A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[Citrus Dad]

I was looking at the alliance selections in the Fall Classic in LA:
http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2014cafc2
and found it disturbing that so many teams chose their second robot as an alliance member. Even though there were only 18 teams total, many were left out of the 16 robots that were in the semifinals.

The emphasis on fall competitions should be inclusiveness and encouraging new participants. Draft choices that narrow the alliances to just a few teams seems to run counter to that experience. I hope the teams left out at that tournament weren't too disappointed.

[EricH]

So 1678 is going to come down next year to help expand the field, right? If you look at Saturday's selections, only 4 "B" robots were picked for eliminations, with only one pair on the same alliance (and that as the 4th robot). This may be because there was a much larger field to choose from.

While you're at it, why not comment about allowing teams to compete in both one-day tournaments including eliminations, instead of forcing them to choose one day? (Because, as you might notice, about half of the teams in Sunday's elims had competed in Saturday's eliminations as well.) After all, this is about inclusiveness and encouraging new participants, and I can't think of anything less encouraging than to get walloped by the same team two days in a row, or watching said team walk off with multiple days of awards even if they're not all the same. Or how about barring the "B" robots altogether, resulting in a much smaller event, because you want to include everybody and encourage all the new participants?


I generally consider the offseason events to be emphasizing FUN and TRAINING. As part of those, multiple teams like to swap out drive teams, or do other similar things. And truth to tell, it's rather entertaining to watch Twin A knock Twin B out of an event if they're on opposite sides (plus it gets the ENTIRE team cheering for an ENTIRE match).

Spoiler for :

For those that can't catch on very well... That second paragraph is intended to be somewhere between sarcasm and satire. I'm not seriously proposing either "solution".

The first paragraph is serious, or nearly so. The event could have used 1678's HP coach. As a ref, easily 60% of the fouls came from humans not knowing what was going on. One or two incidents stand out, but I think I'll save the teams and team members involved the embarrassment.

[New lightnining]

What you see at some off season events, including Cow Town Throw Down in Kansas City, is that there can be NO picking amongst alliance captains. Therefore they have to pick outside of the top eight, insuring that more people get involved in eliminations. It runs like a normal event, so one round of eliminations after one day of competition. The off season is where teams get to bring in new members and show the what FIRST is really about and making sure that more people get involved will help teams retain those new individuals and give the returning members practice to get back into competition mode for the upcoming season. Most off season events do their best to ensure that things are not so one sided.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by New lightnining

Therefore they have to pick outside of the top eight, insuring that more people get involved in eliminations.

By "people", do you mean individual human beings, or teams?

[New lightnining]

I really just meant teams when I first wrote it, by now that I think about it getting more people involved would be a better thing. But yeah I really meant teams.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by New lightnining

I really just meant teams when I first wrote it, by now that I think about it getting more people involved would be a better thing. But yeah I really meant teams.

How does eliminating picking amongst alliance captains ensure that more teams get involved in eliminations?

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by inkling16

How does eliminating picking amongst alliance captains ensure that more teams get involved in eliminations?

I was thinking the same thing...

I don't like where this is going. Not at all. When I bring my team to any competition, I want them to play against the best. That way they get the real test on where they need to improve.

Everyone gets a ribbon...

[cadandcookies]

I'm always hesitant to judge what happened at an event without having been there myself. There are certain things that are difficult to notice just looking at numbers on Blue Alliance (like who's broken, or what exactly the teams that picked were looking for).

They earned their place in the top eight-- they get to choose their priorities with who their teammates are.

[New Lightning]

Eliminating picking from within the top 8 forces the captains to pick robots deeper into the field than the would probably normally go. Also it keeps the eliminations matches closer because you don't have all the top teams spread between 2 or 3 really good teams and 5 or 6 okay to mediocre teams. Teams would get involved that might have otherwise been left out of eliminations, because captains were allowed to pick from each other. That's how more teams would get involved. And its the off season, I know you want to go out and compete but the off season is about having fun without the pressure of the normal completion season.

