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

Ok, more so in the game this year, but it seems the first seed alliances who select the second seed are winning every regional. Is it just me or does it seem like this is not really in the spirit of FIRST?

If the two best teams almost always win together, why let them do it every single time? It makes it really hard, or at least overwhelmingly unlikely, for the number 7 or 8 eliminations alliance to win, while one lucky team that gets picked by the number 1 alliance in the second round basically gets a free ticket to worlds?

A perfect example of this is 1114 and 2056 at the waterloo regional. Their elim alliance scored about double that of the seccond best alliance.

Think about that.

1114 and 2056 would have both possibly made the finals each in an alliance by themselves. And the rules allow them to be in the same alliance together.

I think the number one through four seeded teams should not be allowed to pick each other. Thoughts?

See post 22 for the part of the argument I forgot.

(This post in no way represents the views of team 2537 as a whole. It is only an opinion of one of its members)

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

This happens just about every year at many competitions. It goes away at st louis. Many teams deny higher seeds to form their own alliance, actually. The most denials I saw in a row were 3.

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

Upsets can and do happen all the time (and with the playoff system as it is, they seem quite common this year), and anything else leads to sandbagging in quals. The #1 seed has earned the right to play with who they'd like to.

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

If you are the number 1 seed you deserve to have the best chance to win the regional. If the way to victory is choosing to pick the #2 seed i see no problem with that.

It's a perk of being on one of the best teams in the world I guess:yikes:

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

Actually they haven't won EVERY regional. I agree with you, they have won a large proportion of them. However, Dallas had 118 (3-seed, 2nd Alliance Captain) win there. Additionally, at Virginia (where the 1st-seeded 1156 picked 2nd-seeded 1287), the second and third alliances were the two that participated in the finals.

I don't disagree that there are a large number of times where this does occur, but I suspect (just my speculation, I haven't run any numbers) that the difference between one-seeded teams winning this year is not that different from previous years.

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

I don't think anything is different about Recycle Rush compared to previous games in this regard.

Perhaps you could argue that the rankings are more accurate so that the #2 seed is more likely to be the second best robot, although some may disagree.

Telling an alliance captain to pick something other than the best robot available to execute their strategy seems contradictory to the "competition" aspect of FRC.

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

You take out the competition by limiting the picks of the 1-4th seeded alliance. By doing so you make it seem that having a good robot is a problem. They built the robots to be in those seeds they should get to pick who they want.

FRC is a competition after all.

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

That is just one instance of that happening, usually elimination scores are much closer than that. 1114 and 2056 have a history of being in an alliance together at regionals where the two are competing. I do, however, think that your suggestion would make alliance selection more interesting.

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

And if there were such a rule, would it encourage the second best team to dumb it down to fifth place?:eek: There's no need for any rule that encourages teams to play below their abilities.

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

It's a competition...the number one and two seeds earned their spots (moreso in this game due to the ranking system) and have the right to pick whoever they want. If anything, it would probably just encourage sandbagging/throwing matches.

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

If one were interested, it would be unbelievably easy to sandbag this year too, seeing as you can just knock over your own stacks, making the only points that could possibly be scored by non-sandbagging alliance partners coopertition/unprocessed litter/landfill litter. And if you wanted, you could block the coop step pretty easily.

I don't personally think the second best robot at the competition would tank it's performance just to get on an alliance with the number 1 seed. All teams this good I have encountered embrace gracious professionalism and cooperation in full, and I don't think a team this good would unanimously decide to ditch the spirit of FIRST to more likely get on the number one alliance. (Because again, the number one would also fully embrace the spirit of FIRST so no back door deals would be made)

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

Allowed NOT aloud........ (alloud isn't even a word.....)

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

At NVTVR last weekend number one ranked 303 picked number two 2852 as our first pick. We lost in the semi finals. Granted it was in part to our robot having electrical problems and shutting of in the third match, but its not always 1 and 2.

Isn't picking from any of the 5 minus teams still a huge advantage? Plus extra strategic depth would be added to alliance selection.

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

No, this creates what is called a moral hazard essentially. It is when teams purposely do poorly and just well enough to seed exactly where they want to seed to pick who they want to pick.

Why do you personally see it as a problem if the top seeds want to pick each other?

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

Statistics incoming.

