "went down". I can't say that it will change anyone's mind, but this sport is much more fascinating the more you know about what really goes into each match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

In an amatuer sport or competition, if the offer of a monetary reward causes you to play any differently than you otherwise would, then that is wrong. It is that simple. Any other details of the story are just rationalizations.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We did not do it for the money, we did it for the challenge....

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

You're contradicting yourself.

Bolded for emphasis.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Do you think that all teams involved would have agreed to attempt this "challenge" if there were no monetary incentives attached to completing it?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!... I salute you. (Quote from ???)

Well maybe not those things specifically... but I like the attitude of thinking outside the box...making the game something special for you and your event.
Let's have fun with the game and accept a challenge

I don't think it matters why it was done....
It is our game...

I do salute you

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We have had teams in Arizona do stuff like this in the past, just for the fun of it. So the answer is yes.

The level of friendship between the Arizona teams is astounding. I've seen some sore losers in other states, but never in my three years at the Chandler event.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That is true if the offer is secret, or to limited participants, but in this case it was very publically announced at the beginning of the competition, and became part of the ground rules. Now perhaps since this regional competition is also part of a national competition, that might be a problem. That’s an issue for the people in charge.
I can’t speak for Mr. Sanghi, but I’m sure the challenge was issued to elevate the game play, and I’m sure he wasn’t intending that a no-defense strategy would be necessary to meet the challenge, and still it wasn’t met.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Iin AZ there is a tax credit system in place for donors. If you donate 200 if single and 400 if married ,you get the amount back dollar for dollar. For many in AZ 500 dollars is not that big an incentive. I can't speak for anyone else but we raise over 10 thousand a year in tax credits. Money is never an incentive for us to throw our morals out of the way. We were doing it for the challenge. We always try to take on the challenge Steve Sanghi puts out to us each year. Maybe he should not offer any money based on how everyone is out of sorts or maybe he should donate the money to a charity so that everyone could relax. There was no big conspiracy or underhandedness. It was just a challenge. A public challenge, everyone one in attendance knew it. He never told anyone to not play defense, that was a decision that both alliances came to on their own. Maybe it would have been better if the challenge were different like giving both alliances $500 if all balls were scored in autonomous. Thant way no one would have to give up anything. That was more along the lines of the type of challenge he has done before. Maybe that is why no one thought any different for this challenge?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

But then why wait till money was involved? Why not do it any other time? That was the only thing that changed from doing it in any other match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The offer stood for every match in the regional including qualifying so money was technically involved throughout the whole competition. It only happened in the last match because every team agreed to try and beat the challenge as a sub goal.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I can't speak for the other teams, but given the history of Steve Sanghi and the AZ regional event I would say yes, but I will let them speak for themselves.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Oh ok, didnt know when the offer was put forth. But then the question begs, why was the monetary incentive needed to try to do that? If it would have happened without the money, then why was the money introduced? If it only would have happened with the money, then there's your answer.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I think your going way too deep into this decision be Steve Sanghi to involve money. He wanted to promote and reward excellence and this happened to be his way of doing so. Last year was the first challenge which was to have 6 robots off the ground in a match and initially stuck a monetary reward on that so it just seemed natural to stick a monetary reward on this year's challenge.

Edit...
Btw, Steve Sanghi may be on the FIRST board of directors but he decided to set this challenge individually out of his own pocket. He technically has every right to spend his money how he sees fit.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I don't know, I wasn't in the decision making process between the two alliances. But I would guess that the blue alliance figured they were going to lose anyway and wanted to take Steve up on his challenge. If it was purely for the money I would guess it would have been done earlier in the tournament. Even though there was money attached, I truly believe they all did it for the challenge, the wanted to meet Steves challenge, money be damned. The Blue alliance wanted to go out with a bang and they almost pulled it off. Actually now that I am thinking about it, all this discussion is kind of a bang....

