Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

I'm assuming that you are using "you" to refer to me, since you responded directly to my post.

The number one seed at the event is literally the most "qualified" team at the event to be the number one seed. They earned their way into that seed by earning more qualifying points than any other team at the event.

What I think you are asking is something like "if you do not believe that the first seed is the best team at the event, would you accept them?"
My answer is that it depends, if I am a captain and I think there is a good chance my team will later in the draft have an opportunity to select a better team than the first seed, then of course I would have us decline. For example, if we are the fourth seed, and according to our data the first seed is the 7th best team at the event, then of course I would have us decline, because even if the first 3 alliances contain 6 of our top 7 teams (which never happens), the worst case for us is that we end up with the 6th best team.

I see that you are from Michigan, which implies that you have had much experience with the district system. While 12 matches per team at 40 team events might generally, in your experience, cause the best team at an event to be seeded first, 10 or less matches per team at a 60+ team event, in my experince, does not generally cause the best team to be seeded first. Of the last 4 regionals I have attended, only at 2 could an argument even have been made that the first seed was the best team at the event. Even in those two cases, it was pretty up in the air between 2-3 teams.

I personally would rather give my team the best possible chance to qualify for the championship event. Generally, I believe that this means playing with the best teams available, regardless of their seeds. I think teams that expend any effort trying to get on the "easier" side of the bracket are wasting their time. However, there are instances in which I might consider trying to end up on the opposite side of the bracket (e.g. at an event with both 1114 and 2056 in attendance).

I just mentioned this point in my previous post to qualify my statement that "there is no good reason to accept their invitation," like I said, I don't generally believe in trying to get on the "easier" side of the bracket.

No argument from me here. :)

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

I can offer a different viewpoint on this subject. However, before I do I must stress that in a venue such as a regional that boasts 60-65 participating teams the advantage of being the #1 Captain lessens considerably over regionals that have 40-50 teams.

**Note - I have not done any research, this is only conjecture!

In the case of MPLS North Star there are usually between 60-65 teams. Of these teams, there are clearly 5-8 very dominant teams that have competed throughout the qualifications. These teams have established themselves in a large field of players. If the top 8-12 teams did not do their necessary scouting, their 2nd pick could spell out their demise.

Since our inception in 2012 (first time competing in 2013), we were concerned with the #3 and #4 alliances. If the captains of these alliances had a strong scoring robot, they would be able to pick from the field 2 more versatile robots than the #2 or #1 alliances could. In 2014 that would prove this out.

As it turned out in our first season, the initial #1 captain/alliance 3928 chose #2 2574. The initial #3 967 chose initial #4 2175. When it came back around, we were ranked #20 and were chosen by the #2 alliance of 967 and 2175. We beat the #1 alliance in the finals (partly due to 3928's pick-up failing). Last season, we started slow with a 0-2-1 record and then did not lose again as we entered into the elims. Again we were picked by 967 and 2175 (we were punching our tickets to St Louis at this time); - but our #1 alliance was eliminated by the #4 alliance.

However, the #4 alliance picked a team in their second choice that wasn't even around... so they panicked. That opened the door for the #5 alliance to choose a better team in 3042 - and sealed our fate.

For two years in a row, the North Star Champion did not include the #1 qualification team. I think that in large part this is due to the large field. If it was a smaller field that had fewer great teams it could have ended differently.

I truly believe in the serpentine draft as it awards the #1 alliance their just reward. However, the #1 alliance captain needs to do their due diligence in scouting. The Champions of the North Star in 2013 can thank a bad performance by the #1 alliance - and the same thing can be said in 2014 when 2 of the robots failed in the same match paving the way for the eventual champions.

I see no reason to go away from the serpentine draft - it is only an impetus to grow the sport more in the regional.

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

auction draft....

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

Interesting, I've found the exact opposite thing to occur. In smaller events (like Districts), the only picks left at the end of the draft are often extremely poor while a strong lower seed can get 3 competent robots.

To look into this a bit more I modified Brian's spreadsheet to compare District events to Regional events. At Districts the 1st seed won 40% of the time, compared to 56.45% at Regionals. The 6th, 7th and 8th seeds won a combined 12.5% of District events, but only 4.84% of Regionals.

Even more interesting, a District 1st seed that makes it to the finals only wins 64% of the time, while a Regional 1st seeded alliance wins 77.78% of the time.


It doesn't seem like I can add an attachment to this post (I guess because it's a paper?), so pm me if you want the modified spreadsheet. Here are photos of it though: Regionals Districts

EDIT: The Region Championships are classified as Regionals in my spreadsheet

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

Can you elaborate on this? It looks like you're saying the #1 alliance deserves to get the last pick after the rest of the alliances have chosen their partners (ignoring the existence of fourth robots). I would consider that more of a penalty than a reward.

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that at WVROX, three of the top four alliances lost in quarterfinals, and that there were 24 teams, on a serpentine draft. In my experience, there is usually a significant dropoff in robot quality somewhere on the back end of the serpentine draft (though this also depends on scouting abilities, more on that later), and at small events, this can spell disaster for top alliances.

On the flipside, consider the championships, with almost a hundred teams in a division, where really good teams like 971, 973, 16, 610, 1640, and 177 get picked up on the backswing of the draft (these in particular have a lot to do with scouting flukes, but good picks have been made on the back end before).

I have come to realize that for the best alliances to form, events need a) a good number of matches (to insure the best teams reach the top) and b) a good number of teams (to allow good second or third picks to form). Unfortunately, these two variables limit each other, so often events have to pick one over the other. WVROX went wrong in this respect in having only 24 teams with how ever many matches. Champs 2013 went wrong with this when they had 100 teams and only 8 matches. With the constraints in mind, the easiest way to optimize the alliances according to their rank would be to change the draft order depending on the event size.

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

Sorry, my mistake was in my choice of words. The larger the regional, the better for the 1st seed. The smaller the field, the less benefit for the #1 team.

@Alan Anderson - No, my meaning was that the 1st seed had proven it was capable of winning throughout the quals - no matter the make-up of either alliance. So the #1 Seed is deserving of choosing the best fit for their first pick. The larger the field, the better for the #1 seed.

I hope this clears it up! I really like the serpentine draft as it rewards the best performing teams a great first pick - but allows for a balance over the draft altogether!

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

It wasn't our pick-up that failed, it was our pneumatic system that became disconnected :P

From participating in 2013 Ultimate Ascent at KC and North Star, the main reason we picked how we did was that our partners fit in with our strategy.
The other thing that's special about Minnesota that I think doesn't help things very much is the fact that they have more FRC teams than hockey teams (but many teams -- although NOT ALL -- lack the support needed to have successful/quality teams/robots - mentors, resources, and knowledge - to not be overwhelmed). I know our mentors were helping a team put a kit bot together in their pit on Thursday. If anything, states that want to follow their lead should start building out their FTC programs like Iowa.

Overall, Minnesota is just an interesting state to look at as far as teams/regionals go. Don't they have like the most regionals in a state than any other state?

Re: paper: Alliance Seeds and Results
 

Texas also has 4, with far fewer teams. California has 7, also more per team than MN. Ontario has 5, with fewer teams than any of those 3 states.

We are packing our events to the brim (two at 60, two at 63). Those other states (provinces) can get away with event attendance as low as 30 or 40, and offer more 2nd plays than we can, both of which I feel make a much better experience for all teams. That along with the number of overwhelmed teams, we are definitely behind the curve ...