Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

who are these teams you speak of?
mike d

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Let me begin my response by letting you know that this is not meant to sound mean or harsh in any way. I know it can probably be read in more than one way, but I did not intend for it to sound as if it has a nasty or critical tone.

Your complaint of veteran teams picking other veteran teams doesn't seem completely legitimate to me. Every team has to work their way to the top. If a team, veteran or otherwise, is a top 8 seed, they have earned themselved the right to choose their alliance partners. It is their choice, and they reserve the right to choose who they want as their alliance partners, whether it is based on the merit of the team, or just a friendship. Usually, teams in the top 8 have come up with a strategy and choose other robots which complement their abilities to form a strong alliance, and are consistently effective and sturdy. Often, veteran teams may fit the bill. If you are a top 8 team and you would make the strongest alliance with a veteran team, is it not fair for you to select them as your partners, having earned this right?

Furthermore, veteran teams do not always pick each other. I can speak even just from my team's experience. Team 1124 has been around for six seasons of competition, 2003-2008. We seeded fairly high and were selected by veteran teams to be in the eliminations, both in our rookie year and our third year. In our fourth year, 2006, we were ranked last out of all teams at our regional. We were selected by a veteran team, who wanted to give us a chance, and we ended up winning the regional with them and securing a spot for ourselves at the Championship; it was the first time we had ever gone. Stuff like this happens all the time. Really, most alliance selections are based on how the robot/team complements the picking team and fits into their strategy.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I most certainly do not have a problem with them going out of state. The MN regional this year was won by an alliance of two out of state veteran teams and another rookie team from MN. I would personally love getting the chance to compete with more power house teams. If getting to atlanta and winning is so high on your list of priorities that you would not want to compete with the best teams out there, maybe your list of priorities needs some reorganizing. Besides, it all helps get the kids inspired (you just need to keep the right attitude about it). The really good teams have put a lot of work in to get to where they are and they deserve to be there if they are willing to work hard enough for it.

-Vivek

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

What everyone that has commented on my post fails to relize is I'm not worried about my team, I'm worried about others. All you guys keep saying that I want to bring the veterans down, I don't want to. I simply want them to think of somthing other than a definate win and try to give other teams that same exsperiance. Take 217 abd 469 at the detroit regional this year, they could have taken a team that could play good defense, but they didn't, they picked a team that wasn't great(I mean no harm by this, if I affend someone sorry), didn't have much money, and was a 4 or 3 person team. Yeah they picked one another, but bringing in that third pick was beter than oblitterating everyone. I'm more talking about things like 217 & 469 at detroit. 217 was going to Atlanta already, and more than likely so was 469, so why pick one another??????:confused: That is more what I'm talking about. I don't want teams to throw regionals, but pick teams that aren't going rather than those who are.
To answer other comments, i don't want FIRST to do a thing about this, I want teams to change their outlook and think of something other than winning.
I know that our team has picked veterans the past two years, but our team wasn't already qualified, and neither was our third pick; 2 out of 3 not going, how is that against what I'm saying. Besides last year we said yes to someone who pick us at detroit, 27; we were not going to Atlanta, they were; neither did our thid partner. I applaude them for breaking the mold of a few teams in the area.
As far as the insulted comment "They shouldn't be there because someone felt sorry for them and decided to pick them. Were this to happen to me, I'd be insulted." To be passed up when you are a good competitor, but don't make the cut to be on a STACKED allinace is insulting too. Also to be told that you won't be picked because you are a younger team is insulting and fustrating. I won't name names but this actually did happen to my team. We perfer not to talk about it, but it really did happen. Due to this there is definate hesitation when we come to there number when chosing our alliance list.
As far as my team we don't travel out of state because A we don't have the money and B we have no need we are competeing with some of the toughest teams already. What I don't like is when a team goes to 3 regionalsand one is just to demolish the competition. There is no need to go to that many regionals and I ahve always though that the accepted number is 2 regionals, no more, by most teams' merit standards. If you know your team is great then compete at great regionals, don't go to a regional were there are few veteran powerhouses.
As for buying your way to Atlanta, I mean the teams that choose to go there when everyone is picking their regionals.
You are correct I am by no means speakng for my team, these are my personal thoughts and wish that you not think of my team any differantly after reading any of my posts.
Whoever keeps saying the "Life isn't fair" bit, we know it has been said at least 50 times on this thread. If it is a reply to one of my posts, I understand life isn't fair, but we can try to make it as fair as possible. If you say life shouldn't be fair I would understand where you are comming from, but life isn't has no relevancy.
I have much more to say, but it is late and MARC is tommorow.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

This is probably because you gave a specific account which occurred with your team. It is also because of that specific quote you mentioned.

