Could alliance picks go this way
 

Have an inquiry and didn't find a rule to go by.
Basic question, can a team pick another alliance captain on the way back down?
So team 1 picks 2, 3 now 2 picks 7, yada yada to 8 then back down 3 now two picks 44 THEN 1 invites 3 now 2. 3 now 2 has not been invited by another, so has not refused any invite, can they accept? The further quandary, if yes, do all alliance captains move up 1 position, leaving their picks behind?

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

This is kind of hard to follow, but no, once someone is an alliance captain they can't be selected by another team.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

More clarification, once a team is an alliance captain and has declined or had another team accept, they cannot be picked by another team.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Specifically in section 5.4.1 ALLIANCE Selection Process
So you are not allowed to pick teams seeded above you. So the 2 alliance captain cannot pick the 1 seed. (1 alliance captain). So on

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I saw that but, in my concern, the number 1 seed has picked only lower seeded teams and none have been invited by another (nor could they be). Basically they picked #2 first then as the 16th overall pick, picks the new #2 team captain.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

What the OP is getting at is that the rules don't specifically say that alliance captains are not eligible to be picked.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Interesting point. The rules don't seem to actually cover it. Implied is once you are part of an Alliance (completion of the 1st round), you cannot leave your alliance to join another one. It is not specifically stated in the rules.

Another conundrum is the rules don't explicitly say you cannot accept multiple invitations to be a member of an alliance. IE the rules only says you ineligible to accept an invitation if you have declined one.

Maybe ask Q&A about this next year. Realistically though your head referee's word is final. You are not going to get a lot of time (if any) to discuss it. :)

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

The rules don't look to cover it, and as to your point and mine earlier, imagine the multiple concerns it can create. Perhaps one can point to Gracious Professionalism, however professionals jump ship for improvement of team or challenge regularly. The rules don't look to cover it, and as to your point and mine earlier, imagine the multiple concerns it can create. Perhaps one can point to Gracious Professionalism, however professionals jump ship for improvement of team or challenge regularly.
While I appreciate the head ref decision, I think this need be answered by actual rule rather than a time pressured individual.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Interestingly, the FTC rules cover this scenario very explicitly and clearly (and would work even with the serpentine selection rules of FRC):

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I like this because it also clarifies if they can be a back-up team. I had to do a rule check at AZ West because a team declined but I wasn't sure if they were still eligible.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Same thing happened to 5188 at the NC Guilford District. Luckily Aiden was there personally to bring up the relevant rule.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Even though there is no explicit rule on it, the way I understand this question does not make logical sense. For this to occur, the team #1 in question would be trying to pick away the captain of an already completed alliance, due to how pick order works.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

When people talk about "lawyering the rules," discussions like this is what they're referring to. Every FRC veteran understands the alliance selection process. Why are FRC veterans now trying to find a way to break it?

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

This shouldn't surprise you. In FIRST, with regard to the game, there are no unwritten rules. Just rules/strategies/lack of rules that people wish they thought to exploit first.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

It's the offseason. They don't have anything better to do. :p

\s

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Sure they do.

There's all KINDS of "standard CD arguments" to restart, for one thing. There's also robots to tune for offseason events. Can't forget planning what they aren't going to get done this summer (AKA, "summer project").

And that's just on the robot side; I'm ignoring the rest of life here!

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

What would happen if everyone at a tournament declined a pick from the number one seed? It would never happen because people outside the top 8 would want to make sure they play in playoffs but if all the teams decline then no alliances can be formed. Who would qualify for worlds? No one?

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

If everyone at a tournament declined a pick from the number one seed, I rather suspect that someone would be on the phone to HQ as soon as they figured out that they wouldn't have enough non-declining teams to form alliances for further guidance.

And I'd rather suspect that the guidance would indicate to run selections again... probably with some announcement about how you need a full set of teams...

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I saw a comment on CD that at a 24 or 25 team event this year (I believe it was a NC district, I don't remember what event) that the first seed alliance would go with only two robots if that was the case. Extrapolating (which to some people is a bad word) that logic, there would be 8 single robot robot alliances since every team declined before the second seed was able to make their first pick.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

That reminds me, off to go talk about 254 being mentor built in a poorly grammared post... :P

In any case this (picking teams that have already been picked) is an interesting conundrum. I'm surprised it's taken this long to think of at all. However I would argue that this is an actual situation where a team would be non-GP (for once), as you would be poaching teams from other alliances.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I have seen it happen, most likely unintentionally. It never gets past the announcer saying that they are already picked and you can't have them. One way or the other I don't see GP entering into this.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I would consider alliance captains to have been "invited" by the ranking system and thus be unavailable to be picked again. This interpretation works with the option of a potential alliance captain to "decline" the opportunity and choose not to participate in the playoffs.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

A team doing it intentionally would be non-GP is my point. Has a team ever tried to override the announcer? :P
"1678 has already been-"
"lol don't care"

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I don't have my lawyer on retainer until January, so I had to ask Common Sense.


Common Sense slapped me in the back of the head and said, "Stay off CD."

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I was actually there, it was the UNC Asheville District. There were 24 teams present. At the team representative meeting, the head ref said the rules indicated that if a team for some reason could not play eliminations, the #1 seed would play with 2 robots instead of the usual 3, and that there would be no backup robots. Thankfully, all 24 teams were available to play, and I actually enjoyed watching Elims, but the logic above seems to be what would happen. 1 broken bot = no captures for the rest of the event for that alliance. (Even if only 2 bots are formally on the alliance, 2 < 3.)

In the end, though, this is purely theoretical. No reasonable team below 15th position would decline an invitation to an alliance should they want to play in elims, as fun as theorizing about such a situation would be.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

I remember a situation where the #2 seed was "lucky" during qualifications to be on strong alliances.

I can envision where #2 selected #3-#8, and they all declined. #3 then goes to team NNNN, who accepts (otherwise they are out of the playoffs). Let's say that #3 also wanted NNNN. #3 could select NNNN (NNNN had not yet declined), and NNNN would rather play with #3 because #2 is not so good.

Finding loopholes in the rules is not against "gracious professionalism". GP is fiercely competing while treating others with "respect and kindness". NNNN going to the #3 alliance is "fierce competition". It is no more "disrespectful" or "unkind" to Seed #2 than Seeds #3-#8 declining, and what team XXXX feels when they are not selected by anyone.

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

But such a system would necessitate having a 4th or even 5th round of picks, and it would effectively allow the #1 seed to get seeds #2 and 3 on their team, which would make for a very one-sided (albeit exciting) eliminations rounds.
Which leads to an interesting example: let's take your example a step further and make #1 choose #3 as well as their first pick. Who is now captain of the #3 alliance if #3 accepts? Is it the #4 seed or team NNNN?

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

How does this effect district points? NNNN would get the same amount either way but would the second pick of the #3 alliance go from 3 points to 14 points?

Re: Could alliance picks go this way
 

Actually I only waited until the off season.
The question came to me at 2AM Sat. morning after the end of qualifying rounds on Hopper. I awoke from a dream of our team/alliance winning Einstein and set to recall how. In my dream I recalled a bit of the alliance capabilities and realized the other robots. Then looked at selection strategy the teams I saw us with were both higher seeds. I knew we ranked at nine but would move to seven captain, trapping us (given my understanding of the un-written rules) from playing with the teams to which I saw us best suited for success. Then read the rules and didn’t see what I thought I may.
So while my dream alliance did not come to be, I was left to wonder if it could have.