Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If the challenge was in place, then abso-freaking-lutely.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I completely agree

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Then Im sorry but they are in the wrong competition to just blindly give up a chance at going to the World Championships to try and reach a goal that no one really cares about for no gain whatsoever.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Falcons missed both of theirs,

Sorry Jim we made both of ours, but a great recounting. Srka Johnson and drive team had final say on strategy I gave my ok.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

So be it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Exactly. What people are overlooking here is that $500 isn't that much. For our team, that's a single tax credit. Nobody is upset we didn't get the $500, but we're happy that we got to have a good final match*.

*"Good final match" is subject to the viewer's opinion

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but:
C'mon, it was a fun challenge that no one had attempted. The $500 was just a deduction from the team's entrance fee next year (and they didn't even get it).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The amount isnt the problem.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

MOV F1-1: 124
MOV F1-2: 121

In terms of this years' game, that 3 point difference is negligible. They did the same; no defense didnt help them.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That's one metric. Blue scored 44.9% of red's score in the first finals match, and 59.8% in the second. They also scored 78% more points.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

No body is perfect not even a HOF team. We were trying to meet a challenge put up by our event sponsor because all parties were interested. I wish the money was not involved but alas we can't get away from that. It was not our motivation. Sorry to disappoint all. I guess there is someone in AZ who does not accept what we did. We did it and we thought it was a worthy challenge and we stand by it, accept it or not.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

No I am upset about how teams payed major money for that regional and for you guys to just treat the finals like its an opportunity to make money and then say well 500 isnt alot of money to some teams like ours that is major money. If youre not going to give it your all and try to win the regional then don't participate in eliminations there are tons of teams who would of loved to have your spot and would of played a tough match to try to get that win.

The fact the people are making such a big deal over how two teams decided to play the game and had fun doing it, is the problem.

They didn't play the game how you would if liked, deal with it. Unless you have asked the GDC on how they'd like to see the game played, don't say it isn't in the spirit of things.

The monetary reward obviously wasn't the goal of that match, it was seeing if they could complete the challenge. If you want to complain that the reward influenced them, then you better get rid or all the awards FRC has other then winning a regional.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Who didn't give it their all to win? We did BETTER in the second finals match, than in the first.

What better strategy was there to win the second match? Play pure defense and not score at all? We had one good defensive robot on our alliance, they had two. What else could we do? I don't get it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Its not the idea of being perfect a HOF team is suppose to set an example for those younger teams.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

So the AZR Final was only played by 2 teams? And we dont have to ask them, thats what the manual is for; they wouldnt have made the manual nor the updates if they wanted you to ask them how to play the game. And conspiring with your opponents to alter the flow of the game isnt in the spirit of FIRST. The rest of your post I have already posted on.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

My problem here, is that i feel that instead of giving all they got to win the game, the teams decided to give all they got to pass the challenge. The 2 things don't line up, and contradict each other.
As a FIRSTer, i want teams giving all they got to win 100% of the time. Seems like here it didnt happen.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Are you kidding me please dont tell me you just said that. You're obviously going to do better when there is no one playing def on you.

There are ways to quantity and objectify the quality of a match/game.

Late, back and forth lead charges, upset potential, buzzer beaters/last second scores, and overall game significance all contribute to the quality of a game and all can be assessed in an objective manner.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Sorry, I was just happy about making over 300 points, Guess I should have curbed my enthusiasm. I had no idea this would all happen. I would have jumped on the other thread if I wanted to get into all this. It has been very educational though. I am always willing to learn. I am looking at the bright side.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The score ratio between the two alliances was higher for blue in the 2nd match. So yes, the Blue alliance did better. They improved much more than we did.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

They improved the MOV by 3 points.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

You are right

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Exactly, and we found a way to keep them from playing defense on us.

What would your approach be, other than how we played the first match? That didn't work out so well. I'd really like to know how to win a match like that.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Did you really just imply that you agreed to this "challenge" in the hope that you would have a better chance of winning without defense? Please tell me that's not what you meant. That's even worse than the idea that your alliance had given up.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Yes, we're setting an example to the younger teams that having fun is more important than winning. We, both alliances, decided that we wanted to try to beat a standing challenge, and have fun doing it, because we both knew that the 2nd match would end just like the first.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

My issue with this challenge is that it gave teams two competing goals: One to try and win the regional and the other to get more money for next year.

