9th seed decline

[Jeffy]

We planned on it at GKC in 2009 (seed#9) and in 2011 (seed #11). Never had to decline, but was the 8th captain seed both years.

The list of potential declines was much longer in 2009 than it was in 2011 due to our position and our strategy at elims.

I think some for events in Rebound Rumble, it would have been advantageous to be the ninth seed moved up to 8th alliance captain due to the messed up rankings the coop bridge brought. If the #1 seed was a team you could probably beat that got to their position via coop bridge, then it would be a smart choice to decline their invitation, select two solid teams in a row with the power of the 8th seed, and beat them in the quarters.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

I think some for events in Rebound Rumble, it would have been advantageous to be the ninth seed moved up to 8th alliance captain due to the messed up rankings the coop bridge brought. If the #1 seed was a team you could probably beat that got to their position via coop bridge, then it would be a smart choice to decline their invitation, select two solid teams in a row with the power of the 8th seed, and beat them in the quarters.

Really any competition, any year there's a less deserving #1 seed, this can apply. 2012 in particular do to the wonky co-op bridge, but the same could be said this year.
What if, in Curie, 1717 or 1310 was seeded 9th when they declined 1678? If they moved up (and that's a big 'if' in that division), they could have had two great picks that shouldn't have been left for the second round (like 1918- seriously how did a 5-disc auto and a 50 point climb get left to the second round of picks?!?!)
But I digress.
That would have been exceptionally risky.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

(like 1918- seriously how did a 5-disc auto and a 50 point climb get left to the second round of picks?!?!)

Curie was exceptionally strange and unpredictable this year, but I wasn't surprised 1918 didn't make it until the second round. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love 1918's robot and approach. In fact, in my opinion, they were very close to the ideal design solution this year.

The number one reason they dropped to second pick, boiled down to speed. With the gear ratio they had on their drive base, they were painfully slow moving around the field. Without defense, they could still score a slightly above average amount of cycles. However, eliminations at champs can be brutal when it comes to defense. Their autonomous cycle was fairly reliable, but occasionally their collection device seemed to have trouble scooping discs up. Their climb worked great with only a few mishaps during the season, yet it didn't get used in several elimination matches, IIRC.

Had the selections on Curie played out differently, it would have been very likely that 1918 could have been a first pick, assuming more inter-picking amongst the top 8.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

@ THE 2009 FLR the 13th seed declined a selection from the 3rd seed in hopes of getting in as the 8th seed.
They didn't quite make it in.

Originally Posted by purduephotog

Yep. I was pretty shocked. I took photos of that moment. The individual ended up walking off the field when he realized what he'd done.

The team was 610. They declined assuming out sister team, 424 would select our team. When that didn't happen the writing was on the wall. It was not a 'mistake' it was a calculated risk that did not work in their favor.

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

The team was 610. They declined assuming out sister team, 424 would select our team. When that didn't happen the writing was on the wall. It was not a 'mistake' it was a calculated risk that did not work in their favor.

Ohh Duncan... if I remember correctly they believed at the time they were in a higher seed (10th or 11th) not 13th, didn't work out so well.

[Garrett.d.w]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Can anyone provide insight as to the selections at these events? Were there a lot of top 8 declines? Was there a high seeded team that no one wanted to be with?

I can shed a little light on Oregon.
Oregon is a huge event with many robots of varied build and design quality. This, mixed with the process through which the seeding rounds are formed created many 3 on 1 matches throughout the day, often with desirable robots loosing matches even though they played beautifully. Anyway, seeding was very unkind to generally good teams (Mean Machine, Bear Metal, Flaming Chickens, SOTA Bots, all played several 3 on 1) and very kind to average teams (such as my own, where we were carried by our alliance partners). This all created a situation where people in the top 8 took risks on robots that didn't seed too well because there were no sure picks in their own ranks. Just to give you an idea at how wonky things were, the winning alliance seeds were 1, 19, and 25. The bots on our alliance were seeded 8, 12, and 34.

[Kathysmith]

You may already know this, but in Curie what happened was that the first seed invited all the other seven seeds. They didn't seem to upset when they all declined so I'm assuming they did this so that the other top seeds couldn't partner up with each other. Our team thought that it was a clever plan, but there may be unforeseen down sides to this option other than the obvious possibility that someone they were not particularly fond of might accept.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kathysmith

You may already know this, but in Curie what happened was that the first seed invited all the other seven seeds. They didn't seem to upset when they all declined so I'm assuming they did this so that the other top seeds couldn't partner up with each other. Our team thought that it was a clever plan, but there may be unforeseen down sides to this option other than the obvious possibility that someone they were not particularly fond of might accept.

The "scorched earth" strategy. There are some downsides, depending on implementation.

Usually, it's applied to specific teams that the first seed does not want to team up, or to force one of those teams onto their alliance. Say, asking the #3 and the #5, when you really want the #2 on your side and not facing #3 and #5 together, and you know that #2 wants one of those two. Very rarely is it applied to the entire top 8.

Sometimes, it's done accidentally--a team may just be picking off the ranking list (protip, don't do this), or may just be a team that nobody really wants to ally with, due to a number of factors. In this case, you'll see a lot of confusion.

The primary downside is that someone accepts when you weren't expecting them to. This is easily avoided by asking the top 8 if they would accept if you pick them, and hoping that someone isn't trying to call your bluff.

However, it also breaks up ALL the powerhouse alliances from the top 8, which at Championship weakens your division. Enter the Curie Curse, in this case.

[bduddy]

I always wonder... if a really good 9th/10th/11th-place team employs this strategy, might the top 8 robots adjust their picks to try to keep said team out of eliminations entirely? I would certainly consider it, although at that point it's almost a Prisoner's Dillema situation...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I always wonder... if a really good 9th/10th/11th-place team employs this strategy, might the top 8 robots adjust their picks to try to keep said team out of eliminations entirely? I would certainly consider it, although at that point it's almost a Prisoner's Dillema situation...

If you're really good, you probably aren't in a position to employ that strategy--you're either picking, or due to ranking quirks/carrying partners against double-teams you're about 16th or lower (like 254 at one of their 2012 events--couldn't get coop points to save their lives).

If that were to happen, I would be surprised.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

Ohh Duncan... if I remember correctly they believed at the time they were in a higher seed (10th or 11th) not 13th, didn't work out so well.

Split the difference, they were the 12th seed according to the data in our 2009 Scouting Database.

[AdamHeard]

For the data historians out there... what is the lowest seeded team to ever captain an alliance? The 15th seeded is the lowest possible, how close has it got to that?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

For the data historians out there... what is the lowest seeded team to ever captain an alliance? The 15th seeded is the lowest possible, how close has it got to that?

15th seed captained the 8th seed alliance at WPI this year.

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

15th seed captained the 8th seed alliance at WPI this year.

New question: What's the lowest seeded captain to win an event?

744 won Orlando this year captaining the 8th alliance from the 13th seed. Anyone from 14 or 15?