Throwing Matches at the Olympics

[Akash Rastogi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/sp...pagewanted=all


So what do you all think about this? Relevance to FRC?

I felt that many people who discussed it while I was listening to BBC radio had a great point about how the organizers of the event are at fault due to the formatting of the games, which gives teams incentive to purposely lose matches to gain an advantage and ultimately earn a gold medal (kinda like how the GDC had their ranking system in 2010?). They felt the players were victims of several systems in play, including, for example, China's strong control of their athletes and desire to pursue gold medals. Others, on the other hand, said that this is against the spirit of competition and the Olympics (sound familiar?). They also said it would be unfiar to the spectators/sponsors/patrons to throw a match.

Thought it was a pretty interesting thing to think about, even when related to FRC. Things like 2010 6v0 matches came to mind. While not exactly the same as the Olympics scenario since 6v0 aren't really thrown matches, and you don't throw matches in FRC to play weaker teams in the next round, I felt that you could still draw some connections.

What are your thoughts? (in general or related to FRC)

[IndySam]

It is a similar story, manipulating the standings to give you better position.

The big difference is that the players we warned not to do this and that there would be retributions for their actions.

Having two teams both trying to loose must have been quite something to see.

[JamesCH95]

In FRC, situations like 6v0 are a concrete strategy to gain an advantage in the standings, seed higher, and ultimately play weaker teams in eliminations. It is the same as the Badminton situation in my eyes. The difference is that it is considered "creative strategy" in FRC and considered "illegal" in the Olympics.

IMO the Olympic games should be bracketed to encourage every team to win to gain an advantage. If losing makes it ultimately easier to get a gold then there is a design flaw in the bracketing structure, but I don't think teams should be penalized for it because it is a sound strategy, if un-sportsman-like.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I think the main difference is that the players knowingly broke an official rule. I think if the rule had not been there it would be a different story and considered just simply good strategy. However the rule was there and they broke it by not giving it their all to win.

[Jon Stratis]

I see the 6v0 strategy as been very different. When it was done in FIRST, it was with the intention of scoring the most points for your team, thus increasing your standings. In the Olympics, it was with the intention of scoring the least number of points for your team in order to have an easier schedule. In FIRST, it was a legal strategy for playing the game. In the Olympics, it is not a legal strategy.

That said, both are unfortunate for the spectators. In both cases, you aren't showing a great match highlighting the competition between two teams. In the case of the Olympics, they only have the option of punishing those who performed these acts, and rightfully so. In the case of FIRST, the GDC is able to rework the rules through weekly updates in order to push play back towards what was intended.

[Chris is me]

In FRC, situations like 6v0 are a concrete strategy to gain an advantage in the standings, seed higher, and ultimately play weaker teams in eliminations. It is the same as the Badminton situation in my eyes.

An important detail: In competitive badminton, throwing matches is explicitly against the rules. (http://t.co/fV2CrsBo - section 4.5)

The "6v0" describes a variety of scenarios in 2010 that rarely included any collaboration between the alliances. After week 1, it never resulted in seeding higher than your opponents, but it would allow you to nearly match their seeding points instead of giving them the points to leapfrog you. I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of 2010 seeding strategy if anyone wants, but I think that's a bit off topic for this thread.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

An important detail: In competitive badminton, throwing matches is explicitly against the rules. (http://t.co/fV2CrsBo - section 4.5)

The "6v0" describes a variety of scenarios in 2010 that rarely included any collaboration between the alliances. After week 1, it never resulted in seeding higher than your opponents, but it would allow you to nearly match their seeding points instead of giving them the points to leapfrog you. I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of 2010 seeding strategy if anyone wants, but I think that's a bit off topic for this thread.

I understand there are differences between the two situations, and that in the badminton situation throwing a match was explicitly against the rules: I said it was considered "illegal".

In both cases it was beneficial for teams to intentionally lose a match, in this way the two situations are the same. I do not like that situation in any competition.

[JaneYoung]

Let's see .. what would the cheers be coming from the paying fans:

hit 'em high
hit 'em low
come on teams
let's throw throw throw
- the matches -

It's on the coaches.

Jane

[JonathanZur1836]

Regardless of what the technicalities are in the rules or rankings, I don't think that there should be a situation, in FRC or the Olympics, where losing actually gives you a better chance of winning in the end. To me, that defeats the purpose of sport and competition (not because winning is essential, but simply because of the idea of losing on purpose), especially in leagues like FRC or the Olympics, where the winners should win fair and square.

Take the NBA playoffs for instance, the way it works is that the top 8 teams from each conference move onto the playoffs; the 1st place team plays the 8th place team in the first round, the 2nd plays the 7th, and so on. At least from the point of view of statistics, the better your record, the higher your chance of winning. It is a simple system in which winning is always advantageous, and "throwing a game" always works against you in the end.

I think that ranking systems in games like Breakaway are too complicated, so complicated in fact that finding loopholes in them are easy. I think that simple is the way to go in terms of rankings.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by JonathanZur1836

Take the NBA playoffs for instance, the way it works is that the top 8 teams from each conference move onto the playoffs; the 1st place team plays the 8th place team in the first round, the 2nd plays the 7th, and so on. At least from the point of view of statistics, the better your record, the higher your chance of winning. It is a simple system in which winning is always advantageous, and "throwing a game" always works against you in the end.