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Im not limiting this to the Finals, as someone before has said, this challenge was throughout the regional.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

No one did before because the money was not an incentive, that is the only reason I can come with...The challenge only became a reality when the it was the last time available to achieve it. I guess the two alliances wanted to take a real shot at it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I'm curious how finals match 3 would have been played if the other alliance had won during finals 2 and the challenge was still on the table...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I just watch the match and then read the post. I think that was a poor lesson learned for $. I do not think the match was something to be proud of.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Wanted to take a real shot at it, or take a real shot at a $500 consolation prize...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

These things dont match. Either the money was always there or it wasnt. And if the money wasnt an incentive, why did no one else do it for the other 97 matches?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I believe he meant more about the robots actually being able to score 200 points on both side. If you really think about it the 2 best alliances in the final couldn't pull it off so the odds of doing it for another random match isn't really realistic.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

For all you know, every team at the regional was trying to do the challenge throughout the weekend, the "legitimate" way (i.e. playing just like every other match and hoping both teams get 200 pts).

I can't speak for Steve, but it probably was not his intentions to issue a challenge where the only way to do it was for both alliances to have to amend their normal game play.

That being said, I personally wouldn't have resorted to this type of strategy to complete the challenge as in my opinion it is not genuine; to each their own I guess.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Hindsight is 20/20 but that doesnt show why no other matches didnt try this "strategy" to get the "Highest Score/$500."

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Even though both sides agreed to it? That to me says there's no issue. Who cares if it makes these finals look "boring" or "different" than the status quo, these 6 teams all made the decision to do this. It is a rationalization, because the choices made were rational considering everyone directly effected by it agreed to it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The money was always there, but in the big picture it really isn't that big a prize and it took two days of matches to think out of the box and get 2 alliances willing to try it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

How does it not show. If an alliance just doesn't have the scoring potential to put up those points, its not even worth bothering trying to accomplish the challenge. And as said before all teams have to agree to it. Not every team in Arizona regional would have agreed to this challenge. It just so happen that the 6 in the finals did and completing the challenge was realistic. I never even thought of an agreement of playing no defense until I heard about it near the finals.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

But everyone who did that match said it wasnt about the money...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Then F1-2 was all about the money for the both alliances. In their 5 previous Elimination matches the Blue Alliance averaged 165.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

There are several reasons the teams did this, but money almost certainly wasn't at the top of list.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That is a great question, since the offer originated from the blue alliance I would have to say that we probably would not done it because the challenge would not have been brought up, but I could be wrong maybe they would have done it anyway.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If the money was even on the list, it was wrong to play the match that way.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The money was always on the table, people were just not interested in it...until there was one shot left to do it

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Your alliance member said you guys offered them the "no defense" match after you showed them they had no chance at the banner.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Then that means the "challenge" didnt lead to that match, the money did.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I thought it wasn't about the money?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If it had just been a challenge with a trophy or certificate, I doubt it would have happened, but who knows? The point I was trying to make is the challenge only became a consideration when everything else was settled.
I thought you were just confused about why this strategy only happened in the final match of the competition. If the red alliance had had any worries about actually winning, I'm sure they would not have given up any options and tactics. Earlier in this thread, post #7 from Rangel(kf7fdb) from one of the players involved explains pretty well. But IMHO, red had the better defense too:cool: !

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

ITT: People wanting to be right while bringing others down. How GP.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Its both. I wouldnt agree to a strategy between alliances that would alter the flow of the game and I most certainly wouldnt do it if money was behind the want to do that strategy.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That seems to be the question. I think the answer is yes, but we'll probably never know.

I'll give the detailed account of what went down, so you can decide. Beware that it took me a while to think through the events and recount what happened when, and my memory is not as good as it could be, so there could be some mistakes here.

The #6 blue alliance consisted of the Bulldogs (60), N.E.R.D.S. (1726) (that's us), and the Gila Monsters (3785). We have played with and against the Bulldogs several times over the years, and I have great respect for their ability to win in tough situations, so I was happy to be picked by them. They are friends with the Gila Monsters, as well.

