Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

I can't say how amazing it was to be paired up with our Buckeye winning alliance again for the eliminations in Newton.

Here's how it went down -
Buckeye - Team 340 7-0 - #1 seed. Selected 67 (#7 seed) and 1126 (#12) seed.

Newton - Team 1126 7-0 - #1 seed. Selected 67 (#5 seed) and 340 (#35)

We figured with such a star studded line up of teams in the division, the 1126, 67 alliance was our only chance at making the eliminations. I was really hoping they wouldn't pick us purely for sentimental reasons.

I'm so proud of our students for maintaining their cool and pulling some awesome driving out. And for building a robot that could lift 322 curled up, with all of their weight on our winch shaft.

Cheering for the same alliance again made it so much sweeter. I am anxiously awaiting the article in the paper tomorrow (340 and 1126 are both Rochester, NY teams). Thanks again to 1126 and 67 for their continued faith in us. Hope to see you at the Finger Lakes Regional next year!

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

will GRR be at the May exabition or at RIT next year?

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

Yes and Yes.

And I talked to a couple of mentors on team 67, trying to convince them to come out to the Finger Lakes Regional next year.

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

I think that this is a major flaw in the divisional listings and should be changed.
Never should the same regional winning alliance all be in the same division.

I don't want to see this happening next year.

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

as i think that it was cool that a winning alliance could share the victory i think they should mix up the divisions a bit more. I think there should be an equal representation from each regional in the divisions as well as an equal number of regional winners

my proposed solution is you take the list of regional winners attending nationals and do the 1,2,3,4 with them and assign them divisions first then go down the rest of the list of teams attending 1,2,3,4 and that will eliminate the possibility of this happening


The only possibility that could happen is if multiple teams compete and win different regionals then there might be a chance of 2 of the teams from a winning alliance together but all 3 teams wont be possible

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

If other teams really didn't want us to work together again, they could've picked 340.

Anyway, it was great working with you guys! Both 340 and 1126 did an awesome job. Hopefully we'll be able to see you guys next year.

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

good job to the team with newton but what happened with that a whole alliance in one division. i think was not right and did anyone at FIRST that made up the list, see what they did. i would not say anything only if 303 got 222, and 237 or 56 in there divsion. i hope this does not happen again. (not to sound mad but that says you can't win because it is set for you.)

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

dispite reading the other posts on this fourm i was happy to see 340 and 67 in our division! they brought us there and we brought them home with another trophy and medal!

if it goes again wiht an alliance together o well it happens... i bet it has happened a few times b4 so whats the diffrence? just b/c we won newton? i dont see it as such of a big deal...

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

I don't think being on the same alliance made any of our team's chances much better. 1126 could've picked a different capper, we couldn't had our own alliance and picked a different hanger. 340 probably would've gotton pick in the second round of selections, if not by 1126 or 67. We wanted to stick together because we had a great time at Buckeye, and, in a way, our teams had become friends. Besides, if you make a rule that you can't have the same 3 teams that won a regional in the same divisions, you'll need other rules. For example, there were two teams on Newton that had won 2 regionals. Is that fair? I don't think FIRST has time to waste making sure the divisions are "fair". By an extreme stroke of luck, not by setting the divisions, we were fortunant enough to alliance with our partners from Buckeye. It was not "set" for us, we were lucky. Like I said before, if the other alliances really cared that much about us not getting the same alliance, they could've chosen 340.

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

Just as the qualifying alliance pairing went better this year (no repeat partners - at least not that I'm aware of), I'm sure the division splits will go better next year. Just as we learn more based on every year's experience, so does FIRST.

In the mean time, I think it makes for a great story.

Re: Buckeye rules Newton (1126, 67, 340)
 

Same thing happend at the Great Lakes Regional but only different results. We hung over top of a robot at the Great Lakes and prevented them from hanging and we won the regional. This time your team got the best of us. Congrats guys.