I think this slightly oversimplifies a standard regular season/playoffs season for big sports like NBA, MLB, NHL etc.

From a pure numbers point of view, yeah it would make sense that the team who won the most games in the regular season statistically has the best chance of winning in the playoffs. However, the games are played by humans and not computers.

Take for example a star player missing half of the regular NBA season with an ankle issue. The team very well may lose significantly more games than they would have won with that player in the lineup. The team ends up near the #4 seed as they approach the playoffs and their star player rejoins the lineup.

Simultaneously, the team in the #5 seed has a tough schedule coming up to finish the regular season, and some of their starters are in need of some rest before the playoffs. Maybe they go out with their B+ lineup instead of their A lineup. They give their starters a few more minutes rest than they normally would.

The whole time they know the highest they can seed is #5, while the lowest they can seed is #7. Coincidentally, the #2 seed (which is who the #7 would play in the 1st round) has lost one of their key support players. Oh yeah, and the current #5 seed swept the season series against the #2.

For the #5 seed, it may make more sense to not really give 100% effort and win those last few regular season games. If they end up the #7, they realistically may have a better shot than they would if they were the #5 and had to face a reinvigorated #4 in the 1st round.

Just some food for thought.

-Brando

[billbo911]

I have a hard time saying that throwing a match to gain better seating is a negative. In fact, we see athlete's in MANY other sports not give their all in every match all the time.

If the ultimate goal in the Olympics is to win Gold, then you would expect to see this behavior.

Here are a couple examples. How often do we see swimmers and sprinters hold off on their best performance during prelims? They do just enough to get into the Semi's and conserve there energies for when they need them. It's common, almost expected.
So, where do you draw the line?

[JaneYoung]

There's a difference between swimming to conserve energy and still qualify for the finals and throwing a match.

Throwing a match is not the intent of the game. The teams were using that option in their qualifying strategy and they were warned to play the game as it was intended. They ignored the warnings and they were thrown out.

Swimming conservatively and advancing to the next race is not the same thing.

A lot hinges on that little word, intent.

Jane

[IKE]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

There's a difference between swimming to conserve energy and still qualify for the finals and throwing a match.

Throwing a match is not the intent of the game. The teams were using that option in their qualifying strategy and they were warned to play the game as it was intended. They ignored the warnings and they were thrown out.

Swimming conservatively and advancing to the next race is not the same thing.

A lot hinges on that little word, intent.

Jane

There is a lot of power in that little word "intent". How does one judge intent? In Freakanomics, they make an interesting discussion about this in the world of Sumo wrestling. Here is a neat little 2 minute video clip. Notice in the video, he states "almost without a doubt". Note that even with murder, "a reasonable doubt" would stop a conviction.

Make no mistake, there are often "incentives" associated with winning medals, even in the U.S.A.
In general these payouts are much less than many executive bonuses which is a very interesting thought (with regards to incentive systems possibly corrupting values), but are quite significant sums of money to an athlete likely to have a shelf life of 4-12 years.

*I am not promoting cheating, or the throwing of matches, I am just showing that without good constraints, it is not suprising that even the most pure get corrupted.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by IKE

There is a lot of power in that little word "intent". How does one judge intent? In Freakanomics, they make an interesting discussion about this in the world of Sumo wrestling. Here is a neat little 2 minute video clip. Notice in the video, he states "almost without a doubt". Note that even with murder, "a reasonable doubt" would stop a conviction.

Make no mistake, there are often "incentives" associated with winning medals, even in the U.S.A.
In general these payouts are much less than many executive bonuses which is a very interesting thought (with regards to incentive systems possibly corrupting values), but are quite significant sums of money to an athlete likely to have a shelf life of 4-12 years.

*I am not promoting cheating, or the throwing of matches, I am just showing that without good constraints, it is not suprising that even the most pure get corrupted.

Absolutely. Fighting corruption is nothing new to these games, sadly. What would be very sad would be for corruption to gain the upper hand and decimate them. It's already been said that these problems that have been brought to light will be addressed. It's also good for everyone involved to take a look at what they are creating, including those who implement incentive systems that possibly corrupt values.

Jane

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by JonathanZur1836

Regardless of what the technicalities are in the rules or rankings, I don't think that there should be a situation, in FRC or the Olympics, where losing actually gives you a better chance of winning in the end. To me, that defeats the purpose of sport and competition (not because winning is essential, but simply because of the idea of losing on purpose), especially in leagues like FRC or the Olympics, where the winners should win fair and square.

Take the NBA playoffs for instance, the way it works is that the top 8 teams from each conference move onto the playoffs; the 1st place team plays the 8th place team in the first round, the 2nd plays the 7th, and so on. At least from the point of view of statistics, the better your record, the higher your chance of winning. It is a simple system in which winning is always advantageous, and "throwing a game" always works against you in the end.

In your example of a single year's NBA playoffs, you are right to say that there's an incentive to be the top seed or generally a higher seed. However, when a team wants to win NBA Championships, they cannot think only about the short term. A team that's good enough to be the 7th or 8th seed in the playoffs, but will likely be bounced in the first round, is much better off throwing their games, not making the playoffs, and getting a high draft pick.

It simply is not easy to make a set of rules that both encourages improvement from the worst teams (for the sake of parity) and doesn't incentivise being bad.