Arizona's regional is held in a high school, the ARENA is in the gym, the pits are in a large hallway not far away. The beginning of the queuing area is between the two. Since we were playing in QF 4, we got to wait in the beginning of the queuing area while the first match was being played. This match had the #1 alliance, the CocoNuts (2846), Falcons (842), and Plasma (2403). We know the Falcons well, and are friends with the other two as well.

I sat in the corner of the stands nearest the door, next to Martin from 842. We worked for a couple weeks on the movie La Vida Robot in New Mexico this past fall, so we know each other. I sat there because I knew we would need to move the robot soon, down the long queuing hallway and I didn't want to be all the way across the gym with my team since I had to leave in a hurry when the match was over. From our seats, we could just see the scoreboard. As the first match ended, I saw the score 260 to 68, and it occurred to me that no qualifying match had come close to meeting Mr. Sanghi's challenge: If both alliances in any match made at least 200 points, he would pay $500 of his own money towards the registration fee for next year's regional for each of the 6 teams each time they did it, up to a total of $15,000 for the weekend. I thought to myself, if there were no defense, we might be able to do it. This was the paradigm shift. Everyone plays as hard as they can to score, it's a full offensive match, and if we do well enough, we can also get a bonus. I didn't have much time to think about all the implications, but I wanted to see if our alliance would want to try to play a match without defense, to see if we could meet the challenge. The money was a small part of the lure...our team is better at fundraising than we are at spending, so we don't really need the money. The challenge was the big thing for me. But I knew the money was a good lure for the other five teams involved.

Our QF match was against Team Caution (1492), Bit Buckets (4183), and Cyborg Mustangs (2647). I first asked the coaches of our alliance members if they were interested, and they agreed after some discussion with other team members. We then asked the coaches of the other alliance. We discussed some conditions, such as no intentional fouls, and playing defense would mean the agreement was off. The offer was for the first match, only. Team Caution declined. I accepted that easily, and wished the other alliance good luck, The atmosphere was very friendly, we get along fine...and I need to mention that my brother and two of my sons mentor the Bit Buckets, although I don't think any of them were there at the time.

We played our first match, it was intense. This was also my first regional as drive coach, my first experience in eliminations "behind the glass". We lost the first match, but it was close. We adjusted our tactics and strategy, and managed to win the next match! Great...we are still in the game. We did it again, and won the quarter final against the third alliance! On to the semi finals.

In the semis, we were up against #7, who had defeated the second alliance. The BoxerBots (1828) are a tough team, the were with Out of Orbit (2449) and the Dragons (2375). All three are great teams, they fought hard but lost the first match by a fair margin. About this time, I realized that we would probably be in the finals against the first alliance, and decided to talk to Fredi and Dave and see if they were interested in playing the first match of the finals without defense. I knew that they could outscore us about two to one, and that they had plenty of defense on their side, as well. I figured we had nothing to lose, and they probably knew they had little to lose also. I also know that Fredi loves to do things differently. And I also know that they are low on funds, they had to scrape to get the money to go to Championships for the past few years.

I asked the two if they would like to play a match without defense, in the hopes of meeting the challenge. I forgot to mention the condition of not intentionally fouling, I just made a qick offer, to see if they were interested. I said I had to confirm if our alliance all wanted to do it, because I didn't know yet. Fredi and Dave both were interested, and went to talk to Plasma about it.

I went back to our alliance, and told them that I had asked the first alliance if they wanted to play no defense, and that they were interested. We went on to play our second semifinal match, which we also won. The Bulldogs said that they would not want to play no defense, as they had to win to get to championships, and they were not going to take any chances. I let the other alliance know, and we played our first finals match, struggling to get only 101 points to their 225. At the end of the match, I turned to the Bulldogs coach and said someting about defense not doing much to help us win that match. I went away for a few minutes, and when I returned, I was told that we were on for "no defense" in the next match.

