Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I love fun!


And on another note, explained the situation to an outsider, didn't really see an issue with it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

302. I win.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Unfortunately I was lacking that context. Thank you for your clarification. I apologize for quite possibly taking your statement out of context, Cory.

EDIT: To be clear, I do think there are better ways to point out that bragging is becoming irritating though.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What is "that bad" is the precedent it sets, and the pandora's box it opens. Where does this stop if it is allowed? Do we want any individual with money to be allowed to offer cash prizes at FIRST events to see teams perform feats they would like to see performed? This challenge was not directly in sync with the goals of the game and the competition. It encouraged teams to achieve a scoring feat just for the sake of the scoring feat. What do you tell the next sponsor who would like to pay to see their favorite feat achieved? Who can make the longest shot? Who can complete the most catches? Who decides if a challenge with a monetary prize is a legitimate one and whether to allow it? What amount is considered OK to offer, and what amount is too much? How many cash prizes can be offered at one event? This all may sound absurd, but once the precedent has been set to allow it, on what basis do you not allow it? I understand that the sponsor's intentions were good, and that he only wanted to "raise the level of competition", and that he had done it before. Having third parties offer cash prizes at FIRST competitions for performance feats is a bad idea. Not just because of this incident, but because of the next one, and the next one.

Putting into question the legitimacy of the results of the regional. Putting into question the legitimacy of the scoring and OPR data from the regional. Tempting teams and students to play in a different manner than they would otherwise play in straight competition. Tempting teams and students to play for a goal other than goals of the tournament. Setting the precedent for additional 3rd party monetary rewards that cannot be governed. Creating discord between the events with cash prizes and those without. Most importantly, inviting accusations of "pay-for-play" from FIRST detractors that could discredit the FRC and FIRST.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Perhaps Mr. Sanghi can take that up with the FIRST board at the next board meeting. After all, he and the rest of the board run FIRST; we don't.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

With all due respect to Mr. Sanghi and the board, in my humble opinion this is a dangerous precedent. Pandora's box has no regard for who opened it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Thought experiment time. In 2011, how would you have felt if all 6 teams in a match on Einstein agreed to not use their minibots, and to let the match be decided entirely on tube scoring alone?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

In this situation, I'd be perfectly fine with it, provided both teams honored the agreement. Both alliance's must have decided that they had better tube scoring and worse mini-bots.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I would understand why they would want to make that kind of bargain, due to the point value for the minibots being out of whack.
However, deals like that have no place in FIRST. The Minibots are part of Logomotion just as defense is a part of Aerial Assist. It would be like the Broncos and Seahawks agreeing not to kick field goals.
Each element mentioned above is part of it's respective entire game. Everyone had a fair chance to know about it ahead of time and accepted a responsibility to prepare for it whether they knew or not. Therefore whether it's football, Logomotion, or Aerial Assist, if you're playing the game, you should be prepared and willing to play the whole game, warts and all.

Now that doesn't mean that there can't be official rule changes or re-evaluation of point values, especially in cases of increasing fairness, improving safety, or putting a better product on the field for the spectators, but the players should play to the rules in effect at the time of the match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Or in 2012, when many of us didn't give priority to actually winning matches, but were "bribed" with the QP awarded for balancing on the co-op bridge instead.

Shouldn't we all have only tried to balance our alliance bridges instead? That logically was the only way to demonstrate a 100% commitment to trying to win the match...

In hindsight, were all those teams who gave up on winning the match, and co-op balanced instead just as culpable? All they did was end up artificially boosting everyones' QP, at the cost of not trying your hardest to actually WIN the match anymore...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Seriously? Karthik, your experiment failed. My faith in people to draw logical and sane conclusions is gone.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Idk about you guys, but we didnt balance the middle bridge unless we were ahead.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If it turned out that they had made the agreement to seek a cash reward offered by someone, I would have felt very disillusioned.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That depends on how you define "win." I define win as winning the tournament, not any given match.

The co-op bridge was an interesting social experiment that, not unlike the situation in Arizona, encouraged collaboration between opposing alliances. The difference here is that this was encouraged by one board member/sponsor, as opposed to the GDC.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I would still feel disillusioned even without a reward. Completely ignoring part of the game by designed conspiring taints the outcome.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Ms Kamen, you have pushed me over the edge. Despite your heritage, you don't "Get It" yet. You need some time in the real world.

It is about the money. In FIRST, it is about the fund raising, the scholarships, the equipment, the practice areas, the trips to less than local events and to St. Louis. The Falcons and the Coconuts, above all else, are superb marketing organizations. "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." They sell themselves and their product with energy and enthusiasm, which gets the funding that enables them to exert extraordinary engineering and competitive efforts. There are teams around with deeper pockets, but they don't sell themselves to themselves at the level that these teams do.

Steve Sanghi did not bribe anyone. He threw down challenges to all of the teams at the Arizona Regional, with meaningful rewards attached. It works, it's the real world, he does it at Microchip all the time (personal bias admission; I've worked for Microchip for 12 years). I will also note that "Steve & Maria Sanghi" are personal sponsors of Arizona FIRST, and I suspect also contribute significantly to the United Way charity known as "The Employees of Microchip", both sources of significant funding to many Arizona FIRST teams. (and much to my surprise, the Midnight Mechanics from San Diego, and probably others I know not of :)

We're trying to emulate the real world; the sports aspect is convenient way of engaging young people with something that's physical, immediate and exciting on levels other than the intellectual (see spelling bees). But, this pure, on-field competition aspect cannot and must not dominate our analysis of the game. Even the Olympics have given up on the "Noble Amateur Athlete" concept; the last dinosaur is the NCAA (how do those college student afford those elaborate tattoos...).

The teams in the Arizona Regional Finals acted perfectly in line with the real world. They endeavored to act in their own best interests. Those interests lined up such that a "6/0" strategy in the second final match was the best to maximize everyone's return on investment. It very nearly worked out best for all; one more just OK cycle by 60/1726/3785 and they all profited by a total of $3000.

Regards,
Tim Jordan

PS: Plasma, don't take my lack of mentioning you personally. You were a perfect fit in that alliance, and earned your trip to St. Louis. We still owe you from 2011. PURPLE!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Was this really necessary? Whether you had a valid point or not in the rest of your post, anything you said was completely invalidated from your needless personal attack against Libby.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Might've helped if we actually moved.

#bittermemories

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Experiments don't fail.