[Lil' Lavery]

Anyone who thinks a half day of qualification matches, often involving trainee drivers, produces anything close to an accurate top 8 is kidding themselves. I've been to quite a few off-seasons where picking is forbidden in the top 8, and I've encountered more than a few teams that cheered when they found themselves at the #9 or #10 seed at the end of qualifications, rather than as an alliance captain. The system becomes ridiculous.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Anyone who thinks a half day of qualification matches, often involving trainee drivers, produces anything close to an accurate top 8 is kidding themselves. I've been to quite a few off-seasons where picking is forbidden in the top 8, and I've encountered more than a few teams that cheered when they found themselves at the #9 or #10 seed at the end of qualifications, rather than as an alliance captain. The system becomes ridiculous.

Seconding this. If the top 8 were reliably the strongest 8 robots at competition, then eliminating picking among them for the sake of better competitive balance might be a good idea. Unfortunately, given the extreme variance in rankings at FRC events (especially offseasons), this is not the case, and all you do is make things worse.

As for the OP, I'm not sure what I think about teams picking their own "B" robots for eliminations. On the one hand, yes, it does reduce the number of teams that get to participate in elims. On the other, is that really a compelling reason not to do it, especially when the alternative quite likely reduces the standard of play in eliminations (which is less fun for everyone)? I think this is a question of values, and probably has different answers for different events with different atmospheres.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Eliminating picking from within the top 8 forces the captains to pick robots deeper into the field than the would probably normally go. Also it keeps the eliminations matches closer because you don't have all the top teams spread between 2 or 3 really good teams and 5 or 6 okay to mediocre teams. Teams would get involved that might have otherwise been left out of eliminations, because captains were allowed to pick from each other. That's how more teams would get involved. And its the off season, I know you want to go out and compete put the off season is about having fun without the pressure of the normal completion season.

I am sorry, I am still not following the logic. Let's say there is 32 teams in the field and if you have 8 alliances in the elims, each captain gets to choose their best match (in terms of game play) for their alliance (as they choose 3 more teams to round out their alliance). Then even if Captain 1 chooses team 2, then through cascade, the 9th place team is now the #8 captain. And so on through the picks. All 32 teams will still end up in the elims. I understand that this is the most perfect situation, and most off-season events do not run this way.

Now as a coach trying to bring up my next year's drive team, I would hate to handicap them in picking the best robot regardless of where they are in the standings. I want my drive team to play with the teams that can allow our robot to play the game the way we decided way back on Kick-off in January. This allows my drive team to create the best alliance to face off against other strong alliances. Even if my team was not picked, it is a learning opportunity.

The idea of evening out the field confounds me and goes against how I want to develop my team. Even though it is an off-season event, I want my team to treat it as an in season competition - otherwise why even have elims? Just declare a winner after the quals.

[Citrus Dad]

I'm sorry that you have to get so angry about a comment based on the information available on Blue Alliance. There is no indication in the Sunday information that the field was somehow of limited size. (And Saturday's info shows only the elimination alliances.) A more measured comment explaining the situation rather than lashing out is much more appropriate on a web forum. Please consider your language and tone when you enter a discussion here. It sounds like your anger is better aimed at the event organizers, but rationally and calmly discussing the options with them about how to make it a better event.

Originally Posted by EricH

So 1678 is going to come down next year to help expand the field, right? If you look at Saturday's selections, only 4 "B" robots were picked for eliminations, with only one pair on the same alliance (and that as the 4th robot). This may be because there was a much larger field to choose from.

While you're at it, why not comment about allowing teams to compete in both one-day tournaments including eliminations, instead of forcing them to choose one day? (Because, as you might notice, about half of the teams in Sunday's elims had competed in Saturday's eliminations as well.) After all, this is about inclusiveness and encouraging new participants, and I can't think of anything less encouraging than to get walloped by the same team two days in a row, or watching said team walk off with multiple days of awards even if they're not all the same. Or how about barring the "B" robots altogether, resulting in a much smaller event, because you want to include everybody and encourage all the new participants?


