I too join the chorus of those who hate the idea of winning by losing but that is the situation we have been thrust into.
I have just now sent an e-mail to my fellow mentors on my team arguing that we should try to convince our alliance partners to play to maximize seeding points. If they all agree then we approach the other alliance, if they agree then we either decide based on the number of hangers or by playing paper-scissors-rock whether to score in Red or Blue (probably after autonomous so that teams could tune in their programming for the elims). If the other alliance won't agree, then we score for them and don't hang.
It is a strange way to play the game but it is the game that FIRST made for us.
For me the only ethical issues revolve around the idea that everyone is trying to get to play after lunch on Saturday. At some point, the seeding will sort itself to the point that teams are in 3 camps:
- Those still in the running for Top 8 (top 10-11 really because it is typical for the 10th or 11th rank team to move up to the #8 slot)
- Those that really need a monster seeding point game to get back into the hunt for Alliance Captain.
- Those clearly out of the running for Alliance Captain
What happens when a team from Group 3 really really needs to show that it can play defense is paired with a team from Group 1 or Group 2?
What is the ethical thing for each team to do in this case?
I honestly don't know what to tell these teams.
Joe J.
P.S. Just to be clear, I think that the GDC was simply wrong in setting up the seeding in this way. I believe that it is bad for FIRST in the long run. If FIRST continues with this system year after year, I believe they are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. HOWEVER, FIRST knew what they were doing setting up the rules as they did. They are smart people, to say they didn't know what they were setting up is silly (imho).
Teams are supposed try to seed high. Winning or losing qualifying matches is not the name of the game this year. After all they are called "QUALIFYING" matches.
So... ...I don't think it is fair to criticize teams for doing their best to QUALIFY during the qualifying matches.
However it IS FAIR to criticize FIRST for making a poorly constructed set of incentives that result in a confusing and boring game to watch in the qualifying matches -- and before you even make the argument, NO, I don't think that what happens in the elimination rounds makes up for it. It was dumb. FIRST knew it was dumb. They did it anyway for their own reasons. JJ