Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I usually do not reply to these sorts of threads (I try to stay in the technical or strategy forums as much as possible), but since my team was specifically mentioned I think I should clear things up.

First and foremost: team 217 always picks teams based on the ranking we give them Friday night and Saturday morning ... always. We use a numerical based system that counts their scoring ability and defensive ability.

Second, we were not the pickers, 469 picked us. We probably would have picked them or 27 if we were the number 1 seed (we were 3).

Third, team 440 was number 16 on our list ... number 16! They should have been long gone before we had a chance to pick them. We should have only been able to get the 23rd or 24th ranked team. We considered them a gift. They consistently did 10 laps in the eliminations and did 11 twice. We didn't want them to play defense because we wanted their points. They were in no way a pity pick. They were picked based on their ranking alone.

As for comments regarding team 1718 I can only say this: I know many of the mentors and some of the students on this team. I have even personally given them a tour of FANUC Robotics. I have a great deal of respect for this team and the mentors and students I know. The attitudes of fuzzy1718 are, to my knowledge, not the prevailing attitude on 1718. Anyway, I just thought I should clear things up.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

So, ignoring the other controversy... The topic, and original controversial idea is that teams shouldn't come to competitions and "blow other teams out of the water". Additionally, it would be generally "better" if alliances were more evenly matched, teams didn't pick the same top teams every year, and the elimination rounds weren't so predictable.

Over the past few years I've gone to competition with teams all over the spectrum. I've been around a team that has won regionals since they were formed. I've also been on a team who's season consisted of only the few qualification matches they were scheduled for (some of which they missed because they had a broken robot). If you've been with a teams that has always been lucky enough to attend multiple events, it's important to appreciate the disappointment of having your whole competition season end in 7 short matches.

When on a team that isn't picked for eliminations it's easy to blame the teams that didn't pick you. It's also easy to blame the out of state teams that seemingly have endless amounts of money to travel and "squash" the little local teams. I think it's good having teams that are powerhouses at competitions, it sets the bar high and give other teams something to strive for.

I've seen a team that grew up from not being strong enough to be consistently picked in elimination rounds, if at all. They have been consistently improving their reputation for having competitive robots. By doing what? By building better robots. They have worked their way up from having mediocre robots to having better robots that make them a consistent first round pick alliance partners, if not alliance captains themselves. They have built stronger, more effective robots and have managed to be "that team" that gets picked despite very low rankings after qualifying matches.

My point? I don't think teams that don't make the elimination rounds need to have higher ranked teams step aside to let them win. Team's grow up from year to year. Teams A, B, and C may be strong powerhouses this year but there's nothing saying that teams X, Y, and Z won't be proving that they are forces to be reckoned with in the years to come. There are plenty of teams who have stepped up their game over the span of a couple years and it's not because other teams felt sorry for them and picked them as alliance partners. Saying that teams need to improve themselves isn't a copout, it's the way things work. It is really less inspiring in giving weaker robots a handicap and "free ticket" to Atlanta than it is to give teams with weaker robots something to strive for in years to come.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Our team has been around for 11 years. Since 2000 when we finally had enough money to go to 2 regionals a season we have attended an away regional and our home regional in Philadelphia. We did go to Nationals twice but we did not get picked up because our robots were not that good. We have won 3 regionals, 2 away and once in Philly. We are now on a roll winning two away regionals in 2006, 2007, and a were finalist in Philly last year. We never go to the same away regional twice so we have been to a lot of places, at great regionals, met great teams, and got to see many different solutions to the same problem. No one ever said please don't come to our regional. In fact they were all gracious and helpful.

We are not a public school so our students pay tuition. We get some sponsors but our students work hard to help raise the money to do this. If we go to an away regional the students pay for just their food, that is it.

What can anyone suggest is unfair?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

1st off sorry 217 for the mix-up. I racked my brain for who picked who and eeven tried going to TBA to see, but my computer disconnected just as I got to TBA (dial-up:( ) so I said to myself "I'll pick 217 they won another regional, and were on fire that weekend". I ment no harm by it, if it seemed like I was I'm sorry. It is hard for me to use examples and not sound negative, it is simply my personality; always finding what is wrong and never what is right, ask anyone on my team they will agree. If I could change I would.

For those keep who commenting about what I said about mentors, read my post after the first comment, I wasn't talking about me not respecting all that they have done. I didn't want their answers to be the same that they have been, that is all. I am very grateful for everything that they have done, all their information and help. Koko ed, at MARC after the competition, I wanted to shake your hand and thank you, but you weren't at the door anymore. I seen the X-cats' name on the back of your board, did a double take and thought, "Wow, he came a long way." By no means was my comment ment to be direspectful, if it sounded that way sorry; I just wanted more than the same few mentors responding.
I am a mentor of an FLL team, I donate my time at the county ISD to put on a lego robotics camp, I know what it feels like. If some one on an FLL team said "I don't care for your opinoin" I wouldn't react like you guys have. I would walk away and think "one of many", not yell at the kid to make him feel bad.

Those of you who keep saying the words "pity pick", those by no means are mine, and not what I ment. I also never said that I want the veteran powerhouses to make themselves lose, just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta. All I can say is read what I said and jude that alone, a lot of what others have said is not what I ment, if it sounds like it is to you then, well I don't mean it that way.