In fact I think that quote just reminded everyone of an inherent conflict of interest during Qualification matches.
It seems like every year someone gets accused of sandbagging in qualifications. Why? Because it's beneficial to your team in alliance selection, especially if your team has a reputation to fall back on.

Why don't we all sandbag? Because we as a community have labeled it as non-GP. It's an unwritten rule that no one can enforce or punish others for violating. Similarly, in baseball, it's against custom to bunt when you're way ahead of the other team. However, in baseball you're liable to be beaned the next time you're up to bat if you violate that unwritten rule.

Do people still bunt occasionally when they've got a big lead? Yes, but it's really rare.
Do FRC teams still sandbag, or otherwise seek to improve their situation for Alliance selection at the expense of the rest of their alliance? Again yes, but it's also really rare. (once or twice a year is a small amount compared to it being a problem at EVERY regional or just about everyone being accused of doing it.)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Not at all analogous. Earning QPs with the coop balance was part of the game. The competition was for the most QPs, and whether to earn them with wins or coops was a strategic part of the competition. There was no cash prize for scoring the most coops.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I have attempted to stay as far away from responding to this thread as possible as I am long winded, and there isn't anyone here that does not already know that I think.

1. I was not present at the event (I was at home while my family participated because I made a personal decision to opt out of going). Search previous posts as to why if you care. Hint...It was game and game tinkering related.

2. I watched the event intently in videos posted (throughout the event), and the stream while watching and digesting all the other streams available. Just as I have all the other Week 1-Week 3 Events.

3. I am directly related to a drive team member (Ball P.U. & Shooting...a 4th year driver), on Team 60 (The Blue Alliance 6th seeded Team Captain - He is My H.S. Senior Son, who I am very proud of, and who initially was hesitant toward using the hatched "Full Field Game Strategy" when initially presented w/ the strategy according to both my son's version of events -he will post his version later, and Jim's version of events already posted previously).

4. I watched the entire event...And, the strategies employed all weekend that evolved from recent rules changes....They received word (Wednesday was a travel & load in day), of changes made Wednesday in the Driver's Meeting Thursday morning. The game has changed once again...Surprise!

5. I, as a viewer and spectator (long distance), enjoyed every match, but, I enjoyed that final match as much, if not more than all the rest of the matches (and so it appeared did all the spectators and teams present, because they employed a 6 Team Alliance Full Field Game Strategy, that was not only fair to all, it was an attempt to accomplish the game goals (nobody gave up on anything....None of the 6 teams would ever give up, or ever give in, a match EVER!) They just tossed out the sticks, stayed away from the rails (and each other), and went after every bunch of carrots they could gather and munched them all down in an outright battle of pure artful offense in the final match of the tournament. That was their choice to make. And theirs alone.

6. They turned this game on its head...and I thouroghly enjoyed watching that happen. They innovated, they strategized in full co-opertition w/ self agreed limits imposed (if anyone stepped outside of the agreement, the defensive game immediately resumes, and there was a point that after reviewing the video, my own team 60 thought they had stepped over the line accidentally also in making contact). They actually thought "outside of the box", and they did so by adding in the element of the added incentive. Though the bar was set so high, it was not acheived in that 1 shot deal.

7. As the only 6 teams left in the competition, they could not in any way affect any other team beyond the 6 adherents and voluntary teams who were all in agreement after Final match 1 was completed. Get angry about this if it had been instituted in Q- rounds yes, not though in Final Eliminations sitting 1-0. As other than those 6 teams, the results affect no one else...PERIOD!

8. You cannot compare teams or alliances in this game this year, on a full season basis, a week to week basis, or even a same week basis (you'd play hard to get comparing on a match-to-match basis even at the same Regional or District Event), as the number of, scope of, and type of purely subjective rules, calls, and ref's calling those subjective penalties is no where near as consistant as it would have to be to be "truthful" and "honest" in publishing any results you would hope to state. And the Rules Tinkering has grown exponentially since Week Zero, and the game has changed too many times.

OK, I agree...You could personally choose to put an asterisk next to the 301 score, or even the combined alliance scores of 481 total (and add the note; *INNOVATIVE GamePlay/No defense used by choice...But, you need to do that after every score so far through Week 4, in this game w/ all the rules tinkering too. Sry Falcon Robotics, CoCoNuts, and Plasma. (But some attempting to diminish your accomplishments is / are totally wrong...You are an alliance to be reckoned with most years, and this year and always very formidable opponents and alliance members too, and our team would do well to play with, or against, any of you, at any time...ever!) With is better!

9. It wasn't attempted as has been suggested, or in a specific manner that was also suggested further, that I would consider really anti-GP, to attempt to cheat to receive the incentive voluntary contribution (the Challenge), that was made in just trying to get "all to give their all", by the event sponsor "out of his own pocket" (they actually threw away any chance of acheiving that added goal - not replacing goal, by throwing out the sticks, and staying away from the rails, and taking the ref's mainly out of the game by only going after the carrots...The goals w/ assists, and trusses).

10. I'll go even one further...They actually did acheive the 200+-200+ score if you truly disect the video (and call every penalty that should be called in the game "if you remove all of the subjective elements"), as the one element you cannot as teams, actually remove the ref's. from, in choosing the "no defensive play game strategy," a fully legal game strategy BTW, that many I think, wished here, that you had actually thought of first,.....The inbounded ball element)...The Ref corps just, I will assume after the video disection, after seeing & possibly recognizing the plan of action, in action, just refused to get involved in a game that all the participants agreed in advance, to use an advanced game strategy, they developed on their own, and agreed together to institute.

I am only guessing above as to what the Ref's. actually thought and when. (To be a fly on the end of the truss during that officiant conference at the end of match, would have been just golden to me).

I would certainly love to hear that angle from a few of them here. The officials conference after the match ended, was just like during other matches preceeding, lenghty and complete (head ref. also conferring w/ the scoring table befrore posting the scores .....If they did not like the match, a replay could have been ordered...It was not ordered, and the match was declared clean w/ no penalties incurred AND FINAL. Is that what actually upsets many others posting in the thread?

The game was declared w/ NO PENALTIES called or scored.

