[Rick TYler]

This is a great topic.

Using a sports analogy, by the end of a 162-game baseball season, you have a pretty good idea of which teams are the best that year (the 3-division format with a wild card is Just Wrong, but we'll let that slide for now). Since the FRC competition starts with 8 or 10 matches with random alliances, I believe you really can't tell which are the best robots. I think, therefore, that the seeding is more than just a little arbitrary. The final alliance system needs to address this discrepancy.

The current method uses human evaluation through the scouting process to recognize outstanding robots that might have slipped in the seedings through no fault of their own. This method is still imperfect as we all know that teams with reputations, low numbers, uniforms, handouts, giant chicken suits and other "marketing" tools are sometimes chosen over quiet teams with great robots. Scouting is, in a lot of ways, not much different from the seeding system.

So, here is a modest proposal for some changes to the current system:

1. Qualification matches only last one day. For a 40-team regional, this would probably limit each team to 5-6 qualification matches.

2. At the end of Qualification Day on Friday, the teams would be seeded and the results posted. That evening, the teams can strategize for Eliminations.

3. First thing Saturday morning (like 8am), the alliances are chosen. Matches start at 9. The number of alliances would be the number of teams present rounded down to the nearest integer. For example, a regional with 40 teams would have 13 alliances.

4. Any "odd-man-out" teams would stand by to replace robots that aren't working during the Eliminations. I'm open to ideas here, by the way. Maybe it would be better to add them to the lowest- or highest-seeded alliances and have one or two 4-robot teams?

5. Alliances would be chosen via draft as in the current system.

6. The First Round of the Eliminations would be for reducing the number of alliances to eight. For example, in a 39-team regional, there would be 13 alliances. To reduce the 13 alliances (for example) to eight alliances for the Final Round of the Eliminations, there would be a 2-out-of-3 match between the lower-ranked alliances.

7. OK, this is easier with a drawing than in words, but here's how the First Elimination round would work for regionals with up to 48 teams (I haven't thought about what to do with more than 16 alliances yet...):

a. If you have 16 alliances, #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc. The eight winners go on to the Final Round.

b. If you have fewer than 16 alliances, use this formula to determine the number of matches:

(# of alliances) - 8 = # of single-elimination matches

For example, a 13-alliance field would have have five First Round elimination matches, which would be played between the 4th through 13th seeded alliances. The top three alliances would get a bye. The 4th seed would play the 13th, the 5th would play the 12th, etc. The winners of these matches would go through to play the Final Round with the top-seeded alliances that got a bye.

Things I like about this system:

1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out.

2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980).

3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked).

Things I don't like about this system:

1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system.

2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday.


So, what do you think?