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

While it might be more fun for the spectators during elims - it just devalues qualifications too much. Often the gaps from 1-4 are bigger than 5-8 - the team picking first has less of a benefit from picking early, and still receive the same detractor or being at the end of the snake draft.

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

The spirit of FIRST can mean a lot of things. One of them I think is good honest competition and being rewarded for being the best. Penalizing the top 4 or 8 teams for their success would cause a lot of messy unintended consequences no matter how many feel-good terms we use to describe it.

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

Yes.

Regionals/DCMPs should send the best robots they have to represent them at the world championship level.

While the serpentine draft goes against this principle, it does create situations in which the elimination matches are not always a complete blowout.

Teams like 1114 and 2056 didn't just get their 1st/2nd place seeds handed to them on a silver platter. They worked tirelessly throughout the 6 week build season and in the pits as well as on the field to earn their places. They are the 1%, not because they cheat, or because of a fluke, or an unfair advantage, but by honest, self-constructed success.

Tearing them down (or handicapping them) in an attempt to "level the playing field" completely unfair to them and un-GP.

FRC would be massively more fun if we could double the #5-8 alliance's elimination averages rather than half the #1-4's.

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

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it a problem if the top two robots win an event?

It's like saying in the NBA, your pointguard is wayyy too good. You're not allowed to have him anymore, we're gonna give him to a weaker team. Find another pointguard. That defeats the point of a competition...

We have the serpentine draft for a reason. If you assign the robot points in reverse order (say the #1 Seed = 24 points, #2 Seed = 23...etc), and theoretically each team picks the best robot they possibly can:

The #1 Alliance is capable of: 24 + 23 + 1 = 48 points
The #8 Alliance is capable of: 17 + 16 + 15 = 48 points

So they come out to be equal, which is what the serpentine draft does. Obviously that's not the case, as the number one and two robots are often much better than the others, but at places like CMP and IRI, this model plays a much more balancing effect. If we want Waterloo to truly be balanced, might as well tell those top performing teams like 1114 and 2056 to make worse robots - would be unfortunate to lose those feats of engineering though, wouldn't it?

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

Look at it this way:

There are 3 standout teams in a regional. Let's just use A, B, and C. Suppose A is dominating in their qualifying matches. B and C start off the competition the same way and it is a battle for first place. Oh no! B's robot breaks down, they have a bad match, now they are essentially a match behind A and C in the rankings. If A and C continue to perform, they have no chance at the number one seed they wanted.

Time for B to tank some matches. Show that they have potential but make sure that they seed outside of the top 4(or whatever it is) so that now whoever is the number one seed can pick them. Your method does do something for the excitement elims but it would lead to teams throwing away qualifying so that they can still win the regional.


If you want to look into it there was a actually a similar problem several years back with high level badminton. Teams were purposefully losing (quite obviously, a pro team can definitely serve it over the net) because it was actually to their advantage to lose.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/sp...ches.html?_r=0

Silly me.

I forgot my main point (woke up at 5:20 for greater dc reigonal today)

There are about 55 regionals
There are now 600 spots at the championship
There were 400 last year, so 200 extra

Insted of giving them to random teams, give them to the 1 through 4 seeds. 55×4 minus the teams that are in 1 thru 4 that also win the competition is less than the 200 extra spots created by the new format.

They don't win the event, just a guaranteed spot at worlds, which they deserve.

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

At Wisconsin, the #1 seed was declined by at least 3 teams. In the end, the #3 alliance won vs the #6 alliance in the finals.

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

199 Slots are for Pre-Qualified and District teams, so there are 401 spots left at the World Championship.

Currently 330 spots are filled with 6 teams qualifying from each regional

Assuming that the top 4 seeds get an additional automatic bid to the Championship that adds another 220 slots which brings the grand total to:

550/401 slots.

I think there might be a problem...

This does follow the worst possible case but I don't get how the top 4 seeds will qualify and how this will keep the competition competitive through eliminations.

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

Here are some numbers, do with them what you will:

67 total events, no 7 or 8 seed has won an event yet.

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

Yeah, because as we all know, creating the most competitive alliance we can in the First Robotics Competition isn't in the "spirit of FIRST", because last time I checked, the First Robotics Competition definitely isn't a Competition. :rolleyes:

No, there's nothing wrong with this situation you've presented. The first seed has the right to invite anyone they want to join them. There's no logical reason why they should be forced to be less competitive.