11. Not 1 person from any team, participant, spectator, officiant, or anyone else in attendance lodged any complaint (and anyone watching it had to fully recognize that a specific onfield game strategy was employed, that was quite different than any match preceeding it)....But, they were all way too busy cheering what they had just witnessed. The Aerial Assist game in raw form without all those Sticks & Rails added (and the much hated Battle Bots element removed willingly), and that so many have cried & whined angrily & incessantly for over at least 3+ weeks here on CD about this specific game.

12. I can tell you, I have spoken at length w/ my son about the issues, have disected his version of the events (and they have perfectly matched Jim's previously published version, w/ a few honorable GP actions he did on his own that Jim may or may not have even known about,....like he personally apologized to members of the Red Alliance before Finals Match 1, because he and his team (60), felt they could not accept the agreement, and then after match 1 was completed (and things were brought to light, minds sort of changed and developed), he apologized again to them, because he stated he felt bad that they should have accepted the agreement to begin with, then when all had finally agreed in the end, to institute the new "full field game strategy" TOGETHER).

He also assured me, at no time did anyone in his 6th Seeded Alliance ever give up, from the start of eliminations, right through to the final shot of Final - Match 2. It wasn't, finally agreed to, solely for the money aspect whatsoever, but as a strategy, he and others thought after Finals match 1, could have been effective, via a full on all offensive battle carried out to perfection (it wasn't on one end only, the 3 blue robots were not as complementary in design to each other, as the other alliance was. And, that is the difference always between 1st seeding choice and 6th seeding choices, and that some shots and P.U. were missed (mostly on their behalf if you disect the video also), theRed Alliance had the full package including the truss to Human down pat), if w/ the added element of completing the additional challenge of possibly acheiving the 200-200 or higher scores. He is proud of his Alliance, he is proud of his team, feels he and his Alliance and team fully deserved to play in those final 2 matches...and all before them. And is very happy w/ the results. He loved working with 1726 & 3785 & competing against the #1 Seeded Alliance (competing against, the best of the best, is what Team 60 strives for always....It is an ingrained taught aspect to each member of our quite historic team). Battling hard & fair is what he loves. He favors (his words), this set of eliminations over all past that he has yet been a part of. And some of the preceeding ones ended in REGIONAL WINNER on the banner....Though it has been a couple of years.

13. Each member of the 6 Alliances that forged and accepted an agreement to employ this now seen to some, as a "highly controversial" "Full Field Game Strategy", probably had their own, individual to a person, reasons for forging and agreeing to employ it...But, each held up their end of the agreement, and that alone is a very hard thing to accomplish (given that defense was played in every match by every party thereto for 2 days preceeding).

They did so, without cheating the Sponsor out of his incentive, which as has been pointed out could have been easily done at the last moment of the game...Just incur an easy penalty (that alone not being done or even attempted...just watch the courtesy shown 842 at 1:29-1:36 a total of 8 seconds burned, should be rewarded, not frowned upon), and 200-200 would have been reached...No, they chose the honorable Offensive Cycle Shootout Angle Together...AGAIN...No rules prohibit it, and if there were any, then it was the officiants call, to instantly simply call for a replay. I do not recall any replays in the AZ Regional...Not a one that I saw!

14. It is no one elses business what field strategy is employed by the participants, unless it actually violates the rules. I have read that here many times on CD. Do it w/ GP....They personally turned the game Aerial Assist, on its head, and they did it w/ GP in an INNOVATIVE way. And for 2.50 seconds, they made it really exciting for those involved and those watching. Though you personally do not have to like it.

Is that what all this fuss is really about? I would say personally, do not diminsh or underestimate any of these particular 6 teams this season (or measuring them by that 1 match, where they thought "outside the box together in true Co-Opertition Mode")....You do, and you take a chance on missing the boat....Measuring once and cutting twice. The season is not over.

AZ is "Not traditionally a place known to produce powerhouse teams", eh? Now,....who is everyone talking about today? Imagine that....We show that we work together......Sour grapes/ Make some wine please and bottle it up. Want some cheese to go w/ that?

The word is INNOVATION, the act was Co-Opertittion, both on the field, and off. The thing was carried off w/ GP. And it was just a strategy that some don't like. And it was NECESSARY to balance out this much loved and very hated and totally tinkered with game of unbearably unbelievable design.

Throw away the STICKS. Stay away from the RAILS....Go gather all the CARROTS you can, and MUNCH THOSE TASTY CARROTS UP!

Now....Show of hands....How many teams collaborate w/ other teams off the field at ANY TIME during the season? You are very welcome.....Team 60 started that years ago, I'm told...And it was "very controversial" in those days too, I'm told. We were all told if you watch the team introduced at the beginning of the quarter finals. Guess some things just will never change....Some are just destined for historical success I guess.

I thank Teams 842, 2486, 2403 The Red Alliance (AZ Regional 2014 WINNERS), and Teams 1726 and 3785 along w/ my own Team 60 The Blue Alliance (AZ Regional 2014 Finalists), for helping make my sons eyes sparkle by simply INNOVATING w/ each other (no matter how controversial it may seem at the moment). He's still smiling. You will not diminish that feeling.

You naysayers here, will not diminish that, you will only further spark that fire within. And make it burn ever deeper as the season has only just begun.

And those attempting to diminish the accomplishments of EITHER ALLIANCE, especially the Winning Alliance. Should be totally ashamed of yourselves. The game does not need to be played "as you have determined it be played", or "as YOU PERSONALLY have envisioned it."

It merely must be played within the published RULE SET. Or, penalties will be incurred and sufferred. Show me a rule they actually violated or be silenced on the issue.
_______________________________________
BTW...Jim, TY for hatching the now "controversial plan" and turning both the Aerial Assist Game and a few here on CD and the entire community on their heads! This game needed another controversy to take a bit of the heat off of the GDC and those poor worn out VOLUNTEER Officiants.

At least they now know Arizona is also in the house! Maybe we have more surprises in store in the future......:cool: I will attend the next event...I wouldn't miss it now for the world.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If you read my first post, I question the logic of offering cash as a match reward. Not anyone's integrity or history with FIRST. Just 'what were they thinking when they offered this?'. As I have said in other posts in this thread, if Mr. Sanghi is on the board he's gotta be doing something right. The decision to offer money for scores, though, I'm not understanding.

If anyone would like to raise the level of competition, they can do that by sponsoring teams. Before the matches start. With money, resources, and mentorship, as you said. The teams should earn it before the season, as they do from every other sponsor in the community.

