301 points! and could have done more

[dodar]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

How?

Hmmm, let the other side score as much as they want without trying to stop them.....let's think about how that might lose someone a regional championship.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by dodar

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

Not trying to say I agree with the Blue alliance strategy but they had plenty of high scoring matches with defense being played on them that outscored some of our alliance's matches. If the first plan didn't work very great (finals 1), all out scoring may have actually given them a better chance at outscoring us. Unfortunately, they had some problems running their cycles in finals 2.

[JohnFogarty]

It was a choice and both alliances seemed to have made it. If you were completely confident in your alliances ability to completely outscore your opponent's....would you do it? Apparently the alliance that lost clearly decided they would take that gamble. Would we have done it, probably not. Doesn't matter.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Does it lessen the win? No, they scored more, they deserved the win. Does it lessen the prestige of the high score? Absolutely.

I never want to bash sponsors, because they make FIRST possible for so many people. However, I sincerely disagree with this being an incentive for teams to change their strategy. This may not be against a rule in the manual, but a little bit of my pride in FRC died when I read about it. Here's to hoping against it becoming a trend.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

It was a choice and both alliances seemed to have made it. If you were completely confident in your alliances ability to completely outscore your opponent's....would you do it? Apparently the alliance that lost clearly decided they would take that gamble. Would we have done it, probably not. Doesn't matter.

But it could still change the strategy. If one alliance thought they could win by using 2 bots and scoring 180 pts with 1 defender but the incentive offered meant they had to try 3 bots to get 200+ with no defending, well then that 3rd bot could be out of position and then lose them the regional for not doing something they were picked to do. I dont mean the 3rd bot specifically would lose it for them but the new way of using them could.

[JohnFogarty]

True.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

Hmmm, let the other side score as much as they want without trying to stop them.....let's think about how that might lose someone a regional championship.

Only if it is one-sided. This case was two sided, we both agreed to not play defense for one match. We know each other, so we knew we could trust each other to keep the agreement...and of course if anyone violated the agreement, it was "over" and back to playing defense.

Coopertition™ can take many forms.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by kuraikou

From what I know there was a sponsor Steve Sanghi who agreed to pay for the entry fee of teams for next year's regional if they were in a match and both alliances scored over 200 points. So there was a pact made in the finals between the alliances to not play defense so that they could get the sponsorship, that is why there was little to no defense played.

How is this not points shaving/match fixing? I was fine with 6v0 in 2010 because there was a FIRST created situation that rewarded it. I suspect Mr. Sanghi's heart was in the right place but this 6v$ cheapens the entire FIRST robotics program for everyone.

Why didn't the human players just collect a couple technicals?

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

But it could still change the strategy. If one alliance thought they could win by using 2 bots and scoring 180 pts with 1 defender but the incentive offered meant they had to try 3 bots to get 200+ with no defending, well then that 3rd bot could be out of position and then lose them the regional for not doing something they were picked to do. I dont mean the 3rd bot specifically would lose it for them but the new way of using them could.

In this case, all the robots on both alliances did what they were picked to do.

[BleakRNS]

Some perspective on the Sanghi bonus situation for those unacquainted with the Arizona Regional:

Steve Sanghi is the CEO of Microchip Technology, a huge benefactor of FIRST in Arizona. Microchip actually hosts the official Arizona FIRST page. He gives out a scholarship each year at the regional and has recently taken to handing out cash rewards for actions performed in matches. In other words, this is not the first time he has done something like this. Last year, it was a prize for all teams involved in a match in which all six robots hung from the pyramid. I don't remember if there was anything the year before, but it might have had to do with triple balancing. The Arizona Regional has not been known as a hotbed of high-level FRC competition in recent memory, and that is probably the reason behind the bonuses Sanghi is awarding. The intention is good: he wants there to be an extra incentive for creating a high-functioning robot and working with alliance partners. But this year it might have been a little misguided, considering the amplification of defense in Aerial Assist.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Only if it is one-sided. This case was two sided, we both agreed to not play defense for one match. We know each other, so we knew we could trust each other to keep the agreement...and of course if anyone violated the agreement, it was "over" and back to playing defense.

Coopertition™ can take many forms.

That's your opinion, I just dont agree with it. Gratz on making it to the finals. Hope you guys can make it to STL; you always have really good bots.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by dodar

I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year's seniors that "hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years' entry fee."

Believe it and it was their choice! Nobody was forced to do anything. The prospect of winning a different way by trying to win by out scoring became the challenge, and hopefully winning the bet too, even if you lost.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

Believe it and it was their choice! Nobody was forced to do anything. The prospect of winning a different way by trying to win by out scoring became the challenge, and hopefully winning the bet too, even if you lost.

I just dont see how you tell your seniors that you were doing that. Telling them we are just playing to get 200+ instead of playing to win. How do you justify playing for maybe $500 for next year vs winning a blue banner and getting that invite to STL for Champs?

[kuraikou]

Both teams were still playing to win, they just both consensually decided to make it a match where both teams tried to score higher than the other and to get a high score.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by BleakRNS

Some perspective on the Sanghi bonus situation for those unacquainted with the Arizona Regional:

Steve Sanghi is the CEO of Microchip Technology, a huge benefactor of FIRST in Arizona. Microchip actually hosts the official Arizona FIRST page. He gives out a scholarship each year at the regional and has recently taken to handing out cash rewards for actions performed in matches. In other words, this is not the first time he has done something like this. Last year, it was a prize for all teams involved in a match in which all six robots hung from the pyramid. I don't remember if there was anything the year before, but it might have had to do with triple balancing. The Arizona Regional has not been known as a hotbed of high-level FRC competition in recent memory, and that is probably the reason behind the bonuses Sanghi is awarding. The intention is good: he wants there to be an extra incentive for creating a high-functioning robot and working with alliance partners. But this year it might have been a little misguided, considering the amplification of defense in Aerial Assist.

In defense of Mr. Steve Sanghi no one was required to do this.... its was put out there and teams took it. Take it for what it was worth, a motivating incentive. I am also interested in why everybody keeps saying why AZ is not a hot bed. I have heard this several times already. Based on population density, I think we are a hot bed. AZ has had teams on Einstein several times and AZ has threats every year. Also team 842 is a hall of fame team and 2486 is a major threat for championships chairmans this year. I guess I should not take this view of us too critically, its gives us an advantage at the championships if people are not paying attention to us. Too many times people on CD neglect Arizona and we struggle to get any attention. We are used to it, we have learned to be "mavericky". We aren't Michigan....