Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Its only fair I suppose. I mean at the Central Valley Regional, Number one seed 1678 picked number two seed 254 yet it was a pretty close game against 701 and 1662. All in all it's either teams game.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

So are we supposed to punish success? If you're number 1 seed, you should have first pick, whoever that may be.

Most teams pick based on who will work well with them, and who fits their abilities. If that means that that team is already in the top 8, why should that matter? Two examples from this year:

At Pittsburgh, the #6 alliance won, consisting of 16th and 32nd seed teams. We were 3rd, got picked by 2nd seed, and lost in the quarters. #1 seed picked #2 seed and lost.

We were 4th at SMR and got picked by 1st seed, and came within a half a point of losing in the quarters. We did eventually win the event, but by a small margin.

I.e. It's not as "guaranteed" as you may think. I don't see what is unfair about the best two teams winning the event. Especially this year, it seems that the best teams really do end up on top, with much fewer exceptions than previous years.

In my experience, most teams don't pick based on ranking. They pick based on who they know will compliment the alliance. And many times, that just happens to be the 2nd place team. I really don't see how that is "unfair." Just because there is an opportunity for the best two teams to win the event, whether we like it or not, doesn't mean it "isn't in the spirit of FIRST."

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Exactly. I've also seen the #1 seed get declined many times in a row. At Wisconsin this year, I was the first captain of three to decline the first seed. If the #2 seed thinks they will do well with the #1 seed, they will accept. If the #2 seed thinks they'd do better without the #1, then they say no. This system is simple, and it is fair to the high-tier teams that have worked hard to make it to the top of their event.

The competitive nature of FRC is parallel with the many opportunities given to second-tier teams to reach the championship level. Instead of eliminating opportunities for strong teams to go to championships, I'd actually like to thank FIRST for making a more generous wildcard system, which helps bring in more strong teams that don't necessarily get the opportunity to show their strength on a powerhouse 1-2 alliance. Team 2338 and 1756 were the #1 and #2 seeds at Midwest, and although we didn't win, we did well and our whole alliance is still going to champs. Just because a couple of powerhouses at a couple of events always end up together and always win at certain events doesn't mean every other high-seeding team should lose their opportunity to make a strong alliance.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

We have also seen where teams will purposely lose matches to stay out of the top 8 specifically for picking reasons. It's rare, but it happens. And if we make it so that top seeded teams cannot pick within the top 8, what is stopping 2056 from losing their last couple matches (I know, not in this year's game) to get out of the top 8 so that 1114 can pick them? You and I both know that this will become very common and it's inevitable.

There is ALWAYS a loophole around these kinds of things. And simply punishing the teams for being successful will not solve anything. They will find ways to get the teams they want.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Just for the sake of discussion, how would you know that a team purposely lost a match?

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Because I've seen it discussed a few times over the years. Don't ask me to recite exactly by who and where I heard it, but I know I've heard of it happening from the teams that did so.

But my point here is that if we say that 1 can't pick 2, does anybody really believe that teams won't find a way around it?

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

That's the thing - throwing around hearsay isn't productive.

I agree with your other points.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm100

Blue got boosted higher in the rankings than Red for this match...

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

But that's a unique example, the 2010 ranking system encouraged 6v0 in certain situations.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Interesting, thanks for the link. Strange rules definitely create a need for unconventional strategies.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Defiantly a different situation than the one being discussed, but the results are the same. If loosing a match increases your chances of winning an event (ranking higher/being available to be picked), teams will do it. I also want to point out that nothing 1114 did in this match was illegal, unGP or even frowned upon by the majority of the community. I personally applaud them for using the unique rule set to their advantage

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

Just do a search for "throwing matches" or "losing on purpose." It has at least been talked about many many times. Unfortunately, outside of the whole 2010 6v0 fiasco, there is not much of a way to retroactively "prove" whether things were intentional or not.

But it would be foolish to assume that it has never happened, or will never happen. And given this hypothetical change of not allowing to pick within the top 8, it would be foolish to assume that nobody will ever skew the rankings on purpose to get the alliance that they want.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

I ran a VEX event many years ago where picking from the top 8 was not allowed. One team threw two matches to be #9. When a prior top team comes and scores 4 points in a match you know something is going on. I found out because I asked them what they were doing. They told me the truth and from that point I've refused to run events where the No Top 8 was the rule.

A few people have said it, they earned the right to pick.

I also like the "can't decline unless you are in the top 8" rule. Same reason, you earned your way to the top. And I've seen 10th seeded teams decline on their theory that higher teams would get picked and they would become the 8th seed captain.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

I think that if a team competes and has the best robot, of course they can pick whoever they want! FIRST is still, in fact, a competitive activity.

Re: Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?
 

I was talking about this the other day with some of my teammates and we had mixed views. Eventually we came up with a compromise. We thought it would be reasonable and make the competition fit the ideals of FIRST if the top 4 seed captains were not able to pick any of the other teams in the top 4 spots. That being said they could still pick the 5,6,7,or 8th seed teams.

Im not saying that the current way of picking alliances should be changed but this is just a thought we had :)


(and I can see why the way of picking teams shouldn't be changed)