"The Spirit of FIRST" is a slippery phrase that people on this forum like to throw around without really ever defining what it means. What exactly is the Spirit of FIRST defined as? If you can find any official definition of this, and point to the section where it addresses alliance selections, I'd love to see it.

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

I will admit, the #1 seed wins a lot this year (just check out Michigan). However, instead of viewing it as the two best teams pairing up and getting an automatic win, use it to your advantage. They earned those spots for a reason. That may be an insane robot, great drive team, awesome human player, or even just good strategic planning. Take notice of what they did, why they did it, and how it is impacting the event. Then try to figure out how to apply that same thing to your team. At least for me, I know I learned more at the events then during the build season. If more teams payed closer attention (not that they don't already) then who knows how much they can improve.

Forgive me if this doesn't make sense, I am running on about three hours of sleep for the third day in a row...

Ok, so don't do any wild card, and only give a ALMOST guarenteed spot to top THREE teams, giving you 495/401 spots.

With no wild card, and many teams qualifying in this category more than once, and the winner of the regional being the one or two seed on average once per regional, (one and two win every other time), you can get down to about 400.

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

What is Almost guaranteed?

So what will happen when more teams are in the districts next year or when more regionals are added. The whole idea of the wildcard system is to have a buffer of teams before the World Championship has hit the maximum number of teams.

You may want to think this idea through a little more.

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

If your two teams managed to place first and second. I would say they both deserve to win. Not just one of them.

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

The wildcard system is the best thing that has happened to FIRST in a very long time. Especially in Canada (As you gave Waterloo for an example). Wildcards are awesome!

I think part of what you are saying is that the 24th pick gets a free ride and that these teams perhaps aren't as deserving as say, the 5th best robot who may not qualify because they are just out of wildcard spot.

Instead I will give you a few examples of teams that have been 3rd picks at Canadian regional and 1325 - Inverse Paradox is a great example.

1325 was a team that wasn't really a top contender for eliminations for many years. They were finalists at GTR W in 2011 as a third pick, but they were largely unselected at events that they attended. In 2013 they were selected by 2056 and 1114 at GTR E and won the event, and then attended world championships for their first ever time. 2014 they significantly stepped up their game fielding a very competitive robot, captaining the 8th seed at GTRE, and being drafted in the other two events that they attended in 2014. While they did not qualify for champs again, they did attend a 26 hour offseason event (WVROX) and came out winners as second pick overall. As some may have noticed in 2015 they captained the 6th seed at GTR C and 2nd seed at GTR E, where they went to the finals with some very close matches against a heavily favored #1 seed, and won the chairman award. Talk about inspiration!

Not to mention the many, many other teams that I have seen inspired by qualifying for champs, that I have seen a huge impact on their students, and their team as a whole. Like 5076, 4914, and 2198 from 2014. Hey, who can forget the rookie 4814 who won as a 3rd with 1114/2056 at GTRW 2013 and went on to captain the number 3 alliance on Curie and take it all the way to the division finals with 3 matches. They had a largely successful 2014 season being knocked out in the semis at Windsor in 3 against the powerhouse 1285/1241 combo. 865 3rd robot at Waterloo 2014 has a very impressive machine this year. 4069 Waterloo 2013, went on to captain the 7th seed at North bay in 2014 and pulled upset after upset and nearly took the finals to a 3rd match. 4001 of 2012 has been fielding better and better robots every year and recently went to the finals at GTC. 3756 Waterloo 2011, has a unbelievable season in 2012, and has been putting out great robots ever since.

There are so many examples, and heck that's just Ontario.

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

Don't bring the top down. Instead, bring the bottom up.

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

I have to say that in the MN NorthStar regional this is especially true. If the stars align - the entire Finalist Alliance could be wildcarded to the Championships. In other words, there could be 9 different teams from North Star that make it to championships. With the RAS, CA, and EI - 3 different teams could make it. If by chance 2826, 3130, and 2220 end up on the same alliance and win it, then the entire Finalist alliance could get wildcarded. Or if the 2826/3130/2220 alliance ends up as finalist - well a horse a piece.

The wildcard makes for a great selection process as well as allowing great teams an outside shot at championships where they can do damage.

