|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
2011 Championship Alliances
I figured some people may want to see all of the alliances in one place, so here you are:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() what are your predictions?? ![]() |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
my predictions:
1718 1918 and 2512 1717 67 2751 254 111 973 148 234 2481 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
o
o |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
I predict Galileo is going to be one heck of a place to be for eliminations. Newton should be great to watch too. I'm surprised about some of the captains and how low they are!
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Archimedes: 1477/33/191 (5th seed)
vs Curie: 1717/67/2751 (2nd seed) Newton: 217/1503/25 (7th seed) vs Galileo: 254/111/973 (2nd seed) Finals: 1717/67/2751 vs 254/111/973 World Champs: 1717/67/2751 Curie Curse is lifted!!! |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Archimedes 2016/177/781 (because 177 has made Einstein every year since 2005)
Curie 1717/67/2751 (really, HOT and 1717, no explication needed) Galileo 254/111/973 ( I think that 1114 will give them a run for their money, but 254 is better than 1771) Newton 148/234/2481 (We got dominated by 234 at BMR, and 148 has been doing well all season so they seem like a shoo-in) final 1717's alliance vs 254's alliance with 254 winning |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
148 and 234 falls to one of the biggest upsets I've ever seen. Congratulations 11, 1730, 2122. All solid teams who finally had a chance to shine.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am working on a take home final due @ 5:00 PM today and keeping an eye on scores and it appears that a lot of the division quarter final matches are very close games. This would seem to validate that the game design folks created scoring options that didn't have a choke hold strategy as well as provided a greater number of teams the ability to design and build effective scroing machines
![]() |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
why did 2337 choose 578 who only won 3 matchs
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
From watching 548, The Robostangs at Michigan State Championship, they had a fast minibot and solid arm. After all they were on the alliance that beated the Thunder Chickens, the Las Guerillas, and The Feds.
Qualification schedule matches have to work in your favor really to have a decent rank at times. In 2009 BOB was first pick by 2nd seed of 1918 when our record was 3-4. This year really showed how rankings does not determine who was the best. Simbotics, 1114, wasn't even in the top 8 after being #1 seed every regional competition and winning all of them. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Strategy.
I don't care if someone wins all their matches or none of their matches. If there is something that they do well, and that complements my team's strategy, if they're around when my team is picking, they won't be around much longer. If there's a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none robot around that does everything but does not do it well, they're probably going to be available a while longer. Rankings are kind of tough anyway--the "algorithm of death" a few years back proved that by putting teams against each other multiple times (and I do mean multiple--sometimes as many as half of their matches were against each other). Teams that pick solely based on rankings are at a distinct disadvantage against teams that pick based on strategy and team ability. And sometimes, a team thinks another team will be a good strategy fit, but the other team is looking for something completely different. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Quote:
That being said, Team 11 is so thankful to 1730's great scouting for this year's CRAZY alliance selection to put together a group of robots that meshed so well! There's not a more exciting feeling than putting up the highest score in the Newton Elims against teams I've idolized since I started FIRST. Props to 217/1503 for besting us in the SFs, your teams are amazing and we couldn't have lost to better robots than yours! |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Quote:
![]() with all of our regional/national history it seems unfair that we had to play against cyber blue (234). getting our first regional win at boilermaker, and then seeing you again last year there and in kc, along with always being in your devision in nationals has always been nice. playing with you last year on an alliance in division finals was awesome. i was nervous myself that we were playing you guys and our idols at 148. i was with those who thought we were the underdogs and would never make it as far as we did. i couldn't take my eyes off of 148's robot when we played our one match together, that thing was one solid piece of engineering. it's one thing to look at it online, but seeing it in person was even better. i would also like to thank Paul Copioli for his dedication to a fair competition, any mentor who extends an offer to help an opponent robot get fixed on a timeout should be recognized. that is the true spirit of gracious professionalism. after that outreach to help, losing to your alliance was ok in my book. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Quote:
A bit of a tangent: Strategy dictates EVERYTHING on our team. Strategy runs the team, from robot design to match play. That is our team's mantra. The way that we performed at Championship, at Troy, at Ann Arbor, and at Kettering was due to our strategy. And you're absolutely right: we make our picks based not solely off of data, but also based on what parts of the robot are strong. We've said at every competition this year that we want our third pick to be "Our Juggernauts," (For those of you who don't know, Team 1 was almost at the very bottom of the rankings at Kettering in Week One, got picked by the #1 alliance captained by the Killer Bees, and then were so fantastic at "throwing" tubes into the Bees'/TORCs' scoring zone that they might have decided the competition). It doesn't matter about how many points you score in a match, what your seed is, or anything like that: what matters to us is what a robot's capabilities are and whether or not they will complement our strategy. I can say with great confidence that winning Troy and Ann Arbor was the direct result of our strategy. Unfortunately, we got slightly unlucky at Championship, but I feel slightly less bad about being eliminated in the quarterfinals considering we were in a division that yielded the World Champions. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Championship Alliances
Quote:
I also have to give props to my kids. Our driver was a senior, driving for the second year, and our manipulator was a junior in his first year as drive team member. They did an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. Those two, plus one more student and two college mentors were almost the whole team. There were three other kids (all freshmen) involved in the build and championship travel team, and they had a total robot budget of about $3,000. To accomplish what they did with what they had was nothing short of amazing. Austin, Matt, Emily, Prerak, Ashay and Erika, you guys are awesome. edit: Oh yeah, and to the team that made a point to run over and tell us that if picked, you would decline: thanks, but you were never on our list. Last edited by martin417 : 02-05-2011 at 10:13. Reason: Forgot that last part. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|