2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

With the first alliance selections of 2016 a few matches away, it's time for the CD community to start our annual record keeping.

FIRST has improved the layout and information available on their event results pages, but declines are not tracked and it's nice to have a backup source if FMS data is not available. Use this thread to post the full alliance selection results from each competition, noting the order of invitation and any declines.

Previous years' threads: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

Palmetto Regional
1. 0179 - 4451 - 1369 W
2. 1296 - 3824 - 4533 SF
3. 1758 - 1876 - 4073 QF
4. 2172 - 2252 - 0237 QF
5. 2200 - 0120 - 2386 SF
6. 4547 - 0343 - 2614 F
7. 4823 - 1102 - 2187 QF
8. 2393 - 3490 - 0283 QF

No declines.

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

GTR CENTRAL

3683-4001-5039 W
1511-2609-4951 F
5699-3360-2809 SF
4946-188-4519 SF
772-2852-5589 QF
2706-6009-4069 QF
1325-1310-865 QF
5834-781-854 QF

No declines

"Perfect bracket" Red alliance always advanced.

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

Waterford District Event
1. 67-33-4003 W
2. 2137-1718-245 SF
3. 3655-1023-5048 F (1023 subbed for 5860 before finals -MARS)
4. 3667-201-4779 SF
5. 2075-308-1189 QF
6. 4810-3098-5436 QF
7. 51-6117-1250 QF
8. 5662-3773-3302 QF

No Declines

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

Northern Lights:

1: 2987, 5172, 3267
2: 2501, 2512, 4786
3: 2883, 2502, 5232
4: 3082, 876, 3042
5: 3054, 4397, 5348
6: 6166, 4624, 3132
7: 4656, 3313, 877
8: 930, 5929, 4859

No declines (one "respectful acceptance" though)

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

PNW Auburn Mountainview District
1. 1983 - 3238 - 3786
2. 2046 - 2522 - 5937
3. 4173 - 4450 - 0488
4. 2907 - 4469 - 5588
5. 3663 - 3393 - 3223
6. 2557 - 4131 - 0360
7. 0949 - 1294 - 2906
8. 3787 - 1318 - 5803

no declines

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

San Diego Regional
1. 5805 - 3882 - 3647
2. 3255 - 2485 - 1266
3. 4486 - 4984 - 1388
4. 5209 - 3128 - 3473
5. 3021 - 2102 - 2486
6. 2637 - 2443 - 1572
7. 5199 - 0399 - 2339
8. 1159 - 5137 - 0812

3021 declined 5805, and was ineligible for 3255 who tried to pick them too.
Rookie #1 seed!

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

Lake Superior:

1: 4009, 359, 6175
2: 5690, 2052, 2227
3: 3276, 4539, 5913
4: 3277, 2503, 1816
5: 3750, 3293, 4230
6: 2538, 2823, 4531
7: 2526, 3102, 4607
8: 4054, 2977, 2846

Don't think there were any declines, but I may be corrected on that.

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

You are correct. No declines.

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

1023 broke alliance 3 called in 5860 as their backup

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

FIM Southfield :
1) 3604-3548-1188 (W)
2) 3668-1481-247 (QF)
3) 5843-3538-815 (QF)
4) 548-2960-5901 (SF)
5) 280-1025-3322 (QF)
6) 123-4680-573 (F)
7) 5167-94-3538 (SF)
8) 2832-3175-1701 (QF)

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

Why did 3021 decline? Where they not playing the ranking game during quals? And how did 5805 rank so highly and get defeated by the number 8 alliance? :ahh:

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

It seems like 3021 thought they would do better forming their own alliance, which can happen. It's also part of the meta-game - the game you play in eliminations is slightly different than the game played in quals. A robot good in one may not be good in the other.


I remember an event in 2009 where a rookie seeded #1 the event we were at, and picked 4 other alliance captains, and was declined each time. They didn't last through QF, but had the other effect that those captains couldn't pick each other either. (found it)

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

In fact, this was how 1678 largely won Curie in 2013. They were denied 4 times as #1 seed before 148 accepted (who was 9th). By forcing these robots to decline, they were able to keep 1310 (5th), 2056 (4th), 1717 (6th), and 359 (7th) from potentially pairing up with each other. None of those captains made it out of semifinals.

I don't remember there being too much of a fuss back then, because well... quite frankly, it was a brilliant move. 1678 saw the chance and took it. It helps that 1678 rightfully outplayed all the other alliances.

Re: 2016 Alliance Selection Results
 

We declined because we saw the opportunity to pick teams that work together better. We had worked with both Paradox (4th opr #2102) and coconuts (5th opr #2486) during qualifications. In our last qual. Match we captured the tower with coconuts and knew that we could do it during eliminations. Many mentors and students questioned our strategy but it paid off with a win.
Thanks to teams 2102 and 2486 for not following our example of declining.