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

Your main point is already solved. The solution is called districts.

In districts, your team earns points based on a number of factors, but most heavily on robot performance. You get a lot of points for being high seeded alliance captains or the first picked team. The points you earn are used to both advance to District Championship, as well as for winning open slots to the World Championshp.

At each District Championship, there are a number of open merit-based slots allocated to teams based upon their points, given to teams in descending order of total points. So if you are a #3 alliance captain at one district event, a first pick by the #2 alliance in a second district, and you make decent progress into the playoff bracket at both districts and the District Championship event, you'll likely earn enough points to qualify for an open spot to the World Championship even if you never come home with a blue banner.

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

This is amazing to me.
I thought that in previous years, the #1 seed won close to 90% of events. If anything, I would have thought the QA ranking would give even more power to the #1 seed.

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

A little surprised that 7 and 8 have never won. At one of our districts the #7 seed was a finalist, and at the other the #8 seed was a finalist and won the first match in the finals against #1 seed.

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

I thought we already had a discussion about letting the 8th seed get the first pick?

Anyways, while it is true that #1 picking #2 will win most events, I think at higher levels of play (FIM States, Worlds) we'll see teams pick robots that better suit their playstyle. If a chute door robot seeds 1, their priority would be to pick a RC-focused robot rather than another chute door feeder. If a landfill robot can clear the whole landfill and seeds 1, they won't pick another landfill bot even if they are ranked #2.

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

Several years ago I made the same observations and had the same feelings as the OP. I too questioned the alliance selection process in elims and proposed altering it. What many of us (esp those of us who have only come to FIRST in the past 5 – 10 years) may not know is that there was a time when alliance selection was very different. EricH had some interesting history and I think it bears reposting here.
Am including the link for your reference. Hope this sheds more light and that minds wiser than mine can come up with better answers.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116848&page=3&highlight=alliance+ selection

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

Agreed! The wild card system is allowing for 7 teams to be sent to championships from the VA regional. Team 384 generated 3 spots(winning a chairman's, the regional, and a 2014 Gallileo EI) and sent two members of the finalist alliance to Champs along with the VA EI winner (4481).

It allows for teams to dominate their regionals and not hog championship slots like has happened in the past.

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

Ok, first off, by eliminating the Wildcard, you are saying that playing well in Qualifications (ie seeding high) is more important than actually performing in the Playoffs (ie actually assembling an alliance that plays a strategy and then executing that strategy). You are saying that your chances to qualify for Champs is heavily based on having a favourable schedule, rather than performing in a high-pressure environment. What if a 7th-seed alliance makes it to the finals and gets a wildcard slot?

Also, to expand on Brennan's excellent post above...

The Wildcard is a fantastic and amazing innovation and has completely changed the culture of FIRST in Canada. In the years before the Wildcard (and when there was only 2 regionals in Canada), there was a LOT of toxicity in the community at large towards 1114 and 2056. Being on one of those teams as a student, I experienced the following: boos during Alliance Selections, snide glances every other weekend, offhand yet actually hurtful remarks (your robot was built by mentors), and way more angry posts on Chief Delphi. A lot of this hate came from middle-of-the-pack teams, teams that knew that no matter what they did, they couldn't get to World's because 4 of the 6 qualifying slots from Canada were taken up by two teams.

Then the Wildcard system came in, and there was a change almost overnight. No more boos at Alliance Selections! People were actually cheering during Eliminations! Some prominent posters on CD who were quite anti-1114/2056 suddenly became some of their biggest supporters. Teams actually got way better because suddenly, they didn't have to beat 1114/2056 (an incredibly daunting task), they just had to beat everyone else (still daunting, but way more manageable).

At the aforementioned Waterloo Regional, all six teams that were in the finals qualified for the Championship Event. Before the Wildcard, only four of those teams would have qualified. The Wildcard allows teams that were oh-so-close from actually winning the competition to go to Worlds, to get inspired, to talk to the best teams in the world, and to get the tools and insight they need to become better teams. Hopefully they won't need the Wildcard next year, because they'll be the teams that win.