The only thing I hope is that nobody gives you negative reputation or anything..because others should also remember that they are your opinions to own.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Like I said earlier, you play to win. Were a team to assume they were so good that they don't need to pick the next best robot at the event to take home the gold, it would be a very dumb strategy. You always pick the team that will give you the best chance to win. Always. Doesn't matter if they've got 4 people, 75 people, veterans, rookies, high team number, low team number. None of it matters. Doesn't matter if you're so good that you could win with JVN's fridge on the field (to quote John :)) The only thing that matters is that they are the best team to help you win the event. Doing anything less is a sellout.

I'm sure they picked you both because they thought you represented their best chance at winning-not because you weren't qualified for Atlanta.

As a side note, do most teams even know what potential partners are qualified for Atlanta, and which aren't? It's not one of our criteria, so I've never even paid attention. I just look for the best robots, best drivers, and best strategists.

I'd hate to see the competitions turn into science fairs. I just heard that lots of little league teams don't keep score and don't have winners and losers for fear of hurting the kid's feelings. Sometimes it seems like this is the direction FIRST might be headed. I sure hope not. It's not about the competition, but the competition sure is an important part of what makes FIRST different than so many other activities.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Hmm..I'm not sure if teams look that up, but I try to find out who's going where during pre-scouting before a regiona but only to see their standings at previous regionals and awards they won. But our selections aren't based on if a team is already qualified to go to Atlanta or not.

I kinda do see where fuzzy is coming from although I don't agree that teams should always pick other teams who aren't qualified for the Championships. If it was my team that was selected by a high seeded team merely because we didn't do well at the regional, I would be a little insulted as being a "pity" selection. Oh and fuzzy, you seem to forget that the best of the best do the best scouting. That is what selections should be based on. Scouting and faith in another team (be they rookie or veteran) can take a team very far into eliminations and possibly to a victory.

Sure there are teams who sympathize with teams who deserve a shot at Atlanta, but if that certain team is picked and they don't win with the strong alliance captain that picked them, it won't really make the selected team work as hard next year to improve on their team as it would if the team was not selected because they didn't deserve to be selected.

+$0.02

(hehe, good thing i don't have work tomorrow):P

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

There are alot of things in life that you cannot control. The one thing you can is your attitude. You can choose to be hostile and defensive towards these teams and learn nothing and maintain your stagnant existence or you can close to actually learn from these people if you let them teach you.
First things first. It's not just about the robot or the money. Over the years of watching competition the one thing that stands out about upper echelon teams is their strategy and their scouting. The hit the field with a sense of purpose and an understanding of what has to be done to come out successful. It is astonishing how many teams show up to competition without any clue of what they are going to do or how they are going to do it. Every day is Thursday and they're just out there doing their own thing. It's like they just saw the game animation and just left it at that and never bothered ever reading the rules.
You know why veteran teams pick other veterans? Trust. They know what they are getting (consistency mainly), they know what to expect from them and they know they can count on them when the going gets tough.
In the three team alliance era it is possible for lesser teams to taste victory as well. You don't need to build the "killer ap" to succeed. You just need to fill a need. Think of the qualifying rounds as a job interview and you are selling your services to the other teams to the point where they are going to say "They need you!"

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

If the criteria for picking teams were simply who has qualified to go to Atlanta or not then HOF teams and legacy teams (which we are both) shouldn't even bother showing up for competitions since they are already going. Sometimes competing is about getting better at what you do. When HOT came to FLR they're robot was in pieces and they didn't have much of a Hybrid mode. They made it to the semis. By the the time they got to GLR they won the event and they got to Einstein in Atlanta.
So for Fuzzy to say teams like HOT are wrong for what they did shows that he isn't looking at the big picture neither.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

So why was 440 still available for 469/217's last pick? Why didn't 1718 pick them earlier in the round, if you wanted to give them the experience of competing in the knockouts? BTW, the consensus from 469/217 was that they were lucky 440 was still available for their last pick.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I think you're also failing to understand some of what we're trying to explain, too. Those top 8 teams, veterans or otherwise, have earned the right to choose their partners. They choose the partner that best completes their strategy: in 217's case, 469 complemented their robot so they picked them. Honestly, when I'm strategizing about who to pick, none of it relates to "are they going to Atlanta?" I don't think many teams look at that at all, it's really just "do they fit into our strategy?" Also, by playing both with and against super-alliances of veteran teams, you gain the experience you keep talking about. My first year in FIRST, our team wasn't doing so well, and watching all of the experienced teams go out their with amazing robots and win match after match inspired me, and many of my teammates, to do the same. We raised the bar, and last year and this year were significantly more successful. Let alliance captains pick who they want. If they form awesome alliances, don't think of it as a definite win, but a great learning experience, and there you go.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

The bold highlight is mine.

