|
Re: Thoughts on CoOpertition
Here is how Coopertition is defined on the FIRST website; it is listed among FIRST Values along with Gracious ProfessionalismTM:
"CoopertitionTM
CoopertitionTM produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.
Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can."
For as long as I've been involved with FIRST (eight seasons now), it has been made clear that the desire is to promote high-scoring close matches. This year's seeding points system would appear to be an attempt to promote high-scoring close matches. I agree that the (likely unintended) consequence of 6 vs 0 matches and the actual impact of scoring for your opponents detracted from the game.
But here is why I liked the seeding points system:
I believe that FIRST creates a game designed around a "challenge" and that teams are expected to compete by developing creative solutions to the "challenge". This seeding points system, I believe, rewards teams that have successfully conquered the "challenge". I think that it also seeded those teams the highest who best solved the "challenge".
Many of us (certainly not excluding myself) get caught up in playing the game and the objective becomes winning the game versus conquering the "challenge". We choose to out-score our opponents by better inhibiting their ability to score, either as an over-arching strategy or a situational strategy.
Under the current system, defense in the qualifying rounds remains a viable strategy. I understand the value of winning a high scoring match. I don't see the value of winning a low scoring match versus loosing a high scoring match.
Travis made a point that I hadn't considered. I am inferring from his comments, perhaps incorrectly, teams that unsuccessfully or less efficiently solve the "challenge" are having their experience diminished by discouraging defensive play. He also points out (and I agree) that there is value in being tested by defensive play during the qualification matches.
I offer another perspective. We have always decided to build a machine that plays all aspects of the game. We have enjoyed moderate success some years; however, we are certainly not among the most successful. While I have always accepted it as part of the game, I have also been disappointed when we have been unable to demonstrate our machine's ability to accomplish the intended task because we have been impeded by a strategy aimed solely at inhibiting our scoring. To be clear, in past years, we have not shied away from using exactly that strategy when overmatched or simply to ensure a win. And we used it in elimination rounds this year. However, this year, I consistently encouraged an all offensive strategy during qualification matches. I wasn't always successful in convincing all of our alliance partners, but it was based on my belief that it was in the best interest of our alliance and met the intent of FIRST (high scoring close matches).
Net, I support Coopertition, on and off the field. I like this year's seeding system because it promotes the opportunity to compete against the "challenge" more than against each other and rewards those with the best solutions to the "challenge". It is a good system for Qualification.
For Eliminations - nothing is more exciting than win-lose with good, solid defensive strategies and counter-offensives, etc.
|