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

The second letter in FIRST is for Inspiration. It does not make this program more inspiring to handicap #1 and #2 in eliminations. It is inspiring to watch #1 and #2 work together and perform to very high levels, possibly higher than seen before at that tournament. It is even more inspiring, though infrequent, when a lower ranked alliance digs deep and wins against an alliance containing #1 and #2 (i.e. Galileo 2013).

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

Ontarian here: You mean that it's possible for any alliance other than the #1 alliance to win? What a strange concept...

Joking about the unstoppability of 1114/2056 aside, I think things are fine the way they are. I agree with the others that this would just cause pre-planned diving/throwing of matches. For those that say it'd never happen, look back to 2012 when wilful unbalancing of coopertition bridges was a thing. Heck, even this year you hear of people refusing to cooperate in attempts to affect the ratings.

The combination of this year's qualification system and the wildcards made this year feel like the fairest chance a non-elite-but-still-strong team had of qualifying for CMP in forever. If you were a good alliance, you could make it to finals and pick up some wildcards without having to worry about getting steamrollered in quarters or semis because of an unfavourable bracket.

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

Haha on this note, people should check out Greater KC's matches. Everyone there, myself included, at the end of Selections thought that 1730 and 1806 were going to run away with the Blue Banner, but out of seemingly no where (actually just excellent scouting), the #6 Alliance put together teams that could not only keep up with their score, but exceed it during the Finals and take the regional.

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

I agree that it seems unfair, but someone pointed out to me the best rationale for this is your regional doesn't want to send less than the best to Championships...that second seed team may be the second best robot at the regional and if they don't end up at Champs, you'll be represented less well. These teams represent Your regional.

Also I realize that the statistics are way-in favor of the 1-2 seed team winning, but it doesn't always happen. At Greater Kansas City this year, I watch Team Driven 1730 pick SWAT 1806, the second seed and that group (with 1777) seemed to be dominating when they went on to be defeated in the finals by the SIXTH seed. Congratulations to 1785, 1723 and 1710.

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

Every argument here makes me think that the number 1 seed should get the first two picks in alliance selection. They earned it, right?

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

There's no "perfect" alliance selection system. If the goal is to maximize competitiveness, then shallower events constitute the current system's worst performance. If the goal is to incentivize high seeding and send deserving teams away with tickets to St. Louis, I personally think the system works extremely well. It rarely makes the #1 alliance far too powerful, but does gives it an earned advantage. It isn't overly punitive of lower seeded alliances either; good scouting and a well played alliance selection can combat low seeding very effectively.

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

Here's some numbers for past years (excluding the Championship divisions)

This year really just returns the #1 seed's winning % back what to what it was in previous years. Last year was an anomaly with a very low win % for the top seeds. This game doesn't approach the historic high of 1's seed dominance during Logomotion.

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

:deadhorse:

Isn't that old nag well and truly beaten to death by now? :)

-----------

Has someone analyzed how often 1-2 seed alliances have prevailed in 2015 finals, to date?

Anecdotal experience of my own team: we have had the opportunity to make the first pick (#1 AC) twice in our history, and it has resulted in blue banners both times. We did not pick the #2 seed either time, although they were definitely worthy competitors. Instead we picked partners that better complemented our team's capabilities (read: helped overcome our team's deficiencies). In both cases the partners we picked proved to be stronger competitors than we were, later in the season.

I think #1 seeds should continue to have the option to pick #2 seeds, but I don't think this is always the best pick to make, given the serpentine draft order.

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

I would never say that being rewarded for hard work isn't in the spirit of First. I take First as preparing students, like myself, for industry. If everyone received the same reward for the effort they put in...well our industry would suck. This is a competition, where people do compete. If your team did not preform well enough to claim a top seed spot, then go back and re evaluate what you have to do to place higher if that is what your program wants( there are many programs who do not value winning and that is fine too). Many of the top team will lend a ton of experience, advice, and help to you; you just have to ask. I know our team is always willing to help as many people as we can because we have been on the receiving end for awhile. Yes, it sucks to not seed first and feel like the top seeds are just dominating but as others have pointed out, its not very different from what it used to be.

You see a lot of the number #1 alliances winning this year do to the large differentiation in quality and performance. I have attended events where our OPR was almost triple that of the next best team, a huge gap that might make other teams mad at you. I see it a lot and powerhouse teams (teams like 1114) have experienced it at some point I'm sure of. We make an effort to talk and help other teams, more so this year than ever with the large amount of rookie teams we have in Michigan. This has bridged unfriendly gaps with teams there and made the atmosphere a TON better.