Your whole argument falls apart because of that statement, because of its obvious bias against successful teams and for teams lacking in resources. You claim teams need to think of other things besides winning, but then you go on to say they should pick teams who somehow "deserve" to win but never do. Thus, your whole argument is about winning.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Then the resolution is simple: refocus on your team. You shouldn't spend so much energy on things that you can not affect, especially if they in turn do not affect you.

It looks like you're asking stronger teams to slack off and let weaker teams have a chance to win. Can you rephrase what you want so it doesn't seem so unreasonable at first glance?

Did you really just say you would feel insulted if your performance didn't earn you a spot in the elimination rounds? Exactly who would be insulting you in that case?

Can you give an example of this happening?

You've consistently phrased things in a way that makes it look like you don't see other teams as anything but enemies. I think you might be missing a large part of what goes on at a FRC competition.

This still doesn't make sense to me. Choosing to attend the Championship does not have anything to do with which regional competitions one picks. Can you explain why you call it "buying your way"? Can you explain how going to Atlanta is relevant to the number of regionals a team competes at?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

FIRST is based around engineering, but it isn't all engineering. Part of FIRST is fundraising. You don't need to be a high budget team to succeed. If you don't have enough money to do multiple regionals, then your off-season goal should be to raise enough money to be able to compete at multiple regionals.

My team was 5,000 dollars in dept going into the Boston regional last year. We built our entire frame from kit materials. The only things we used that weren't in the kit were a 2 inch wide, 24 inch long pneumatic cylinder, and a couple of small IFI wheels. Despite this we finished second in qualifying. We didn't win the regional but we were a highly competitive team even with an extremely low budget. This proves that low budget teams don't have a huge disadvantage. I always hear people saying simplicity wins, simplicity doesn't have to be expensive. After having a very low budget my team went out and raised a good amount of money in the off-season. After our hard work fundraising, we built our robot without worrying too much about expenses. We hardly used anything from the kit at all. We had this freedom because of the work we did fundraising. After we did this work we felt like we earned the right to go to two regionals.

From this it is obvious that a team can be highly competitive on a very low budget, but a team that is willing to put in the time to fundraise can have some freedom when spending and not be restricted. If teams put in the time to fundraise they have earned the right to attend as many regionals as they can afford.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Forgive me for rambling but this thread has me thinking in too many directions at once. It has made me think about the alliance optimization problem (selection of robots based on optimization of the alliance versus selecting optimal robots) and the trade-offs between flexibility in strategy versus optimization of a single strategy. It has made me think of the essentials of team building and how to streamline the process to fit into a 15 minute time block (because you can’t really predict your alliance ahead of time – unless you are Looking Forward). It has forced me to consider rejection and the disappointment we all feel when our team isn’t picked by the “best” team to join them. And I was struck by the myriad parallel analogies in the world of sports that shed insight on our debate… And while I could probably contribute something useful I learned from thinking about each of these topics, I would rather discuss this statement instead (at the risk of running even farther away from the thread topic):

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time) but I would say that life itself is perhaps the MOST relevant thing in all these issues. The stated goals of FIRST are to inspire a culture that values science and technology. Inspiration needs Motivation. What motivates people? Competition. Competition is the struggle for survival and I would argue that it is an inherent natural trait as well as a heavily indoctrinated concept (at least in western culture). This need is fundamental to our being (life) and hence why it is such a powerful source of inspiration.

The goal of competition is survival (as has been said many time in this thread already but in another way -- winning). If you aren’t trying to win then you aren’t really competing and most likely missing the key motivator behind the inspiration in FIRST. One byproduct of a competition process is that there is continual improvement in the competitors themselves. This means that every year the competition gets better. This may or may not be encouraging but it can be observed from similar competition structures from sports to economics to war. In nature, we find the consequences harsh: improve or die. In FIRST I would say it is more like: improve or be disappointed (I mean this only with respect to competitive results – you should never be disappointed in the process of stretching yourself personally, being part of a team, contributing to your community and just plain working hard).

In re-reading this before posting, it occurs to me that I really do need to discuss all my thoughts on those other subjects to tie everything together but it would be very long and this post is long enough already.