There is no way anyone can argue that not playing defense will increase the chance of an alliance winning. Given the sheer amount of downtime in this game, there is almost always some defense to be played to lower the opponent's score.

As a result, encouraging a team not to play defense for a cash reward directly pits "winning the match" with "helping our program for next year". These two goals should not be opposing.

All the teams in this match that we have heard from on Chief Delphi are very insistent that this decision was completely voluntary, to play as they decided to. I won't second guess their decisions; I respect the choices they made. But if I were in their shoes, I would not like to be forced to choose between trying my best to win the match and $500.

If I were given this challenge, I would vehemently oppose playing any way but the way that gave me the best chance to win. I would hate giving up the chance for $500 and I'm sure I'd take some heat from fundraisers on my team as well as potentially less financially fortunate members of my alliance.

The challenge given is an interesting twist on the 'official' GP definition. On one hand, it can be argued that 'fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions'. On the other hand, I wonder if not playing the match to the full potential might fall under not 'competing like crazy'.

The same conundrum is produced from the definition of coopertition. You assist others in fundraising for the next season but at the same time, you reduce the level of 'competing always'. Similarly, you are still competing but you have re-written the game.

There is also the issue of a slippery slope with challenges like this. What if the challenge was $500 if one alliance could hold the other to 0 points in teleop? Would it be OK to simply not try to score in the finals in an attempt to raise $1000 in two final matches?

Why is this different from 6v0 of 2010? In Breakaway, 6v0 was created by The Tournament, definitely part of the manual, and the game. It created a conflict between winning a match and winning a regional. Unlike this challenge however, it did not create a conflict between winning the regional and fundraising. It did not give a competitive advantage to better funded teams who needed the money less. It did indeed put teams in a tough situation where there is a decision teams have to make that they should not be forced to.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Do you honestly think that if I asked in the official Q&A if providing challenges with monetary rewards to teams that have the potential to alter match play is legal they would say yes?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Dont let them get to the inbound position, dont let them truss, dont let them shoot. You guys barely even touched them.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Read my last post, and his post.

::deadhorse::

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Well you obviously know red would win the Autonomous period but you could of still had 60 and Gila monsters play def on 842. You guys had a good bot and could of ran the field with doing truss shots and high goal shots and 1 assist. Yes your alliance wasn't a powerhouse but there is always a chance as long as you try.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That is an arrogant statement.
And there are times for fun, and times for doing your best. Regional finals - is times for doing your best (which is usually more fun than anything else, by the way).
To me, losing while doing your best, is better than winning this challange.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Its not beating a dead horse if that is gonna keep being his response to "they did better." I can guarantee you that if they had played more/better defense the MOV would have been reduced by a lot more than 3.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That's one of the worst examples you could possibly set. Lose the first match? Just give up!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

It is beating a dead horse. We're choosing different metrics on how the blue alliance performed. Either is valid, this argument is going nowhere. Ergo, dead horse.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I'm hearing that you can't have fun by trying to win the match because you lost the first one. Teams have several times taken sets to three and sometimes even advanced from there.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If you think we are using different metrics then you are basing your metrics of "winning" off of the $500 challenge instead of actually winning the match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I cannot find his post, but I believe that earlier the driver from team 60 (Blue), said that the last match was the best match that he had played that day. We all tried our best, the only difference was that we tried our best to break 200 on both sides.

Subnote: I had a feeling that it would come off as arrogant. My apologies, but I still think that we had the advantage.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

No. You are using margin of victory. I am using the ratio between scores. Different metrics.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

As I said earlier:

I cannot find his post, but I believe that earlier the driver from team 60 (Blue), said that the last match was the best match that he had played that day.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I feel like this thread is a good place to express my opinion on the competition aspect of FIRST. Let’s begin with the purpose of FIRST and how it applies to these competitions. Nowhere in the FIRST mission statement or vision statement does the word competition appear, with this said I do realize that the competition aspect is a big part of what got me personally enthralled with FIRST alongside being able to do hands on design work as a high school student. Competitions provide many learning opportunities for students such as time management, problem solving skills and an introduction to statistical analysis and how it applies to strategy implementation. All of these skills and more are extremely valuable to companies and increase the employability of students that have been exposed to these through FIRST. I can’t speak for FIRST but in my opinion I think too much emphasis is being placed on winning competitions. When I see the integrity of a HOF team being questioned for strategic implementation completely within the rules set forth by FIRST, it makes me uneasy about the direction we are headed in. I understand the urge to win and who is involved (students, sponsors, parents, schools), but I also believe that students are being engaged and inspired regardless of the amount of banners they receive.
I wasn’t at the regional, I don’t know exactly what happened but we are getting a pretty good depiction from both sides on the decision process and what those decision led too. It seams both alliances wanted to win and decided to do what they thought would win them the competition and the challenge set forth by a sponsor. With regard to defense itself, there is nowhere in the manual that sais defense must be played. Defense is a strategy that many teams employ and has been deemed by many to be a big part of the game, that doesn’t mean it has to be.
These are expressly my opinions and I do recognize other viewpoints made on this thread as valid concerns, and as such I though it important to also express my opinions on the matter.