(This might not be a response you were looking for, just personal experience and my opinion on it.)
-Ronnie

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

The top 4 teams at an event are not always the best. Since the rankings are based partially on who you get paired with through the qualification rounds there is a bit of luck involved.

The Virginia Regional was won by an alliance with a combined Qualification ranking of 71.

Disclaimer: The top 2 teams at VARI paired up and were a very good alliance and did not end up ranked there because of luck.

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

People have talked a lot about giving the #1 seed the first and ninth picks. I'm talking about the first and second.

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

We were denied 4 times on Curie in 2013. We won the division with 148 as our first pick (and 862 as our second). Ironically we had gotten to Champs by turning down another team at CVR and forming our own alliance in the #6 slot.

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

As I've pointed out elsewhere (see 1114 Statistical Outlier) this year is particularly skewed with just a few teams way ahead of the rest of the field. In fact the data shows this is the most skewed year in which we have data (since 2008). This is arising from the game design. The top teams are acting as we would expect them to do so given the situation. The solution is in making sure future games don't lead to such skewness.

The draft order has been debated every year. The important factor is to remember that other proposals can lead to teams trying to lose games to move around in the draft order. The current system rewards teams for finishing first and discourages weird disincentives.

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

Agreed

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

this would have solved nothing at PNW Auburn Mountainveiw and PNW Mount vernon. at both of them the combined might of 1318 and 1983 won (once over my team's alliance :()... neither time was 1318 ranked second, and 1983 was first both times.

Oftentimes with a higher level of competition, it is the 4-6 seeds that have the advantage, getting 3 pretty good robots instead of 2 great ones and then whatever's left.

also, oftentimes the 1 and 2 seed will be incompatible if they both do feeder or both do landfill, or if neither have canburglars because of the limit on points

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

Sacramento also is sending 7 teams. Fortunately 1671 which seeded 2nd and has a great robot qualified through Chairman's although they got knocked out by a small margin in the semis. There were 3 wildcards in the final, and another generated by our Rookie All Star 5458. In fact, 701 got its 2ND wildcard bid after making finals at CVR and benefiting from 254's wildcard.

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

My only issue with this is the #1 alliance choosing a third robot, and that robot being told not to participate. I understand that they are giving another team a strong chance to go to St. Louis, but IMO it is not within gracious professionalism to choose a team and then tell them to not touch the driver's station.

Saw this in three regionals thus far this year where a random team was chosen, for in some cases great reasons that do not involve the actual robot, to then see that robot get parked off to the side while robots 1 and 2 win the tournament.

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

Don't assume that they were told to do nothing. Just because they sat there doesn't mean that decision was single sided. It is very likely the idea came up and that team agreed to it.

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

At the Arizona East Regional the second alliance actually ended up winning the regional. It was my first time seeing that. :)

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

not if you can make a late pick alliance that works strong as a team; usually 2 stackers and a capper/RC grabber... the QA thing just means that the ranking more reflect the ability of the robot to score by itself, and doesnt allow for too much carrying by getting with good teams

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

There is something that bugs me in this discussion each time it comes up; when people say "Don't bring the top down, bring the bottom up." In this situation those two things are exactly the same. This is a zero sum game, when the bottom alliances have a higher chance of winning the top alliances have a lower chance of winning. So the real question should be, how likely should the top alliances be to win, and how likely should the bottom alliances be to win?
However, the best changes can be ones that don't affect the win rate. I think the new wild card rules this year are great and help more deserving teams qualify for Champs without skewing the win rate at regionals too far either direction.

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

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but that's not what "zero sum game" means. In a zero sum game, every point gained comes at the expense of someone else. With Recycle Rush, we're talking about a game where cooperation is explicitly able to conjure points out of thin air and award them to everyone involved.

Bringing the top down limits the total number of points scored. Raising the bottom boosts the total points without artificially inflating scores. Neither of them is a redistribution of a fixed amount of scoring wealth.

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

He's talking about the regional win rate - if through some rule change, the #1 alliance started winning 45% of the time, it means the other alliances would gain. There's only 1 regional champion at each event.

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

If you don't allow the number 1 team to pick who they want, what is the point of being number 1?