If I really 'don't get it', then please explain to me. What is a cash reward doing to promote the mission and vision of FIRST? The beginning of this thread is full of comments that this particular match's gameplay was astonishingly different from the rest of the season across the country.

"It's not about the money" can be said all you like, but the money changed the dynamic of the game. I'm allowed to not like it and ask why, just like you're allowed to think that I don't understand the program my family and I have committed our entire lives to.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The side that lost in the finals would have had a better chance of winning if they also played defense. Defending the other team from scoring would help prevent them from winning. Therefore, the losing alliance would have had a better chance of winning the event.

^I wrote everything above simply and obviously stated on purpose, because I felt the question asked had a simple and obvious answer.

Imagine being a student, or sponsor, or parent of a student on the losing alliance. Try explaining to them that is was in their best interest to let the other team score unabated. Does that make them look like they were acting in their teams and team's sponsors best interests?

Furthermore, I assume most of the people in the discussions were drive coaches and drive teams. I highly doubt even a majority of the team members were asked if they really felt that was the best thing to do in the finals of a regional they were trying to win.

I would be embarrassed to be on a team that lost the event because some members decided it would be fun to spend some time of the match not playing defense and instead sitting still. If I was on the winning side? I would feel like I didn't achieve a true and satisfying win.

I am sorry for all involved, mainly the quiet students and families/sponsors who were not part of the discussions, or don't want to voice their differing opinions and feel alienated by their team mentors and leaders. You will never hear from those people on CD, only the loud ones.

-Paul Ventimiglia

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Hmmm. Which one of these people doesn't "get it."

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That's my big problem with this as well. As a member of the public, he's got all sorts of latitude to make offers large or small, in public or even in secret—that practice may not be ideal, but it's hardly practical for FIRST to regulate this in general.¹ But as a member of the board of directors, he should be conscious of anything that could give the appearance of impropriety or undermine the efforts of other parts of the FIRST organization, and conduct himself accordingly. I think it's fair to say he erred on that count.


As for the competitors themselves, there is also a responsibility to be judicious in accepting offers like this one. I don't have a problem with the idea of teams attempting strategies that subvert the intent of the rules, so long as they're demonstrably within the rules, and so long as the impact of those strategies outside of gameplay is not grossly negative.

Accepting the offer of something valuable in exchange for playing the match a certain way is definitely reminiscent of match fixing, but I think the fact that (so far as we know and have reason to believe) Sanghi did not stand to gain anything from the strategy mitigates the impact somewhat. Perhaps the willingness of a team to accept such an offer should be inversely proportional to their uncertainty about the motives and results of such a challenge.² Similarly, the teams should have realized that they'd be exposing themselves to scrutiny for the same reasons: was the expected value of what they stood to gain so large as to appear improper? $500 isn't trivial, but isn't exactly a windfall, particularly considering the difficulty of the challenge.

Another possible negative impact is the perceived legitimacy of the competition. If it devolves into a farce—even one which is squarely within the rules—FRC may be perceived as a pointless endeavour by participants, sponsors, schools and other important constituencies. Again, I don't think this happened here, because the agreement was to avoid defence, which didn't entirely ruin the match, even though it caused it to play out differently than many competitors would have expected.

Ultimately, I think the the teams involved were probably somewhat careless, but not malicious or negligent in their handling of the situation. And they'll definitely think harder the next time they're presented with a similar offer. In that respect, maybe they've taught everyone a useful lesson.

¹ There are laws and criminal offences intended for when this sort of conduct is drastically contrary to the public interest.
² Many leagues have severe restrictions on this sort of conduct, because of the impracticality if knowing who exactly benefits from the offer, or what the consequences will be. It's up to the FIRST community to determine its tolerance for the risk that someone will manipulate the competition, and up to FIRST to decide if they need to regulate it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If [Person that everyone mutual respects] was talking to two alliances before a match and jokingly[or not] said to them 'I bet you can/or can't do X in a match' and then the two alliances went 'You know what, lets try to do X!' Which required them discussing a strategy together and altering their normal play of the game.

Would that be as ethically wrong? No money was offered or will be given, but a challenge or idea was put in these teams heads by [Person] and they decided to run with it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I think I just did accidentally...But, it took me a long time to type, and this thread rose by 4 pages while I did. (BTW, this is my shortest post ever.)

I'm Done.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I think that would be as well. I think conspiring between adversaries should be frowned upon, at least even more so in the eliminations; even though I would still hope it would be frowned upon in quals too.

But that is just my competitive side voicing his opinion.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This has been my main thought on the issue. If Sanghi offered the challenge without the monetary incentive, things would have likely transpired the same way. You'd be surprised at just how open and loose the alliances were in elims. 4183 and 1726 were shooting the breeze constantly between matches, almost as if the competition itself came second to the socialization and shared appreciation of what we've all devoted our lives to for the past 3 months. I don't think you'll find a friendlier set of teams at a regional.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I fail to see the innovation in not playing defense. Rather, I see a lack thereof.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I am still on the fence with this whole ordeal...

There is no doubt in my mind this was all done with good intentions - nearly everyone directly involved has passionately stated this.

I do start to cringe at the thought that a monetary device was used to influence the decisions. I also don't like to think that a sole entity can impose such a challenge - even though I understand his intentions.

I had a few discussions at our parent meeting tonight, and I came away with a different thought...

What if in the future GDC actually set forth more of these types of 'challenges' throughout the game? Not tied to money - but in another way (like the bridge of 2012). What if both alliances reached certain goals and they were awarded with trinkets or even valuable goods (Batteries, DLinks, Battery Beaks, 3d Printers, etc.)? How much would that play into the coopertition or the game at hand? I think that there is value in this type of incentive-goal based challenge - it could lead to a whole other platform that FRC has dabbled with in the recent past (Coopertition Bridge 2012)

Back to the OP: No matter how it looks from the outside, I must trust the intentions of the other coaches and teams to decide to play in this manner. As a fellow coach, I must respect their decisions to do what is best for their respective teams. No one should ever question the motives of a coach/team... otherwise the spirit of FRC is in question.

However, I do know my team - and there is no way they would alter their gameplay in any way that would lessen our chances at winning a match.

All in all - everyone must realize that FRC is an evolving entity - an entity that is now worldwide. With that will come nuances and controversies that stem from localized events. Keep an open mind as this experiment known as FRC keeps evolving. Every team, every player, every coach will do what they see as the best for their respective teams. I will continue to respect these decisions as long as these decisions are kept with the spirit and goals of FRC in mind.