I think the better question would be if an alliance is allowed to discuss strategies with an opposing alliance that may alter match play.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Okay I am hearing a lot of opinions and statements that do not really reflect the teams in questions but individuals. Right now most of the teams and their members are feeling attacked and judged and emotions are starting to run statements. Everyone just needs to take a breather and take the events of the finals for what they were. You've heard plenty of different perspectives and accounts of what happened and it is what it is. Never did I or any teams involved think of how controversal this would be when the decision was made. If we offended anyone then I apologize but at this point we are just beating a dead horse. I suggest all involved in this heated discussion take a break from it and ponder on it to themselves for a bit.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Nobody gave up! That's the beauty of it! We both decided to play the game a different way. Mutually giving up defense isn't giving up. If anything, blue played a better match against us. They improved their score even more than we did!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Play 100% every match?
I felt the #1 seed playing the #8 seed should have played a more conventional 1assist game and save the double assist as a surprise in later matches when it would be a surprise and an advantage in perhaps a more difficult round.

In the finals, blue would have had to win two matches after they fought their best to defeat red. While it is possible they could win the next two, it seems extremely unlikely. In fact, they still had a chance to out score red in the shootout, although also unlikely.

Six teams playing a friendly match who set a goal for themselves that had no effect on any other team's ranking or playoff chances and entertained the crowd was great to experience.

As for the $500, it was the challenge itself that made this, in the final match of the day, a refreshing alternative to a crash and bash slugfest.

Note that the International Chairman's team receives a $10,000 scholarship to give to one of their students. I doubt it is the motivation for submitting an entry. But even if it was...

The spirit of FIRST has little to do with robots or winning. I think the teams who were involved have explained themselves well. Not much more to add.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Ok then lets use ratios:

Blue(Finalists): They scored 1.09x more in F1-2 than the average of their 5 Elim matches before. Thats only 15 points more.

Red(Winners): They scored 1.55x more in F1-2 than the average of their 5 Elim matches before. Thats 108 points more.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

With 60 and Gila playing defense on 842, 2486 would be scoring away as we are defended by 2403. We knew the only way we could have any chance of getting points was by getting the three assists, and it just took too long with the limited ball handling ability we had on our alliance. We could pick up the ball when there was defense on us, but we could not truss or score fast unless 60 was blocking for us, and if they were doing that, they could not be defending 842 or 2468 at the same time. Gila took a while to get set up for the inbound if they left the corner to defend, and could not truss or score.

I think we did respectably well in both finals matches. If we looked like we were not playing hard, I don't know what to say. We gave it our all in both matches.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Every team is entitled to act the way they do within the rules of the game and the spirit of the competition.

Playing no defense is not necessarily the wrong strategy.

The six teams do not owe us anything, but personally I believe they should ask themselves:

did they believe they could win?
did they try their best to win?
would they have played this way if there was no financial incentive?

If they answer yes, fair play to them.

I hope that any financial incentives offered in the future tie directly in to the existing regional incentives (ie winning an award/match).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The 500 lb. gorilla in this story is not these teams, or if or why they decided to play a certain way, or whether it was right or wrong. The much bigger issue is whether it can be acceptable at a FIRST event for a sponsor, or anyone else, to offer money rewards to teams for running up a high match score, or a low score, or any other goal that could be manipulated or affect outcomes. Where would this stop if permitted? I do not fault the teams for taking the temptation of the cash reward (nicknamed the "challenge".) I fault the sponsor who made the proposal, and any FIRST official who knew of it and allowed it to go on. It is a dangerous phenomenon that FIRST would be wise to nip in the bud.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Well according to those who were there, the man who proposed the "challenge" is on the FIRST Board of Directors.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Apart from S1-1 where we tried a different strategy, our other elimation wins were by respectable amouts.

