Throwing Matches at the Olympics

[BigJ]

In addition, as long as you can avoid complacency, impressive wins can get into your future opponents' heads.

Question: Were there any matches where the "Don't score too much" rule in Lunacy actually affected the outcome by not having supercells available? I remember the general consensus being "Take them away if you want, we don't need them."

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

[
What if you were pretty much demolished by a team in any given match? Would you be upset or would you find it inspirational? Do you think the losing team's reaction would be based more on the conduct of the winning team after the match is over? How would you react if you had to face off against a Dream Team?

This happens all the time at FIRST events. It's really the luck of the draw when it comes to seeding matches. At IRI we triple balanced and still lost by 50 points! Nobody on our alliance was the least bit upset about it.

You just won't last long at FIRST if you get upset by that kind of thing.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

You never know when a lead is safe

Usually I would agree with this, but this lead was definitely very safe. If team USA didn't score a single point in the second half, they still would have won by 6 points.

As far as running it up goes, most of the starters were pulled out, and it is important to remember that the reserve players are still representing our country and want to prove that they deserve to do so. Unfortunately for the other national teams, our reserve players are also very, very good.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

Usually I would agree with this, but this lead was definitely very safe. If team USA didn't score a single point in the second half, they would have won by 6 points.

But if you ease up on defense too, you start giving the opponents confidence, and that can make them start playing better overall. Of course what I said was a stretch for that game, but also remember that hindsight is 20/20. It could have happened.

[jcarr]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

[url]
Krzyzewski nodded toward Nigeria coach Ayodele Bakare and decided to speak for him too. "Coach would think it humiliating if we didn't play hard."
.

In FTC last year, there were a lot of matches where our drivers only picked up one basket, or they only lifted it high enough to win comfortably, not to blow out the other team. Should we have gone for two or three baskets at maximum height every time? There is the danger of the robot freezing due to a Samantha glitch or something bad happening if you try for two or three baskets and don't make it, versus just lifting one higher than anyone else earlier in the match, but generally we didn't think it was GP to blow out a weak team. Is deliberately underscoring an insult to our opponents?

The flip side hurt us - when we needed three baskets at maximum height, we hadn't practiced it enough and sometimes had trouble.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by jcarr

In FTC last year, there were a lot of matches where our drivers only picked up one basket, or they only lifted it high enough to win comfortably, not to blow out the other team. Should we have gone for two or three baskets at maximum height every time? There is the danger of the robot freezing due to a Samantha glitch or something bad happening if you try for two or three baskets and don't make it, versus just lifting one higher than anyone else earlier in the match, but generally we didn't think it was GP to blow out a weak team. Is deliberately underscoring an insult to our opponents?

The flip side hurt us - when we needed three baskets at maximum height, we hadn't practiced it enough and sometimes had trouble.

(emphasis mine)

Gracious Professionalism has zero to do with the game on the field as long as it is played in good faith by the rules in my opinion.

Practice vs. risk-of-damage is a discussion in itself.

[SciBorg Dave]

At our regional, there were 2-3 dominate teams. In at least 1 match one of the dominate teams instructed it team alliance not to co-op balance to give the other alliance the points. Was this good straegy or poor play ?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SciBorg Dave

At our regional, there were 2-3 dominate teams. In at least 1 match one of the dominate teams instructed it team alliance not to co-op balance to give the other alliance the points. Was this good straegy or poor play ?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the strategy here? Was this to mean the dominate team did not want to balance so as to not give another team the co-op points, or was it that the dominant team was throwing the match? If the case is the former, then I do not see an issue with a team doing this because that is not playing without heart, rather, it is playing with the big picture weaved into your strategy.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the strategy here? Was this to mean the dominate team did not want to balance so as to not give another team the co-op points, or was it that the dominant team was throwing the match? If the case is the former, then I do not see an issue with a team doing this because that is not playing without heart, rather, it is playing with the big picture weaved into your strategy.

If I understand correctly, the instruction was given by the dominant team not to co-op so as not to give their opponents any co-op points. This was not a throwing the match situation.

As for whether it's good strategy or poor play, it's both. In terms of ranking, it's good strategy (unless your opponents beat you) as you get 2 RP, they get none. It's also poor strategy if other highly-ranked teams do co-op and get 4 RP. Your opponents get 0 instead of 2. Seems to be a reasonable strategy, but not one I'd intentionally practice personally.