The alliances made some quick decisions, we were each going to try to stick to our own right side of the field, to stay out of each others way. The match started....blue made both auto shots, Falcons missed both of theirs, Coconuts made theirs. The race was on. We were able to inbound relatively quickly with no interference, but it still took a while to get the ball to the Bulldogs, and get it over the truss. We ran our cycles as fast as we could, but we just could not keep up with the stronger alliance. Plasma was inbounding instantly to Falcons, who shot over the truss to the CocoNuts human player, who handed off to their robot and scored in the high goal. It was very impressive to watch, although it looked like an unstoppable juggernaut, from where we stood. The thing is, they were unstoppable with defense being played on them, as well. We were not handling the ball very well, and the time it took our side to get and shoot the ball really limited the amount of defense we were able to play in the first match. We did end up with 180 points to 301, not enough to meet the challenge, but a respectable score for the sixth alliance, and considerably higher than our score in the first finals match, when Plasma was playing defense on us.


We congratulated the winners, and everyone was in great spirits after the match. We lost, we didn't meet the challenge, but we finally got to play a really exciting, high scoring match against the best alliance there.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Yes, wanting to keep the spirit of FIRST, how un-GP.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

On the contrary this has been an extremely useful lesson learned and an incredible experience and I bet there are many people reading who are not posting who are pondering what they would do. I am defending my team's decision and trying to clarify why both alliances did what they did because I think it was incredibly bold to do this knowing how they could get criticized in the FIRST community. Obviously this is a very polarizing issue. It is interesting to see how people pass judgement on others. We are truly a social species. We were proud of the match for what is was trying to achieve, no regrets. I stand by my team's and both the alliances decision. No one was hurt, no one was cheated, all parties and the audience were in agreement. For that time and that place it was the thing to do. It probably will not happen at the championships, but I think its great that this happened here in AZ to have this dialog before Championships. I will point out however that at the finals last year in the last matches, it became who could outscore each other game with little or no defense on any robot, especially 610 who had free reign of the field. They basically did what we did without the prearrangement. Yes there was no money involved in their game, but we, unfortunately, can't run away from that no matter how much we say the challenge was not taken up for the money. It was always there the whole tournament and no one went for it. It really was the challenge.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. All of the teams came together and made this decision themselves. How is that not in the spirit of FIRST? Are you really so bent on trying to bring down last year's International WFA winner and his team? It really seems like you just want so badly for them to admit that they're wrong. What's your goal here?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If through all these posts you cannot realize how having money alter the play of even 1 match, even if that match is almost surely decided, then I cant further explain anything.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I don't think the issue being debated is really the fact that all 6 teams agreed on it; that part seems fine to me.

The issue as from what I'm reading is why all 6 teams agreed to what they did.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If I offer you a nice trophy for doing community service on a robotics team, does that seem like a disingenuous incentive?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The point I am trying to make is that if this was the case the outcome of a match would have been altered by opposing alliances agreeing to a subset of rules different from those administered throughout the course of the competition which could reasonably be construed as collusion. If the blue alliance offered to attempt the challenge because they thought that they had no chance to win based on the outcome of the first finals match then they in essence valued the opportunity to complete this challenge more than the opportunity to win the regional. Money aside, the goal while competing should always be to win the match. The integrity of the competition hinges upon it.

If the money was not on the table, why would a team ever consider this challenge to be more important than employing any and every strategy necessary to attempt to win the event, EVEN after losing the first finals match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I'm just saying that you can't always cry foul when a material incentive exists. There are teams who perform actions (that they normally wouldn't have) for the sake of winning an award or getting a blue banner, so what makes this situation different?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Was the point of teams competing at the Arizona Regional to win the Blue Banner or to just win the $500? That's the difference.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Do you really not understand the difference between community service and affecting the play of a match?

Let me suggest something here. Has anyone considered the effect of 2 or even 1 robot on an alliance saying "we want to go for that!" and the effect that might have on the 3rd robot? What if they wanted to play defense?