Is it really that surprising that an aliance might want to try a purely offensive game to see if they could win on that alone? It was a different way to play but that was fine by us. We played the "stock" defend-when-not-holding-the-ball style in earlier matches and it worked too.

As the teams involved have already (repeatedly) stated, noone was forced into this and everyone played their best to win the match even if it did not involve trying to bash the other robots mercilessly. (Does anyone really think that Blue did not want to win the tournament??)

If it was just about the money then we could have just foul'd them over 200 and claimed the prize. We did not because thats not the spirt in which we were competing. The challenge was on the table the entire tournament and noone did that in any match because its not how we complete.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Why wouldn't it be?

I did exactly that in 2002 in front of Woodie Flowers (he was literally standing right by me as I called the other alliance drive coaches over to discuss the match). He seemed to think it was funny.

Qualification points were a little weirder back then- if you lost you got your score or, if you won, three times the losers score. So it was beneficial to make sure you won but also to make sure the other alliances scores were high. It lead to all kinds of funny stuff; teams scoring for their opponents and, in a few cases, 'fixing' the match. In our case both alliances came out of the match with higher rankings than if we had played a 'normal' match.

At the time it caused a little controversy but people pretty quickly figured out it was just the smart play in some cases and, not surprisingly, FIRST didn't disagree.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I hope that any financial incentives offered in the future tie directly in to the existing regional incentives (ie winning an award/match).
I hope so too, it would have made this a lot easier....

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The dynamic of the game changes drastically depending on who you play. It's a mistake to include their previous elimination scores. If blue scored more in the first 5 elim matches, it goes to show how much better the defense of the 1st alliance was.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

So the only way to play AA is to be playing defense when we dont have the ball?

I'm pretty certain that all the teams were trying their best to score as much as possible and win the match and the blue banner.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Yes, discussing strategies that revolve around completing objectives added to match play by a third party that would alter previous strategy and have a cash payout...

My problem is not with these teams, or that these teams agreed to undertake this challenge. It is that this challenge had a dollar amount attached to it.

Edit: I mean I also have a problem with the challenge as well, but I think that stems from the money involved.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What else would you do when you don't have the ball? Though it is unrelated to the events here and has/is already being discussed in other threads, the nature of the game gives 2/3 of an alliance basically nothing to do when they don't have the ball. Most competitive alliances at the regionals I've watched utilize that time as efficiently as possible, most often by playing defense (even, and especially, the top scorers of alliances are playing D too).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That's a different scenario, in that the qualification system back then made it that certain strategies could be advantageous towards both alliances. In eliminations, there are only wins and losses, so there is no valid reason to do anything like that.

Also, for the last couple years FIRST has eliminated such qualification systems, for the most part...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Sure, but that wasn't the question posed and, in any case, it appears that even today sometimes there are valid reasons to do this. You can disagree as to whether or not such reasons are truly valid but, hey, it's legal, there's precedent for it and both teams potentially benefit. The GDC may well disagree but I sort of doubt they will.

Which, in my mind, is a mistake. It simplifies the scoring but the games back then were a little more interesting in my mind because of it. It'd have some interesting ramifications for this years game, to be sure.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Time for this thread to be locked? Broken records on all sides...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I unfortunately stopped recording before he made that offer. But yes, it was $1000 towards the registration for Championship.

This was the video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The sad/funny part of all this is that the two best alliances at the event couldn't even each score 200 points in a practice match...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I'm sorry, but this completely un-needed. You're basically saying that the best two alliances at the regional weren't very good. Feel free to complain about the monetary incentive and the way the match was played, but it's absolutely disrespectful to insult the alliances like this.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This is what upsets me.
The challenge was issued, apparently everyone agreed to it, we've beaten that horse to death already.

But why does someone who supposedly 'in line' with the mission and vision of FIRST, and represents FIRST at such a high level, think it is IN ANY WAY okay to offer money to teams in a way that alters match play and event outcomes?

What was he thinking?!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Really? :(

You should ask him!

My impression is that he is trying to inspire students.

PS: He did.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Why?! Does he think FIRST isn't doing a good enough job of that? If so, he has plenty of other channels through which to change things.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

He inspired them to do something, all right. Inspired them to learn about science and technology and exercise gracious professionalism? Not so much, from this angle.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I echo this sentiment. Cory, I think that was simply a mean thing to say.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Maybe he as acting outside of this other responsibilities and just wanted to offer a challenge privately?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Sheesh!