Just my 2 cents in a novel form.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Snipped from Libbys comment:

".....this thread is full of comments that this particular match's gameplay was astonishingly different from the rest of the season across the country."

About the only thing that was "astonishingly different" is that 6 bots went back in the bag fairly undamaged by taking the assumptions of many participants and non-participants alike of that designed in "Battle Bots" element out of the game. (I do not remember the GDC ever going over that defense angle in the game release, nor in the Kick Off videos, or the Game Animation, does any robot make contact...Well except for poor lil' Dozer getting smashed by that Big Ball so we would learn to make our Robots Robust!

Actually, Final-Match 2 was about as close to the Animation Video as possible, or we will probably see all year.....And you must admit, our Team 60 "The Thighmaster of War" or as we call her "Suzanne"...Looks a whole lot like poor little Dozer, on steroids pumped up for Aerial Assist...without the eyes and the blade of course).

And, absolutely nowhere do the words "must play a defensive strategy" appear in the rules. So, you play your game strategy, we are free to play ours.

As long as neither of us violate the published RULE SET.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If both alliances had come to the conclusion that they felt going 3 offense/0 defense then that would have been fine. Instead, both alliances conspired together to alter the game purposefully to try and get all 6 teams the $500. That is the astonishingly different part.

Not playing defense is not an innovative strategy nor a unique one.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Everyone on our team enjoyed the regional immensely, and the challenge had nothing but a positive effect on that experience. We're pumped and can't wait to come back next year to either (or both) of the Arizona regionals. Congratulations to the winning and finalist alliances, you've inspired us.

Everyone else, continue with civility, but please don't take away the Sanghi challenge - we like to have fun once in a while.

Sometimes there's more to life than winning. I wish we could realize this more often...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

My strategic opinions on what went down in Arizona;

Disclaimer: The $500 200-200 offer is not analyzed here; the strategy and theory in question is analyzed in regard to winning the match with the decision to go no defense is.

1. You won't see this strategy of stationary robots with no obvious attempt to help their alliance (ie setting up for assists, catches, defense, counter defense) at regionals, distict champs or anywhere else this season. Exceptional defense whas won and will continue to win matches in Aerial Assist. At TVR the second and third seeds (250, 5030) were teams that specialized in targeting 1 team and locking them down during that match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkdWLP7qrzc

This is the Finals 1 of TVR where 250 completely dominates 1126 the whole match. No exaggeration.

Granted the blue alliancein Arizona might not have been able to execute such a strategy but other posts suggesting that this might become a trend are completely absurd when defense can be played like this against some teams.

I haven't even mentioned zone defense which continues to be powerful as long as the defender is effective and still assumes a healthy balance between offensive and defensive responsibilities.

2. Part of the reason why many are appalled by AZCL F2 is the amount of defense applied in other regionals esp when you compare vastly different fields of defenders and attackers across events. The defense played in F1 was ineffective; it lacked any sort of hard ramming during shots and blocking passes and inbounds which have caused the game to be dubbed "Aerial Assault".

3. I disagree with the blue alliance's strategic (bolded for emphasis, this is a strategic analysis only) decision to participate in a no defense shoot-out as the best route for winning the match. It has been stated and also heavily assumed that the blue allianced was "outgunned" and not favored to win the match or a shootout senerio based on the robots and chemistry involved. Following F1 instead of going for less defense I would have tried more: a more physical and aggressive defense would have at least pushed Red to adapt or play through it to accumulate assists and score them. In addition to breaking red's rhythm a lower score which comes with defensive based matches favors blue who needs to catch up after auton. Putting 2 robots on defense has the potential to the MOV much more than emgaging in a shootout.

Just my opinions. I would like to hear what others thing in regards to the all offense strategy and my post.

Arizona is a hotspot right now. I advise everyone think twice before posting esp. when GP is called into question.

~Nick

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This isn't fully related to the ethics questions going on in the thread, and was just an observation from a side station as human player, but I am pretty sure the lack of hard ramming was partially due to the Head Ref making sure the drivers understood the new ramming rules (the update to G27 on the 20th), and how they were going to call it.

I remember just in a practice match, 812's bot hit ours at mediocre speed (they were going just fast enough that when they hit us, they tipped a small, but our bot didn't really move much), and it was still called a ramming foul.

Pretty much just think you didn't see the heavy ramming in large part due to drivers definitely not wanting to get that foul.

(Just an observation)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That... doesn't sound anything like the new ramming rule?

But really, this discussion should take place somewhere else...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxp4dkMQ1Vo

There is the game animation link above....If not found there (the other game release videos, or in the published rules and updates, or the Q & A). Then, it does not exist except in our minds.

All the rest is conjecture and assumptions is all I was attempting to say. And are someones "opinions only," on how each team, alliance, or opposing alliances, "should" be playing the game. All parties played to win every match and every second. Lessons learned hard.

There was no malicious intent to taint the game is all I'm saying. People need to just lighten up on all parties. The game is supposed to be the fun part.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

__________________________________

No, that may have just been a part of the equation. Some suffered from that new rule earlier in the competition, and doubts linger in the students minds easily even today. What is "too hard" a hit now? Will you break them and cost you & your alliance the match...or worse, the eliminations?

60 has never backed down from a hard hit on anybody before...ever (the drivers love hard hitting defense and always have).

Well, until the new rule was introduced Thursday and in the earlier tied Q-match on Friday, when fully surrounded by 3 robots and backed against the side wall, though not actually legally pinned, w/ absolutely nowhere to go except very hard through a bot or 2, and needing only 1 point to win and a ball already in the bot.

I asked why not drive right through them....The answer was...that new rule. Risk a huge penalty and a loss for a possible but possibly improbable goal, or take the tied game. (The clock was ticking very close to the end).

Then there was another in a later match "Stopping the alliance from scoring call" against one of their alliance partners that happened at least 8-9' as far as we can tell from the low goal. His question was...."Say What!?!" Attempting to stop them from scoring? Really? Since when?

I could not even attempt to explain that call to him while reviewing the videos except to say maybe something happened we cannot see. We reviewed that video over & over. And the 2 situations were nearly identical as to placement or position on the field.

