Originally Posted by JABot67 (Post 1045849)

What I've noticed is this: In the past couple seasons, two good robots could hold up an alliance and win a match. The third one could play some very effective D (and some finals matches have been decided by how good the third robot is at playing defense) but especially in the quarters and semis the overall firepower of the top two robots in the top two alliances is too much for the others.

This perhaps is a side effect of FIRST's decision to design really offense-oriented games since 2007. That year was crazy: an alliance could score 256 points in one match and 0 the next, all depending on how much defense was played against them. Rack 'n Roll was, in my opinion, the only game where three good robots could beat two great robots and one not so great robot, which resulted in a lot of 8 over 1 upsets. This phenomenon was augmented by the fact that since defense could shut down many offensive teams, the best teams often would not seed first. Even when they did, they often lost if the regional or division was stacked enough to provide power to the #8 alliance.

Look at the TBA results for GLR and West Michigan... more wins for blue than red in the elims. Oh look... 1114 and 67 lost in the semis due to amazing defense and the fact that 57's robot could not provide the defense necessary to stop the opponents from scoring. In 2007, none of the #1 alliances at Champs escaped the divisions and reached Einstein. The #8 alliance of 190, 987, and 177 won in the finals. This could be interpreted as proving my point that 2007 was the only recent year where the #8 alliance could be the best alliance at an event.

However, back then there was this huge discussion about how overpowered defense was in FIRST and how boring it was to watch robots bump into each other instead of score. There were also instances where teams played defense that was too rough and complaints about how the serpentine draft gives an advantage to the #8 alliance and should be done away with. Perhaps as a result, FIRST has designed games in recent years to be based on offense, so the good teams can seed high in qualifications and be less hindered by defense in the elims. These offense-powered games in recent years have given the #1 alliance more of a chance to dominate a competition.

Originally Posted by SamMullen (Post 1045801)

This is really the first year that I've actually paid attention to who wins regionals other than what I attended personally, and so I was wondering:

This year it seems like almost always the first or second seeded alliance wins the regional. I think I've seen only a couple of exceptions to that so far. Is that the normal thing, or have other years had more of a variation in which alliances win?

Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1046095)

I would expect Michigan State Championship to be that way, however I would expect the National Championship to be slightly less so since so many teams attend because they can pay the fee without having to qualify based on robot quality (not that there's anything wrong with that system - I'm just saying).

Originally Posted by MagiChau (Post 1046104)

Divisions are pretty big. Would be pretty hard making a division without more than 2-4 power houses.

Originally Posted by JABot67 (Post 1045849)

What I've noticed is this: In the past couple seasons, two good robots could hold up an alliance and win a match. The third one could play some very effective D (and some finals matches have been decided by how good the third robot is at playing defense) but especially in the quarters and semis the overall firepower of the top two robots in the top two alliances is too much for the others.

This perhaps is a side effect of FIRST's decision to design really offense-oriented games since 2007. That year was crazy: an alliance could score 256 points in one match and 0 the next, all depending on how much defense was played against them. Rack 'n Roll was, in my opinion, the only game where three good robots could beat two great robots and one not so great robot, which resulted in a lot of 8 over 1 upsets. This phenomenon was augmented by the fact that since defense could shut down many offensive teams, the best teams often would not seed first. Even when they did, they often lost if the regional or division was stacked enough to provide power to the #8 alliance.

Look at the TBA results for GLR and West Michigan... more wins for blue than red in the elims. Oh look... 1114 and 67 lost in the semis due to amazing defense and the fact that 57's robot could not provide the defense necessary to stop the opponents from scoring. In 2007, none of the #1 alliances at Champs escaped the divisions and reached Einstein. The #8 alliance of 190, 987, and 177 won in the finals. This could be interpreted as proving my point that 2007 was the only recent year where the #8 alliance could be the best alliance at an event.

However, back then there was this huge discussion about how overpowered defense was in FIRST and how boring it was to watch robots bump into each other instead of score. There were also instances where teams played defense that was too rough and complaints about how the serpentine draft gives an advantage to the #8 alliance and should be done away with. Perhaps as a result, FIRST has designed games in recent years to be based on offense, so the good teams can seed high in qualifications and be less hindered by defense in the elims. These offense-powered games in recent years have given the #1 alliance more of a chance to dominate a competition.

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1045815)

This isn't always true. It ONLY makes sense if the ranking system is an accurate measure of robot performance, which it never is. W-T-L systems, or even any systems, don't take into account robot improvement, lucky or unlucky qualification pairings, or a number of other factors..

Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1045815)

This isn't always true. It ONLY makes sense if the ranking system is an accurate measure of robot performance, which it never is. W-T-L systems, or even any systems, don't take into account robot improvement, lucky or unlucky qualification pairings, or a number of other factors..

Originally Posted by SamMullen (Post 1045845)

This year at the Autodesk Portland regional, the Eighth seed beat the first seed after 3 ridiculously close matches, before losing to the fourth seed Alliance, which went on to win the regional. It was an amazing match to watch.

Originally Posted by Thomas DeSilva (Post 1046236)

We really should have called our timeout so 2046 could have checked their arm. D:

But yeah, from what I've seen, this year's seed rankings have been slightly more reflective of a team's merit (which may not have anything to do with this year's game, because it seems that teams with minibots automatically seed high), and so it would make sense for the top-seed alliance to win.

Originally Posted by JABot67 (Post 1045849)

Look at the TBA results for GLR and West Michigan... more wins for blue than red in the elims. Oh look... 1114 and 67 lost in the semis due to amazing defense and the fact that 57's robot could not provide the defense necessary to stop the opponents from scoring. In 2007, none of the #1 alliances at Champs escaped the divisions and reached Einstein. The #8 alliance of 190, 987, and 177 won in the finals. This could be interpreted as proving my point that 2007 was the only recent year where the #8 alliance could be the best alliance at an event.