View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-08-2016, 22:27
BrendanB BrendanB is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brendan Browne
FRC #1058 (PVC Pirates)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Londonderry, NH
Posts: 3,099
BrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: (Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMSOTM View Post
In a similar vein, I've seen quite a few teams who've been declined and then advanced further than the team who declined them, especially in scorched-earth scenarios (i.e. high alliance captain picks other alliance captains who decline in order to keep them from partnering up). In those cases, it often seems like the declining team would have been better off accepting.
This is always an interesting scenario especially for the team declining. Sometimes I have heard from teams who declined that they felt the field wasn't deep enough for a strong third pick and therefore wanted to be a lower captain to hopefully secure a better third pick than what would be available for the higher alliance.

For every decline that we see on the field there are times when teams get together with the intent to discuss a possible alliance, but the discussion ends with the conclusion that they won't be better off pairing together. Sometimes teams decide to pick lower than what is expected so as to save the other team from having to decline and make things awkward for everyone else (and save some time).
__________________
1519 Mechanical M.A.Y.H.E.M. 2008 - 2010
3467 Windham Windup 2011 - 2015
1058 PVC Pirates 2016 - xxxx
Reply With Quote