I have inserted my $3.25 and then some & will be stepping away from the thread.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Competitions are widely enjoyed and rewarding because of the ingenuity and clever strategic planning necessary for a team or alliance to win whatever game they are playing. While FRC is about much more than just the competition, regional events and even more specifically, finals in eliminations rely on the inherent intrigue of competition. Building a strategy that does not have the
focus of winning diminishes the competitive integrity of the match, especially when it is known that money is an influence.

Qualification matches as a whole can be played strategically by considering being set up best for elims as the challenge, which is why the 6v0 in 2010 can be considered competitively respectable. However, the goal of each match in eliminations is solely to win, there are no seeding factors, only winning and losing.

This is still no reason to not be graciously professional as that would impede others' opportunity to grow, this is an opportunity to see how effective your team's strategic and engineering decisions throughout the season are and simply agreeing to an exhibition match during what is the supposed to be a match-up of the most competitive teams at a regional is a missed opportunity.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This has become a wall of text over the past hour, I hope that my thoughts can add something to the discussion.

Everyone here is assuming that people's actions are impeccably thought out and teams are being judged as if their robots performed perfectly, their drivers are flawless, and they can instantly calculate the strategically optimal course of action for any given situation under the pressure of eliminations. I am in no way trying to insult the teams or put down their abilities, but the truth is that the teams don't have superpowers.


The team's drivers aren't perfect. If they know that they can reliably do all of the steps required for their alliance to score, and might possibly be able to do it faster than the other alliance, then there could be a justification for wanting to do what you know your drivers were capable of rather than relying on their ability to defend against the other drivers. Even if a detailed strategic analysis proves otherwise after the fact, the blue alliance still could have acted based on that analysis, thinking that they would have a better chance of winning. Truly they could have acted on any strategic analysis that made sense to them. Even if the view is deluded, it is still the basis for their strategic decision, not an ulterior motive. Members of the blue alliance drive teams speaking here today have claimed that their analysis told them that they would have a better chance with no defense. If they believed that to the best of their knowledge, then that was a justified decision regardless of what seems like it would have been best upon closer review. This is my response to the "It was wrong of the blue alliance to give up" controversy.

It seems that the main focus of the conversation now is that it was wrong for Mr. Sanghi to give a monetary incentive that could cause teams to play in a way that is inconsistent with the GDC's intent. I think we can all presume that Mr. Sanghi did not wish to drive teams away from the GDC's intent, but to add a level of excitement to the event. I know that in the stands, before the final match, I heard people all around me discussing the challenge, making predictions about whether or not it would ever be achieved. So it did succeed in this goal.

Operating under the idea that we should hold the GDC's intent for gameplay as being inline with the mission of FIRST, and that deviation from that intent results in a failure to comply with FIRST's mission:
The problem that arose from the challenge was that it could lead to an alliance manipulating their strategy in a way that results in worse performance according to the the measurements of performance inherent to the Tournament as described by the GDC (win vs. lose). While I do not believe this particular case involved that kind of manipulation, I do see that this type of reward could easily cause problems in other situations. I presume that Mr. Sanghi did not evaluate all of these possibilities on the level that we have in this thread, and I can't see how it would have been practical for him to. It is close to impossible for anyone to consider all of the possible ramifications that could occur as a result of a monetary reward for a specific type of action in an FRC game.

Therefore, I agree that it would be best to not have monetary rewards like this set. While it did increase the level of excitement in the arena, the possibility for the corruption of gameplay outweighs the benefit.

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have ever read through on Chief Delphi. It has been interesting to learn so much about people's paradigms about GP, Coopertition, and the overall mission of FIRST. Though I screamed out of frustration while reading this several times, I welcome the discussion and hope to see more of the people I respectfully disagree with explain their thoughts in a thorough and objective manner.

TLDR: If the team believe they aren't giving up and are gaining an advantage, then they are still playing to win, regardless of what is theoretically most strategic. I believe that the way things played out, the challenge added to regional. I also believe that the harm caused by strategies that contradict the GDC's intent would outweigh this benefit if the blue alliance agreed to full-field play thinking that it would lessen their chance of winning.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

The red alliance had evolved a high performing cycle, complete with effective defense. 2403 was part of the highly reliable and very fast assist to 842. More so pivotal in the assist cycle than as a defender. The process was well rehearsed and refined including control settings in the time between alliance selection and start of quarter finals. It further evolved leading up to F1 and F2.

Blue recognized there was no way out of the box continuing to play the same way and there was only one match left. The agreement still allowed either alliance to win. It simply changed an oval track race into a drag race.

Red (highly confident) thinking they could drag race as well as oval track race.
Blue thinking they could drag race better than oval track racing.

Both alliances thinking that drag racing is the only way to knock off the Sanghi challenge while remaining in the hunt against each other.

I am not going to try to apportion the weighting of any of the factors because from the discussion above, the actors directly involved had some individual variances in this. The bottom line is that there was consensus. A consortium of sorts where competitors came together effectively for both individual and common goals.

All of the above pressures and constraints in this situation are not unlike the dynamics of the small high tech start-up that this program has been often said to emulate. That is why I personally gravitate to this program .... to expose the kids to the technology as well as the strategic and tactical realities of a high tech business in a competitive environment. The Sanghi challenge being not much different catalyst than a government incentive to be taken advantage of if it makes sense to everyone.

Hats off to Steve Sanghi for making this more real. I hope the challenges can continue.

Karthik's comparative scenario about agreeing to not use minibots in 2011 was thought provoking in that it seems to weave in an element of responsibility for the alliances to play in a way that achieves a level/style of entertainment for the viewing audience. Perhaps, before the match, a note passed to the event announcer regarding any consortium activity would help in this respect.

Back to the game:

From where I was standing Blue performed better without defense in that they were outscored by a less of a percentage in F2 than in F1. Red's "production" of goals was really impressive with the audience going wild on that final truss shot that got it to 301 in the last couple seconds of the match. I (seeing red was ahead by a good cushion) was also rooting for blue to get to 200.

In hindsight the only change I would perhaps recommend is a note to the announcer before the match to clue in the spectators.

Also, in the case of a challenge with a payout, consider a structure it so that the winner gets more.

Just my personal opinion.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

This interview comes to mind.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video...ag/riley-crane

It seems to me that the teams' own selfish desires were aligned to encourage all six of them to work together.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

A few points after a good nights sleep.

