Seeding System

[Koci]

I was just curious as to what people's thoughts were on the new scoring system, as opposed to previous years. Is the number of wins a preferable method of determination of ranking over the accumulation of your opponents scores?

[Crop-Circles]

Two years ago, we had a match where we won, but we accidently pulled the last goal out of our opponents zone and ended up getting no QPs. It was very upseting to see our robot work perfectly and then still lose because of a driver mistake. Plus, the other team got no points either. I LOVE this system.

[Chris Hibner]

I love the new system and I've been asking for it for years. I remember the great thread back in 2000 when Joe Johnson made the analogy that we were "having a bunting contest to determine who plays in the World Series" (with the old system). I think it worked out well at VCU. I think it should continue to work well, but time will tell.

[jeremy562]

I really liked the system this year. Wins were important for seeding, but you still had to think about QPs and letting your opponents score and even helping them score points.

[Jones571]

I believe that the new system is a much needed improvement to the previous system they had and it worked well at the NJ regional were tribe never lost a match but I don’t believe they had the highest average but they were still the 1st seed which they really deserved. So this system works well

[Paul H]

I like the win/loss thing much better than previous years' systems, but I'd rather have scoring within the tiers be based on the team's score rather than the opponents' score.

[ShadowKnight]

the concept of basing your qp's on the oppents score times two was initiated with gracious professionalism in mind. It's FIRST guys ;-)

[10intheCrunch]

While GP is certainly important to the whole FIRST idea, I think basing the seedings off of the opponents' scores strays a bit from professionalism. Professionals play fair and respect their opponents, but they still play to win. Scoring points for your opponent to increase your own score seems selfish and patronizing--you are telling the other team their best efforts aren't good enough. Further, because of the 2x rule last year, 254 in at least one final played to lose--we just cleared out all the boxes from both sides to prevent the other team from catching up in QPs. We played to win the final, but not the match, and it feels like we cheated another team out of a good round because of it--not terribly GP.

I believe the new system will work much better, though I agree that seedings should be based on a teams own score. Let gracious professionalism pervade our lives...but let us still be professionals out on the field.

Or maybe I don't get GP at all =), feel free to yell at me.

Cheers,

[Rich Kressly]

Love the new system. It's more team friendly AND much more understandable for the audience (parents, sponsors, media).

[Natchez]

I like the new system BUT what about this for the future.

#1 Seed: Best win/loss record
#2 Seed: Highest QPs
#3 Seed: Second best win/loss record
#4 Seed: Second highest QPs
#5 Seed: Third best win/loss record
#6 Seed: Third highest QPs
#7 Seed: Fourth best win/loss record
#8 Seed: Fourth highest QPs

Obviously there would need to be tie-breakers ... for win/loss, it would be QPs and for QP, it would be win/loss.

This would certainly change strategies and some teams might change their strategy midway through a tournament if they come out of the gate with a few losses. Admittingly, this would be confusing for spectators but most people just look at a scoreboard to get standings.

Just some "crazy" thoughts,
Lucien

[10intheCrunch]

That would certainly mix things up...but I don't really see the advantage behind it. Rather, it might penalize defensive robots when they lose and artificially raise up high scoring teams (those that lose). Neither strategy should be favored directly by FIRST over another...which is why the direct win/loss is so beneficial.

[cheri0627]

Originally Posted by 10intheCrunch

While GP is certainly important to the whole FIRST idea, I think basing the seedings off of the opponents' scores strays a bit from professionalism. Professionals play fair and respect their opponents, but they still play to win. Scoring points for your opponent to increase your own score seems selfish and patronizing--you are telling the other team their best efforts aren't good enough.

You want to win, but you also want the alliance you beat to do very well point wise. I don't think it was to get people to score points for the other alliance. I think part of this may have been to keep teams from designing strategies which prevent the other alliance from scoring. If you want to rank high, is it a good strategy to block your opponent's ball corals with the mobile goals or your robot? There have not been many undefeated teams at the end of the qualification matches, so most teams are relying on ranking points to help position.

Last year, I saw a lot of matches where one alliance would completely clear the other side of the field. I think this point system was to help eliminate that, and I think it works pretty well.

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by cheri0627

You want to win, but you also want the alliance you beat to do very well point wise. I don't think it was to get people to score points for the other alliance. I think part of this may have been to keep teams from designing strategies which prevent the other alliance from scoring. If you want to rank high, is it a good strategy to block your opponent's ball corals with the mobile goals or your robot? There have not been many undefeated teams at the end of the qualification matches, so most teams are relying on ranking points to help position.

Last year, I saw a lot of matches where one alliance would completely clear the other side of the field. I think this point system was to help eliminate that, and I think it works pretty well.

Last year if they were clearing the opponents field during qualifying rounds that alliance had horrible strategy. The only times this played effect were in elimination rounds where the winning team from the first round could nearly gurantee victory by limiting the score (aka clearing both zone and leaving as few as possible robots on top).

There are several reasons for the new scoring system and why I like it:

1. It make the competition one game. Qualifying and elimination matches generally play out the same. No more all for QPs at the sake of win-losses and switch to all win-loss at elims.

2. It adds a certain tradeoff between winning with low QPs and taking the risk of losing once and being done or having high QP matches and taking more risk in losing high scoring close matches, more than a couple and your done. The scoring system in FIRST is about complexities that make strategy fun while being easy as possible for an audience to understand. The QPs being the opponents score offers this dimension to the game and as a strategist I love it.

3. It make co-opertition happen. You want your opponent in good shape so you'll do well.

4. Win-loss makes the game exciting. Being able to score only on five-point intervals makes every score closer and ties more likely and the game more exciting to watch. What I'm trying to say is that this game is so exciting in part because the scoring creates these close and exciting finishes.

These are just a few among many reasons why this scoring system is great this year. At least in my opinion.

[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by Paul H

I like the win/loss thing much better than previous years' systems, but I'd rather have scoring within the tiers be based on the team's score rather than the opponents' score.

It's funny that Paul wrote this... I was having the exact same thought. I couldn't figure out why this was.. and though I have no official contact with FIRST, I think I figured it out.

Let's say that the #1 seed has an 8-0 record with an average opponent score of 80, and the #2 seed has an 8-0 record with an average opponent score of 20.

If you make the assumption that in order to win, you need to play better offense than defense this year, (which I believe to be true, though perhaps other will dsisagree), then you know that the average score of the #1 seed MUST be higher than 80, AND they've been going against tougher opponents.

In a lot of ways, the average score of your opponents is sort of like a "strength of schedule" factor that you see in professional sports. I think this is why they have it in place.

Just my two cents,

Matt

[Gary Dillard]

How about we implement the 'Bot Championship Seeding" (BCS) system:

The coaches vote and rank the teams

The media votes and rank the teams

You get debits for strength of schedule (based on who you beat in the top ten)

You add 1 point for each loss

You have 4 computer systems that noone ever heard of come up with a ranking based on some bizarre scientific reasoning.

The 2 teams with the lowest total score from the above play each other.

Then, regardless of who wins the game, you still vote for the number 1 team.

Nah, no sport would ever consider something as silly as that.