Week 2 Regionals: Veterans Still Have No Advantage

[dtengineering]

Last week I took a look at the results of the first weekend regionals (this thread), and concluded that veteran teams had no advantage when it came to winning qualifying matches.

Discussion followed, including some interesting statisics from last year that showed veterans did tend to score more points than rookies, and also surrounding the many benefits that come with experience other than just the ability to win matches. There was also the oft-repeated note that winning qualifying matches is not necessarily related to being selected for the finals or for doing well in the finals.

The match scheduling system was also discussed, as it pretty much ensured last week that for every match a veteran team won, a veteran team also lost a match.

So, presuming that the match scheduling system bias would be fixed this week, I promised to take look at this week's data.

A correlation of team number to ranking actually results in a value of -.026, which -- if it were large enough to be significant, which I'm not arguing it is -- would actually suggest newer teams ranked higher than veterans.

This is supported by the fact that the 61 teams numbered less than 300 had an average seed of 22.3 while the 76 teams numbered greater than 2000 had an average seed of 21.4.

This flies in the face of the common assumption that low-numbered veteran teams are more likely to win matches. It sure doesn't seem to be happening this year.

Jason

[DonRotolo]

Then Kodos are in order for the Game Design Committee, for developing a 'level' game. There is little more frustrating to a rookie or 2nd year team than t simply get trounced in competition.

Sure, it's not about the robot (and never was), but veteran teams with their far greater resources (at least, they are perceived that way) seemed to have an unfair advantage. Not this year - so far.

Don

[Sgraff_SRHS06]

Note, there have been a healthy share of rookies that have won--note WI, VA, MO, among others.

But, even if a rookie or second-year team has a pretty good robot, they are constantly beat when it comes to strategy and simply operating in this kind of game. The ones that are doing well have been around since either FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar or Triple play.

It's basically a control style and being able to coordinate and experience.

[meatmanek]

I would have to disagree. Veteran team still have an advantage in the game, it's just been equalized in the qualification rounds.

Unfortunately, there's no way to really eliminate the advantage that veteran teams have over rookies. Even if you make the game so different that the only things in common between each year's robot are the fact that they're robots, veteran teams will still have an advantage. They know all the right people, know the places to shop, and the students have more skills.

Is this a problem? I don't think so. It just means FIRST is accomplishing something. If the rookie teams were just as good as veteran teams, it would mean that FIRST hadn't taught the kids and teachers anything.

On a side note, it'd be really cool if they made the KOP and robot rules drastically different each year. Imagine if next year your robots were gas or glow fuel powered and played in a grass field or sand pit or mud pile. And then the year after that, we'd be playing with ultra-lightweight blimp robots.

[LordTalps]

Originally Posted by meatmanek

I would have to disagree. Veteran team still have an advantage in the game, it's just been equalized in the qualification rounds.

Unfortunately, there's no way to really eliminate the advantage that veteran teams have over rookies. Even if you make the game so different that the only things in common between each year's robot are the fact that they're robots, veteran teams will still have an advantage. They know all the right people, know the places to shop, and the students have more skills.

Is this a problem? I don't think so. It just means FIRST is accomplishing something. If the rookie teams were just as good as veteran teams, it would mean that FIRST hadn't taught the kids and teachers anything.

On a side note, it'd be really cool if they made the KOP and robot rules drastically different each year. Imagine if next year your robots were gas or glow fuel powered and played in a grass field or sand pit or mud pile. And then the year after that, we'd be playing with ultra-lightweight blimp robots.

Sand in your electronics...

bleh.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by LordTalps

Sand in your electronics...

bleh.

Electronics are made of sand.

[meatmanek]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Electronics are made of sand.

Well done.

Seriously though, sand wouldn't be too horrible with the electronics. Just put your electronics in a box with some seals, and you're good. The thing to worry about is those sprockets, bearings, gears...

[Nawaid Ladak]

no rookie team was selected for alliance parings at the Florida Regional. and the Great Lakes Regional.

i'll believe this when a rookie team leads a team to a championship

[triggerhappy336]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

no rookie team was selected for alliance parings at the Florida Regional. and the Great Lakes Regional.

i'll believe this when a rookie team leads a team to a championship

Didn't that happen at VCU?

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by triggerhappy336

Didn't that happen at VCU?

VCU was using the old match selection algorithm. While it didn't change how good their robot was, it might've helped them win more matches. I still support the new algorithm - I just wanted to bring it up.

[triggerhappy336]

Originally Posted by sumadin

VCU was using the old match selection algorithm. While it didn't change how good their robot was, it might've helped them win more matches. I still support the new algorithm - I just wanted to bring it up.

Did FIRST actually change the algorithm? They said they did, but we ran into the same problems at FLR. The problem being playing with the same teams over and over and not getting to work with a large majority of the competitors. And yet still having super short turn arounds and uber long turn arounds later.

[1359th Scalawag]

I didn't like the new algorithm they used. At the Pacific Northwest Regional we were against the same team nearly every match. And for the next match, we always were against one of our previous allance members and with one of our previous opponents. They did that every single match.

And with the Rookie thing, at the Pacific Northwest Regional, the rookies rocked. I dont know what the statistics were for how many went into the finals but we took team 1983 (Skunkworks) into the finals with us. They also won the Imagery award.
A rookie team (2122) took top 3rd seed and lost in the semifinals to the team that eventually won.
I wonder how well the rookies did in past competitions...

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

...
The match scheduling system was also discussed, as it pretty much ensured last week that for every match a veteran team won, a veteran team also lost a match.

So, presuming that the match scheduling system bias would be fixed this week, I promised to take look at this week's data.
...

Jason

That presumption just ain't so: http://www.grovesrobotics.org/GLR2007matchlist.xls

[waialua359]

Good teams go with the flow with whatever FIRST throws at them and find a way to win. ex. team 25, 254, etc. Excuses are not made.
In NJ we played either team 341 or 375 in EVERY match because of our team no. 359. Both were good teams!
Strategy to me is what was important in looking at the strengths and weaknesses of your fellow alliance and the opposing alliances in every match, especially the playoffs. That was our focus and I truly believe this is why as a #7 seed in the tough NJ regional, we were able to successfully win against the #2 and #3 seeded teams to get to the finals.
Although the finals didnt go as planned, our strategy still had a chance had we done what we were close to doing, in one of those matches. For team 25, the winning alliance member, to come out and tell us this, made us feel competitive and validation for what we were attempting to do. And most importantly, our discussions with EVERYONE involved all had gracious professionalism in our approaches in how we deal with these challenges.
Adversity should be seen as a challenge and not as an obstacle.