The challenge offered by Mr. Sanghi was to donate money to FIRST. The donation was in proportion to the number of matches where both alliances scored over 200 points in a match. There was a separate, larger donation offered to FIRST for each team in the winning alliance. There was no money ever going to any person or team, under any conditions, for any action. The incentive was a way to leverage several teams' fundraising, by reducing the amount of money they need to raise to participate in the Arizona regional next year.

The concept of match fixing, or "taking a dive for money", never crossed my mind. It troubles me to think that members of the FIRST community, whom I respect so highly, would even consider such a thing.

The matter of our strategic decision to play no defense in the final match....when we saw the first final match score, we knew we had been slaughtered. That's my euphemism for getting fewer than half as many points as the winning alliance. In the paraphrased words of some famous guy, trying the same thing again and expecting different results would have been insane. We tried something else instead.

All six teams in the Arizona finals built robots that were designed to score. We managed to play one match where the robots got to do what they were designed to do. They did it within the game rules. We almost achieved a secondary challenge while doing it. Our team knows we did all we could do to win. We didn't leave anything on the table.

The best alliance won. It's that simple.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I hesitate jumping back into this, but just wanted to point out that both alliances were so fixated on the pure scoring potential of their own alliance that we did not even think of committing a human foul to give the other alliance the points needed to break 200. We were only focused on out scoring each other. I too am done with this thread. It has been an eye opening discussion....I am writing a book about education and I think some of this experience might influence some of the book. Thanks to everybody for the lesson.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Ok so I just wanted to jump in and say this yes the guy was wrong for the bribe he gave to all the teams at the regional. If he wants to alter the playing field at all he can but do it on his dollar (i.e an offseason event) where just like at IRI we change a few of the rules. But never do it to where it will alter the way a regional finals is played. I would also like to say that the unkind words towards Libby Kamen were wayyyyyy out of line, also the words from Cory from 254 yes AZ is not Waterloo ( I wish it was love when Karthik is the announcer) nor is it even at the level of some of the other regionals but in no way should you attack a fellow FRC team like that. Just like I said to 842 you're a HOF team you're suppose to set an example for us younger teams to follow.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Just wanted to chime in one last time to the HOF precedent being called out. Part of what made team 842 a Hall of Fame team and what makes us who we are is following and believing what we think is right. That inherently will create controversy in certain scenarios but that is unavoidable. We've made it pretty clear that we believe our decision to take part in this agreement was not incorrect. Sure its easy to back out of something that might create controversy and its easy to give out a fake apology to avoid criticism but going against our ideals and what we think is right is even worse in my opinion. Take team 842's stance on immigration reform as an example. Sure some might think that a robotics team shouldn't be meddling in non stem politics but that is who we are and what we believe in. We believe we what we did was okay and there was never any bad intentions.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I wasn't going to weigh in here any more, but I have to vehemently disagree with the characterization of Mr. Sanghi's Challenge as a 'bribe'. Earlier in the thread someone posted the definition (which I can't find at the moment) but it included the phrase 'corrupting the game play'. He was absolutely, positively, adding to and improving the game, or at least trying to. It is all the Monday-morning arm-chair quarterbacking that has decided that it corrupted the game. It was an additional prize or scholarship that everyone had an opportunity to reach for.

Now when I say everyone, I of course am referring to everyone at the AZ Regional. And I do think it is a legitimate concern that this regional is part of the larger World championships, and this additional challenge did influence the game play. While it most certainly did not change the final outcome, it was not an opportunity available to FRC at-large, which does introduce an element of unfairness.

So, given the difficulty of the challenge, would Mr. Sanghi consider opening the challenge up to the world? Does anyone know him well enough to ask? He already spelled out the limit of 5 matches so it wouldn't be anymore money than he has already committed. I thought the challenge was great and shouldn't go away, but could be improved by opening up to everyone.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Out of curiosity, did you attend Arizona regional? I remember your team being mentioned.

EDIT: Confirmed.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Yes I did attend the regional I am a mentor on 4841 Optimal Robotics from Tucson.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

It is my personal belief (after reading this thread, seeing reactions from members of the teams involved, and my personal experience with members of two of the winning teams) that the events that occurred in Arizona were on the up and up and overall reasonably well thought through. While monetary incentives were posted, they were out there the entire competition and the reward for winning the regional was significantly higher than meeting the challenge.

Arizona does not concern me. With respect to the teams involved, I think their records and achievements speak for themselves as a testament to their character.

What concerns me is significantly less well thought out incentives programs that could cause legitimately objectionable gameplay to occur. Whether one believes the Arizona Regional events were acceptable or not, I think it's a significantly higher concern that other programs will be less well considered and positive. I don't think it's much of an argument that we need something in the administrative manual against these sorts of actions. Jeff from 1986 said it best-- "Pandora's box has no regard for who opened it"-- it's best to nip this before it becomes a genuine issue and actually corrupts the competition.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Snipped and quoted partially....(From the previous page)

".....This has been my main thought on the issue. If Sanghi offered the challenge without the monetary incentive, things would have likely transpired the same way. You'd be surprised at just how open and loose the alliances were in elims. 4183 and 1726 were shooting the breeze constantly between matches, almost as if the competition itself came second to the socialization and shared appreciation of what we've all devoted our lives to for the past 3 months. I don't think you'll find a friendlier set of teams at a regional."
________________________________
Thank you bitbuckets....We try to be extremely friendly in AZ firstly, and FIRST-like. I like that about our Region and all its members too! And FIRST as a whole. (This thread though has shown me a different side though in many places). Just makes me think.

We are a FIRST family here in AZ...First to help another team, friends on and off the field....Fierce competitors on the field however...Always. And if you doubt at any time, that each team on each alliance was not trying to outscore the other in that battle (all through the eliminations and the qualifying rounds before also), you would be highly mistaken and highly underestimating those 6 teams.

1 alliance just outperformed the other at that particular moment in that particular event. (And 6th seeded alliance at 0-0 or later, down 1-0 vs the very well working together 1st seeded alliance,...Just try not to be a little jittery ever in that position). Watch all the videos throughout the competition, not just the Final Match-1 & 2 for proof. All are avail on YouTube or theblueallaince.com

Execution of strategy is everything in every FIRST match, or any other game or sport. Choice of strategy within the published rule set is YOUR CHOICE though.
_________________________________________
Some people would have died here I guess though to see me often in the NHRA drag strip pits eating lunch or dinner, or sharing my child's birthday cake w/ best friends, just before going out to whip them on the drag strip repeatedly, then later, take them out to dinner on my win check earnings. The Winner always bought dinner....It was an unwritten rule.:) A real family there too.

