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

So you are telling me that a team who spent 6 weeks working their butts off to build possibly the best robot in their team's history, who then strategized and did their very best thoughout quals to earn the number 1 seed, should not be allowed every opportunity to win the event just so the spectators have a marginally more exciting elims to watch, and the othe teams whose robots arent quite as good can have a "more fair" chance at winning?

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

This. You are exactly on point.
I'm still not sure how exactly the current picking structure doesn't fit the ideas of FIRST. Someone tell me specifically what ideals the current picking structure is breaking.

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

I think this way for alliance picking is the most fair for any team. If the alliance captians aren't allowed to pick other teams in top 8, i think the 9th spot will be better to be in than the 8th spot. And mabye teams are going to lose there last QUAL to avoid spot 8.

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

The pick order is fair right now. Serpentine picking is a good way to even out the odds. The first seed may not always be the best off. They usually pick the second alliance but being in first also takes away many of their selections for their second pick. I can understand why you would be a little upset and I understand why you would think it is unfair. But all in all the first seed alliance has worked their way into first and should be allowed to pick whomever they want as an alliance partner.

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

So I see people saying 2nd picks get carried and laugh. Go study up on 2014 Peachtree elims. We were ranked 14th then the 1-8 consolidated until we were 8th. We the proceeded to pick ranks 22 and 18 and beat the 1st seeded alliance in two matches. Also we (4080) were the in bounder and couldn't shoot. Thank you 4749 and 4026!

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

Wait... You're saying that the two teams that performed better than everyone else during the competition aren't allowed to be rewarded, just so every team that didn't perform as well as them could be given the same chance of winning?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

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

The current picking structure rewards strategic thinking and having a good robot. It also gives robots with a lower qualification average a chance to get on the wining alliance, especially if they fill a strategic niche. The way alliance selection loops back around gives a bit of balance. This seems like a nice balance of rewarding teams with high QA but also giving other bots a chance.

The reason waterloo in particular is often such a 1st+2nd seed lockout is because of how incredibly good the best two bots are. Waterloo is an extreme example; dallas regional has a lot of amazing teams, but even there 1st+2nd seed lost to 3rd+11th seed.

On average, 1st alliance is probably the most common winner, and most likely 2nd seed is the most common 1st pick. However, waterloo is not the rule. My team won greater DC this year picking the 9th seeded robot as 1st pick (623). Our 2nd pick (4541) was picked for doing a fantastic job filling a strategic niche, canburglarizing. In the finals we didn't face the 2nd alliance, but the 8th alliance. It seems arbitrary to punish the 2nd seeded team. Sometimes the 2nd seeded team only is there by a narrow margin, or maybe had better alliances in qualifications. Throwing games would definitely happen.
:deadhorse:

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

The 2014 Peachtree elims were a cluster of ....things I'd rather not say in public, but "orderly" is not one of those words. If you want to see what others refer to as "2nd picks along for the ride", and you still want to use Peachtree as an example, check out the 2011 Peachtree elims...

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

I'm saying it's not a rule, and assuming that a 2nd pick is automatically that much less valuable is irresponsible. For instance some people have suggested in other threads that captains, first picks, and second picks be split up and go to different championship events so the main one is "better to watch".

Also note the 2013 peachtree regional had some good 1st and second picks for lower seeded alliances that went on to beat the higher seeds.

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

NE Champs #1 (1519) chose #2 (195). In my book, 195 WAS the better team. They were more consistent in the matches, but luck of the algorithm teamed them with teams that didn't pull their own. I stand by what I saw & think 195 could possibly go all the way. You do need 1 team that pulls from behind the drivers' station & 1 from the landfill. The 3rd can either top them off or be the one that is a great can-burgler.

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

You can't handicap the 4 highest seeded teams simply for being the highest seeds.

If you really wanted to prevent alliance captains from picking other alliance captains, you would need to expand that mindset and apply it to all 8 alliance captains. That's still not ideal as it pretty much throws out the idea of doing well in qualification matches if every team in the elimination matches were given an equal chance to win an event.

The #1 Alliance is hypothetically the best alliance of the event and thus should be favored to win it all. That's the entire idea of seeding.