[Francis-134]

It is apparent that FIRST's methodology in this algorithm is the following:

Teams of a lower number will generally outperform teams of a higher number, specifically very low numbers (generally less than 400) will do better than teams between 400 and 1700, and both will do better than teams greater than 1800.

Therefore: teams above 1700 are at a statistical disadvantage to those with team numbers less than 1700, and those between 400 and 1700 have a disadvantage to those numbered below 400.

Similarly: teams above 1700 deserve a chance to not only play with teams of a lower team number, but also deserve the opportunity to win more matches with these lower number teams. Also, teams of numbers less than 1700 should not have to play with two robots of a much lower statistical advantage, nor should they play against two or more robots of a much lo wer statistical advantage

Therefore: a system must be implemented in order to even the playing field such that no alliance will have more than one robots from the same team number range. Doing this will theoretically spread out the pairings such that no alliance faces a blowout. For example, three veterans against three rookies, or even one veteran with two rookies against three mid-level teams.

Because of this, a ranking system must be created that will split teams into these three groups, and make sure that every alliance has a team from each of the three categories. Indeed, some robots will never face each other, but this is an acceptable loss so that no team will be statistically, based on team number, outmatched.

In my opinion, each of these points is somewhat flawed. First and foremost, team number is not an indicator of the team's potential performance. Instead of beating a dead horse, I'll simply name teams like 1902, 1114, 1503 and 1680 as examples. The statistical disadvantage of rookies and the advantage that veterans have is a fallacy.

I'm going to sound cold when I say this, but rookies do not intrinsically deserve to be paired with veteran teams? No. Should they? Yes. Will they? More than likely they will, no matter the algorithm. Must they (in every match)? No. Rookies and young teams need help, but artificially forcing them with veterans will not do the trick. How are they to learn about FIRST if they are forever cast into the role of not playing as the "lead team". If you think about it, FIRST would have to grow enormously in order for rookies to become the "veteran" team on an alliance in the future (essentially, triple in size).

Should every alliance be statistically fair? In my opinion, no. The randomish system of previous years would indeed cause blowout matches, but at least you knew that it was fate that caused it, not some master system that some individuals believe is better for you and your alliance members.

Should teams be grouped into three or even six or nine groups? No, I don't think this is a good idea. To be frank, FIRST is grouping teams into the good, the alright, and those that are not so hot. It is stereotyping teams, in a sense. If you are in the bottom third of the team numbers at your event, you are preconceived to be of a lower caliber than two-thirds of the other teams at the regional.

I do understand that it's "not about the robot", and that the competition is merely the means to an end (an end that I most whole-heartedly agree with), but if we cannot have faith in how things are to go at a competition, how can you focus on making science and technology be cool? Maybe it's because I'm from New Hampshire, but I think that the less meddling FIRST does, the better. Why make rules about things that teams should be making or learning about on their own? Why change things that aren't actually broken?

What saddens me the most is that if this system continues, I will most likely never get the opportunity to play with my old teams. Anyone who has been on more than one teams knows how great is is to see that you will be playing with your old friends and mentors, working on strategy together, and enjoying the thrill or disappointment of victory or defeat once again, just like the "old days". However, both of my previous teams (134 and 40) will always be in the same grouping as my current team (190). The only way we would get to play together is if we were picked in the elimination rounds, something that becomes more unlikely if a high number team rides their alliance partners to the top 8. In closing, I really hope FIRST fixes this blunder (there is no question that it is a blunder, in my opinion). I'm not going to leave FIRST over this, but for the good of the program, I wish that cool, calm, and thoughtful heads prevail in the discussion that is sure to occur at some point at FIRST HQ.