(Only we never got to cry about the rules and receive mid-season changes). They would have laughed & told us to stay home, and don't race....Your choice.

You want an NHRA Stock Eliminator motor/body combo looked at for re-classification? There is a rule book published process for that. Buy the book, submit your request and fee on the required paperwork, they will look at it using the published process in the rule book, and they will get back to you in a "few months time", w/ their decision. You get 1 appeal if you do not like the decision (rarely is an appeal ever won)....When they publish the change, (and send you a personal decision letter), in next years rule book usually,... then you can use the new classification).

But, whining & crying or complaining would get you absolutely nowhere...Which is why I personally dislike rule tinkering mid-season (defining or fixing typing/printing mistakes or other normal housekeeping excepted of course). I'm just used to that process. And it is only the "squeeky wheel that usually gets greased," otherwise...The rest just get flat hosed down, and left out in the cold to freeze.

On another note, AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO w/ THIS Current Conversation whatsoever except, that it can be a part of real life....Poker pots are often split if the reward is much greater than the original risk. I have also seen race cars split too when one is put up as a drag racing prize (or a Harley reverse raffle prize for a non-profit), and there is a ready buyer present w/ cash in hand...Eeek's...I even participated and won, in one of those $50K car prizes long ago/buyer there ready to pay $55K cash for the car from the winner/winners at a drag race.....We got down to 5 guys left in, all agreed to split the $50K @ $10K apiece on a $500.00 entry fee to race, w/ the leftover $5K additional going to the eventual actual race winner!)

You think we didn't try hard for that win even after already cashing $10K each GREEN AMERICAN DOLLARS...Yes we did, and I received it hard fought too. Sometimes risk vs reward has to be weighed properly in life, sport, and in business). Uncle Sam liked me when it was tax time too. That hobby cannot be claimed as non-profit.

I hope comparing previous life experience above does not muddy the water even more here. But, we deal w/ reality, and if you think that money (knowledge and volunteerism), isn't also the fuel the FIRST engine runs on...You are only fooling yourselves. I have seen and felt the expenses personally on our family pockets. The whole community runs on FUNDRAISING $$$$$'s parts, services, donations & sponsorships. Kicking a sponsor like Mr. Sanghi for trying to help AZ FIRST Teams....Now, that really surprises me. And all who have in this thread, are foolish in my personal opinion.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

_____________________________

You young man I personally believe will go very far in life after reading a few of your posts.

Given that said though..."Life Just Isn't Always Fair...And, it wasn't meant to be either."

Some team sponsors choose to buy their teams official FIRST game field setups from the manufacturers. Some Regional Sponsors choose to add field play financial rewards as additional incentives....Neither, is any different than the other...Not a single bit. Both reward or cause improved game play in the end, and both improve the level of competition.

Pot calling kettle black improves nothing. Concerning $$$$, Pandora escaped that box long ago.:)

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That is absolutely, wholeheartedly false. Offering a team a sponsorship after/before the build season is not anything like offering money for teams to try and make some arbitrary goal that differs from the overall goal of a match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

dodar.....(lets go of the rope)...You Win.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

In the past 5 years that I have been a part of the FIRST community I have never seen so much hate shown toward a specific regional or group of teams. As a member of Plasma Robotics I can say with full assurance that our team meant nothing more than to be a helpful contributor to our alliance in the last match of the finals. Sometimes you have to do what's best for the team, and in that position we did what we were picked to do, pass the ball. dodar, all I can say is that even if everything you have said is true, being so rude is no more GP than the things that you are commenting about. I politely ask you to drop the argument since obviously the past 24 pages of comments are reaching no conclusion. I want nothing more than to enjoy this years competition. If you think the things you are writing is helping the community and FIRST as a whole, there are far worse problems in FIRST than the outcome of the Arizona Regional. I respect your right to freedom of speech but this thread has really gotten out of hand and out of the spirit of FIRST.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Why didn't they just turn the robots around, run auto mode, collide under the truss, rack up a couple hundred points in tech fouls, and play the game as usual?

Also, I'll offer a couple dozen Krispy Kremes and a 24-pack of Dew for a 0-0 tie on Einstein. Any takers?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Can a mod please close this thread before anyone degrades themselves further?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Just wanted to lend my support to 842, the coconuts, plasma ,the gila monsters, the nerds , and the bionic bulldogs . The personal attacks on Fredi, Ms. Kamen, Steve Sanghi and others is uncalled for.

Here in Arizona, the AZFRC has struggled in years in terms of the funding, but great people like Fredi, Steve, all of the Forbes, and countless other volunteers, sponsors, and mentors have helped make the regional a reality.

Steve Sanghi has done more publicly and personally nationwide for robotics than a lot of sponsors have done. Not only does he deserve respect for what he has done, but he also deserves thanks. Even using the words such as "bribe" is disrespectful to the man who has done so much for all of FRC, not just Arizona.

Fredi is an amazing mentor. I've gotten the opportunity to work with him and watch him work with his team and he leads to the best that he possibly can. Alot of you have never been to Carl Hayden Highschool. Meet the kids he mentors, and you will realize that the team he leads is an oasis in the desert. There is no other program in Arizona that has delivered better or more results than his robotics program.

Coconuts+842 alliance was essentially the end of the Arizona regional. 842 had a strong and high quality robot just like in previous years, and the coconuts had a great and consistent robot that was impossible to stop.


congrats to 842, the coconuts, and plasma for the win and congrats as well to the gila monsters, the nerds , and the bionic bulldogs for a great second place.


It was a fun regional AZ teams!

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

We tried that in our first match (AZ QM 02) :)
Nobody joined us. :(
My apologies to The Bulldogs; it was not intentional or malicious, just bad engineering judgement. We had already told the drive team to not try to shoot, and forgot to keep a lid on the robot itsself.

I'll match your Kripsy Kemes with Duncan Donuts.

Anyone want to pile on with Tim Horton's?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

These two things aren't at all contradictory. I have no idea what you're getting at.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Stop. This thread ended. No more please.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Sorry, saw this post while browsing through and it struck a nerve.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Haven't stepped into this one yet but will here....Blue had a bot that was working on 5 out of 6 wheels in F1-2. The wheel was ripped off in F1-1 (while playing defense) and caused the bot to not be able to move very well at all.