I generally consider the offseason events to be emphasizing FUN and TRAINING. As part of those, multiple teams like to swap out drive teams, or do other similar things. And truth to tell, it's rather entertaining to watch Twin A knock Twin B out of an event if they're on opposite sides (plus it gets the ENTIRE team cheering for an ENTIRE match).

Spoiler for :

For those that can't catch on very well... That second paragraph is intended to be somewhere between sarcasm and satire. I'm not seriously proposing either "solution".

The first paragraph is serious, or nearly so. The event could have used 1678's HP coach. As a ref, easily 60% of the fouls came from humans not knowing what was going on. One or two incidents stand out, but I think I'll save the teams and team members involved the embarrassment.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I'm sorry that you have to get so angry about a comment based on the information available on Blue Alliance. There is no indication in the Sunday information that the field was somehow of limited size. (And Saturday's info shows only the elimination alliances.) A more measured comment explaining the situation rather than lashing out is much more appropriate on a web forum. Please consider your language and tone when you enter a discussion here. It sounds like your anger is better aimed at the event organizers, but rationally and calmly discussing the options with them about how to make it a better event.

I was responding to the fact that without having ever been to the event, or apparently viewing the publicly available team list (follow the event link from the TBA page, and it's one more link to the spreadsheet), you had the appearance of criticizing the teams at the event for making choices that they chose to make. I believe a close analogy would be the "scorched earth" debate, particularly if triggered by someone from far away--say it happened at a Sacramento offseason and I, never having been to such an event, complained from down here. So, I responded from the standpoint of someone who WAS at the event, both days, working WITH the organizers to keep the event going. Trust me, it was a lot harder and a lot more frustrating than it should probably have been. Reference the thread on the event for some of the issues we had at various times.

Also, I did note (in the "spoiler") that I was not being entirely serious in the second paragraph. Some of it was intended as a "where does this sort of questioning stop", by showing the logical continuation of your stated reason for offseasons. For the record, the goal of the Fall Classic differs somewhat from your reasoning; for convenience:

Originally Posted by SCRRF Fall Classic page

The mission of the Fall Classic is to expand the awareness of FIRST Robotics Competition to students, teachers, sponsors and mentors from all across Southern California, as well as to provide existing teams an opportunity to compete with their robotic creations once again.

I guess some folks can't tell the difference between someone being angry and someone being sarcastic, even when the "sarcasm tags" are in use. It was a little bit of both, to be fair, and I did significant rewriting to tone it down from the original post. (On the topic of discussing with the event organizers--if you have a problem, real or perceived, with how an event is run, or something that happens with an event, shouldn't you contact the organizers, prior to posting on CD, as much as possible?)

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by EricH

I believe a close analogy would be the "scorched earth" debate,

I don't see the equivalence. Teams choose to decline when they are picked, they don't choose to not get picked. There's a reason that FRC only allows each team to bring one robot to an event. Having a powerhouse teams build 2 clones of their robot then proceed to pick both of them and steamroll the competition is fun for no one and directly opposes the idea of cooperative competition, instead it is only competition.

As you stated in a post of your own, seeing a teams A robot, and B robot face off in elims is great to see, we all agree on that. The concern that he is expressing is not that these teams have 3 robots in elims, the concern is that these robots are all ending up on the same alliance instead of pairing up with other teams and cooperating with teams that aren't their own.

I think this is a perfectly valid concern, it's somewhat of an unspoken rule that picking your own team isn't the most GP thing to do. Offseason competitions are not about winning, they are about giving teams experience, and the best way for new teams to gain experience is to play with veteran teams, not against them.

I guess some folks can't tell the difference between someone being angry and someone being sarcastic, even when the "sarcasm tags" are in use.

You specifically said you were serious in your first paragraph. I think he was safe in assuming that you were in fact serious. When someone discusses improvements you can make "then do it better yourself" isn't often seen as the most friendly, or mature response.