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

I can just barely read his note that way. Thanks for the explanation.

Wildcards mean that's not the whole story. I think they do a good job of addressing the potential for one unusually dominant alliance to shut out everyone else.

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

After the Sac Regional it started dawning on me that they should probably revise the wild card to bring it into the semis. Sac could've sent 9 more teams to Champs, but with previous wins and wild cards, only 4 more teams were qualified, even with those wild cards! 5 spots gone. If 1671 didn't win chairman's, it would've been a huge bummer, that robot is so unique and so competitive.

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

For the record, the 7 seed at FLR right now is putting up a huge fight in finals. One more match but they could take the regional from the 1 seed.

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

4039 from Hamilton, ON captained the winning #7 alliance, and took the RCA.

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

If the solution to this problem really is districts, should first switch over to them faster?

(They might actually be. At the greater DC regional today, they had a meeting about switching to districts. I assume this means the "Greater DC Area" will or possibly will switch next year)

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

My understanding is that the process has been started in several different areas . Making the change is a pretty involved process, since the number of events in an area usually at least doubles, so a lot more volunteers are needed. Minnesota is one place where it seems like they have the teams to do it, but I have heard several times that they don't think they have enough volunteers yet to make the jump. One thing that might help speed up the adoption of districts is the success of Indiana this season, with only 49 teams. If it's considered to work well at a smaller scale than the other current districts, we might see a few more districts of that size to pop up fairly quickly.

I don't think the number one should be allowed to pick the number two. I feel like it gives them a rather unfair advantage. If you put the two toughest teams together, they're pretty much guaranteed to win. Sure, they earned their spot in the rankings, but if you predetermine the winners, then what's the point of having elimination matches to begin with? Where's the fun and fairness in that?

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

The fairness is built into our rules and schedule -- it starts at Kickoff every year.

The fun is in playing by those rules and seeing who wins.

If the #1 alliance wins most of the time, that makes it even more exciting when a #7 alliance pulls out the win, like at FLR this weekend. :D

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

I haven't read the whole thread, but in 2013, in the Northern lights regional, there were 5 turn downs for the number one alliance. I know this isn't exactly a representation of worlds, but my point is still valid; sometimes you simply need to build your own alliance.

[Edit] After reading the thread: I want to piggyback off of what another mentor on 876 said:
Key phrase in this post (as I see): messy unintended consequences, and as it was brought up in a previous post:
If anything allowing 1 to pick 2 and so on is good for FRC. With wildcards implemented good teams with amazing robots can do their thing, not being thrown off of their game by being handicapped for their success, not feeling lash back because they are good. Besides a team can only hold one spot to worlds anyway, if they win again it gets passed on to another team. And while it sucks to lose in the finals, if the winning alliance members already hold spots the playing field is leveled. Even if you are not walking away from a regional/district with a blue banner you are still walking out of there with a ticket for worlds. Is that so bad?
If you a "middle" team this still plays in your favor, there are eight second pick spots per event any one of which could get you into the finals for a win. Then there are several wildcards. Why wouldn't you try hard in more than one aspect of the competition? There are so many ways to win that you can't just get hung up on one.

-Skye

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

The number one seed picking the number two seed was very common several years ago. Having that first pick is a reward all teams should strive for, and should not be limited in any way.

Before this year, the games we played for the last few years have trended for an alliance made up of robots with some different capabilities and strategies to be a strong alliance. This year being an all offense game, it’s a tall order to beat the two best teams when they are together on the same alliance. Limiting who the number one seed (or any seed) can pick, in any way, will cause problems.

With the current point system the way it is (and it's pretty good to start with), there is very little reason why (like one point) the number two seed would not accept the invite from the number one seed.

If there is going to be a change, you need to offer the other top seed alliance captain’s a reason to decline a higher seeded team invite. The only idea I currently have is to give the alliance captain’s, something like 2 or 3 points, each time their alliance advances in the playoff/elimination round. This idea is going to add a few more points to the maximum points available, but in my opinion, advancing alliance captains will have earned them and it just might mix up the alliance selection picks a little. Declining a higher alliance captain is not a bad thing; it only means the declining team wants to form their own alliance. This idea should make more teams willing to give it a try to be an alliance captain, because of the additional points possible.

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)

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.