If I were part of FIRST or the local regional planning committee, I would strongly advise Mr. Sanghi not to pull something like that ever again.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Most importantly it seems to me after reading this that the teams goals changed from winning the blue banner to completing the challenge once they felt they had no chance to win the event. The introduction of a goal that became more important than winning the match for those teams competing demonstrates the inherent problem with incentives other than winning the match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Exactly, instead of seeing the F1-1 score and looking towards how to beat them the next match, they moved their attention to just going for that 200pt barrier.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The interesting thing is that there was a higher monetary incentive to win the regional. If you go back thru the thread, you might find a post by a member of team 1492, with a link to the video of the offer. Something like $1000 payment towards registration for Champs for the teams on the winning alliance. I don't really remember.

If you read my post at the top of this page, you'll see that we decided that the no defense strategy was indeed a more viable strategy to win the match, than playing defense.

The monetary offer is what sparked the idea to not play defense. It is not what really made us do it, as far as I can tell.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I don't see any shame in the blue alliance admitting that they had a very slim chance to win, nor do I see any shame with giving thousands of spectators something different to cheer for in a final match. At that point, the crowd wasn't interested in who won or who lost; it was about seeing if Arizona teams, which people have been so fast to discount over the years, were capable of meeting such a difficult challenge. I guarantee that the crowd would have erupted had the blue alliance been able to score just 20 more points during the last match of the entire regional competition. We wouldn't have been cheering because we just watched 6 teams each win $500 towards next year's registration -- we would have been cheering because we, the FIRST community of Arizona, were given a challenge and met it.

I bet you, with a high degree of certainty, that if Steve Sanghi had presented the challenge without the monetary contribution, we would have seen the exact same thing happen.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

So you guys went, "Hmmmm if we lost by 100+ by having 1 defender, maybe we can win with 0 defenders."

I dont see the logic. Also, I dont see how you cant see if the money brought you to any type of strategy, how that is bad.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

No I agree with everyone else on this thread the actions that were taken in that finals match were way out of line why have it be a finals match but play it like a practice match. I am a new mentor on an AZ team that was competing last weekend FRC team 4841. The day that sponsor gave out that challenge I knew unless something like this situation took place where no one played def that challenge wouldn't be met. I am honestly saddened to see a HOF team act in that manner. I know the team that made me who I am today which is FRC 71 would never act like that, in fact we played every match to the fullest and knew if we lost we gave it our all. If thats the way Arizona Robotics is gonna be ran then I am not someone who wants to be apart of it

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Wow. This is a shocking situation. In FRC, in a year in which the game is highly defensive in nature, a sponsor of a specific regional is offering a cash reward to teams at that specific regional if they can stage high scoring matches.

If someone had told me this story as hearsay, I would have told them they must be wrong. That kind of thing does not happen in FIRST. But evidently from these first hand accounts it is true. Never have I heard of sponsors or anyone else offering money to teams who can manage a certain outcome to matches. That is the worst idea and the slipperiest slope I have ever heard of.

Even if the sponsor's intent wasn't to pump up the scores and records at their regional, how could they not anticipate that there would be any other appearance? Is this where FIRST is going? Cash prizes for scoring performances? Some regionals with monetary prizes and some regionals without? I cannot believe that FIRST agrees with or condones this situation.

There are more considerations and more teams/people affected by this than just those involved in this match. The integrity of the results of the regional, the integrity of scoring records, statistics, and OPRs in all of FRC, and the integrity of FIRST competitions in general are affected. FIRST is an amatuer sport driven by GP, learning, and competitive spirit. Nothing good can come from making it a competition for money.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

So you are saying that if the $500 towards next year's registration wasnt offered, the blue alliance would have just gone along with the "no defense" agreement for(pardon the language) "shits and giggles?" Mind you, at risk of losing the regional.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

It doesn't really help that 842 started this thread (and another) that was essentially just bragging about them winning. Not the most gracious way to celebrate a win.