[Steve Kaneb]

There is a problem with the fundamental assumption that young and rookie teams directly benefit from being in matches with very veteran teams.

Young teams will get as much experience from being paired up with a veteran in a couple matches as being paired with any veteran for every match.

This algorithm performs its function perfectly but the function is based on incorrect assumptions. The basic goal, to have young teams paired with veteran teams, doesn't further the competition or the teams in any way. Teams do not get a good feeling of the way that robots work together if their possible pairings are limited. Some teams have no chance of ever meeting others because of these split pools.

Isn't it better for the good rookies and young teams if they are the ones carrying their alliance in a randomly paired match? They'll be lauded, and rightfully so. The problem with having the same teams playing each other is that you see several matches that play exactly the same: one good team scores well because they told one of the other teams to defend the good team they've faced twice already. The chances that there is only one good team on an alliance are much greater with a split pool.

Secondly, the current match pairing hurts the standings. If there is a dominant team at a regional, chances are very high that they will be first ranked, because there's a smaller chance that there will be two excellent robots going against it in a qualification round. What happens is that standings get changed because the same basic matches are being played over and over again. A good team won't be able to consistently beat a very good team with two robots defending them every round.

From these pairings, little strategy evolves. An excellent team will just have its partners play defense or interference, and those teams that aren't as good at scoring will never get the chance to get better because they will be playing defense in almost all of their matches.

Young teams have found themselves pushed up into the standings because they were on good alliances. Some of these teams don't have the resources to be a picker, sometimes they don't have enough people, or they just don't have the experience of strategy. This propels the better teams further into the elimination rounds because they are able to exploit alliances that were crafted without specific strategy in mind. Young alliances in the finals might find themselves without a strategy at all because they haven't had to strategize throughout the qualification rounds.

Teams new to the competition will get to see the one or two teams beat up on the competition, pick the best other team, and romp through the finals. It gives good rookies less of a chance to be on one of these alliances, because now they're a captain.


Splitting teams into pools doesn't lead to more learning, innovation or strategy. It doesn't make teams feel better about themselves. It doesn't allow for matches with an alliance of veterans getting beaten by a bunch of young teams. Wouldn't we all like to see a match where one of the teams that has been consistently doing well has to squeak out a win against three rookies? We don't get to see any surprising upset matches where you don't get to predict what will happen. The same teams keep winning in qualifications, and you have to wait for eliminations before they see different teams. It's not like eliminations alliances have changed much.

A random pairing gets rookies on alliances with veteran teams, sometimes as often as every match. It allows for teams to be with or against teams that they didn't see last match. Teams are exposed more to different robot designs and strategies. Some strategies evolve in the middle of a match where you find yourself playing people you hadn't seen before.

Doesn't it further FIRST to have many different matches in qualifications rather than the same 2 or 3?