The monetary incentive offered my Mr. Sanghi to win the regional was $1000 per team. The monetary incentive to get a 200-200 match was $500 per team.

How on earth was the 200-200 incentive capable of motivating teams not to win the regional, in light of double the incentive to win the regional?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What's wrong with a little push? Is he somehow destroying the integrity of FIRST with this small proposition? He did the same thing last year, and the competitive edge was heightened - I don't recall a single complaint. I think he set the goal a little high this year, but I'm glad at least someone rose to the challenge, even if they fell short.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

You might think it's sad or funny, but I think it's still an admirable effort that they got closer than any match all weekend at their regional. Not every team can be 254. Not every competition is Waterloo. Not every match is between world champions, with an undefeated regional streak or a 34th blue banner on the line.

Achievement is relative. It's awesome that your team can compete on such a high level and I admire that, but belittling another regional, another set of teams, another set of stories and achievements is so far beneath you, or at least it should be.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

When representing a high level of FIRST, you don't HAVE the opportunity to act 'outside of this responsibility'. Everything you do and say is applied as a representative of FIRST. Why do you think he should be allowed to do this and represent FIRST at the same time?

Dean frequently speaks about how 'we want to steal from the playbook of sports, but not take all the bad stuff, like unsportsmanlike behavior', and I think bribing teams is something not even the sports world wants. So why would we?

Yes, he is. That's how I see it. By the dictionary:

Money was offered, it changed the outcome of match play. In my head, that's a bribe. I'm wondering why someone who is, essentially, a FIRST official, thinks that's okay.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Just because two alliances make it to the finals doesn't necessarily mean they are the two best at the regional (although the two alliances making it to the finals are normally the two best...)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I think Cory's post was probably inspired by 842 making two threads bragging about their victory.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This is probably true. Ledge was a little overexcited about the team's performance at regionals this year and came off as bragging with this and the other thread. This is not his true intention but this is how it looks and I agree. Nevertheless, insulting the other members on the alliances as well as the regional as a whole is not okay by any means.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Is it alright if the reward was not monetary? I'm well acquainted with the teams on both alliances and feel comfortable saying they would do the same in that situation.

I certainly hope this doesn't devolve into an argument where the integrity a man who has transformed STEM in Arizona is questioned.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What reward would you have offered? I don't think offering anything for changing the match play or event outcomes is okay.

(EDIT:: I'm not questioning anyone's integrity - truly - if the guy's on the board, he's gotta be doing something right. I'm questioning the logic behind offering this at all.)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Also somewhat knowing the teams, pretty sure the alliances would try it even if there was no reward added onto the challenge...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

A plaque?
A pat on the back?

Is it really that bad!? Can you point me to the negative effects of this challenge?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Winning or becoming a regional finalist get you medals (of differing colors) and high-fives from the judges and refs. What more do you want?

I'm in a class so I can elaborate on your question later, but bribing teams to play matches in a different way than normal competition at any other regional has played out, just seems shady to me.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

When I hear of alliances agreeing to how a match will be played, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm a competitor through and through, a virtue I hope to share with my students/teammates. When I heard about the offers being made at the AZ regional and then read about those celebrating the results...the following definition is all that comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing

~EJ

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Shout out to the GDC, I hear for video game dev's its really hard when an aspect of the the video game they make is blatantly ignored by the player base. I mean its time and effort people spent on making rules to account for as many situations and in the end, none of them mattered because someone had a cash incentive.
Also shout out to teams whose strategies and building choices were invalidated by this cash incentive. I vouched heavily against certain choices like mecanum (the regrets T_T) because I knew defense would be a problem this year and I valued pushing power over mobility. Any robot built around being a goalie is instantly at a disadvantage if you built around blocking shots and you suddenly have a big sponsor say "score a lot." If the challenge that was proposed included all aspects of the game and did not invalidate any strategies it would be a great addition to the game.
I should also point out that "heavy defense" in a lot of events have been so brutal. My favorite team (<3) wasn't able to compete in all eliminations due to defense being played and a robot being torn in half. So a game without defense would be relaxing every now and then.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Seems like the reward was a motivating factor for this student. He should never have had this thought come to mind at a regional. It is disturbing that a student chose to play differently because of monetary incentive. I find it insane that you guys think its ok to bribe these students.

