Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve W
I guess that I am tired of the "we need to make everyone feel good" approach to life. If we don't work hard, compete hard and strive to be the best then why should we expect to get rewarded? If I am getting rewarded for getting something I didn't work for then I don't feel right about it.
In the working world you will not be rewarded because you showed up. If you don't produce you will be pounding the streets looking for another job.
|
I don't see the current seeding system as anything close to the "make everyone feel good" approach. On the contrary- the current system rewards actual performance over simple win/loss statistics.
Under the old W/L/T system, the first ranking metric was obviously wins/losses/ties, followed by ranking points. The problem with using a simple "win" as the primary rank decision is there's no differentiation between a 1 point to 0 win, or a 15 point to 14 point win. The differentiation is deferred to the second metric of ranking points. So lets say Team W, Team X, Team Y, and Team Z are competing at some regional. Teams W and X have awesome robots, while teams Y and Z barely have a moving drive train. The random match schedule pits Teams W and X against each other, and Teams Y and Z against each other. Team W edges out Team X, in a thrilling 15 to 14 point victory. Team Y and Z struggle to move, but Team Y manages to score one ball, winning 1-0. Under the W/L/T system, Team W would be #1 seed, Team Y would be #2 seed, Team X would be #3 seed, and Team Z #4. Team X clearly has a better robot than Team Y, but the rankings don't reflect that, because performance isn't included in the primary ranking metric.
Situations like that happened more often than not under the old ranking system, where an all but dead robot ends up in the top 8. This season, I saw much less of that (post week 1). Statistically, it will still happen if lower end robots end up paired with higher caliber robots in the random match schedule, but by making performance the main ranking metric, it's far less likely. Alliances with strong robots playing against strong robots will rise in the ranks much farther, rewarding overall quality of any given match over luck of the FMS draw.
It's not a perfect system by any means, and I'm not a fan of the potential 6v0 matches. But looking at it logically, on Curie 1114's 6v0 match that ended 29-0 netted 34 and 32 seeding points for each alliance. Team 78's last 2 matches on Galileo (matches 125 and 144), ended 21-7, and 12-11, netting them 40 and 38 seeding points, for tough and fun to watch matches. Those matches catapulted them from 15th place to 2nd, a move that would have been impossible under the old system. Galileo even had a 19-11 match, generating 46 seeding points. I'd take those matches over 6v0 any day.
Is there room for improvement in this new system? Definitely. Is it a step up from the old system? I honestly think it is, and would be sad to see FIRST revert back.