Re: Curie 2010!
 

IT was hardly 6v0, it was pretty much just the blu alliance keeping out of the way :P

Re: Curie 2010!
 

If that was a preview of the eliminations....that was a bit scary.....

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Final score of 29 :P That's so insane. I wish I could have watched it (webcasts are giving me issues). Great job teams!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Surprising, and gracious, that Simbotics was willing to give up their no-loss 55-0-2 season for this match...! WOW!!!

Re: Curie 2010!
 

That's not really true. 4v0 may be more accurate but 1114 certainly scored quite a few goals and moved quite a few balls up. It may have looked like they weren't doing anything sometimes because they were being careful not to block any of 469's shots. They would wait for a gap, the plow the misses into the goal.

The other 2 blue robots were blocking their goals to assure the 0 for the red alliance.

Mark, the Simbotics wasn't doing that just to put on a show. They likely felt that they going 6v0 and getting a guaranteed ~30 pts. was the better move to help them seed high versus taking the chance of playing the match out against 111 and 469 and risking a much lower score if they lost.

Note I am just speculating on the above, I have no inside knowledge of 1114 strategy.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Totally agree, didn't mean to say they were just doing it for show. I just think they were doing pretty well in seeding without this match, and probably would still have ended up #1 or #2 with the way they were going - with the chance for maintaining a perfect season :)

Re: Curie 2010!
 

While unless someone here can actually talk to 1114, we can only speculate, but I too agree that was more then likely their strategy.

It paid off, it defiantly put them higher up in the rankings, and while they did sacrifice their no loose score, sometimes to take it all you have to do something like that.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Karthik is know for understanding all the ramifications of strategy. Having the two robots defend the blue goals is key to keep the winning team from defecting from any agreements.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Again speculation, but judging by the actions of 888 trying to defend 1114 at the beginning of the match I'm not so sure this was the result of an agreement as much as it was a one-sided decision by the 1114 alliance.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I think this was the case; if they worked it out ahead of time there would have been no reason to block blue goals because red would have likely agreed not to score on blue for the coopertition bonus. The reason being that if red were scoring for the coopertition bonus, theoretically it would be points they could score on themselves, thus deducting from 1114's alliance and their overall seeding points, which 1114's alliance likely wouldn't have agreed to in pre-match because then 469's alliace would get more than 5 more seeding points(assuming red wins, which was the plan on 1114's part regardless of whether it was talked out or not).

Re: Curie 2010!
 

Curious, why do you say gracious? I have no problem with the strategy they employed, however, if you assume that the 1114 alliance likely would have lost even if they hadn't played 6v0* then what they did benefited them and "hurt" the 469/888/111 alliance, because each point that 1114 scored for their opponents was worth 1 point to everyone, while if they had scored for themselves it would have been worth 2 points to their opponents and 0 to themselves. So, if you say gracious implying that they were somehow helping out the 469/888/111 alliance, then I disagree. They were playing to maximize their own benefit, plain and simple (which, again, I have no problem with and would do the same thing in their shoes).

* I make the assumption that 1114 figured there was a reasonable chance they'd lose the match, because if they knew they could win then then they obviously would have played straight-up.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I think that we need word from 1114 as what their intent was, and when they decided to use this strategy.

By your post, Dave Flowery, I assume that the 6v0 was not decided ahead of time.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

I'm willing to bet their strategy is "get as many seeding points as possible so we can get to Einstein". What else would it be?
I'm not in Atlanta and I haven't spoken with anyone on the team there today, so I have no idea if it was planned or not.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

They must have deided ahead of time judging by their lack of autonomous...1114 wouldn't show up and not move in autonomous unless it was intentional.

Re: Curie 2010!
 

You want to know why 1114 locked down the goals? Look who is #2 and 5 points behind them in the standings - 469's partner in that match, 111. It seems to me they were ensuring that 111 didn't receive a 2x loser's score bonus to boost them relative to 1114's standing, other than the 5 point win bonus. Hmm, it appears that 1114 covets that #1 seed. I wonder why that is, perhaps? ;)

The talk post-Match 100 surely cements my beliefs in making the "interesting" post about this match in this thread a few days ago. There were too many teams who are known for strategerizationery involved in this match for some kind of traditional gameplan to occur.

In my opinion, this match does underscore the dorkiness of this coopertition model. And as always, the best teams came out ahead in the process at the expense of the 2nd tier teams. Even though they appeared to go along with the ploy, I truly wonder how good 288 and 231 felt about that *awesome* 29 points they received that did nothing to elevate them anywhere near the top 8, while they sat there doing nothing. Yee haw boy howdy, excitement on the Curie field.

I can't fault teams for doing what they can to legally work the system to their advantage, but I can fault the system for placing teams in situations where lame decisions such as these have to be made.