Were the other drive teams pressured into agreeing with this? Were the other teams also thinking about their future rather than the competition at hand? If the answer to any of these questions is yes than the reward was a resounding failure. Students should not be put into situations where they have to change how they compete in order receive monetary benefits.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I believe you! I just feel he's receiving a large amount of criticism for something I see as trivial to him. In all honesty, I think he just wanted us to have fun.

He wanted to raise the level of competition, which doesn't do much for the winners or finalists. The challenge was a little hard to attempt in qualifications, and a little hard to predict before seeing any matches. Like I said, it worked better last year (all 6 teams hanging, happened 3 times).

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

You bring up a good point. I really think there was no malice intended by this challenge. That's why I think it's sad this thread has gotten so vitriolic and nasty. The poor guy wasn't actively attempting to ruin the FRC game, I bet he just thought he would help out some teams with extra sponsorship and raise the level of competition at the same time.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

One more time, watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Does it sound like he's deliberating bribing teams to not play defense? No, he simply issued a challenge, (a difficult one) to try and raise the level of the competition. If you were able to complete that challenge, you got an award.
The teams are the ones who thought of the no defensive play, not Mr. Sanghi.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Easy question, if you had 200 points and your opponent had 190 but he had a ball worth 20 points if scored in the high goal, if he scored it it meant they won but you both achieved "the goal/challenge," would you let them score it?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We actually had a similar discussion with our alliance before agreeing. See team 842 was having com problems in our 2 semifinal matches. It was a decidedly yes whether we were losing or a robot was disabled. Our alliance agreed to the terms of no defense and that's how we were going to play it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I understand your point, but that is not at all what happened, and that scenario was never going to be reached. (I think you are trying to argue that the team would go for the $500, rather than World's this year plus $1000)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Then why such belief in the challenge at all?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This thread is much more eye opening than I expected. Much much more.

What seemed like a reasonable strategy alteration by six teams in the finals match to achieve a stretch goal is apparently seen as the most illegitimate, sad, and dishonest thing to happen in a competition all week (all season?). It sure didn't feel like that when it happened. Now my general impression from the rest of the FIRST community is "your match was bad and you should feel bad". Thanks for adding a sour taste to what was probably the highlight of the regional to me.

I want a robotics competition where people aren't obsessed with only playing a match with winning as the ultimate (and only acceptable) goal, and where teams don't complain incessantly about rules and game imperfections and interpretations. I like having fun with robots. Does anyone know of a competition like that? I want to go participate in that one instead.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What I meant was that a match that close would not happen, definitely with defense played (as shown in the first match and any other match the first seed was in). The only way things were going to be that close was if one of the robots died...

(Sorry, I feel like I didn't answer your question very well if at all)

The challenge was (probably) just meant to be a challenge.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Why not raise the level of competition by using that money to sponsor teams before the build season, instead of pre-match?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I almost applaud you for what exactly I want in a competition at FIRST. We don't need people telling us that there is only one acceptable way of playing a game, because in the end if it helps one alliance more or not doesn't matter. We did this because we wanted something more than just a alliance versus alliance match, we weren't looking just for the money, we did it because we wanted to and because we wanted an exciting game.

I don't see anything wrong with an agreement between our alliances, as it was there choice to do it, and they wanted to beat the goal just as much as we did.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Alright so I think every point has been made, and complaining isn't going to change anything so how about the few people left beating this dead horse just stop as there is no point and sooner or later many reputations are going to be ruined.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

In the spirit of this thread's inspiration, I will issue a challenge. Before your next post, go explain this situation to someone who is unfamiliar. That's the easy part. The hard part is that I challenge you to explain it from a perspective that opposes your own.
If you hate that this happened: say why teams might have done it, talk about how awesome it must have been to have the whole arena cheer for EVERY score, talk about how tough fundraising is, talk about the reason they might have agreed to do this.
If you see no problem with it: say how people outside might feel FIRST got cheated by the situation, talk about talk about how it's likely that not everyone on each team got a vote, talk about how it might sound at face value.

There will be no conclusion to this topic. The debate could go on forever. Do your best to see it in another light, and you will have won this argument.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Will anyone be brave enough to add to this thread, using gracious professionalism, of course, to increase the comment count above 301? No prize. No medal. No $10,000 scholarship. Just for FUN!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

299!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Oh, fine, I'll do it. 300.