If people think that I'm a sophmore in high school, who think he knows it all, I'm not that way and I don't mean to sound that way. I just wanted to stir up some thoughts of the veteran teams, while they are making their alliance selection list. If the mentor comment makes you think that way, I have told you my resoning behind that many times, but some still comment like they haven't read what I have said.

Yes, I have only been here when my team has had the opertunity (I think that is how you spell it) to pick during alliance selection, but I wish that my team would put themselves in others shoes while picking. You are right this is by no means the majority view of my team and I'm suprised that no one on my team has asked me to remove these posts.

The top 8 not being able to pick amongst themselves, my reasoning is plain and simple, GLR this year. It was a lot more fun and interesting with all the upsets, and 3rd matches (sometimes 4), I believe due to the top (I think it was) 6 being unable to pick one another. i don't know what happened any where else in the country, but that had to be the most interesting and most fun regional we have attened, that is the majority of my team talking.

The reason for the 2/3 comment was because everything I say is what happens the majority of the time, not always. I know that there have been examples that don't follow what I have said, but I can only go on what I have seen and experianced.

Most of what I say, yeah could apply to my team, but that is not why I am posting it. I am the kind of person who doesn't think of just himself, our team in this case. If it sounds like I do I don't mean to.

Now you can start the "bash fuzzy1718fest" again, but how you can take offense to what I just said, I don't know.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

While I can see how it was fun and interesting I found it just as interesting as any of the other 3 competitions I went to/worked at. I prefer to see a team that works well together and has the best possible partnerships as opposed to one that picked whoever they were "allowed to". I also thought this caused teams that were the best there not to win which is wrong regardless of how many times they are qualified for Championships. The team put the time and effort to build a dominant machine and to raise money to compete, they deserve to win.

Please talk to Craig about this, he has been involved in FRC for years and is very knowledgeable. I think maybe he can help explain why things are done the way they are. Baring that, if I know Craig (or almost any FRC mentor) he will be willing to discuss it with you. I really hope we can get some of your concerns addressed and I hope you can look past FIRST's faults (perceived or real) and see that overall it is a good program.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

For those who were present, did this really happen? I don't recall discussion about it during the season.

If so, how was such a gross perversion of the rules allowed to take place?

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Another problem I can see with this is that if a team wants to be picked by the #1 seed, then they could intentionally lose to fall out of the top 8. If a team intentionally loses they can hurt a team on their alliance that wants to win.

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Yes, 66 was #1 and they picked teams that didn't accept pushing them out of being picked by others. Perfectly legit actually. And quite dumb on the part of the other teams 66 was actually quite a good robot.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Oh. So it was an intentional strategy by a team, not FIRST disallowing it.

Gotcha.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I wouldn't necessarily say intentional strategy because I can't say they did it with that intent. I misspoke earlier when I said wouldn't I should of said didn't.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

It wasn't a gross perversion of the rules, but just some very strategic play. We saw the same thing at Midwest this year. This was already covered to a great extent in the GLR thread from this year. This specific reference starts around page 10. Please do not include any further comments in this thread as it already has one heated debate going.

EDIT: WOW 4 others were replying while I wrote this. No offense Cory, just poor timing on my response. I am sure you guys have seen this before.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

Trust me, I'm all for the use of this strategy. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear in multiple threads having to do with said strategy.

My comment was a reference to FIRST staff changing the rules and not allowing teams to pick in the top 8-I didn't realize a team forced the situation to occur, rather than everyone being limited in the first place.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

cory no rules were broken, the 1st place seeded team was turned down by the top 6 or 5 (don't quite remember) teams. It was the rules that caused it and it made things less predictable.

I don't doubt at other regionals are fun just the way they are, that is why I don't want FIRST to do anything, just leave it up to the teams. The current system work great some of the time, so why change it on paper. I simply want teams to view the situation differantly.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

I actually love it when that happens. It does make the matches so much more exciting to watch. One reason that many teams do this is because they may have been picked by the selecting team before at a previous regional that season and may want to work with some others. And that's why teams choose to go to more than one regional.

Re: Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?
 

"just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta." I understand your opinion. I just graduated from a team that was only a part of eliminations once in the four competitions we were in. We have been lucky enough to make Championships both years we competed, but because of the Rookie All-Star Award, and winning the single regional we were in the eliminations for. I was estatic that team 20, the 4th alliance captain, picked us with their 2nd round pick.

That said, teams need to deserve to go to championships. I've been there. It is great, but teams shouldn't get picked in eliminations for any other reason than the attributes they bring to an alliance. Usually that is purely their robot and drivers, and sometimes it includes a proven track record of their repair teams. At times, it includes how well two teams have worked together. This competition gives a huge advantage to veteran teams. There is a reason that I've never seen a rookie on Einstein. It is hard as a rookie, but new knowledge, and experience can help a team improve over the years. There are teams that consistantly build amazing robots. 217, 1114, 103, to name a few, but that doesn't mean any team can't join the ranks of those teams. I hope that in 5 or 10 years, if someone lauds, or complains about powerhouse teams, they will be talking about 2053 in the same breath as 254 and others.

In our regional this year, we had numerous teams that had already punched their ticket to the Championships without winning a single match. Team 20 and 191 were original teams from 1992. Team 191 won the Championships Chairman's award ... twice. 365 and 67 were chairman's award winners. There were numerous teams at our regional that also went on to win additional regionals. We had a stacked regional. We had only 1 rookie team, and 2 second year teams including us. However, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. We learned a ton from the powerhouses, and loved competing against them.